| Author |
Message |
    
Cbbk
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 6:41 pm: |     |
teach66.
I'm with you. Stick to the basics.
When I was in school (years ago) extra-curricular activities meant after school activities. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 6:59 pm: | |
Yes, I agree this is all great - when you have a majority of the kids doing well in the basic subjects. If that was the case - yes add on all sorts of fluffy things that will help them get scholarships. But when the majority is hurting why keep adding dollars to the way-out-there stuff that will get only a few kids top spots. I guess I know - because if the school didn't have those activities you'd lose those top achieving types too and then the school would have a really miserable reputation.(?) |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 9:01 pm: | |
cbbk,
exactly....if you look back you will see that extra-curricular activities is my wish.
but basically, what i'm questioning is the idea that we are better off if fewer kids access the public school system.
i can't figure out where that logic takes us. Strangle the public education system till all it provides is the bare minimum...chasing parents who want more than that to private schools...further destroying the character and reputation of the public schools..and hence our property values.
Who wins in that scenario? |
Teach66
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 6:32 am: | |
You're taking this to the extreme. I mentioned that bringing all the private school kids back into the district would probably strangle the public schools because at $10,000 per student it would cost the district a major chunk of money. Not to mention all the extra seats that would need to be added to the classrooms which many parents are already complaining are already overcrowded. Secondly - "till all it provides is the bare minimum" is again out of context. I said a concentration on basics, (particularly in grammar school and middle school years). There are some very low-budget private grammar schools that offer an excellent education in the basics, provide an after school sports program and include subjects such as music and art. They also offer after school clubs. In this environment there are high achievers that excell in the basics and take advantage of the extras - but there seem to be more of those students. And there are still parents that are farming their children out to every extra curricular activity imaginable. There will always be parents who for religious reasons, send their kids to private schools and there will always be parents who can afford private schools and feel they will better serve their kids. I don't think a system that concentrates on basics is meant to "chase away parents" and I personally feel that kids are stressed out by all the "extra curriculas" and am tired of paying for more and more programs that I feel don't add real value to many of the children in the sytem. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:52 am: | |
Teach,
We agree on many things. I'm not particularly concerned about slightly larger class sizes, or kids of mixed abilities in classes, and i agree that there can be great value to the advanced students that is gained when they turn around and bring the others along. (My grandmother, who taught in a one room schoolhouse for 8 grades, lamented till the day she died that we were losing a very important part of the education process when we broke the classes up into separate rooms for separate grades.) I agree the kids are stressed out from too many "activities" (though i think a lot of that 'stress' if from getting to and fro and if they were school-based they would be much less so).
What i don't understand is what your goal is. The rest of it is the details. My goal is to make the public school system of Maplewood a desireable place for people to send their kids. All kinds of people. All kinds of kids.
I think that is an incredibly good investment, both personally and socially, financially and morally. I think the more that families from our town feel comfortable and happy sending their kids to the public school system, the more prosperous the town will be.
The marginal cost of each kid is dwarfed by the benefits (financially and as a community) of a desirable school system. Do you think that if we created schools that were attractive enough to bring in another 1000 students that property values in this town would increase 10%? At LEAST!!??? We're all moaning and groaning about prices surging a LOT more than that in just the last 2 years. So for another 10,000,000 (or so) we would increase the value of this town by 210 million?
Where else do you get returns like that? |
Lisat
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:59 pm: | |
Manley,
I've given your question a great deal of thought. I think teaching to the test is one of the worst changes a school district can make. If I could make one change it would be hiring or developing more competent teachers. If a second change were possible -- smaller classes. It's been established how beneficial smaller classes are. (Although I think the studies defy reason in that they show the benefits were not incremental, i.e., for each decrease of one student there was an equivalent beneficial effect. But showed that there was a sudden and dramatic benefit after the class was reduced to 14 or 15. Please correct me if IÍm wrong. IÍd love to know that the benefits are incremental.) (NJJoseph, your comments made me smile because my 82 year old mother-in-law told me she had 50 to 60 children in her classes. They sat 2 in a chair. And they learned more than the children do today. She may be right. I have no way of knowing.)
Also, I think it's important that teachers not teach to the middle or treat the class as a single entity. Despite some postings, I think kids should be given work that is appropriate to their level. I know tracking is politically incorrect. But some kind of tracking should be done in even the early grades for reading and math. Slower and faster learners are lost if the teacher aims at the middle.
And using children to tutor others in K-3 is inappropriate, in my opinion. Students can still feel that they're part of a larger class without having to tutor others or be tutored by their peers. I can remember tutoring peers myself. And although I enjoyed it, I didn't learn anything except the information I already knew. Since I'm willing to go into my child's classroom and listen to any child read, I really don't think it's appropriate for my first grader to be listening to a classmate instead of learning himself. (Which is what the teacher wants to do with him.)
As a child, I was in 5 different elementary schools and districts. Some were mixed classes, some tracked. Some were tracked by subject, some were tracked for all subjects. By far, my best academic experiences were when I was in a school that tracked by subject. I was much better at reading than math. I learned better when I was challenged but not at a level that was uncomfortable.
Why not have a plan for every child that is developed with the parents? They do this in some public schools with which I'm familiar. The plan would have the teacher's observations about strengths and weaknesses, the parent's observations and the teacher and parents' academic and social/behavior goals for the child. The child knows what the goals are. As the child accomplishes the goals, new goals are developed. The goals for my friend's child (she entered K reading at a 2nd grade level) are to use lower case letters and to do her best all the time. The teacher makes an extra effort to make things more challenging for Katie. For instance, on a worksheet, 2 plus 3 for the other kids becomes 12 plus 13 for Katie. The teacher just writes a 1 in front of the numerals.
When I've spoken to teachers about giving my son more challenging work, they act as though I'm committing a crime. "We want self-motivated learners." "We want children who love to read." (As though I don't.) "They're tired at the end of the day." Believe me, anyone who knows me knows I don't put pressure on my kids to excel at anything. But I do encourage them to try (sometimes encourage them to try to do their best). And I want teachers who know what they can do and encourage them to do their best. I think every child deserves a teacher who knows the child, has an accurate picture of his or her abilities, encourages him/her to do their best, and if appropriate doesn't accept inferior work. It's about a commitment to excellence. Not perfection but excellence. It's about the standards that we have for our teachers, our students, ourselves. But the standard cannot only be the test.
Worksheets should be available that have a spectrum of difficulty. The teacher should steer children toward the ones that are the right level for them. Is that tracking? Or is it just knowing the student and giving him/her whatÍs appropriate. (I'm mentioning worksheets because my son is given soooooo many. Hands-on activities would be better and in that case some children could be encouraged to do more with the same activity if they can. Others would be cheered for doing less but still doing their best.) There should be a spectrum of homework. There should be the minimum homework. There should be add-ons. Part of the plan for each student would be the level of add-ons, if any, that is expected of that child. The homework for my son is not challenging. It takes him 3 minutes to do. I want the teacher to tell him to read for 20 minutes a day. (I tell him but since it's not official, it's not taken as seriously.) I want him to turn in a written book report once a month. (Like they do in some of the private schools.)
I think teachers should think of their work as a career not a job. Should put the students before concerns about tenure, etc. Should have a passion for either their subject or for children (preferably both but I'm not unrealistic). Should be supported with training opportunities and testing. Should not be allowed to yell but should be given training to handle stress appropriately. Should have a cadre of volunteer parents in the classroom who are willing to listen to children read, do bulletin boards, photocopy, etc. Should have a plan and goals for each child that the parents and student truly buy into. Should be given a solid curriculum with which to work.
Teach to the child and the test will take care of itself. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 11:40 pm: | |
Lisat, you have some great ideas. Challenging every child is the definition of good teaching in my opinion. What I understood the "teaching to the class" post to mean, was that all kids are expected to achieve--extra help available (and extra work for that matter), but no excuses. Sometimes a focus on individualization results in lowered expectations and once you expect something not to work, it won't--so start with the presumption that every child will learn, not a list of deficits to justify failure. As to the more competent teachers--absolutely. But how does it happen? Right now the demand for teachers has outstripped the supply and the job gets worse as students and parents both get more unruly. Add to that mix the teachers' union and the tenure system, and it's a tough problem. I agree that effective supervision and training is essential, but is often sacrificed because it is costly and not really visible (like music lessons for example). I get the feeling that the so-called training now provided is so generic (provided school wide a few days a year?) that it is almost useless. I don't know what the formula is for finding dedicated teachers. I've had experience with excellent teachers and awful teachers, and quality has been seemingly unrelated to either education or pay level. Individualized plans sound good, but is it plausible? Maybe with highly motivated parents, but otherwise it seems like a valid preassessment, compilation of appropriate individualized goals and effective tracking of those goals would be just too unwieldy and expensive to implement on a large scale. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:11 am: | |
I didn't say "teach to the middle". I believe the teacher should have a plan for the year and that could be a very aggressive plan. The teacher's goal should be to have all the kids in the class complete and understand the plan. As far as those who excell, again I should have been more specific. When I mentioned "tutor" it was for lack of a better word. I meant to have those children sit next to and help explain on an informal basis not to make it a formal tutoring program or relationship. And how can it hurt to have a child who excells explain the work to another or repeat the same thing a few times? Those who excell will get "As" and "A+s" (and will probably have more time to make beautiful charts, maps and posters and will probably asked to do special jobs for the teacher, etc.) and those who are average will get "Bs" and those who need more help with get "Cs" and "Ds" - and maybe some will even fail and get left back or need to go out of the class for special services. And, of course, I mean this for the lower grades. Once the children go to high school the field becomes more competitive and of course there would be honors classes and electives based on the child's ability. But I would hope that by that time a MAJORITY of the kids would be in a good position to take advantage of what the high school has to offer, rather than the other way around - as currently seems to be the case. |
Lisat
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:45 am: | |
Jennie and Teach,
Thanks for explaining in more detail. I understand your previous post and position better, Teach. And Jennie, about the individualized plans. I only know that it's working well in a public school Kindergarten class that has an average number of students. I think individual goals would just be an extension of the assessment that currently happens.
You also mentioned that you've come across excellent teachers and awful ones. So, have I. And everyone else, I'm sure. My point is that there should be a quality standard. You ask how this is possible. I'm not sure, of course. But what comes to mind is the business world. I don't know a great deal about business but I do know that major corporations have a similar dilemma.
How does a mammoth-sized entity motivate individuals to do their best? How do they introduce excellence has a practical concept? Business literature is full of examples of corporations, which are trying and a few that have succeeded. There's 'benchmarking' and 'best practices' which I always thought were kind of hogwash. But I can see now how difficult the whole quality issue is.
I do know that one of the first changes that has to be made is that an entire company (in this case an entire school system/town(s)) has to have an expectation of excellence. That it is desireable. That it is achievable. They have to quantify it somehow and have a mechanism for recognizing that part of excellence that cannot be quanitified. I do think that in the case of schools, tests and accountability are important. But I don't think test results can be the end goal. If teaching to the test becomes more important than teaching to the child, it will suck the spirit from the children and the school.
In corporations, there are rewards and recognition programs to keep high standards uppermost in people's minds. It is amazing how hard people will work for certificates and candy bars. But obviously these aren't the incentives. The incentive is recognition by one's peers and the larger community.
So, first you set the standard of what excellence is. Then you measure it somehow and recognize those teachers who are measureably excellent and those who are contributing excellent work in a way that may not be quantifiable.
One award program that I write for a major corporation has employees (on a voluntary basis) nominate themselves or their peers and write about their work and how it affected the company, its shareholders, or its employees.
The company also looks at how other companies are achieving excellence in a particular category and they try to duplicate it or match it. It's a continuous improvement process. I think it can be done here in terms of teacher competency. And not just through reward programs.
How did Japan go from 'made in Japan' being synonymous with shoddy workmanship to high quality instead? I read recently that in manufacturing, there's a point at which perfection doesn't pay. That out of 1,000 tv's, a company accepts that 50 will be lemons because it's too expensive per unit to have fewer lemons. And they send those lemons out into the market because finding them and not selling them would also be too expensive. (I wish I could remember the source, sorry.) But Japan wanted to turn its reputation around, so they became committed to reducing the number of lemons to zero. Their commitment was at all levels. There were worker meetings discussing what could be improved and management listened. There were incentive programs for better performance. There were efficiency experts who looked at all aspects of the manufacturing process. There was a commitment at the top. In the end they succeeded. I think that's the kind of commitment it'll take to make sure there aren't any awful teachers. Only good to excellent ones. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 12:03 pm: | |
Teach66 wants the ability undenied students to do the teacher's work, and, of course, without pay, at the expense of those better students not being challenged to do even higher level work.
No wonder parents take kids out of district schools.
For a result, look at Fringe's postings about district 8th grade GEPA scores. No one posts there, because the ostrich view is best.
Truly disheartening, and, of course, no one is responsible, whether students, parents, teachers, curriculum writers, the Board or the Superintendent.
DWM |
Jem
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
DWM, I agree with you (eek!) about using the brighter students on a regular basis to teach the weaker kids, a.k.a. cooperative learning, which I've never liked for the reasons you've just stated. But don't get all in a tither about Teach66 as an example of the evil doings of the BOE et al. Teach66 doesn't teach in our district, but probably works as an aide or voluteer in a private school, at least according to what he or she has written here. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:06 pm: | |
DWM - I think you went a little overboard with Teach66, doing your usual reinterpret-then-attack schtick. I have not found myself really in agreement with Teach's posts, but on the other hand they do seem to be thoughtful contributions to the discussion.
And, as for posting on Fringe's threads - to what end? I know you sometimes follow with a hearty "Amen!" when the statistics are put up, but statistics without context are not terribly useful or helpful. Whenever anyone asks some clarifying questions, Fringe decides whether or not he feels like answering them. In other messages, he has actually stated: "Those with questions regarding the data above, but who do not wish to reveal their identity on the board, may call me at the number listed in the telephone directory." Hardly the way to encourage an intelligent discussion.
I disagree that we are taking the "ostrich view" just because we pass on the chance to be ignored, or don't feel like just shouting "Amen!". |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:34 pm: | |
I personally am quite distressed about the math scores. Don't we have a districtwide person who administers the math program? Does anyone know their name? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:50 pm: | |
Melidere- It's Candice Beattys, Supervisor K-8 and Angelo DeMattia for 9-12.
Lisat- Interesting thoughts on excellence. But it seems as though with the teachers' union and tenure, such as it is, the striving for excellence is only going to go so far. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:52 pm: | |
Wow! DWM do you really think that's what I'm saying or that's whay anybody would want?! What exactly are YOU saying? We all know there's some middle ground here. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 1:53 pm: | |
P.S. What are you so afraid of? |
Jennie
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 2:12 pm: | |
Lisat: I totally agree that an infusion of business world concepts would vastly improve the delivery of education, but accountability and competition are strenuously resisted (just mention merit pay and vouchers and see the teachers' union go ballistic--no offense Teach). |
Jennie
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 2:23 pm: | |
Teach: I think DWM misinterpreted your model to be a description of the district model and then attributed the departure of the smart kids from the district to you! Don't blame Teach's model for the district woes, DWM, it is not used by the district, as far as I know. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 2:34 pm: | |
Okay, I posted this on the reval board when the discussion got into school taxes and then "what could be done" to change the environment at the high school: How about making sure the kids are actually going to classes? Went to dinner with a substitute teacher that works in the high school. She informed me that after "the rape" all teachers were told that they HAD to report cuts. She told me that the teachers (especially subs and part timers) usually don't report them because it could jeopardize the students graduation!!! Well, she said that there was a "3 cuts and you don't graduate" rule and once they started reporting the cuts - all the kids showed up for class. Of course there were some that it was their third time, or more (and of course the rule was waived!). But just by ENFORCING a rule, the kids actually responded. Yes, this is something else I'd like to change. Hey "manley" are you out there? |
Manley
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 6:42 pm: | |
I am here working on my campaign.I'm committed to making our schools "Great" again. |
|