Senate Proposal Would End "Highly Qualified" Designation
Hmmm.... I have mixed feelings about ending the need to be "highly qualified" in order to teach a subject.
In my previous job teaching in a rural, hard-to-staff middle school - I saw a career engineer get turned down to teach math, because he was not considered highly qualified. I could see that he isn't highly qualified to handle things like classroom management and curriculum development, but he certainly wasn't lacking in the capabilities necessary to teach middle school level math. I think situations like this do happen and I also think that, up to about 10th grade, an all-around intelligent person has the content knowledge necessary to adequately teach all subjects. Not that the person would necessarily be a good teacher, but there should be a way to prove that you are content-competent without having to go back and take college courses. After all, we don't want to deter potential great teachers from entering the profession.
On the other hand, I don't know that it's a great idea to further lower the standards that it currently takes to become a teacher. The teaching profession should seek to become MORE professional and prestigious, not less so. And part of that comes from who is allowed to walk into a classroom and be called "teacher." Not everyone is allowed to be "doctor," "lawyer," or "accountant," even if they'd like to become one. So, if we are doing away with "highly qualified," what will replace it? How will we ensure that our teachers are more highly qualified in the ways that matter to students?
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
House Gives Bipartisan Stamp of Approval to Charter Bill
House Gives Bipartisan Stamp of Approval to Charter Bill
I work at a charter school and, overall, I think that charter schools do and should have a permanent place in public education. Like my school, many charter schools provide a more close-knit atmosphere for students who need it. Charter schools also have the ability to provide a less traditional education than most public schools (although my charter school still has lots of state mandates to meet that keep our curriculum fairly similar to the public schools around us). Sometimes, charter schools even provide a more likely path to a college education than nearby public schools. What I'm wondering today, though, is whether the "innovations" that occur in charter schools have ever been adopted back into any public school systems. Charter schools are often touted as places where school leaders and educators are free to try cutting edge new education techniques, with the intention that , once proven to work in charter schools, these new, successful, techniques will then be implemented back into public schools.
Am I behind the times? Is this no longer how we even think of charter schools? Should they be thought of as places to innovate in ways that may eventually help our public school system? Have any charter school practices been successfully implemented in surrounding public schools? Are there charter school practices that could be deemed universally successful?
I work at a charter school and, overall, I think that charter schools do and should have a permanent place in public education. Like my school, many charter schools provide a more close-knit atmosphere for students who need it. Charter schools also have the ability to provide a less traditional education than most public schools (although my charter school still has lots of state mandates to meet that keep our curriculum fairly similar to the public schools around us). Sometimes, charter schools even provide a more likely path to a college education than nearby public schools. What I'm wondering today, though, is whether the "innovations" that occur in charter schools have ever been adopted back into any public school systems. Charter schools are often touted as places where school leaders and educators are free to try cutting edge new education techniques, with the intention that , once proven to work in charter schools, these new, successful, techniques will then be implemented back into public schools.
Am I behind the times? Is this no longer how we even think of charter schools? Should they be thought of as places to innovate in ways that may eventually help our public school system? Have any charter school practices been successfully implemented in surrounding public schools? Are there charter school practices that could be deemed universally successful?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Study Finds Few Links Between Teacher Characteristics, Performance
Study Finds Few Links Between Teacher Characteristics, Performance
A recent study found that certification, advanced credentials, and experience in the classroom have little or no effect on student achievement on math and reading exams. I'm definitely not surprised to find out that certification and advanced credentials have no effect. And I would think experience would only make a difference for the first few years of a teacher's career. So... what DOES affect student achievement? I know that Teach For America has lots of data about the qualities that a person displays (i.e. highly organized, evidence of perseverance, etc.) and the likelihood that a person will make significant gains (2 years growth) with their students. What else is out there? Most colleges of education and alternative licensure programs don't have the luxury of turning away people who don't possess particular qualities. Neither do most school districts - there simply aren't enough qualified applicants.
So, now that we know what doesn't affect student achievement in math and reading - what does? What that can actually be encouraged for those who are already in the teaching profession? Hours per week spent working? Charting students' proficiency on classroom objectives? Co-teaching? Having a strong school leader?
Having seen my own test scores rise about 30% or so over 5 years of teaching, what seemed to make the biggest difference for my students was 1) Just getting better at teaching... sticking with it past those first 2 years, 2) Talking and caring a lot about test scores and paying attention to what types of questions were asked on the state test each year, 3)More or less forcing students to learn skills/content that they didn't learn the first time I taught it in class (by making them come in at lunch or re-do assignments) 4)Being held accountable by high achieving colleagues, TFA staff, and graduate school professors. But those are just guesses. I really don't know what caused my test scores to improve - and I guess that's part of the problem faced by those who study education. It's easy to see whether or not someone has an advanced degree, but what does "talking and caring a lot about test scores" really mean? And would it necessarily work for every teacher who tried it?
And there's always the question - are the test scores really what we're after? Definitively not. They are an approximation of students' progress toward the real outcomes that we want - success in college, skills necessary to obtain a lucrative career, well-rounded and informed citizen. Yet, we can't let our lack of clarity of exactly what results we want and how to measure those results blind us to the achievement gap that exists in our nation.
So as not to end on a hopeless note, I'm going to cast my vote for #4. I think that we need evaluators, coaches, colleagues, principals, graduate school teachers, parents, etc. inside classrooms - pushing teachers and helping teachers (not blaming teachers) to continuously find ways to help their students achieve more.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Study Groups: Worth the Effort?
Although the following article's headline sounds like something from The Onion, it does post an interesting question: Why don't high schools encourage the formation of study groups? I fairly well agree with the article, that study groups would require a lot of effort to implement. And they work best when they are voluntary for students - making them possibly not worth the investment of paying staff to supervise them.
That said, parents hosting study groups in their homes is a great idea. Parents who have participated in study groups could very effectively encourage their own children as well as a few others to study together. But would it be difficult for parents who have never participated in study groups of their own to host such an event? Probably.
I once read that low-performing schools need to embrace the co-parenting challenge in order to raise achievement. I believe that's true. It's not useful to ignore the obstacles that come along with groups of students who attend schools in low-income areas. The school's only hope at success is to identify the obstacles and come up with creative solutions.
At first glance, study groups seem like they may not be worth the obstacles that they'd come along with - transportation, finding time in working or very busy students' schedules, lack of motivation, lack of study skills. However, learning how to participate in a study group would go a very long way for students who do enter college. They also, if done successfully, could put learning in a really positive light. And they take adults out of the equation - allowing students to monitor one another rather than asking a parent for help.
I personally find study groups really enjoyable as well as helpful. I think study groups could be a really great way to augment daily learning for students who attend low-performing schools - and I'm for anything that effectively extends the school day by helping students spend more time learning. Any other thoughts out there?
ABQ/ COLUMN: Studying in Groups Can Be Effective
By Leanna Landsmann [syndicated columnist]
That said, parents hosting study groups in their homes is a great idea. Parents who have participated in study groups could very effectively encourage their own children as well as a few others to study together. But would it be difficult for parents who have never participated in study groups of their own to host such an event? Probably.
I once read that low-performing schools need to embrace the co-parenting challenge in order to raise achievement. I believe that's true. It's not useful to ignore the obstacles that come along with groups of students who attend schools in low-income areas. The school's only hope at success is to identify the obstacles and come up with creative solutions.
At first glance, study groups seem like they may not be worth the obstacles that they'd come along with - transportation, finding time in working or very busy students' schedules, lack of motivation, lack of study skills. However, learning how to participate in a study group would go a very long way for students who do enter college. They also, if done successfully, could put learning in a really positive light. And they take adults out of the equation - allowing students to monitor one another rather than asking a parent for help.
I personally find study groups really enjoyable as well as helpful. I think study groups could be a really great way to augment daily learning for students who attend low-performing schools - and I'm for anything that effectively extends the school day by helping students spend more time learning. Any other thoughts out there?
ABQ/ COLUMN: Studying in Groups Can Be Effective
By Leanna Landsmann [syndicated columnist]
ABQ Journal
September 6, 2011
Q: As a mom working on a master’s degree, I’m part of a study group and love it. When I see my son, a high school sophomore, struggle with his homework, I wonder why high schools don’t encourage the formation of study groups. Is there a reason?
A: Some high schools promote study groups. Others don’t for reasons ranging from educators remaining unconvinced of their effectiveness to a lack of staff to manage them. The vice principal of a Michigan high school says, “With budget cuts, we hardly have enough people to oversee study halls. Plus, study groups are hard to make work. Some students don’t want to be there, and the distractions, like one kid having a new iPad or a cute girl texting, are enormous.”
Educators who take this view may be missing a big opportunity to accelerate teens’ learning, says Atlanta adolescent-literacy expert ReLeah Lent. “Some teachers are still in the ‘I lecture; you take notes’ mode, which practically shuts down kids’ brains.” This is unfortunate. If effectively run, study groups can prepare students for college and careers, Lent says. “The Partnership for 21st Century Skills defines collaboration and teaming as essential workplace skills. Research tells us that collaborative learning develops problem solving, critical thinking, empathy, deeper understanding of content and even produces higher test scores.”
You may not be able to do much about a school’s policy, but Lent says you can help your son learn more and learn better by forming, managing and hosting a student study group in your home. “We know that learning is not a solitary activity. We’ve all had the experience of learning something more deeply when we’ve explained it and discussed it with others. Studying in a group is perfect for this generation of active multitaskers who can’t sit still, much less learn alone,” Lent says.
What’s a parent’s role with study groups?
“Call four or five of your son’s classmates’ parents to describe your idea and initiate meetings at homes for the purpose of studying, doing projects, talking through difficult content or reading assigned books,” Lent says. “Schedule meetings once a week, for two hours, no more than three. Choose the topic ahead based on assignments. Offer snacks and breaks. Because kids know from the outset that the purpose of the gathering is to learn, they take the group seriously and discover that learning with others is satisfying and effective.”
Help students and parents understand techniques that make the groups effective, such as encouraging members to think out loud, share ideas, hash out problems, discuss and compare class notes taken to clarify concepts. Reinforce the importance of participating each week and acknowledge and draw upon the different strengths each student brings to the group. Identify distractions that can become time-wasters, but “don’t hang over the kids demanding that they stay strictly on task. The idea is to have your teens create lifelong study habits that encourage thinking, discussing, and probing for answers; in other words, working with others in a quest to learn.”
The College Board offers practical tips at: www.collegeboard.com/
Q: As a mom working on a master’s degree, I’m part of a study group and love it. When I see my son, a high school sophomore, struggle with his homework, I wonder why high schools don’t encourage the formation of study groups. Is there a reason?
A: Some high schools promote study groups. Others don’t for reasons ranging from educators remaining unconvinced of their effectiveness to a lack of staff to manage them. The vice principal of a Michigan high school says, “With budget cuts, we hardly have enough people to oversee study halls. Plus, study groups are hard to make work. Some students don’t want to be there, and the distractions, like one kid having a new iPad or a cute girl texting, are enormous.”
Educators who take this view may be missing a big opportunity to accelerate teens’ learning, says Atlanta adolescent-literacy expert ReLeah Lent. “Some teachers are still in the ‘I lecture; you take notes’ mode, which practically shuts down kids’ brains.” This is unfortunate. If effectively run, study groups can prepare students for college and careers, Lent says. “The Partnership for 21st Century Skills defines collaboration and teaming as essential workplace skills. Research tells us that collaborative learning develops problem solving, critical thinking, empathy, deeper understanding of content and even produces higher test scores.”
You may not be able to do much about a school’s policy, but Lent says you can help your son learn more and learn better by forming, managing and hosting a student study group in your home. “We know that learning is not a solitary activity. We’ve all had the experience of learning something more deeply when we’ve explained it and discussed it with others. Studying in a group is perfect for this generation of active multitaskers who can’t sit still, much less learn alone,” Lent says.
What’s a parent’s role with study groups?
“Call four or five of your son’s classmates’ parents to describe your idea and initiate meetings at homes for the purpose of studying, doing projects, talking through difficult content or reading assigned books,” Lent says. “Schedule meetings once a week, for two hours, no more than three. Choose the topic ahead based on assignments. Offer snacks and breaks. Because kids know from the outset that the purpose of the gathering is to learn, they take the group seriously and discover that learning with others is satisfying and effective.”
Help students and parents understand techniques that make the groups effective, such as encouraging members to think out loud, share ideas, hash out problems, discuss and compare class notes taken to clarify concepts. Reinforce the importance of participating each week and acknowledge and draw upon the different strengths each student brings to the group. Identify distractions that can become time-wasters, but “don’t hang over the kids demanding that they stay strictly on task. The idea is to have your teens create lifelong study habits that encourage thinking, discussing, and probing for answers; in other words, working with others in a quest to learn.”
The College Board offers practical tips at: www.collegeboard.com/
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
NM Effective Teaching Task Force Recommendations
Here are the recently released NM Effective Teaching Task Force Recommendations for evaluating teachers and school leaders. I haven't had the chance to read them thoroughly yet, but they seem fairly reasonable. The one thing I'm wondering about, though, is that teachers in un-tested (by a Standards Based Assessment) grades have 25% of their evaluation based on their school's letter grade A-F. I guess that has the potential to get teachers to care about how their school does as a whole, but it seems more likely to de-incentivize working in traditionally low-performing schools. I definitely think, considering how many low performing schools there are in New Mexico, that we need to create incentives for our best teachers to be working in our most difficult schools - and not the other way around.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Are you my Mentor?
In John Merrow's book The Influence of Teachers he compares teacher training and nurses' training. He says something about how the nursing profession is more highly regarded than teaching, because no one would ever take someone who'd studied political science at Dartmouth, give him a summer's worth of training, and then allow him to go become a nurse.
Since I became a teacher through one of these crash course summer trainings, I can't say that I disagree with them completely - but it is crazy to think that just because one attended school as a student that one has the skills necessary to run today's most difficult classrooms. Yet, are 4 year college programs really doing a much better job than the summer crash courses? I've never been through a 4 year education concentration program, but based on today's dire circumstances, I assume that teacher training programs could - across the board - improve.
So... what do I think a teacher training program should look like? Well, I really like the Teach For America model where you teach for 1 period per day, receive feedback every time you teach, lesson plan in groups, and attend classes when you're not teaching. I wonder if simply elongating the process would help teachers leave training programs better prepared to teach.
I got a degree in biochemistry, and I'd say I was very ill prepared to become a biochemist. I would have needed to spend a lot more time in the lab, earning my PhD. What's the difference between becoming a biochemist and teaching? I guess I would have spent my time in a lab under a professor, who would spend nearly 6 years guiding me to my independence as a biochemist. Meanwhile, I would be doing work to support the lab - benefiting my professor as she imparted her knowledge to me.
Teaching - during college as well as the "graduate" part of the program during someone's first few years on the job - clearly doesn't provide effective mentorship. I've been asked to mentor other teachers before and I simply can't do it well, while running my own classroom. There needs to be something better in place than just saying one teacher is another's mentor - with no training, benefit, or oversight. It seems natural that becoming a mentor teacher - teaching significantly fewer classes throughout the day - and working as more of a manager - with higher pay - would be a next step/promotion after being a full-time classroom teacher, with kids all day. Has any school district tried something like this? A structure with a principal and then a set of master teachers who teach maybe 1 or 2 periods per day and spend most of their time observing, providing feedback, and mentoring all of the other teachers in a building? Is this too much of a business model?
Since I became a teacher through one of these crash course summer trainings, I can't say that I disagree with them completely - but it is crazy to think that just because one attended school as a student that one has the skills necessary to run today's most difficult classrooms. Yet, are 4 year college programs really doing a much better job than the summer crash courses? I've never been through a 4 year education concentration program, but based on today's dire circumstances, I assume that teacher training programs could - across the board - improve.
So... what do I think a teacher training program should look like? Well, I really like the Teach For America model where you teach for 1 period per day, receive feedback every time you teach, lesson plan in groups, and attend classes when you're not teaching. I wonder if simply elongating the process would help teachers leave training programs better prepared to teach.
I got a degree in biochemistry, and I'd say I was very ill prepared to become a biochemist. I would have needed to spend a lot more time in the lab, earning my PhD. What's the difference between becoming a biochemist and teaching? I guess I would have spent my time in a lab under a professor, who would spend nearly 6 years guiding me to my independence as a biochemist. Meanwhile, I would be doing work to support the lab - benefiting my professor as she imparted her knowledge to me.
Teaching - during college as well as the "graduate" part of the program during someone's first few years on the job - clearly doesn't provide effective mentorship. I've been asked to mentor other teachers before and I simply can't do it well, while running my own classroom. There needs to be something better in place than just saying one teacher is another's mentor - with no training, benefit, or oversight. It seems natural that becoming a mentor teacher - teaching significantly fewer classes throughout the day - and working as more of a manager - with higher pay - would be a next step/promotion after being a full-time classroom teacher, with kids all day. Has any school district tried something like this? A structure with a principal and then a set of master teachers who teach maybe 1 or 2 periods per day and spend most of their time observing, providing feedback, and mentoring all of the other teachers in a building? Is this too much of a business model?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)