...everyone who works hard to make schools work well should be appreciated.
One thing that I think is missing from all the education debate right now is classified staff.
Around here, especially in the current teacher job climate, many of our classified staff- also known as paraprofessionals, teachers' aides, etc.- are actually certified teachers. Others have been working in similar jobs for such a long time that they may as well have a teaching degree.
Sure, there are some who are unexperienced, not competent, or downright lazy, but most of our paras are very good at what they do and really care about the kids. In our building, there are paras who move from small group to small group all day long, providing intervention for struggling kids. There are paras who work with special needs kids and have to know their particular needs and quirks in order to service them. There are paras who work alongside teachers in the classroom all day.
They often work just shy of full-time (not by choice) so that the school corporation doesn't have to shell out for their benefits. Some of the paras I know still have to spend time at school either before or after they clock in to plan for their small group instruction the next day. Most paras come to be incredibly knowledgeable about the classrooms and kids they work in. They know what is normal, what is allowed, and where things are.
And yet, amazingly, paras (of any experience or talent level) in many corporations make slightly less per day than substitute teachers, who come in to a classroom they likely don't know at all in a school they likely don't know well. They don't know the kids or the rules. Even the best substitute teachers have to be left simplified plans because rarely can the teacher count on things running the same as usual in her absence.
Paras do their job day in, day out, and know the drill. And many of them find their jobs rewarding- but unfortunately, the pay is terrible. Especially if someone doesn't have a second income, it's hard to make it on a para's pay.
And that's not fair. Sure, it might be fair for the kid just out of college who has nothing better to do and does the bare minimum of work, not bothering to connect with kids. But when a school finds someone who is good at the job, reliable, and knows the kids, the school should try to retain that person by paying them a reasonable amount. At the very least, even if the hourly pay were to stay the same, an experienced and talented para should get to work full-time so that s/he can get benefits.
All of the focus right now is on teachers, and believe me, teachers are a big part of the puzzle. But it frustrates me to see people at my school that are good paraprofessionals leaving for other jobs- even though they enjoy this one and feel like they're making a difference- because they simply can't afford to stay. It's not good for our kids- particularly special needs kids- to have a revolving door of paras. It's not good for our schools to be re-training people instead of sticking with those we have. It's not fair to those paras who teach kids and help teachers teach better that they aren't compensated better than the random college kid who knows nothing about education but comes in to sub for the paycheck.
It's about time that schools get enough funding to be able to really hang on to the people- teachers and support staff- who make the schools better. Paras should be able to get paid more as they prove that they are capable, dependable, experienced, and good at their job. I wouldn't call it merit pay, but I do think good support staff should be getting paid what they deserve.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
20/20
The relationship between education and politics is like the blind leading those with excellent vision.I have seen no one sum it up better than in this quote by "Ms. Understood," although the rants of so many teachers on my bloglist, especially the epic ones of Mrs. Mimi, make me want to start a slow clap sometimes. It's amazing to me that so many teachers across the entire country have the same opinions and complaints and worries- and yet, somehow, no one asks the teachers what to do.
People want to believe that teachers are the problem. People want to believe that teaching methodologies must be wrong. People want to believe that teachers don't know what needs to be done.
Here's what I see: teachers who want the best for kids but often can't provide it because of a lack of resources, strict sanctions on how we spend our time, and a litany of responsibilities besides teaching. While I certainly agree there are some bad teachers, the overwhelming majority contributes significant amounts of their time, energy, and money to a classroom. But, although it breaks our hearts, we can't do it all for every child.
So people assume that teachers don't know what students need, even though we generally spend at least 30 hours a week with our students. Instead, let's ask politicians or economists or businesspeople or other "experts" who are no doubt incredible in their field but may not have set foot in an elementary school since they were 10. And they've never even met my students!
Before people get upset, I recognize that statisticians and CEO's can have some great ideas for education. I don't have a problem with involving those people in our brainstorming sessions and think-tanks. My problem is that, often, teachers aren't invited.
Just include us too! That's all I ask.
To all you who want to make sweeping prophecies about school solutions:
- Go to schools that are working, and figure out why by asking the teachers what makes them able to be better teachers and what they see making the biggest difference for students.
- Talk directly to teachers, not just unions, to discuss reforms. Not all of us agree with the unions completely. I know quite a few teachers in the major union here who are in it for the support and liability just in case- but don't agree with all of their actions.
- Spend a day or two with a highly qualified teacher in a generally low-performing school to see what the challenges are even when someone is succeeding, and brainstorm with those teachers for solutions.
- Substitute teach, and try it yourself. And not just in the suburbs or charter schools.
- Spend days in classrooms of highly effective teachers in all kinds of schools with all sorts of styles, considering your plan. Would your plan strip these teachers of the very strategies and personality that make their lessons successful?
- If you think that a common curriculum and required lesson plans are the answer, give at least 5 teachers the same lesson plan and observe the success of that lesson.
- Visit charter schools and public schools and private schools, but not just the famous and infamous. There are great and poor examples of each type.
- Try your plan in a small sample, such as a single school or corporation, before suggesting it to states and the country as a surefire solution to education.
I do not agree, though, with the current pattern of everyone but those who spend each day in a school deciding how to go about those issues and then drafting policy that we will have to follow. This doesn't happen in any other business.
As Mrs. Mimi put here,
Hess says that so many other organizations have accepted cut backs and laid off people due to our current economic distress. And he's right, a lot of people have lost their jobs...people in my family and probably in yours too. BUT (and there's always a but with me, isn't there), those people weren't blamed for the downfall of their business, portrayed as lazy by the media and villainized by the general public. They were just quietly let go. Why is this guy acting like what is happening to teachers is the same thing?
Teachers are not perfect, but we are being almost universally blamed for failing schools by people who don't spend 7 hours a day in them. It's like me trying to tell BP how to fix the oil spill. The fact that I have used gasoline before doesn't make me an oil expert, just as attending schools doesn't make someone an education expert.
Ask the people that have spent 4 years in school studying to become a teacher, required hours of professional development to remain a teacher, and countless hours of experience becoming a better teacher. Those are the experts.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
My Turn to Tattle
I have recently gotten really into reading other teacher blogs. It's amazing to me to see how similar things are in so many areas of the country right now. Teachers are struggling with the same things.
I recently read in The Elementary Educator:
I knew this kind of thing was happening, but someone putting it all out like that, into numbers, makes me cringe. This is what the national government is encouraging. THIS is the impact of No Child Left Behind.
NCLB is good in some ways. It encourages accountability, and forces schools to look not only at the big picture, but also at important subgroups to make sure that there aren't gaps in the education they provide.
I get frustrated, though, sitting in a "failing" school. It is not fair for the national government's policy to treat us differently than other schools with our levels of success just because our state has refused to drop standards.
Our standards are considered some of the most rigorous in the country, and our standardized test is certainly not passed by 97-100% of students, like the Michigan test.
Let me be clear: I am glad the state of Indiana is holding itself to high standards even though No Child Left Behind in its current state doesn't mandate it. It is frustrating to me, however, that we are facing sanctions that other schools don't face, even if their students are at the same levels as ours.
I strongly support President Obama and Arne Duncan when they say that every state should have standards and tests with similar rigor. I don't believe that National Standards or a National Test are necessarily the way to do that, but I do believe that someone at the national level needs to be looking at each state's standards and tests to determine if they are truly measuring proficiency.
I recently read in The Elementary Educator:
Isn't it astounding?As No Child Left Behind’s magical year of 2014 draws near, where an impossible 100% of students must be proficient in math and reading in every school throughout the United States, states continue to redefine “proficiency,” reducing the cut scores needed to pass the state tests to astoundingly low levels.
In Michigan, for example, third graders who answered 19 out of 45 questions correctly on the math section of the MEAP (our state standardized test) were labeled “proficient.” 19 out of 45 is approximately 42%, which already sounds pathetic, but it gets worse: this test was multiple choice. Not only that, but there were only three answer choices per question!
Let’s analyze that for a moment: third grade students in Michigan who knew the right answers to 6 of the 45 math questions, then guessed with average success on the remaining 39 questions (getting 13/39 correct), are labeled proficient. Not only that, but third graders are tested in the fall of third grade, and the test only covers material from the previous grade. So third graders who understood a mere 13.3% of what was taught in second grade and had average luck when guessing on the other 86.7% of the questions are considered proficient by the State of Michigan.
I knew this kind of thing was happening, but someone putting it all out like that, into numbers, makes me cringe. This is what the national government is encouraging. THIS is the impact of No Child Left Behind.
NCLB is good in some ways. It encourages accountability, and forces schools to look not only at the big picture, but also at important subgroups to make sure that there aren't gaps in the education they provide.
I get frustrated, though, sitting in a "failing" school. It is not fair for the national government's policy to treat us differently than other schools with our levels of success just because our state has refused to drop standards.
Our standards are considered some of the most rigorous in the country, and our standardized test is certainly not passed by 97-100% of students, like the Michigan test.
Let me be clear: I am glad the state of Indiana is holding itself to high standards even though No Child Left Behind in its current state doesn't mandate it. It is frustrating to me, however, that we are facing sanctions that other schools don't face, even if their students are at the same levels as ours.
I strongly support President Obama and Arne Duncan when they say that every state should have standards and tests with similar rigor. I don't believe that National Standards or a National Test are necessarily the way to do that, but I do believe that someone at the national level needs to be looking at each state's standards and tests to determine if they are truly measuring proficiency.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Classroom Bench
I'm a huge football fan, and I have apparently been reading way too many education blogs this morning.
I read an article describing how much better quarterbacks were in the NFL when they sat on the bench for a year or more before starting. Basically, even if a quarterback had a higher draft pick, and therefore a higher perceived potential, they had significantly better results if they had some time to learn the ways of the NFL behind an experienced quarterback.
And some of the first-round picks who also waited, like Aaron Rodgers and Carson Palmer, have been downright exceptional.
"Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethelisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career."
My conclusion from all this? In what is arguably the most important and influential of positions on an NFL team, only very few can succeed without additional training- even amongst those considered to be the most talented.
I think teaching is similar.
My college of education had a major focus on spending time in schools. From the first semester of education courses (which was generally taken spring of freshman year or fall of sophomore year), future teachers spend at least a short amount of time in a school.
Student teaching (15 weeks in the same classroom, for teaching independently for at least a few weeks) was obviously the biggest learning opportunity, but we had a semester where we spent two days a week in a school, learning from our professors and then visiting the same classroom. We also spent a semester tutoring two students in reading each week.
By the time I graduated, I had spent time in at least 4 different classrooms through the required program alone.
I found a stimulus-funded job in a school with low test scores. As an effort to give students an extra boost, the school was adding a second person in each classroom. For six classrooms, that person is also a certified teacher.
I am considered an assistant teacher. I'm certified, and treated as such, but my lead teacher is overall in charge. I'm lucky that Mrs. M is so great to work with. She treats me as an equal co-teacher whenever possible, and works with me to plan and teach. The situation feels, honestly, kind of like an apprenticeship- and it allows both of us to work in more small groups, keep the students paying attention, and share some of the load of a classroom.
I am lucky to start this way. I am thankful that my first year of teaching does not involve me staying at school until 8:00 at night. I am thankful that I'm getting a chance to sort of ease into the profession, while still learning and collecting materials and ideas from another teacher.
Yes, it sucks sometimes to be "sitting the bench." I didn't get to set up my own classroom, I don't get to change the classroom management system the way I want, and I am sometimes excluded from meetings I'd like to be a part of, but I can see how much easier it will be when I have my own room. I am learning so much.
Student teaching is meant to be like this, and it does help immensely. But I wish more schools had the money to hire teachers in this kind of position even after their student teaching. Not only have the students thrived with so much individual attention, but I think I will be a better teacher in my true "first year" because of my time on the sidelines.
I read an article describing how much better quarterbacks were in the NFL when they sat on the bench for a year or more before starting. Basically, even if a quarterback had a higher draft pick, and therefore a higher perceived potential, they had significantly better results if they had some time to learn the ways of the NFL behind an experienced quarterback.
And some of the first-round picks who also waited, like Aaron Rodgers and Carson Palmer, have been downright exceptional.
"Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethelisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career."
My conclusion from all this? In what is arguably the most important and influential of positions on an NFL team, only very few can succeed without additional training- even amongst those considered to be the most talented.
I think teaching is similar.
My college of education had a major focus on spending time in schools. From the first semester of education courses (which was generally taken spring of freshman year or fall of sophomore year), future teachers spend at least a short amount of time in a school.
Student teaching (15 weeks in the same classroom, for teaching independently for at least a few weeks) was obviously the biggest learning opportunity, but we had a semester where we spent two days a week in a school, learning from our professors and then visiting the same classroom. We also spent a semester tutoring two students in reading each week.
By the time I graduated, I had spent time in at least 4 different classrooms through the required program alone.
I found a stimulus-funded job in a school with low test scores. As an effort to give students an extra boost, the school was adding a second person in each classroom. For six classrooms, that person is also a certified teacher.
I am considered an assistant teacher. I'm certified, and treated as such, but my lead teacher is overall in charge. I'm lucky that Mrs. M is so great to work with. She treats me as an equal co-teacher whenever possible, and works with me to plan and teach. The situation feels, honestly, kind of like an apprenticeship- and it allows both of us to work in more small groups, keep the students paying attention, and share some of the load of a classroom.
I am lucky to start this way. I am thankful that my first year of teaching does not involve me staying at school until 8:00 at night. I am thankful that I'm getting a chance to sort of ease into the profession, while still learning and collecting materials and ideas from another teacher.
Yes, it sucks sometimes to be "sitting the bench." I didn't get to set up my own classroom, I don't get to change the classroom management system the way I want, and I am sometimes excluded from meetings I'd like to be a part of, but I can see how much easier it will be when I have my own room. I am learning so much.
Student teaching is meant to be like this, and it does help immensely. But I wish more schools had the money to hire teachers in this kind of position even after their student teaching. Not only have the students thrived with so much individual attention, but I think I will be a better teacher in my true "first year" because of my time on the sidelines.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
"the best and brightest"
Today presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke at my university, Purdue. Unfortunately, the security forum was invitation-only, and I couldn't attend despite the fact he was 10 minutes' walk away. Anyway, I did read through a transcription of his comments. While a part of me thinks it was in part to appease the crowd (mostly cyber-security experts from a university known for its engineering and computer science)... I liked this quote:
"In the Cold War, we didn't defeat the Soviets just because of the strength of our arms – we also did it because at the dawn of the atomic age and the onset of the space race, the smartest scientists and most innovative workforce was here in America. For the last few months, I've talked about how America's economic competitiveness depends on education. The same holds true for our security. If we're not investing in math and science education, our nation will fall behind. And if we're not educating the best and brightest scientists, engineers, and computer programmers here in the United States, we won't be able to keep America safe."
[emphasis added]
I hadn't picked a candidate, and I still haven't-- but I would be lying if I said that this particular quote didn't endear Obama to me a bit.
Education and the economy (and society in general) really are closely linked. Maybe not immediately, but our economic future ten years down the road absolutely will be affected by changes to our educational system now. Today's economy could use a quick fix if we have it, but in the meantime it would make no sense- in any field- to worry about now without trying to prevent the same things from happening in the future. And I think for many things, math and science education especially (but also all education), is the avenue for change that makes the most sense.
Yeah, maybe I'm biased because I'm an ed major- but I wouldn't be an education major if I didn't value education. I get frustrated when people tell me I should be in secondary ed because we need good math and science teachers. We do-- there's a severe shortage of math and science secondary teachers (much less good ones). But I think there's a shortage that's not as easy to document: the shortage of good math and science elementary teachers.
Without a decent foundation in math and science, students will struggle to succeed in secondary school, no matter how many resources are made available to them. It is the responsibility of elementary teachers to build this educational foundation, so that students can move on to continue learning newer and more complicated things.
Elementary teachers don't always get a lot of respect for being able to teach math and science, but just because a lot of the math and science taught in elementary school is considered "easy" to do does not mean that it is "easy" to teach. You try explaining to a kid how the base ten system works, and why he shouldn't add the denominators of a fraction. It's kindergarten, first grade stuff-- and yet some of the most difficult 'stuff' to teach well that I've ever tried.
But what does it matter if an elementary teacher can teach, if they don't? In my elementary teacher training, I've seen multiple future colleagues (both other future teachers, and current teachers) who simply lack the confidence in their own science knowledge to try teaching it. Science can scare these teachers- and particularly with the focus on improving standardized test scores in reading and math, it's easy for these teachers to skim over science, or even skip it altogether. In some cases, I've seen a teacher who seems to think it's okay to just read the science textbook or maybe a fictional book about an animal now and then. Because, you know, she's 'covering' it.
It doesn't take long for students to develop the opinion that "science is boring." If a student thinks science is boring and he's not even out of elementary school, I feel like we have missed a huge opportunity. Children are so naturally inquisitive about the world, which makes learning science so absolutely perfect for them- and we crush the curiosity. For a lot of kids, I don't think it ever comes back.
So yes, I love science- but I'm going to be an elementary teacher. And no, I'm not wasting my intelligence or any teaching talents I have. I'm still teaching kids things they don't know that can be really difficult to them- it's just that the kids are younger, with less predetermined ideas about school and learning. I get to be that teacher who teaches them that science can be fun, math can make sense, and reading doesn't have to be boring. I have the opportunity be a teacher that helps prevent kids from being burnt out on school by the time they reach junior high. I can not only teach skills, but I can get kids interested in and excited about almost any school subject, and teach them how to think.
I really do think Obama's looking the right direction. When considering current issues, he's trying to look back at some of their causes, including a deficiency in our math and science education, so we can try to prevent similar problems in the future.
But I hope that he remembers to look all the way back to where educational problems can begin. Science and math education don't start in the sixth grade, or in high school. If a student loses confidence, interest, or competence early, there may be no way to remedy the situation. Without a solid foundation in elementary school, students can forever be trapped playing catch-up with their potential. And that's not good for the future of our students- or the future of our country.
"In the Cold War, we didn't defeat the Soviets just because of the strength of our arms – we also did it because at the dawn of the atomic age and the onset of the space race, the smartest scientists and most innovative workforce was here in America. For the last few months, I've talked about how America's economic competitiveness depends on education. The same holds true for our security. If we're not investing in math and science education, our nation will fall behind. And if we're not educating the best and brightest scientists, engineers, and computer programmers here in the United States, we won't be able to keep America safe."
[emphasis added]
I hadn't picked a candidate, and I still haven't-- but I would be lying if I said that this particular quote didn't endear Obama to me a bit.
Education and the economy (and society in general) really are closely linked. Maybe not immediately, but our economic future ten years down the road absolutely will be affected by changes to our educational system now. Today's economy could use a quick fix if we have it, but in the meantime it would make no sense- in any field- to worry about now without trying to prevent the same things from happening in the future. And I think for many things, math and science education especially (but also all education), is the avenue for change that makes the most sense.
Yeah, maybe I'm biased because I'm an ed major- but I wouldn't be an education major if I didn't value education. I get frustrated when people tell me I should be in secondary ed because we need good math and science teachers. We do-- there's a severe shortage of math and science secondary teachers (much less good ones). But I think there's a shortage that's not as easy to document: the shortage of good math and science elementary teachers.
Without a decent foundation in math and science, students will struggle to succeed in secondary school, no matter how many resources are made available to them. It is the responsibility of elementary teachers to build this educational foundation, so that students can move on to continue learning newer and more complicated things.
Elementary teachers don't always get a lot of respect for being able to teach math and science, but just because a lot of the math and science taught in elementary school is considered "easy" to do does not mean that it is "easy" to teach. You try explaining to a kid how the base ten system works, and why he shouldn't add the denominators of a fraction. It's kindergarten, first grade stuff-- and yet some of the most difficult 'stuff' to teach well that I've ever tried.
But what does it matter if an elementary teacher can teach, if they don't? In my elementary teacher training, I've seen multiple future colleagues (both other future teachers, and current teachers) who simply lack the confidence in their own science knowledge to try teaching it. Science can scare these teachers- and particularly with the focus on improving standardized test scores in reading and math, it's easy for these teachers to skim over science, or even skip it altogether. In some cases, I've seen a teacher who seems to think it's okay to just read the science textbook or maybe a fictional book about an animal now and then. Because, you know, she's 'covering' it.
It doesn't take long for students to develop the opinion that "science is boring." If a student thinks science is boring and he's not even out of elementary school, I feel like we have missed a huge opportunity. Children are so naturally inquisitive about the world, which makes learning science so absolutely perfect for them- and we crush the curiosity. For a lot of kids, I don't think it ever comes back.
So yes, I love science- but I'm going to be an elementary teacher. And no, I'm not wasting my intelligence or any teaching talents I have. I'm still teaching kids things they don't know that can be really difficult to them- it's just that the kids are younger, with less predetermined ideas about school and learning. I get to be that teacher who teaches them that science can be fun, math can make sense, and reading doesn't have to be boring. I have the opportunity be a teacher that helps prevent kids from being burnt out on school by the time they reach junior high. I can not only teach skills, but I can get kids interested in and excited about almost any school subject, and teach them how to think.
I really do think Obama's looking the right direction. When considering current issues, he's trying to look back at some of their causes, including a deficiency in our math and science education, so we can try to prevent similar problems in the future.
But I hope that he remembers to look all the way back to where educational problems can begin. Science and math education don't start in the sixth grade, or in high school. If a student loses confidence, interest, or competence early, there may be no way to remedy the situation. Without a solid foundation in elementary school, students can forever be trapped playing catch-up with their potential. And that's not good for the future of our students- or the future of our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
