I'm currently looking for another position. If I can't find one, I'll teach at the same school for one more year. Then I will decide if I want to continue teaching, elsewhere, or quit the profession entirely. To answer your previous question a little more seriously, I do believe there is a place for testing in public schools. Unfortunately, the way things are now in NYC, the tests are poorly constructed, they're not aligned to the standards or the curriculum, they're biased, they're too frequent, they're given at the wrong time of the year, and their results are used in the wrong ways. One of the biggest problems is that private companies create the tests. They use similar methods to those used to write the SAT's, such as using sample groups of students to gauge the "difficulty" of test questions. The result is an inherently biased tests, purposely designed to ensure that a certain percentage of students will fail. This is contrary to the essential (ostensible) purpose of the tests, which is to ensure that all students succeed. One of the first things I learned in teacher training is that assessment must be aligned with instruction, and vice versa. But there is no connection between what/how I teach the kids and the tests. For example, I am required to teach reading in a "workshop model," based partly on the premise that children learn to read better through authentic interaction with literature, rather than through drills, basal readers, etc. The theory makes a lot of sense. But then the English Language Arts test presents the kids with short passages taken out of context followed by multiple choice questions. The method and content and instruction are completely unrelated to the test. The situation is even worse in math. If high-stakes testing is going to continue, the tests need to be changed. They need to be designed by the same people who design the curricula. They should be administered at the end of the school year - May or June. Right now they are in January and March/April in NYC. Lastly and most importantly, the only legitimate use for standardized tests is to improve instruction. If the test is well constructed, it should provide some clues about what is working and what is not. For example, one school might have great success with mathematical computation, but less success with estimation or problem solving. Other schools can learn from what that school is doing right in teaching computation, and can share what they've done to have more success in other areas. But that is not what happens in reality. Not even close. Test scores are not looked at to examine what is working or not, or even what is improving or getting worse. They are a pass/fail proposition, and they are used to put pressure and blame on teachers and administrators. The unfortunate result is that everything starts to revolve around the test scores, and that is a bad situation for everyone involved. The regional superintendent visited my school at least once a month to check that we were employing the mandated instructional strategies. If she had spent each visit sitting with students, talking to them and looking at their actual work, she would have learned a lot more than any standardized test could tell her.
Good questions. The staffing problems are certainly related to the discipline problems, without a doubt. The challenge of controlling the kids drives employees away, not to mention the physical danger. At the same time, understaffing makes discipline that much harder. NYC schools have uniformed security, but IMO not enough of them. A school like mine has enough problems with gang violence that I think the local police should get involved, at least having a presence outside the building during dismissal time. Another teacher tried contacting the precinct about this, but never got a response from them. Still, we have 3 or 4 security guards, 3 Assistant Principals, 2 Deans of Discipline, a school aide sitting on each floor and in each stairway, and a librarian who could scare the black off any ass. Replacing those school aides with security guards would be hepful, and placing aides inside classrooms would make a tremendous difference. But in the end, it comes down to leadership. The principal has to take a firm stance and have a clearly outlined philosophy. He or she has to get the entire staff in line behind that philosophy. Nothing else will do the trick.
Demosthenes-- I spent 2001-3 as business manager for two small start up charters in Northern New Mexico; which doesn't make me an expert and certainly doesn'tmake me an expert on NYC, but does give me some background for opinions... First, from the business manager standpoint, the unfunded test requirements were managable though awkward for my schools; a charter had something on the order of 1000% the descretionary funds of a standard school. The money still comes out of funds which would otherwise be spent adjusting the teaching approach to this year's specific kids (with school populations of 45 and 20 this was actually possible,) which is infuriating, but its a manageable problem. For regular schools it must have eliminated flexibilty altogether... Second, and the thing I really want to interject here-- I talked about this with people from all over the country who were involved with charters-- in its first couple of years the lottery entrants for a charter will probably be 70-80% from two groups of parents: the optimistic and the desperate. In each case you get a certain amount of extra push from the parents, which helps a lot. One group sees the light and the other feels the heat... But the consequence is we had very high percentages who were previously home schooled, and the results of home schooling can be truly terrifying. We taught "7th graders" the alphabet. We had some baseline tests of near zero; it was easy to raise overall test scores by bringing just these folks up to normal ranges of "failing." We also had kids develop a certain amount of something functionally like esprit de corps simply because they were conscious of being allowed something special-- the school had discipline, but along different lines than they had experienced elsewhere,and they felt like they had chosen which world to live in... our rules were less obnoxious because they weren't everybody's rules... The people I worked with were very competent and-- I don't want to say dedicated because this was what they wanted to do anyway-- focused? entrained? Anyway they would have been doing it, but not in public schools if it weren't for the charter movement. So there is definitely a "staffing effect" helping charters, and funding good ideas is easier; but I think the biggest part of the result here was driven by sample sorting... Next year or the next will be a much fairer look at comparitive achievements. Incidentally I could see in just a three school year exposure that the rules and regulations were closing down for the charters... probably 20% more of the funding had limitations on it in the third year budget than the first, and there were some curricular invasions threatened; within a decade or two it will be no easier in a charter than a standard model... Also I should emphasize that my generality about home schooling was just that-- a generality. I know not one but two students from my circle of friends who were home schooled all the way and are in grad school-- one getting a second masters... The folks concerned with home and alternative education at the state level were very aware that the good situations are very very good and just out of ideas as to how to sort the good situations from the bad without throwing the baby out with the bathwater... Given the small populations and the issues of religious and other freedoms, it just couldn't be a front burner issue for them... penny wise is pound foolish.
Thanks to whoever bumped this thread. Demosthenes has hit on the correct solution to a good number of the issues I find here in California. Some of the key ones: 1. Curriculum MUST be aligned with testing. As simple as that sounds it is NOT happening. What IS happening is a publisher comes to a school board with a new set of textbooks, makes a "long deal" to buy their books, including taking the "curriculum commitee" to a $500/night resort in Monterey Bay in which to "consider the issues," and the curriculum is established. Now the state comes along and says "we will give this test," which is not at all aligned with the text. ARGH!!! (actually happened) The result is a bunch of frustrated teachers who feel a great deal of their efforts are wasted, and kids who aren't learning much. 2. Classroom teachers MUST be given more latitude and support for discipline in classrooms. At present, the kids run the school and they know it. When a teacher disciplines a child they are accused of "having a personality conflict," or some other weak excuse for the child's lack of performance. The principal needs to back the teacher in telling the parent the kid needs to come to school and perform if they want a passing grade. But believe it or not, that might "hurt their self-esteem" so we can't tell them that. Instead we have some intervention sessions...Oh, I won't waste time even going there. It is so sick it makes you want to vomit!!!!! Every person in education should be required to see the "Coach Carter" movie. What a great story and how accurately it portrays the horrible mistakes currently being made by our "educational" system. 3. Part and parcel of the above support MUST come the recognition that kids who are constantly disrupting the learning process must be removed from the classroom. Disruptive students deny the rest of the kids the opportunity to learn. This minority of kids need to be sent to a separate school apart from where kids actually want to learn. 4. Unions are in the 1950s when it comes to how they approach their role. They are primarily interested in collecting dues money to use as political clout to support pols they feel will help education. What actually happens is that those pols are the ones who devise the myriad tests and programs that clog up the system in the first place. They have no background in what is needed in education and the results show it. Teachers' unions need to get out of general politics and focus on the things that directly affect the classroom There are plenty of things to be done there without worrying about national and international events which only reflect on the classroom in a very tangential manner. Instead union leaders love the power they feel as the result of the billions of $$$$$$$$$$$$ that they control on a national level and the attention they command. And don't get me started on how they yield that clout as they waste the teacher's hard-earned dues money. 5. Unions could also help the learning process by recognizing that some teachers just do not belong in the classroom. Stop blocking efforts to put performance requirements on teachers. If a student doesn't perform, they get an F. If a teacher doesn't perform, they get another pay check and keep on going with no worries because they know the union will protect them. Presently a lousy teacher in a 3rd grade classroom just means the 4th grade teacher the next year will have to work extra hard to make up for the failure of the previous teacher. And on it goes... A kid who, in effect, loses a year, has little chance to catch up with the rest of the world. 6. Finally, the best thing that could happen to the current system of public education is to give it some good, honest competition on getting the job done. Charter schools are a decent beginning although the pols, at the urging of, and backed by, the unions, are putting more conditions on the funding. This results in less creativity and innovation. Ultimately, charters will be just another "public school" if the current trend continues. 6-b. In addition to charter schools, vouchers are a must. Letting parents decide which school is performing and where their kids will get the best chance. As someone said earlier; there are those who feel the heat of their kids failing, and there are those who just want their kids to have the best chance to succeed. In either case, it will put the heat on public schools to improve performance if they want to maintain their ADA funding. If we, as a nation, have the courage to incorporate both #6 and #6-b above, you would see public schools immediately begin to fix problems that have been sitting around unsolved for years. The tools are there. They just need to use them. But currently it is easier to just sit back and do nothing. Summarily, the system has being steadily declining now for years. It is way past time for more innovative solutions to a failing system. We MUST give teachers the support and recognition they deserve. The current public education system in this country is a perfect example of the old definition of insanity: "When you keep doing the same old things but expect the results to somehow be different." It is time for some fundamental changes and for allowing the people who are responsible for the system to feel the effects of the consequences of their actions instead of continuing to run a system that protects these clowns and forces the students, and ultimately the nation, to suffer the consequences.
Thanks for sharing this perspective. Some colleagues and I have been seriously thinking about starting our own charter school.
I would like to add some anecdotal info on home schooling if I may: My wife and I spent 2 years trying to get home school business companies, and they are businesses, interested in providing legitimate tools to help parents educate their children. In short, we offered a "How-to Manual" on the basics of organization and tracking to make sure the kids were on track to succeed in much the same way a classroom teacher would do. (As background, my wife is a 25+ year veteran teaching who is head of a mentoring group for new teachers in our district and very well-qualified, with a long string of successes to prove it, to offer this service.) We went to several "trade shows" where organizations and companies offered books and materials for parents to buy to educate their kids. Our goal was to gain the recommendation of the Home Schools. But NONE of the home school businesses were the least bit interested. In short, they did not want to "accept the responsibility" for the performance of the parents. In other words, all they wanted was to collect the ADA funds from the state for putting grades on a bunch of worksheets that parents bring them every 2 weeks. The result of all this is that the large majority of kids who drop out of school to be home-schooled, come back after 1 year, further behind than they were before. Of course this does not reflect the kids who drop out to be home-schooled and continue on to graduate. There are some success stories out there but there are far more failures than successes.
Guys, as a student, I may have a different view point then you guys may have. Kids who take honors/AP classes and succeed in high school, do so because they understand the value of an education. They WANT to go to college, get a GREAT job, and earn A LOT OF MONEY. They KNOW that there is a world full of opportunities waiting for them. These kids who only care about fighting, disrespecting the teacher, etc. at school don't know anything outside of their block and a life that hasn't brought them any happyness. They don't understand what a college education can do for them because they probably don't know anyone graduated from college and has a successful life as a professional. To them, the only professions out there are these:teachers, doctors, police, lawyers, and people flippin burgers at the local fast food place. We demand so much from this country because we have all tasted the good stuff, and don't want to lose it. Countries who are underdeveloped, can't do the same because they don't know what a paved road is, or warm water, or proper sanitiation. The only way that these kids can do well in school, is if they are given a reason. To them, why do they need to do all that hard work if they can do the bare minimum and still have a good time? They have uniform guidelines as to what needs to be taught because if they don't, the teachers will do the "right" thing and stick to one topic and until the learn it. By having the uniform curriculum, it will weed out the best from the worst. The worst will fail, and the best will pass. It's a tough and sad thing, but that's how it is.
This is not "how it is," but, rather, solely your answer to the question I always pose, which is "Education toward...what end(s)?" Your answer is "...to go to college, get a GREAT job, and earn A LOT OF MONEY..." in a "...world full of opportunities..." where "...It's a tough and sad thing...," but "..The worst will fail, and the best will pass..." IOW, it's affirmation and celebration of a system of education that produces results along those lines, excluding and marginalizing those that don't "succeed" at the measurments that indicate how well someone wil lfit into the cog of enterprise toward the ends of a "GREAT job" and "A LOT OF MONEY." What you need to know, need to internalize, for the rest of your life, is that there all kinds of ways to learn, towards all kinds of ends, many - MANY - of which have nothing to do with your frame on education and the end result of education. I didn't spend a decade and a half in Montessori and Quaker and Honors public school education just ot get a GREAT JOB AND MAKE ALOT OF MONEY. Actually, I was interested in contributing in all kinds of ways to the continuing growth of the global, national, state, local, and familial community, not to mention myself. What you seem to be stuck in is that mode of thinking of growth only as economic growth. There are lots of people who understand and engage economic growth as just one of a spectrum of ways of understanding growth...of "getting a job and making money" as just one of the things education does, and that there's a larger context in which such money-chasing endavours find themselves. I don't want your way of thinking to ever guide my children's education; that sounds like a horror...to educate yourself to HAVE, and not to GIVE? And then to GIVE only in the context of a consumer? That's societal suicide.