Dan Delong is back to teaching English at a high school in Illinois. Last week, he was briefly removed from his position after he assigned an (optional) article from Seed magazine to his students. This article detailed the evidence for homosexuality among animals like sheep and dolphins. The article is a bit explicit, but not inappropriate for his class of (honors) sophomores. This is a great article to strengthen the students' deductive reasoning skills. At this age, they need to form valid and independent judgments. In the end, the students did get a great lesson-they stood up for their teacher at the school board meeting.
But at what cost? Has the damage already been done? How many teachers will think twice before they assign high interest or controversial reading assignments to strengthen students' logic skills? If this teacher erred by assigning a scientific article from a reputable magazine, what's next?
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Saturday 24 October 2009
Merit Pay
Last week Green Dot Charter Schools held an evening information session to share proposed changes with their teachers. These changes will be implemented when they receive a portion of $60 million from the Gates Foundation. (The money is not secured, but Green Dot is in the final stages of the proposal. The actual announcement will come mid November.) The Gates money is contingent on Green Dot (and the other charter schools in the proposal) implementing certain polices, including merit pay for teachers.
Merit pay ties teacher pay to student performance (how they do on standardized tests). Basically, students are tested at the beginning of the year and again at the end of the year. Teacher salary is determined by these test scores. This "alternative compensation" can add 3 to 22 thousand dollars to a teacher's base pay. The extra pay comes with a controversial mandatory extra month of service each year and added responsibilities like coaching and mentoring other teachers. Furthermore, these teachers will be placed in the "highest need classrooms." No teacher will be able to rest on his or her laurels. Teachers that do not consistently raise test scores will be "counseled to leave" (fired).
When the program begins, all teachers will spend two years in the residency and entry level (no merit pay) stages. After two years, standardized test scores are analyzed and the teachers with the most desirable test scores will quickly move through the ranks-and the pay scale.
The crowd of (mostly young) teachers seemed apprehensive. A heated question and answer time left us with more questions than answers. Many questions stumped the speaker including: what about art, PE, or Chicano/African American studies teachers (there are no standardized tests for these subjects)? What about Special Education teachers? (Can a Special Education students be expected to improve as much as other students?) What about those teachers who are content where they are-the ones who don't want to become master teachers or coaches?
The merit pay system is flawed, but the current system (based on years of teaching and degrees) is far worse. I have met teachers making $100,000 based on their ability to stay at one school district for a decade and getting extra degrees from online universities. Neither of these things guarantee a better teacher. These teachers know how to jump through hoops to move up the pay scale, but they have no incentive to increase their effectiveness in the classroom.
Merit pay may be controversial, but it has powerful allies-President Obama and Arne Duncan. But, are they more powerful than teacher unions (the biggest opposition to merit pay)?
Merit pay ties teacher pay to student performance (how they do on standardized tests). Basically, students are tested at the beginning of the year and again at the end of the year. Teacher salary is determined by these test scores. This "alternative compensation" can add 3 to 22 thousand dollars to a teacher's base pay. The extra pay comes with a controversial mandatory extra month of service each year and added responsibilities like coaching and mentoring other teachers. Furthermore, these teachers will be placed in the "highest need classrooms." No teacher will be able to rest on his or her laurels. Teachers that do not consistently raise test scores will be "counseled to leave" (fired).
When the program begins, all teachers will spend two years in the residency and entry level (no merit pay) stages. After two years, standardized test scores are analyzed and the teachers with the most desirable test scores will quickly move through the ranks-and the pay scale.
The crowd of (mostly young) teachers seemed apprehensive. A heated question and answer time left us with more questions than answers. Many questions stumped the speaker including: what about art, PE, or Chicano/African American studies teachers (there are no standardized tests for these subjects)? What about Special Education teachers? (Can a Special Education students be expected to improve as much as other students?) What about those teachers who are content where they are-the ones who don't want to become master teachers or coaches?
The merit pay system is flawed, but the current system (based on years of teaching and degrees) is far worse. I have met teachers making $100,000 based on their ability to stay at one school district for a decade and getting extra degrees from online universities. Neither of these things guarantee a better teacher. These teachers know how to jump through hoops to move up the pay scale, but they have no incentive to increase their effectiveness in the classroom.
Merit pay may be controversial, but it has powerful allies-President Obama and Arne Duncan. But, are they more powerful than teacher unions (the biggest opposition to merit pay)?
Saturday 5 September 2009
Hire Ed: Is college worth it?
I plan to show President Obama's speech to my (first) first period class on Tuesday. What could be controversial about encouraging students to work hard and stay in school? Nothing particularly, but I expect Obama to say something along the lines of: "all students should go to college."
I agree that students should continue learning, but I don't think this learning must necessarily take place a a four year, or even a two year, college. What about vocational education? What about internships? Should we really encourage students to go into massive amounts of debt when they have little hope of getting a job that helps them pay off their student loans? With the national unemployment rate at nearly 10%, college may not be the best idea.
This week,NPR spoke with some experts about debt and higher education. One student on the panel is racking up $50,000 in debt to get a Masters in Journalism (at Columbia). Of course journalism is a field where higher education isn't necessary, but that's the point-many of the best journalists have learned on the job. ( One report even suggests that all Journalism schools should be closed since there are almost no jobs that will be able to pay back this money.)
Education is an investment, but each student needs to ask, "will there be a return on this investment?" If there isn't a clear link between career and college, I would advocate for community college and on the job training.
I agree that students should continue learning, but I don't think this learning must necessarily take place a a four year, or even a two year, college. What about vocational education? What about internships? Should we really encourage students to go into massive amounts of debt when they have little hope of getting a job that helps them pay off their student loans? With the national unemployment rate at nearly 10%, college may not be the best idea.
This week,
Education is an investment, but each student needs to ask, "will there be a return on this investment?" If there isn't a clear link between career and college, I would advocate for community college and on the job training.
Sunday 30 August 2009
Rubber Rooms
I've heard of rubber rooms (places where teachers wait to see if they will be allowed back into the classroom) before. Although they aren't called "rubber rooms" in Los Angeles, there are teachers (I know at least one) who are sent to school district office buildings (every school day from 8 to 3) while they are being investigated.
I see the purpose of these rooms, accusations of abuse need to be taken seriously and the teacher must be away from students while the investigation takes place. But, what is unacceptable is the fact that teachers spend years in the so called rubber rooms. Furthermore, if (tenured) teachers who commit crimes are entitled to these benefits, what about teachers who are merely incompetent?
This week's New Yorker had a great article on Rubber Rooms. Author Steve Brill's main points are:
1. Cases involving teachers in the rubber room accused of "incompetence" take "forty to forty five days-eight times as long as the average criminal trial in the United States."
2. Clearly, bad teachers need to be removed. A study from the Brookings Institute found that "having a top-quartile teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the Black-white test score gap."
3. Teacher tenure is a huge problem because the majority of teachers get it. It is almost impossible to be labeled "unsatisfactory." Almost all teachers are rated "good or great," only about one percent of tenured teachers were labeled "unsatisfactory." One education reformer argued that this is "ridiculous...if you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know those people are not interchangeable."
4. To solve this problem President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan propose to financially reward schools and teachers for raising test scores. If the districts and the union don't want to hold teachers accountable (they don't-they've pushed laws against using test scores to evaluate teachers), they will miss out on millions of dollars.
I see the purpose of these rooms, accusations of abuse need to be taken seriously and the teacher must be away from students while the investigation takes place. But, what is unacceptable is the fact that teachers spend years in the so called rubber rooms. Furthermore, if (tenured) teachers who commit crimes are entitled to these benefits, what about teachers who are merely incompetent?
This week's New Yorker had a great article on Rubber Rooms. Author Steve Brill's main points are:
1. Cases involving teachers in the rubber room accused of "incompetence" take "forty to forty five days-eight times as long as the average criminal trial in the United States."
2. Clearly, bad teachers need to be removed. A study from the Brookings Institute found that "having a top-quartile teacher four years in a row would be enough to close the Black-white test score gap."
3. Teacher tenure is a huge problem because the majority of teachers get it. It is almost impossible to be labeled "unsatisfactory." Almost all teachers are rated "good or great," only about one percent of tenured teachers were labeled "unsatisfactory." One education reformer argued that this is "ridiculous...if you look at the upper quartile and the lower quartile, you know those people are not interchangeable."
4. To solve this problem President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan propose to financially reward schools and teachers for raising test scores. If the districts and the union don't want to hold teachers accountable (they don't-they've pushed laws against using test scores to evaluate teachers), they will miss out on millions of dollars.
Wednesday 26 August 2009
We're Taking Over
Yesterday, the Los Angeles School board voted (6-1) to open the district schools (and some proposed schools) to charter schools.
This is great for charter schools (like mine) and bad for unions. The union (UTLA) doesn't get money from the teachers at charter schools, but schools like Green Dot get the option of bidding for these new and current schools. These will not be (as some comments on the Times page suggest) private schools, but public schools with competition.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-schools26-2009aug26,0,4203620.story
This is great for charter schools (like mine) and bad for unions. The union (UTLA) doesn't get money from the teachers at charter schools, but schools like Green Dot get the option of bidding for these new and current schools. These will not be (as some comments on the Times page suggest) private schools, but public schools with competition.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-schools26-2009aug26,0,4203620.story
Baby College
Geoffrey Canada is sending babies to college. Although it's actually their parents attending, and technically it's not college, it is almost as ambitious. Baby College is a critical training program for inner city parents that aims to stop the cycle of poverty. The "college" teaches good parenting skills that most middle and upper class parents already know-how to discipline your child and the importance of reading to him or her every night.
By starting these programs at infancy, and continuing them to college, Canada hopes that this will be the "tipping point" in the fight against urban poverty. This idea follows the idea in my previous post-that education must start early (before preschool). It's working. He has the statistics and a book (Whatever it Takes by Paul Tough) to prove it.
By starting these programs at infancy, and continuing them to college, Canada hopes that this will be the "tipping point" in the fight against urban poverty. This idea follows the idea in my previous post-that education must start early (before preschool). It's working. He has the statistics and a book (Whatever it Takes by Paul Tough) to prove it.
Saturday 15 August 2009
Head Start
This article is fantastic.
The author argues that preschool programs like Head Start are necessary to thwart the high cost of illiteracy and incarceration. His main points are:
1. "[B]y waiting until kindergarten [to spend money on education], we throw money at kids when it's too late."
2. "Early-childhood nurturing has traditionally been the province of families. But families are deteriorating."
3. Kids who received early childhood education "were more likely to be employed—and to earn more—and less likely to be on welfare. They also committed less crime and had lower rates of teen pregnancy."
4. Preschool spending, with a rate of return around 16%, is a "sound economic investment."
Promoting early childhood education isn't about doing the "right" thing, it's about doing the logical thing. Investing in early childhood education raises our standard of living and costs less in the long run.
According to CNN, one billion was cut from the Head Start program. Won't we just pay for this later?
The author argues that preschool programs like Head Start are necessary to thwart the high cost of illiteracy and incarceration. His main points are:
1. "[B]y waiting until kindergarten [to spend money on education], we throw money at kids when it's too late."
2. "Early-childhood nurturing has traditionally been the province of families. But families are deteriorating."
3. Kids who received early childhood education "were more likely to be employed—and to earn more—and less likely to be on welfare. They also committed less crime and had lower rates of teen pregnancy."
4. Preschool spending, with a rate of return around 16%, is a "sound economic investment."
Promoting early childhood education isn't about doing the "right" thing, it's about doing the logical thing. Investing in early childhood education raises our standard of living and costs less in the long run.
According to CNN, one billion was cut from the Head Start program. Won't we just pay for this later?
Now Hiring
As a Special Education teacher, I have an aide/paraeducator in my classroom. Yesterday, I went to school to look over resumes to choose one. The job pays 15-20 an hour. People with the following qualifications were applying:
1. BA from an Ivy league school
2. Juris Doctor degree
3. Peace Corps volunteer
4. Master of Arts/Education (about 6 with this qualification)
5. As much as 10 years experience in education
Really? Either they are liars, or this is another indicator of the downturn.
1. BA from an Ivy league school
2. Juris Doctor degree
3. Peace Corps volunteer
4. Master of Arts/Education (about 6 with this qualification)
5. As much as 10 years experience in education
Really? Either they are liars, or this is another indicator of the downturn.
Green Day
I had my first day at Green Dot this week. "New teacher orientation" was on Wednesday. According to another teacher, there were at least 30 Teach for America teachers present. I could tell who they were, they actually had a little sparkle in their eye. Although I'm a bit more pragmatic (studying for my GRE), I'm thrilled to work with them. The smiley new teacher next to me mentioned that she went to school on the east coast. When asked which school, she modestly replied, "Harvard." Of the 50 or so teachers, only 3 wore reading glasses.
This is a huge improvement from my last school where most of the teachers graduated from schools that end in .com and had calendars marking down the days to their retirement. Young teachers from schools with low admission rates are not inherently better teachers, but they can't be worse.
Another improvement at Green Dot schools is the absence of tenure. Most teachers at my old school rested on their laurels knowing that they couldn't be fired, even if they thought the definition of teaching was to physically be in a classroom.
I'm not teacher of the year, but I am excited to be a part of this innovative program.
This is a huge improvement from my last school where most of the teachers graduated from schools that end in .com and had calendars marking down the days to their retirement. Young teachers from schools with low admission rates are not inherently better teachers, but they can't be worse.
Another improvement at Green Dot schools is the absence of tenure. Most teachers at my old school rested on their laurels knowing that they couldn't be fired, even if they thought the definition of teaching was to physically be in a classroom.
I'm not teacher of the year, but I am excited to be a part of this innovative program.
Saturday 8 August 2009
Friday 7 August 2009
Grits
This article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/08/02/the_truth_about_grit/
inspired me to start this blog. This blog will be about education and what works in education. My theory is that our current public school system does not to teach different kinds of intelligence, nor does it value different kinds of intelligence.
Lehrer's article was amazing. The idea of "grit" (sticking with something as an indicator of success) is interesting because grit may matter as much, if not more, than intelligence. According to the article, grit is the ability to stick with, and achieve, a long-term goal. Success isn't necessarily IQ and/or ability, a big part of success is sticking with something. Thus, grit seems to be a type of intelligence.
As an educator, I can see how it's difficult to teach students "grit". I imagine the best way to do this would be to teach about people who have worked hard and failed often, but never gave up. Since effort may matter as much, if not more, than intelligence, teachers should praise more for hard work than for intelligence.
On a personal note, I am am one who struggles with "grit." Academically, I dropped out of five colleges before I finished one. In my personal life, I've had dozens of jobs and addresses. So, I have a vested interest in the idea that grit can be learned. And this blog will be the test. Can I blog once a week for this academic year?
inspired me to start this blog. This blog will be about education and what works in education. My theory is that our current public school system does not to teach different kinds of intelligence, nor does it value different kinds of intelligence.
Lehrer's article was amazing. The idea of "grit" (sticking with something as an indicator of success) is interesting because grit may matter as much, if not more, than intelligence. According to the article, grit is the ability to stick with, and achieve, a long-term goal. Success isn't necessarily IQ and/or ability, a big part of success is sticking with something. Thus, grit seems to be a type of intelligence.
As an educator, I can see how it's difficult to teach students "grit". I imagine the best way to do this would be to teach about people who have worked hard and failed often, but never gave up. Since effort may matter as much, if not more, than intelligence, teachers should praise more for hard work than for intelligence.
On a personal note, I am am one who struggles with "grit." Academically, I dropped out of five colleges before I finished one. In my personal life, I've had dozens of jobs and addresses. So, I have a vested interest in the idea that grit can be learned. And this blog will be the test. Can I blog once a week for this academic year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)