Today, I will commence with the real reason I began this blog in the first place, and that is to lay out to the public what I have attempted to accomplish via my action research.
Though I rant and rave, I do like to problem solve as well. Believe it or not, I do look for the positive in situations.
For this reason, I decided to, in the words of Tony Robbins ( do I have to write Inc. after that?), ask myself an empowering question, in the midst of my Program Improvement school turmoil.
Instead of asking why teachers were leaving, I wondered why teachers were staying. Which factors played into their decision to stay in a working environment more intense than another teaching assignment, which might be easily available to them?
My research questions began to form:
What are some factors which influence teacher retention at low performing, high risk, Program Improvement schools?
What are the types of issue-relevant professional development modules which could support and influence teachers to stay at their positions at low performing high risk schools in PI status?
( More specifically, California elementary schools in Program Improvement)
To prepare for this project, I scoured a list of over 6,000 California schools ( I had a lot of spare time during the summer) and narrowed my search down to about 128 elementary schools which were in PI status. Through a long arduous process of searching district websites and calling schools, I began getting contact information for principals. I sent out an initial email to over 30 principals, certain I would get a positive response from...well...I was optimistic...at least half of them.
This did not transpire.
Only three principals responded in the affirmative. Yes, they would find a way to get their teaching staff my surveys, whether online or on paper. Hooray!
I collected more PI principal emails.
No response.
Finally, I began emailing colleagues who I had previously served with at a PI school site ( the bond which remains is strong---working at a PI school can be like being in battle together---you never forget your hardworking sacrificing comrades in arms).
I also contacted two local principals at PI schools. One was VERY helpful. The other shut me down ( I have vented in a previous blog).
I set up a Survey Monkey account and teachers responded to my two surveys online and through paper surveys, which they or their principals mailed back to me ( no names were on the surveys).
In addition, I conducted six interviews with teachers, who were either currently at a PI school, or had taught at one in the past three years.
This is where I obtained my data.
To date, 62 teachers from around California have answered my first survey which had them rate whether they agreed or disagreed the factors in the survey influenced their decision to stay at a PI school.
Fifty six teachers from the Golden State have responded to my second survey which rates the effectiveness of certain professional development topics to influence their decision to stay at a PI school.
My six interviews have been transcribed and show a pattern in descriptions of working at a PI school campus in comparison with descriptions of working at a Non-PI school and the TREMENDOUS influence administrators have on whether teachers stay or leave their assignments at these at-risk campuses.
As the weeks progress, and my action research project progresses towards completion, I will be posting more detailed results of the survey percentages and portions of the interview transcripts.
It is my hope these will have an influence on educators and administrators within the context of California's most needy schools, and professors at institutions of higher learning who train them, to better prepare future teachers, and current teachers, for the realities of undertaking responsibilities on these exceptional campuses, so all children are able to receive a quality equitable education, and we can make more tangible strides towards closing the existing persistent achievement gap.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The New Segregation in Education
In 1954 the United States Supreme Court made a significant decision in the Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al. case, which dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. The Supreme Court declared racial segregation violated the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. Brown v. Board of Education shaped future national and international policies regarding human rights. This decision inspired human rights struggles across the country and around the world.
(http://brownvboard.org/summary/)
Do you have any idea where I am going with this?
What does this have to do with retaining teachers at Program Improvement schools?
Let me tell you a story. Years ago, I began my work at a little PI school in the country. This same year, little did I know, there was a teacher who had just started her work there the year before. At the end of my second year, because the teacher did not yet have tenure in our district, our principal called her into the office and simply "let her go."
For those of you who do not know what this might mean for a teaching professional, in our district, it meant this teacher, who had never been forewarned this decision might occur, was unemployed. The district would never hire her again.
She had worked, perhaps not perfectly, she was, after all, relatively new to the teaching field, under the immense pressures, stress, unrealistic expectations, and scrutiny which exist at a PI school for THREE years, and without even an explanation ( because when you are not tenured the principal does not have to give you one), she was essentially fired.
I have often wondered where she went. Certainly, being "let go" from a district cannot look good on a resume. In addition, I have also wondered if this teacher would still be working in our district had she NOT been working at a PI school.
There is a certain "type" of educator who can fit in at a PI school. Type A's do extremely well, but I have seen them leave, especially when the administrator is as controlling as they are. Brown-nosers do well too ( perhaps, this is how I made it as long as I did). I just did what I was told. All the little teeny tiny things that MUST be done: turning in weekly minutely formatted lesson plans, creating AND keeping pace with an often unrealistic curriculum map ( pacing calendar) in order to be through the curriculum before "the test", teaching strictly from commercially created base program materials ( rarely straying for a glimpse into more engaging, creative, real-world, joyful lessons outside reading, writing, and math), attending meeting after, long excruciating, minute-by-minute-dictated, meeting ( keeping notes on everything which occurred for records---all part of the "monitoring" and "accountability" measures for our school site), putting a smile on my face and saying, " Okay, I'll do that." All the while, thinking, "How will I ever be able to do all that?", tolerating score manipulations by my principal ( so she could make the point that the test for my FIRST GRADERS was not calibrated to the STAR---oh my goodness) [ the scores were moved DOWN not UP], posting standards, schedules, and creating elaborate focus walls, testing, testing, testing to assess learning to "drive instruction" ( even though, to keep up with the pacing calendar, I rarely had time to go back and reteach what the children had failed to grasp), and on it went....
Teachers who are independent minded, creative, and know their craft...do not fair well at a PI school. I rediscovered the independent minded, creative, side of myself during my third year of teaching...and this is when I interviewed for another job in our district for a position at a Non-PI school.
This leads me to the main topic of this particular piece of writing ( you were wondering when I would get there). There is a new segregation in education. Teachers at PI schools are quite aware of the inequities they bear at their school sites. As they speak to their educator-friends at Non-PI schools, they are intelligent enough to ascertain the differences in expectations from administrators and bureaucratic entities. Teachers at Non-PI schools have more freedom and are allowed to be more creative. They are allowed to be professional educators who practice their craft.
Teachers at Non-PI schools, who have never worked at a PI school, often fancy themselves as miracle workers. As they see their high scores, they attribute it largely to themselves, rarely taking a look at the real reasons their students are able to meet the high assessment expectations.
What I heard over and over again in my interviews with educators, was that teachers at Non-PI schools have larger parameters to make their own decisions. They also talked about principals at Non-PI schools, who value their teaching staffs' opinions as professionals, and allowed them to decide what was best for their students. Interviewees spoke of overhearing conversations from teachers at Non-PI schools, panicked because they had two-whole English Language Learners (ELL) in their classes, when the teacher being interviewed had had more than 90% of their students who were ELL, when they had previously worked at a PI school.
One teacher talked about their experience. At a PI school, they had been deemed as less effective because their students continually scored Basic on assessments. When they left their assignment at a PI school and transferred to a Non-PI school, their students' scores skyrocketed, and they were suddenly effective!
Yes! There is a new segregation in education. It is a Have and Have-Not situation among teachers. At Non-Program Improvement schools, teachers are the Haves. They have more freedom, less restrictions, more use of their professional integrity, less bureaucratic scrutiny and administrative controls upon them( there is a formula in education today: high test scores=less administrative and bureaucratic control of teachers), more students whose primary language is English from white collar/middle class homes, and more parental support.
And then there are the Have-Nots. At Program Improvements schools, teachers "Have-not" a less stressful working environment or a larger degree of professional freedom. They "have not" a student population whose first language is the language of instruction, nor do their students come equipped with much of the foundational cultural background knowledge necessary for a wider degree of success in school.
These factors make a huge difference in the way a teacher teaches and a student becomes educated. These factors also make a difference in whether or not a teacher stays at a PI school and sometimes whether a teacher "makes it" in their profession. Because, statistics show students who are ELL, from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or are from ethnic minority groups, do not do as well on state tests, and state tests are EVERYTHING in the world of education today. And if a school has a large majority of the above mentioned subgroups, their scores will be lower, they will not make their API and/or AYP, and then the "sanctions" begin, and then intensify, until all joy and laughter disperses from a campus, as it slowly descends into the world of "PI-status", never to be the same.
If the teacher, who I spoke of at the beginning of this blog, had started her work with our district at a Non-PI school, and had been granted the luxurious environment which exists therein, I am quite certain her fate would have been different. So, in the end, this was not an equitable situation for her as a professional. She was judged according to a MUCH higher standard than a new teacher would have been at a Non-PI school.
As I have said before, there are two kinds of teachers who know what it is like to work at a Program Improvement school: those who are still there and those who have left.
My opinion is that there must be a new equality in the world of teaching. There must be a balance in the expectations teachers at PI schools are required to achieve. Who would want to keep their positions at these sites, when there is a world of greater professional freedom and less anxiety at an inter-district Non-PI school five miles away?
(http://brownvboard.org/summary/)
Do you have any idea where I am going with this?
What does this have to do with retaining teachers at Program Improvement schools?
Let me tell you a story. Years ago, I began my work at a little PI school in the country. This same year, little did I know, there was a teacher who had just started her work there the year before. At the end of my second year, because the teacher did not yet have tenure in our district, our principal called her into the office and simply "let her go."
For those of you who do not know what this might mean for a teaching professional, in our district, it meant this teacher, who had never been forewarned this decision might occur, was unemployed. The district would never hire her again.
She had worked, perhaps not perfectly, she was, after all, relatively new to the teaching field, under the immense pressures, stress, unrealistic expectations, and scrutiny which exist at a PI school for THREE years, and without even an explanation ( because when you are not tenured the principal does not have to give you one), she was essentially fired.
I have often wondered where she went. Certainly, being "let go" from a district cannot look good on a resume. In addition, I have also wondered if this teacher would still be working in our district had she NOT been working at a PI school.
There is a certain "type" of educator who can fit in at a PI school. Type A's do extremely well, but I have seen them leave, especially when the administrator is as controlling as they are. Brown-nosers do well too ( perhaps, this is how I made it as long as I did). I just did what I was told. All the little teeny tiny things that MUST be done: turning in weekly minutely formatted lesson plans, creating AND keeping pace with an often unrealistic curriculum map ( pacing calendar) in order to be through the curriculum before "the test", teaching strictly from commercially created base program materials ( rarely straying for a glimpse into more engaging, creative, real-world, joyful lessons outside reading, writing, and math), attending meeting after, long excruciating, minute-by-minute-dictated, meeting ( keeping notes on everything which occurred for records---all part of the "monitoring" and "accountability" measures for our school site), putting a smile on my face and saying, " Okay, I'll do that." All the while, thinking, "How will I ever be able to do all that?", tolerating score manipulations by my principal ( so she could make the point that the test for my FIRST GRADERS was not calibrated to the STAR---oh my goodness) [ the scores were moved DOWN not UP], posting standards, schedules, and creating elaborate focus walls, testing, testing, testing to assess learning to "drive instruction" ( even though, to keep up with the pacing calendar, I rarely had time to go back and reteach what the children had failed to grasp), and on it went....
Teachers who are independent minded, creative, and know their craft...do not fair well at a PI school. I rediscovered the independent minded, creative, side of myself during my third year of teaching...and this is when I interviewed for another job in our district for a position at a Non-PI school.
This leads me to the main topic of this particular piece of writing ( you were wondering when I would get there). There is a new segregation in education. Teachers at PI schools are quite aware of the inequities they bear at their school sites. As they speak to their educator-friends at Non-PI schools, they are intelligent enough to ascertain the differences in expectations from administrators and bureaucratic entities. Teachers at Non-PI schools have more freedom and are allowed to be more creative. They are allowed to be professional educators who practice their craft.
Teachers at Non-PI schools, who have never worked at a PI school, often fancy themselves as miracle workers. As they see their high scores, they attribute it largely to themselves, rarely taking a look at the real reasons their students are able to meet the high assessment expectations.
What I heard over and over again in my interviews with educators, was that teachers at Non-PI schools have larger parameters to make their own decisions. They also talked about principals at Non-PI schools, who value their teaching staffs' opinions as professionals, and allowed them to decide what was best for their students. Interviewees spoke of overhearing conversations from teachers at Non-PI schools, panicked because they had two-whole English Language Learners (ELL) in their classes, when the teacher being interviewed had had more than 90% of their students who were ELL, when they had previously worked at a PI school.
One teacher talked about their experience. At a PI school, they had been deemed as less effective because their students continually scored Basic on assessments. When they left their assignment at a PI school and transferred to a Non-PI school, their students' scores skyrocketed, and they were suddenly effective!
Yes! There is a new segregation in education. It is a Have and Have-Not situation among teachers. At Non-Program Improvement schools, teachers are the Haves. They have more freedom, less restrictions, more use of their professional integrity, less bureaucratic scrutiny and administrative controls upon them( there is a formula in education today: high test scores=less administrative and bureaucratic control of teachers), more students whose primary language is English from white collar/middle class homes, and more parental support.
And then there are the Have-Nots. At Program Improvements schools, teachers "Have-not" a less stressful working environment or a larger degree of professional freedom. They "have not" a student population whose first language is the language of instruction, nor do their students come equipped with much of the foundational cultural background knowledge necessary for a wider degree of success in school.
These factors make a huge difference in the way a teacher teaches and a student becomes educated. These factors also make a difference in whether or not a teacher stays at a PI school and sometimes whether a teacher "makes it" in their profession. Because, statistics show students who are ELL, from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and/or are from ethnic minority groups, do not do as well on state tests, and state tests are EVERYTHING in the world of education today. And if a school has a large majority of the above mentioned subgroups, their scores will be lower, they will not make their API and/or AYP, and then the "sanctions" begin, and then intensify, until all joy and laughter disperses from a campus, as it slowly descends into the world of "PI-status", never to be the same.
If the teacher, who I spoke of at the beginning of this blog, had started her work with our district at a Non-PI school, and had been granted the luxurious environment which exists therein, I am quite certain her fate would have been different. So, in the end, this was not an equitable situation for her as a professional. She was judged according to a MUCH higher standard than a new teacher would have been at a Non-PI school.
As I have said before, there are two kinds of teachers who know what it is like to work at a Program Improvement school: those who are still there and those who have left.
My opinion is that there must be a new equality in the world of teaching. There must be a balance in the expectations teachers at PI schools are required to achieve. Who would want to keep their positions at these sites, when there is a world of greater professional freedom and less anxiety at an inter-district Non-PI school five miles away?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
PI Principals as BARRIERS to Positive Change for Staff and Students!
Okay, now I am angry.
As the Incredible Hulk used to say, " You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
This summer I went through a list of 6,065 California high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools to find schools which had been in Program Improvement for five consecutive years.
By the time I had finished this vast perusal, I had narrowed the list down to approximately 128 elementary schools in districts across the state.
I assumed...ASSUMED... that administrators would be eager to find out why teachers STAY at Program Improvements schools, since this would save their districts money, save them from having to hire, retrain, and reprogram new teachers, year after year, and since a smaller teacher turnover would provide their student populations with more stable experienced teaching staffs.
But, you know what they say about assuming ( but there will be no explicit language on this blog).
It was more difficult to acquire the school emails of the principals at the PI schools than I had thought it would be, so for sanity's sake, I sent an initial mass email to about 30 schools on my list. Out of those, only about eight principals bothered emailing me at all, and only three said they would ask their staff to take my survey ( which I made even easier to access by creating an online survey through Survey Monkey).
I then sent out an additional mass email to approximately ten schools. There was not ONE principal who said they would even ask their staff to take the survey. This was disturbing.
But even more disturbing than this dismal response to my survey, has been the qualitative data I have received while conducting interviews with teachers who have taught, or are teaching, at PI schools. A majority of the interviewees cited militant restrictive type administrators as a reason for the additional stresses at PI schools. (NOTE: These teachers also cited supportive realistically-minded principals as a reason teachers would stay at a PI school.)
This has led me to believe principals play a KEY role in either keeping or driving teachers away from PI schools. This has changed my focus for my project quite a bit.
What this action research project has shown me is that principals can either positively buffer their staff from the major pressures of bureaucratic and district pressures, or they can further add to those pressures through power-play tactics and also act as negative barriers for positive change, if THEY are the ones to solely decide what is best for their staff.
Since I am angry, and I have technology as an emotional outlet, I have decided to post an email I received JUST today. To protect the innocent, and the not so innocent, I have removed all names and school sites from the email.
Please take note that out of over 60 teachers and, now 4 principals, this principal is the only person who has made any comments about the content of the survey. That he, alone, decided what the "folks" at his school site would find beneficial speaks to the type of control principals have when it comes to what type of information enters the conscious domains of their teaching staff.
PRINCIPAL'S RESPONSE TO MY EMAIL ( WHICH I HAD ATTACHED A COPY OF THE SURVEY TO):
Hello again,
I have taken a look at the survey and while it doesn't look to be too time consuming, I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the questions. The teachers here at our site, are very committed to their profession and our students, but some of the questions might seem to suggest otherwise.
So, at this time, I think the folks at [ School Name] need to pass.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
Control-Freak Barrier-Building Principal ( Okay, that's me...I said that)
HERE WAS MY RESPONSE TO HIM:
Good afternoon,
Since this is a research project, I am very interested in your conclusion regarding some of the questions on the survey. You are the first PI administrator to make such an observation. If you have a moment, I would be interested in which questions you felt called into question the level of commitment your teachers have to students, since the research is being conducted in order to retain teachers at Program Improvement schools through supportive professional development. I worked at a Program Improvement school for several years and found my colleagues to be the most dedicated professionals.
Thank you for your time.
Most Sincerely,
ME
So...I am beginning to wonder what other sorts of information principals filter and monitor on behalf of their staff. What was this man afraid of?
When I was at a PI school ( the last year), a state appointed School Assistance Intervention Team ( SAIT) was assigned to our school site. I called the California Department of Education to see who these people were, who would be coming on site to judge how well I was doing my job and telling me what more I could do in my already busy days (without knowing me or my students). The bureaucrat in Sacramento assured me that the staff at our school was supposed to meet the team. I believed her.
Oh, they did come on site. And it was even believed by staff members that we were going to be able to meet and speak to them. This, however, never occurred. Though, I did see our principal escorting them to a far off classroom surrounded by her "cohort of sympathizers", a group of support personnel who she had apparently deemed to speak on our behalf.
This is just the type of principal-power-play that infuriates teachers at PI schools!
To the staff at the PI school with the principal who stands as a sentinel to censor and block you from information and ideas which could make you think in broader more enlightened ways, may your lunch hour seem long and your staff meetings short.
To the principal of that staff, undo your top button and have some chamomile tea!
As the Incredible Hulk used to say, " You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
This summer I went through a list of 6,065 California high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools to find schools which had been in Program Improvement for five consecutive years.
By the time I had finished this vast perusal, I had narrowed the list down to approximately 128 elementary schools in districts across the state.
I assumed...ASSUMED... that administrators would be eager to find out why teachers STAY at Program Improvements schools, since this would save their districts money, save them from having to hire, retrain, and reprogram new teachers, year after year, and since a smaller teacher turnover would provide their student populations with more stable experienced teaching staffs.
But, you know what they say about assuming ( but there will be no explicit language on this blog).
It was more difficult to acquire the school emails of the principals at the PI schools than I had thought it would be, so for sanity's sake, I sent an initial mass email to about 30 schools on my list. Out of those, only about eight principals bothered emailing me at all, and only three said they would ask their staff to take my survey ( which I made even easier to access by creating an online survey through Survey Monkey).
I then sent out an additional mass email to approximately ten schools. There was not ONE principal who said they would even ask their staff to take the survey. This was disturbing.
But even more disturbing than this dismal response to my survey, has been the qualitative data I have received while conducting interviews with teachers who have taught, or are teaching, at PI schools. A majority of the interviewees cited militant restrictive type administrators as a reason for the additional stresses at PI schools. (NOTE: These teachers also cited supportive realistically-minded principals as a reason teachers would stay at a PI school.)
This has led me to believe principals play a KEY role in either keeping or driving teachers away from PI schools. This has changed my focus for my project quite a bit.
What this action research project has shown me is that principals can either positively buffer their staff from the major pressures of bureaucratic and district pressures, or they can further add to those pressures through power-play tactics and also act as negative barriers for positive change, if THEY are the ones to solely decide what is best for their staff.
Since I am angry, and I have technology as an emotional outlet, I have decided to post an email I received JUST today. To protect the innocent, and the not so innocent, I have removed all names and school sites from the email.
Please take note that out of over 60 teachers and, now 4 principals, this principal is the only person who has made any comments about the content of the survey. That he, alone, decided what the "folks" at his school site would find beneficial speaks to the type of control principals have when it comes to what type of information enters the conscious domains of their teaching staff.
PRINCIPAL'S RESPONSE TO MY EMAIL ( WHICH I HAD ATTACHED A COPY OF THE SURVEY TO):
Hello again,
I have taken a look at the survey and while it doesn't look to be too time consuming, I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the questions. The teachers here at our site, are very committed to their profession and our students, but some of the questions might seem to suggest otherwise.
So, at this time, I think the folks at [ School Name] need to pass.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
Control-Freak Barrier-Building Principal ( Okay, that's me...I said that)
HERE WAS MY RESPONSE TO HIM:
Good afternoon,
Since this is a research project, I am very interested in your conclusion regarding some of the questions on the survey. You are the first PI administrator to make such an observation. If you have a moment, I would be interested in which questions you felt called into question the level of commitment your teachers have to students, since the research is being conducted in order to retain teachers at Program Improvement schools through supportive professional development. I worked at a Program Improvement school for several years and found my colleagues to be the most dedicated professionals.
Thank you for your time.
Most Sincerely,
ME
So...I am beginning to wonder what other sorts of information principals filter and monitor on behalf of their staff. What was this man afraid of?
When I was at a PI school ( the last year), a state appointed School Assistance Intervention Team ( SAIT) was assigned to our school site. I called the California Department of Education to see who these people were, who would be coming on site to judge how well I was doing my job and telling me what more I could do in my already busy days (without knowing me or my students). The bureaucrat in Sacramento assured me that the staff at our school was supposed to meet the team. I believed her.
Oh, they did come on site. And it was even believed by staff members that we were going to be able to meet and speak to them. This, however, never occurred. Though, I did see our principal escorting them to a far off classroom surrounded by her "cohort of sympathizers", a group of support personnel who she had apparently deemed to speak on our behalf.
This is just the type of principal-power-play that infuriates teachers at PI schools!
To the staff at the PI school with the principal who stands as a sentinel to censor and block you from information and ideas which could make you think in broader more enlightened ways, may your lunch hour seem long and your staff meetings short.
To the principal of that staff, undo your top button and have some chamomile tea!
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Blind Leading the Sighted
Many of my friends are teachers. And an even larger majority of them are those who have worked in a Program Improvement school.
They are some of the best people I know.
They have been through the refiner's fire of PI schools with gritted teeth and sweat on their brow as they have pushed through the mandated commercial curriculums, raced to keep up with unrealistic pacing calendars designed to "help" them get ALL the standards taught before the state test, dared students to achieve far beyond their capabilities ( and with NCLB mandates forcing out Art, Music, PE, Science and Social Studies...far beyond their motivation levels), posted standards on walls, which students didn't give a second glance at ( even when the teacher read them), and gave assessments until they were blue in the face.
Who knows their struggles? Only those who have taught at a PI school and stayed, and those who have taught at a PI school...and left.
Principals think they can empathize. After all, they are on campus every day, walking through classes, evaluating lessons, scanning and collecting lesson plans, putting together teacher inservices, going to meetings to learn of all those things they must tell their teachers to do, and then writing out the lists and giving the lectures so their teachers will do them, etc.
But do they really understand?
No.
A teacher friend shared this story. Her sister is a teacher at a Program Improvement school. As she had to leave campus for a morning appointment. She prepared for a substitute, leaving standards based and fidelity-to-the-base-program lesson plans and classwork. She even tried to make the volume of the work and depth of the lessons which needed to be covered easier, so as to not overwhelm the "guest teacher."
Well, the substitute never showed up. The principal had to take over the class.
When my friend's sister returned to the campus, she found the principal hovering over the desk with a look of deep concern on his face. These were his words, " I never knew. I ask my teachers to do this everyday, and I never knew."
Enough said.
They are some of the best people I know.
They have been through the refiner's fire of PI schools with gritted teeth and sweat on their brow as they have pushed through the mandated commercial curriculums, raced to keep up with unrealistic pacing calendars designed to "help" them get ALL the standards taught before the state test, dared students to achieve far beyond their capabilities ( and with NCLB mandates forcing out Art, Music, PE, Science and Social Studies...far beyond their motivation levels), posted standards on walls, which students didn't give a second glance at ( even when the teacher read them), and gave assessments until they were blue in the face.
Who knows their struggles? Only those who have taught at a PI school and stayed, and those who have taught at a PI school...and left.
Principals think they can empathize. After all, they are on campus every day, walking through classes, evaluating lessons, scanning and collecting lesson plans, putting together teacher inservices, going to meetings to learn of all those things they must tell their teachers to do, and then writing out the lists and giving the lectures so their teachers will do them, etc.
But do they really understand?
No.
A teacher friend shared this story. Her sister is a teacher at a Program Improvement school. As she had to leave campus for a morning appointment. She prepared for a substitute, leaving standards based and fidelity-to-the-base-program lesson plans and classwork. She even tried to make the volume of the work and depth of the lessons which needed to be covered easier, so as to not overwhelm the "guest teacher."
Well, the substitute never showed up. The principal had to take over the class.
When my friend's sister returned to the campus, she found the principal hovering over the desk with a look of deep concern on his face. These were his words, " I never knew. I ask my teachers to do this everyday, and I never knew."
Enough said.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Shh! We're Sort of Trying to Close the Achievement Gap
Remember the darling Warner Bros. cartoon character, Elmer Fudd?
How he would tippy-toe about in the forest with his useless
rifle, until he would at last slowly turn to the camera and say in a "lispy"
whisper, "Shh. I'm hunting wabbit."
Somehow, I have come to see post-NCLB bureaucrats in this same light,
tippy-toeing about holding to their ridiculous educational mandates whispering,
"Shh. We don't want anyone to know children ( ELL, Low-socioeconomic, and Ethnic Minorities) at low performing schools (Title 1 and PI schools) have the right (there are provisions, and there is supposed to be funding), to allow them to transfer, within their district to more
successful schools."
Richard D. Kahlenberg calls this socioeconomic integration and feels this would be an effective way to close the achievement gap across racial and income groups, since research has shown students will perform better in a higher performing (middle class) school than in a high-poverty (PI-type) school.
What? Research said so? And the government is not acting on this research the way it did on the type of "research" which was used to create the developmentally inappropriate curriculum since NCLB first reared its well-intentioned, but terribly flawed, ugly head? Is this the same bureaucratically-challenged government which was an accomplice in creating such stressful restrictive environments at PI schools, that teachers flee them at statistically significant rates because of the accountability measures of NCLB, which were created to CLOSE the achievement gap? Are these the same people who are now hush-hush about the benefits of socioeconomically integrating public schools ?
I know they are hush-hush because a recent report illustrated the fact that less than one percent of students, who are eligible for these transfers under Title 1, have even taken advantage of this opportunity. Now, I know what teachers at Title 1 schools are saying, " But, each year, a flyer is sent home informing parents of their "right" to transfer to a non-Title 1 school site. So, isn't that enough?"
The dismal response to the offer tells me NO it is NOT enough. Enough would be a MUCH larger percentage...even 20% would be better, but not enough. If research shows "socioeconomic integration" works, why aren't administrators and bureaucrats (you know, the people who tell teachers how much they really care about children---especially marginalized populations of children) really PUSHING parents to transfer their students? This would level the playing field, not only for the students, but for the teachers as well, since it is a commonly known fact that teachers at Title 1, PI schools have greater stresses and work loads.
Shh. A teacher told me something bureaucrats and administrators do not want the public to now. (teachers know a great deal about what goes on at school sites). This educator told me when a school is labeled as Title 1 or Program Improvement, there are definitely those who transfer out. But who are they?
In the world of education, it is equivalent to what real estate agents call "white flight". Families, not necessarily Caucasian, but definitely of higher socioeconomic statuses, are the ones who take flight. They put in for the transfers to higher performing schools. And so, schools which used to have a greater balance of ethnic and socioeconomic student populations have seen a new imbalance in the levels of their poor, English language learners, and ethnic minorities, as the parents of more middle class "majority" children take their children out of PI schools and get them placed in higher performing educational situations.
This lets me know there are parents who are aware of the destructive nature of Program Improvement schools.
To really shake things up, to really make an effort to let every parent at Title 1, Program Improvement schools aware of the researched-based benefits, it would take a lot of real work at the "higher levels"of the educational system, more than just a whisper about the beneficial programs available to students. The problem is classroom educators know that outside the classroom in the far away district and government offices, what occurs is mostly talk. Teachers and students accomplish the real work and change in education.
How he would tippy-toe about in the forest with his useless
rifle, until he would at last slowly turn to the camera and say in a "lispy"
whisper, "Shh. I'm hunting wabbit."
Somehow, I have come to see post-NCLB bureaucrats in this same light,
tippy-toeing about holding to their ridiculous educational mandates whispering,
"Shh. We don't want anyone to know children ( ELL, Low-socioeconomic, and Ethnic Minorities) at low performing schools (Title 1 and PI schools) have the right (there are provisions, and there is supposed to be funding), to allow them to transfer, within their district to more
successful schools."
Richard D. Kahlenberg calls this socioeconomic integration and feels this would be an effective way to close the achievement gap across racial and income groups, since research has shown students will perform better in a higher performing (middle class) school than in a high-poverty (PI-type) school.
What? Research said so? And the government is not acting on this research the way it did on the type of "research" which was used to create the developmentally inappropriate curriculum since NCLB first reared its well-intentioned, but terribly flawed, ugly head? Is this the same bureaucratically-challenged government which was an accomplice in creating such stressful restrictive environments at PI schools, that teachers flee them at statistically significant rates because of the accountability measures of NCLB, which were created to CLOSE the achievement gap? Are these the same people who are now hush-hush about the benefits of socioeconomically integrating public schools ?
I know they are hush-hush because a recent report illustrated the fact that less than one percent of students, who are eligible for these transfers under Title 1, have even taken advantage of this opportunity. Now, I know what teachers at Title 1 schools are saying, " But, each year, a flyer is sent home informing parents of their "right" to transfer to a non-Title 1 school site. So, isn't that enough?"
The dismal response to the offer tells me NO it is NOT enough. Enough would be a MUCH larger percentage...even 20% would be better, but not enough. If research shows "socioeconomic integration" works, why aren't administrators and bureaucrats (you know, the people who tell teachers how much they really care about children---especially marginalized populations of children) really PUSHING parents to transfer their students? This would level the playing field, not only for the students, but for the teachers as well, since it is a commonly known fact that teachers at Title 1, PI schools have greater stresses and work loads.
Shh. A teacher told me something bureaucrats and administrators do not want the public to now. (teachers know a great deal about what goes on at school sites). This educator told me when a school is labeled as Title 1 or Program Improvement, there are definitely those who transfer out. But who are they?
In the world of education, it is equivalent to what real estate agents call "white flight". Families, not necessarily Caucasian, but definitely of higher socioeconomic statuses, are the ones who take flight. They put in for the transfers to higher performing schools. And so, schools which used to have a greater balance of ethnic and socioeconomic student populations have seen a new imbalance in the levels of their poor, English language learners, and ethnic minorities, as the parents of more middle class "majority" children take their children out of PI schools and get them placed in higher performing educational situations.
This lets me know there are parents who are aware of the destructive nature of Program Improvement schools.
To really shake things up, to really make an effort to let every parent at Title 1, Program Improvement schools aware of the researched-based benefits, it would take a lot of real work at the "higher levels"of the educational system, more than just a whisper about the beneficial programs available to students. The problem is classroom educators know that outside the classroom in the far away district and government offices, what occurs is mostly talk. Teachers and students accomplish the real work and change in education.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Retaining Teachers at California's Program Improvements Schools Through Issue-Relevant Professional Development
Who Cares?
Who cares if teachers are leaving California's program improvement (PI) schools at a significantly higher rate than teachers leave "non"program improvement schools?
Who cares if teachers are creating instability in schools where a majority of the students are from low income families, have a primary language other than English, and/or are from an ethnic minority group?
Who cares if research shows that one ineffective unengaging teacher can cause a ripple effect of academic chaos in a child's life for years to come?
I CARE!
We should all care!
There is an annual migration in California which has nothing to do with the darling swallows of Capistrano. It has to do with teachers. Teachers who migrate away from PI schools, where NCLB accountability can put a stranglehold on educators and place relentless demands on them in rather exceptional circumstances.
At the end of each year, when as many as a quarter of teachers leave PI schools sites and a fresh batch of teachers are hired for the following year, needing to be retrained, rewired, and reestablished, who suffers? Teachers can, after all, find new jobs.
The students suffer. This must stop.
Who cares if teachers are leaving California's program improvement (PI) schools at a significantly higher rate than teachers leave "non"program improvement schools?
Who cares if teachers are creating instability in schools where a majority of the students are from low income families, have a primary language other than English, and/or are from an ethnic minority group?
Who cares if research shows that one ineffective unengaging teacher can cause a ripple effect of academic chaos in a child's life for years to come?
I CARE!
We should all care!
There is an annual migration in California which has nothing to do with the darling swallows of Capistrano. It has to do with teachers. Teachers who migrate away from PI schools, where NCLB accountability can put a stranglehold on educators and place relentless demands on them in rather exceptional circumstances.
At the end of each year, when as many as a quarter of teachers leave PI schools sites and a fresh batch of teachers are hired for the following year, needing to be retrained, rewired, and reestablished, who suffers? Teachers can, after all, find new jobs.
The students suffer. This must stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
