An issue that seems to come up every year at our school is taking students out of class for field trips. It gets to be very frustrating for a teacher to constantly have students taken out of class for various activities. Besides the problem of makeup work, teaching all students consistently the new concepts they must learn is difficult when there are a lot of days when you have students missing from each class for some activity. The other side is that activities have a positive value for the students. This is also true for carefully planned field trips.
For many years, students understood that missing school for any activity, including field trips, was a privilege and they were expected to be on their best behavior. It was also understood that misbehavior not only jeopardized each student's ability to participate, but also jeopardized the field trip/activity in the future. As a general rule, this understanding kept student behavior in check.
However, we are seeing many more instances of students bringing alcohol, drugs, tobacco on these trips along with inappropriate behavior. Too many students see this as an opportunity to get out of class and don't care about the educational value of the experience. As a former coach who also has taken students on various other activities including overnight trips, the adult supervising these activities can only do so much to oversee behavior. You have to have a certain amount of trust in the students you take. It would be great if you were never more than 20 feet away from every and all student under your charge. Obviously, this is impossible. So, you have to trust that your students will act the way they are supposed to and be dilligent in your supervision.
My question is this: If you have a group or activity that is consistently displaying inappropriate behavior, at what point do you say the educational experience is not valuable enough to continue risking the misbehavior? It would be nice to only take the well-behaved students, but that is also not possible. I have seen or heard stories about the so-called "good kids" getting into mischief or doing inappropriate behaviors. I know that there has to come a time when a teacher decides that it just isn't worth it to deal with the problems. What do the rest of you think?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Test Scores as a Measure for Merit Pay
As I was talking over lunch with some fellow teachers the other day, an upper level science teacher made the comment that our educational system does little to reward teachers for doing a good job. As a core teacher, he has lobbied for science and math teachers to get paid more than other teachers because of NCLB. His point is that since they are directly tested for NCLB, they have more accountability and more value in the school system. His solution is for merit pay. When asked how he would do it, he said that making AYP shows that they are doing their job.
I am not personally against merit pay in theory, but am against it in the fact that it should definitely not be test based. No good teacher should be afraid of merit pay. However, until a system can be formed and maintained that rewards all teachers for doing a good job that can be applied equitably for all teachers, with the opportunity to earn merit pay every year that they qualify, I don't see merit pay as a solution.
The example I used is that most people who see test scores affecting their pay will begin to teach to the test rather than teach the material. I know very few teachers who will admit to teaching to the test, but I know it is going on. I know there are accounting teachers teaching to the test for various competitions. Those students can do very well when given a multiple choice test, but when having to apply the concepts they can't do it.
NEA Today recently had an article that discusses a study that shows low-income schools with primarily minority populations are teaching to the test and teaching test-taking strategies in place of teaching content. "Study: Test Prep Grows, Curriculum Shrinks in Low-Income Schools" discusses the perils of teaching to the test, providing students with ways to meet AYP but leaving them with skills that are useless in their future lives. AYP was supposed to help low-achieving students, yet the pressure to attain test scores is actually hurting the very students it was supposed to help.
This study also supports my argument that test scores should not be a basis for determining teacher pay. It is unfortunate that we have teachers that believe their role is more important than other teachers within our own school. I made the point to my co-worker that several of the areas he felt provided a lesser role that each teacher has an equally important role in every student's education. Teachers teaching the low-achieving student is every bit as important as the one's teaching the high-achieving students. Physical education teachers are every bit as important if we are going to stem the tide of obesity in our society. Career and Technical Education teachers are important in preparing students for their careers. We need to understand that all faculty members have an important role and it is more important for us to work together instead of becoming divided because we want monetary rewards for doing a good job.
I am not personally against merit pay in theory, but am against it in the fact that it should definitely not be test based. No good teacher should be afraid of merit pay. However, until a system can be formed and maintained that rewards all teachers for doing a good job that can be applied equitably for all teachers, with the opportunity to earn merit pay every year that they qualify, I don't see merit pay as a solution.
The example I used is that most people who see test scores affecting their pay will begin to teach to the test rather than teach the material. I know very few teachers who will admit to teaching to the test, but I know it is going on. I know there are accounting teachers teaching to the test for various competitions. Those students can do very well when given a multiple choice test, but when having to apply the concepts they can't do it.
NEA Today recently had an article that discusses a study that shows low-income schools with primarily minority populations are teaching to the test and teaching test-taking strategies in place of teaching content. "Study: Test Prep Grows, Curriculum Shrinks in Low-Income Schools" discusses the perils of teaching to the test, providing students with ways to meet AYP but leaving them with skills that are useless in their future lives. AYP was supposed to help low-achieving students, yet the pressure to attain test scores is actually hurting the very students it was supposed to help.
This study also supports my argument that test scores should not be a basis for determining teacher pay. It is unfortunate that we have teachers that believe their role is more important than other teachers within our own school. I made the point to my co-worker that several of the areas he felt provided a lesser role that each teacher has an equally important role in every student's education. Teachers teaching the low-achieving student is every bit as important as the one's teaching the high-achieving students. Physical education teachers are every bit as important if we are going to stem the tide of obesity in our society. Career and Technical Education teachers are important in preparing students for their careers. We need to understand that all faculty members have an important role and it is more important for us to work together instead of becoming divided because we want monetary rewards for doing a good job.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Dealing with Teen Suicide
I know the topic of student suicide has been discussed in this forum before, but I would like to add my insight. Several years ago, Mandan High School went through a rash of suicides. It was about eight consecutive years that we had two a year (one per semester), just like clockwork. During this time, we held our breaths wondering who would be next and when the news was coming, because we knew it was coming. The streak finally ended, and we have only had a handful since. During and after this time, we have tried everything we can to get the message out that this is the wrong choice, talk to someone if you are thinking about it, awareness of the signs, etc. As a matter of fact, we reached a point where many students became immune to the message as overkill.
During this time, I became convinced that the best way to prevent suicide is to get the students involved. I have a very good rapport with my students, but the fact is that I am guessing that less than 10% of my students would come to me to discuss anything sensitive. I really believe that the hardest part of preventing suicide is that very few students feel comfortable going to a teacher, counselor, or administrator to discuss personal feelings or situations. When Bev Cobain spoke at our school, I attended with our juniors and seniors. When she asked how many know someone who is considering suicide, I was amazed that somewhere around 25 hands went up. I never would have thought there were that many at our school.
What prompted me to use this as my weekly blog topic is a story that was in the Bismarck Tribune on Tuesday. In Palo Alto, California, after the fourth teen suicide in less than six months, some of the students decided to take steps to stop the trend. They printed T-shirts that say "Talk to Me", signifying support from their peers. They have formed pacts not to commit suicide. They are leaving messages around the school to cheer up students, or call attention to the positive parts of life. They have created a peer-run support group. One student created a Web site to call attention to acts of kindness or positive actions by their students. These efforts are ongoing, but it will be a long, hard battle. For those of you out there that are also struggling with suicide at your schools I would encourage you to find creative ways to get the students involved in prevention. Working together with students will make the teacher more accessible and approachable, but having other students involved will increase the chance that students considering suicide will talk to someone - a peer in the least.
During this time, I became convinced that the best way to prevent suicide is to get the students involved. I have a very good rapport with my students, but the fact is that I am guessing that less than 10% of my students would come to me to discuss anything sensitive. I really believe that the hardest part of preventing suicide is that very few students feel comfortable going to a teacher, counselor, or administrator to discuss personal feelings or situations. When Bev Cobain spoke at our school, I attended with our juniors and seniors. When she asked how many know someone who is considering suicide, I was amazed that somewhere around 25 hands went up. I never would have thought there were that many at our school.
What prompted me to use this as my weekly blog topic is a story that was in the Bismarck Tribune on Tuesday. In Palo Alto, California, after the fourth teen suicide in less than six months, some of the students decided to take steps to stop the trend. They printed T-shirts that say "Talk to Me", signifying support from their peers. They have formed pacts not to commit suicide. They are leaving messages around the school to cheer up students, or call attention to the positive parts of life. They have created a peer-run support group. One student created a Web site to call attention to acts of kindness or positive actions by their students. These efforts are ongoing, but it will be a long, hard battle. For those of you out there that are also struggling with suicide at your schools I would encourage you to find creative ways to get the students involved in prevention. Working together with students will make the teacher more accessible and approachable, but having other students involved will increase the chance that students considering suicide will talk to someone - a peer in the least.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Great Public Schools Begin With Great Teachers
Recently, National Education Association (NEA) President Dennis Van Roeckel testified before the Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind. President Van Roeckel discussed the NEA's stance on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and how to improve it. He listed the need to treat teachers as the professional they are, the need for better teacher education programs, a partnership between schools and parents, and adequate financial support for education as the ways education can be improved nationally.
I believe anyone who truly wants educational reform would agree with this platform, and NEA is anxious to partner with the federal government to come up with programs that will meet these goals. The concern I have is how the government plans to achieve these goals.
One of the methods currently being promoted by the Obama administration is a program entitled "Race to the Top". This program requires states to compete for a record near $5 billion in stimulus money. The concerns I have start with states having to compete for this money. My understanding is the first round of the money available has less than 10 states even eligible for the money. That sounds a lot like the rich getting richer mentality, which brings to question if the money is truly designed to go to the schools most in need. By the way, North Dakota is not one of those states eligible for the first round of money.
The part that scares me the most is a provision that encourages teacher pay tied to student performance. If a teacher only teaches lower level classes, such as Essential Math, can they expect to have their students score as high on standardized tests as a teacher of advanced math classes, such as Pre-Calculus? I think not. Besides, where are the evaluation of student performance for elective classes? Should they receive less pay because they teach job skills instead of a core subject?
A major part of collective bargaining is that teachers should be treated in an equitable fashion. Teacher pay tied to student performance, in my opinion, will lead to pitting teacher against teacher. Instead, all teachers in a school district need to work together to provide the best education for all their students. I am not against the concept of merit pay in theory. I am against the concept because I don't believe a program can be designed that properly rewards all teachers who do a good job. Until a program can be designed that accomplishes a fair, equitable method of rewarding ALL good teachers, any form of merit pay will be detrimental to education.
I believe anyone who truly wants educational reform would agree with this platform, and NEA is anxious to partner with the federal government to come up with programs that will meet these goals. The concern I have is how the government plans to achieve these goals.
One of the methods currently being promoted by the Obama administration is a program entitled "Race to the Top". This program requires states to compete for a record near $5 billion in stimulus money. The concerns I have start with states having to compete for this money. My understanding is the first round of the money available has less than 10 states even eligible for the money. That sounds a lot like the rich getting richer mentality, which brings to question if the money is truly designed to go to the schools most in need. By the way, North Dakota is not one of those states eligible for the first round of money.
The part that scares me the most is a provision that encourages teacher pay tied to student performance. If a teacher only teaches lower level classes, such as Essential Math, can they expect to have their students score as high on standardized tests as a teacher of advanced math classes, such as Pre-Calculus? I think not. Besides, where are the evaluation of student performance for elective classes? Should they receive less pay because they teach job skills instead of a core subject?
A major part of collective bargaining is that teachers should be treated in an equitable fashion. Teacher pay tied to student performance, in my opinion, will lead to pitting teacher against teacher. Instead, all teachers in a school district need to work together to provide the best education for all their students. I am not against the concept of merit pay in theory. I am against the concept because I don't believe a program can be designed that properly rewards all teachers who do a good job. Until a program can be designed that accomplishes a fair, equitable method of rewarding ALL good teachers, any form of merit pay will be detrimental to education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
