"Ms. Baker, why are you teaching here?" one student, whom I'll call Solomon, inquired during one of our after school tutoring sessions. "You went to college," he continued unabashedly. "Um
One surprise for me, in my brief stint as a headmaster of a private Christian academy in a middle-class suburb (that should not have been a surprise): The public system is required to serve all children. It does not. There are many children in it that function poorly or wash out altogether. SOME, simply need a different option. Schools are big institutions. Institutions are structured around the needs of the institution--not of the child. Yes, a slice of the very activist parents will land their children in private schools--but there are a surprising number of desperate parents who land their children there because they have completely failed in the public system.
It depends what you mean by "better". If you mean "more prestigious" then you probably have a point. But I mean "better than the current crapulance offered up by a lot of public school systems", and I have a lot of experience -- Milwaukee, Washington DC, even the Cornerstone schools in Detroit -- to back it up. School choice might not get urban kids into Snootytoot Prep but I'm quite confident it will get them better schools than they have now.
LV
Well, my parents were teachers and saw first-hand the games that people
played. The reality is that private and charter schools will scoop up the
better students because they have more involved parents and, more likely, more
stable domestic situations, which contribute mightily to a child's performance
in the classroom -- an issue that "choice" supporters ignore. In fact, the
voucher system in Milwaukee was pretty much a failure and Polly Williams, who
spearheaded it, admitted that she felt she had been used; when one study that
touted it as a success (trumpeted on the Wall Street Journal's editorial
page), the teachers' union pointed out so many holes in it that the results
had to be withdrawn. Besides, have you noticed that folks who have their kids
in the "better" schools oppose vouchers? The reason is simple: "We put our
kids in this school so we wouldn't have to deal with that."
Dr. Baker-Fulgham,
Thank you for your work and for your perspective. I too am hopeful that we as Christians will believe that children can learn--and that it is not broken families or broken children that are the problem, rather a broken system (and we are all part of it). When we start caring as much about the education of our students as we do about things like teacher tenure and teacher employment, we will start to fulfil the promise our country makes to ALL of its students. Thanks again!
are you implying that qualifications are the most important thing in determining teacher effectiveness? because studies have shown that TFA teachers are some of the most effective teachers in their placement schools, even without all your credit hours of education, psychology, and counseling. TFA teachers do go through intensive training that has been likened to boot camp for teachers, but the most important characteristic of TFA teachers is their enthusiasm and their dirve to eliminate educational inequalities in schools that are usually lacking in such teachers. with the state that american public education happens to be in, enthusiastic, effective teachers like those that work for TFA are (in my opinion) needed more than those who can simply tout "qualifications" but can't deliver results. I am not implying that you yourself did not deliver such results, but maybe those that your district laid off weren't able to produce marked academic improvements in their struggling schools.
One surprise for me, in my brief stint as a headmaster of a private Christian academy in a middle-class suburb (that should not have been a surprise): The public system is required to serve all children. It does not. There are many children in it that function poorly or wash out altogether. SOME, simply need a different option. Schools are big institutions. Institutions are structured around the needs of the institution--not of the child. Yes, a slice of the very activist parents will land their children in private schools--but there are a surprising number of desperate parents who land their children there because they have completely failed in the public system.
are you implying that qualifications are the most important thing in determining teacher effectiveness? because studies have shown that TFA teachers are some of the most effective teachers in their placement schools, even without all your credit hours of education, psychology, and counseling. TFA teachers do go through intensive training that has been likened to boot camp for teachers, but the most important characteristic of TFA teachers is their enthusiasm and their dirve to eliminate educational inequalities in schools that are usually lacking in such teachers. with the state that american public education happens to be in, enthusiastic, effective teachers like those that work for TFA are (in my opinion) needed more than those who can simply tout "qualifications" but can't deliver results. I am not implying that you yourself did not deliver such results, but maybe those that your district laid off weren't able to produce marked academic improvements in their struggling schools.
Actually I think NCLB fails (Well, aspects of it fail. The premise of it and the way it has brought more accountability and standards-based education has not failed) because of the over-emphasis on the standardized testing. Due to this emphasis, schools are cutting out extracurricular programs and teachers are not teaching as much social studies and math (since these subjects are not on the test). Many teachers, mostly those at "failing" schools, feel demoralized, tired, and frustrated. Stress levels at those "failing" schools are very, very high. This is one reason why these schools have a more difficult time getting good, qualified teachers, and administrators.
There are alot of other problems that I don't think anyone can really understand unless they are actually in the classroom and have administered and seen the tests and experienced how the whole NCLB works.
A standardized test also is merely a paper-based test scored by unidentified persons, none of whom are familiar with the students, and then, ultimately, the score of the student determines whether they are "failing" or "succeeding," even though those determining this have no knowledge of that student and any actual progress made in the classroom.
For instance, a 6th grade English language learner (someone who's primary language is Spanish and who is not yet proficient in English) reads at a 2nd grade level. The teacher works hard with the student and the student makes 3 years of growth in reading! Thus, at the end of the year, the student is reading at a 5th grade level.
According to the test, however, he is still failing. And there is no account given for the growth he's made because it only measures his 5th grade ability. This score can also then be used to determine that the teacher is doing a poor job. And these scores can be very demoralizing to teachers... ones like this who work hard and watch their students make growth, yet the growth is "not enough" based on the student's test scores.
This is quite likely. I know of schools who have reputations of letting go of teachers after their 2nd year because after the 2nd year, they are tenured. Rather than giving tenure, in which the teacher will then go up the pay scale year by year, they hire new teachers, and continue this cycle. One school district where I live was suued for doing this.
Much easier said then done.
Tracking a student is almost an impossible task due to lack of time and manpower. When you consider how many students there are and all the subjects they take and the fact that all this info. is kept in files, you'd have to go through each child's file (which is FULL of papers, report cards, etc. going all the way back to kindergarten!), get out the report cards, compare the grades in each subject, read the comments, etc. And this does not take into account students who move or change schools.
It will always be an inaccurate measurement when the measurement is done by a govt. entity because they are not actually IN the classroom. The best assessment includes ongoing assessment that is both formal and informal , those done by tests as well as those done by observations. Until the govt. gives more power to the schools, their principals, and teachers, accurately measuring students' growth will be a problem.
Standardized testing in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But when the govt. determines how a school, its teachers, and its students are doing based on one score on one standardized test, that is a problem. The test does not take into account many variables that can affect outcome, things like learning disabilities, English language learners, poor test takers, and those kids who just don't give a darn and don't try hard to do well on the test.
Yes, the tests did introduce a measure of accountability, but unfortunately, they also created a monster as more and more emphasis has been placed on these tests. The tests also cannot accurately measure all that a child has learned because the depth and breadth of a child's learning, as well as their growth, cannot be fully measured by multiple-choice questions with fill-in-the-bubble answers.
All yoru comments are exactly right. Standardized tests are a "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessment. But children do not come as "one size."
There are many factors in play as well. The outcome can be affected by many things... whether the child is tired, sick, or unmotivated to do his best. As a former teacher, I can recall upper grade students who would unabashadly admit that they simply did not even bother to try. They just bubbled in whatever. There was no repurcussions for them because the test did not determine their class grades or whether they moved on to the next grade.
There is a place for standardized tests. They are ONE type of assessment, and they can give insight. However, to get a truly accurate picture of a student's academic growth, one fill-in-the-bubble test won't be a good assessment of that. The test does not reflect, or take into account, the diversity and variables within the classroom that can affect outcome.
I can actually agree with you on this, having been a teacher at both private and public schools. Many of the kids at the private school where I taught were there because they were having (or causing) trouble in the public schools and the parents took them out and sent them to us so that we could "fix" them.
The area where I taught was a large metropolitan area where the public schools were very big and riddled with problems. There was an abundance of private schools in the area, many of them Christian, and many kids attended these schools simply because they provided a safer, less problematic environment than the public schools in that area (many of which had pretty bad reputations).
This is quite likely. I know of schools who have reputations of letting go of teachers after their 2nd year because after the 2nd year, they are tenured. Rather than giving tenure, in which the teacher will then go up the pay scale year by year, they hire new teachers, and continue this cycle. One school district where I live was suued for doing this.
A standardized test also is merely a paper-based test scored by unidentified persons, none of whom are familiar with the students, and then, ultimately, the score of the student determines whether they are "failing" or "succeeding," even though those determining this have no knowledge of that student and any actual progress made in the classroom.
For instance, a 6th grade English language learner (someone who's primary language is Spanish and who is not yet proficient in English) reads at a 2nd grade level. The teacher works hard with the student and the student makes 3 years of growth in reading! Thus, at the end of the year, the student is reading at a 5th grade level.
According to the test, however, he is still failing. And there is no account given for the growth he's made because it only measures his 5th grade ability. This score can also then be used to determine that the teacher is doing a poor job. And these scores can be very demoralizing to teachers... ones like this who work hard and watch their students make growth, yet the growth is "not enough" based on the student's test scores.
Actually I think NCLB fails because of the over-emphasis on the standardized testing. Due to this emphasis, schools are cutting out extracurricular programs and teachers are not teaching as much social studies and math (since these subjects are not on the test). Many teachers, mostly those at "failing" schools, feel demoralized, tired, and frustrated. Stress levels at those "failing" schools are very, very high. This is one reason why these schools have a more difficult time getting good, qualified teachers, and administrators.
All yoru comments are exactly right. Standardized tests are a "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessment. But children do not come as "one size."
There are many factors in play as well. The outcome can be affected by many things... whether the child is tired, sick, or unmotivated to do his best. As a former teacher, I can recall upper grade students who would unabashadly admit that they simply did not even bother to try. They just bubbled in whatever. There was no repurcussions for them because the test did not determine their class grades or whether they moved on to the next grade.
There is a place for standardized tests. They are ONE type of assessment, and they can give insight. However, to get a truly accurate picture of a student's academic growth, one fill-in-the-bubble test won't be a good assessment of that. The test does not reflect, or take into account, the diversity and variables within the classroom that can affect outcome.
I can actually agree with you on this, having been a teacher at both private and public schools. Many of the kids at the private school where I taught were there because they were having (or causing) trouble in the public schools and the parents took them out and sent them to us so that we could "fix" them.
The area where I taught was a large metropolitan area where the public schools were very big and riddled with problems. There was an abundance of private schools in the area, many of them Christian, and many kids attended these schools simply because they provided a safer, less problematic environment than the public schools in that area (many of which had pretty bad reputations).
In case you skipped the end of the article, here it is:
"Are we encouraging our most talented college graduates and young professionals to teach in schools like Solomon's? Are we mobilizing our church communities to volunteer, tutor, and provide much-needed supplies to under-resourced schools? Are we mobilizing on behalf of students like Solomon to demand that lawmakers create policies that will improve the quality of their education?"
Nowhere in that statement does she suggest money is the answer.
This article underscores why NCLB is such an ineffective policy. It doesn't take a standardized test to determine which schools are failing and which are succeeding. Graduation rates usually are a good enough indication of that. Most failing schools already know they are failing schools, and so, apparently, do the students in those schools, if Solomon's testimony holds any weight.
So instead of the funds that went into those standardized tests to supposedly identify failing schools, they would have been far better used to do things like make sure all schools have good resources and attract talented teachers into regions in need.
Here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, some tenured and state certified to teach in Oklahoma teachers got laid off from the Tulsa Public School System so that "Teach for America" folks could take their place.
It didn't matter how qualified the now former teacher was.
I don't know exactly how it is now; but, before I could be certified to be a teacher in the 1960s here in Oklahoma, I had to take so many credit hours in Education, psychology and counseling, in addition to my major as well as do intern teaching one semester before I could be certified to teach in the state.
From what I have read about the Teach for America program, one of the things that those involved in it are to do is teach the students how to pass the standardized tests required by the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act.
The teachers no longer teach real class subjects like they are supposed to do to the children. They just teach the children how to pass standardized tests made up by for-profit testing companies.
Ah, the "Teaching to the Test" canard.
No Child Left Behind had some huge flaws, but standardized testing was not one of them. Those standardized tests introduced a measure of accountability. They established measurements that allow us to compare districts. In order to pass the tests, students needed to actually learn something, meaning that teachers would be expected to provide some genuine instruction.
It's nice to have teachers who know lots of things before they start teaching, but what really matters is students who know something when class is done.
LV
Actually, graduation rates by themselves are almost meaningless. If the curriculum is watered down enough "graduation" could signify nothing more than a government-mandated waste of one's precious youth. And while failing schools might know they are failing, if there's no penalties and no accountability, a failing school system might decide failure's not so awful. (Ever heard of Detroit?)
NCLB fails because it doesn't shake up the public schools enough. Standardized testing was one of the few good features -- they establish solid expectations and give schools goals to shoot for aside from passing a new millage increase and enhancing perks for administrators. The next education reforms will challenge the top-down power structures that have built up around education through charter schools, vouchers, and other methods that introduce flexibility and choice. My hope is that standardized tests will remain in place.
LV
This is quite likely. I know of schools who have reputations of letting go of teachers after their 2nd year because after the 2nd year, they are tenured. Rather than giving tenure, in which the teacher will then go up the pay scale year by year, they hire new teachers, and continue this cycle. One school district where I live was suued for doing this.
Actually I think NCLB fails (Well, aspects of it fail. The premise of it and the way it has brought more accountability and standards-based education has not failed) because of the over-emphasis on the standardized testing. Due to this emphasis, schools are cutting out extracurricular programs and teachers are not teaching as much social studies and math (since these subjects are not on the test). Many teachers, mostly those at "failing" schools, feel demoralized, tired, and frustrated. Stress levels at those "failing" schools are very, very high. This is one reason why these schools have a more difficult time getting good, qualified teachers, and administrators.
There are alot of other problems that I don't think anyone can really understand unless they are actually in the classroom and have administered and seen the tests and experienced how the whole NCLB works.
Kudos on what sounds like an excellent job. The fact is if more good teachers like yourself made this type of effort we WOULD see a difference in our inner city schools.
I hope that one of the biggest lesson you are teaching these students that the "can make it". And that our great nation, with all of its flaws, is one of the few countries where the poor have a chance to not be poor anymore. If their eyes on focused on how "unfair" things are to them, they'll never make it. You have to focus them on the "opportunities" they have. Even if others have more opportunties, God has placed them where they are for a reason and he can help them soar like eagles.
What a great way to invest your life. My prayers are with you.
A standardized test also is merely a paper-based test scored by unidentified persons, none of whom are familiar with the students, and then, ultimately, the score of the student determines whether they are "failing" or "succeeding," even though those determining this have no knowledge of that student and any actual progress made in the classroom.
For instance, a 6th grade English language learner (someone who's primary language is Spanish and who is not yet proficient in English) reads at a 2nd grade level. The teacher works hard with the student and the student makes 3 years of growth in reading! Thus, at the end of the year, the student is reading at a 5th grade level.
According to the test, however, he is still failing. And there is no account given for the growth he's made because it only measures his 5th grade ability. This score can also then be used to determine that the teacher is doing a poor job. And these scores can be very demoralizing to teachers... ones like this who work hard and watch their students make growth, yet the growth is "not enough" based on the student's test scores.
A standardized test also is merely a paper-based test scored by unidentified persons, none of whom are familiar with the students, and then, ultimately, the score of the student determines whether they are "failing" or "succeeding," even though those determining this have no knowledge of that student and any actual progress made in the classroom.
For instance, a 6th grade English language learner (someone who's primary language is Spanish and who is not yet proficient in English) reads at a 2nd grade level. The teacher works hard with the student and the student makes 3 years of growth in reading! Thus, at the end of the year, the student is reading at a 5th grade level.
According to the test, however, he is still failing. And there is no account given for the growth he's made because it only measures his 5th grade ability. This score can also then be used to determine that the teacher is doing a poor job. And these scores can be very demoralizing to teachers... ones like this who work hard and watch their students make growth, yet the growth is "not enough" based on the student's test scores.
Actually I think NCLB fails because of the over-emphasis on the standardized testing. Due to this emphasis, schools are cutting out extracurricular programs and teachers are not teaching as much social studies and math (since these subjects are not on the test). Many teachers, mostly those at "failing" schools, feel demoralized, tired, and frustrated. Stress levels at those "failing" schools are very, very high. This is one reason why these schools have a more difficult time getting good, qualified teachers, and administrators.
This is quite likely. I know of schools who have reputations of letting go of teachers after their 2nd year because after the 2nd year, they are tenured. Rather than giving tenure, in which the teacher will then go up the pay scale year by year, they hire new teachers, and continue this cycle. One school district where I live was suued for doing this.
Much easier said then done.
Tracking a student is almost an impossible task due to lack of time and manpower. When you consider how many students there are and all the subjects they take and the fact that all this info. is kept in files, you'd have to go through each child's file (which is FULL of papers, report cards, etc. going all the way back to kindergarten!), get out the report cards, compare the grades in each subject, read the comments, etc. And this does not take into account students who move or change schools.
It will always be an inaccurate measurement when the measurement is done by a govt. entity because they are not actually IN the classroom. The best assessment includes ongoing assessment that is both formal and informal , those done by tests as well as those done by observations. Until the govt. gives more power to the schools, their principals, and teachers, accurately measuring students' growth will be a problem.
Standardized testing in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. But when the govt. determines how a school, its teachers, and its students are doing based on one score on one standardized test, that is a problem. The test does not take into account many variables that can affect outcome, things like learning disabilities, English language learners, poor test takers, and those kids who just don't give a darn and don't try hard to do well on the test.
Yes, the tests did introduce a measure of accountability, but unfortunately, they also created a monster as more and more emphasis has been placed on these tests. The tests also cannot accurately measure all that a child has learned because the depth and breadth of a child's learning, as well as their growth, cannot be fully measured by multiple-choice questions with fill-in-the-bubble answers.
In case you skipped the end of the article, here it is:
"Are we encouraging our most talented college graduates and young professionals to teach in schools like Solomon's? Are we mobilizing our church communities to volunteer, tutor, and provide much-needed supplies to under-resourced schools? Are we mobilizing on behalf of students like Solomon to demand that lawmakers create policies that will improve the quality of their education?"
Nowhere in that statement does she suggest money is the answer.
Of course, the problem with the standardized tests, and there are many, but I'll only address one, is that the make up of the class has an effect on the outcomes. A few teacher friends of mine have expressed frustration that if they are teaching a class of challenging students, such as those for whom English is a second language, they are still held to the same standard. And so the teacher looks like they aren't doing their job, even though their job is far more difficult than the teacher who has a class full of native speakers.
This article underscores why NCLB is such an ineffective policy. It doesn't take a standardized test to determine which schools are failing and which are succeeding. Graduation rates usually are a good enough indication of that. Most failing schools already know they are failing schools, and so, apparently, do the students in those schools, if Solomon's testimony holds any weight.
So instead of the funds that went into those standardized tests to supposedly identify failing schools, they would have been far better used to do things like make sure all schools have good resources and attract talented teachers into regions in need.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
In case you skipped the end of the article, here it is:
"Are we encouraging our most talented college graduates and young professionals to teach in schools like Solomon's? Are we mobilizing our church communities to volunteer, tutor, and provide much-needed supplies to under-resourced schools? Are we mobilizing on behalf of students like Solomon to demand that lawmakers create policies that will improve the quality of their education?"
Nowhere in that statement does she suggest money is the answer.
In case you skipped the end of the article, here it is:
"Are we encouraging our most talented college graduates and young professionals to teach in schools like Solomon's? Are we mobilizing our church communities to volunteer, tutor, and provide much-needed supplies to under-resourced schools? Are we mobilizing on behalf of students like Solomon to demand that lawmakers create policies that will improve the quality of their education?"
Nowhere in that statement does she suggest money is the answer.
This article underscores why NCLB is such an ineffective policy. It doesn't take a standardized test to determine which schools are failing and which are succeeding. Graduation rates usually are a good enough indication of that. Most failing schools already know they are failing schools, and so, apparently, do the students in those schools, if Solomon's testimony holds any weight.
So instead of the funds that went into those standardized tests to supposedly identify failing schools, they would have been far better used to do things like make sure all schools have good resources and attract talented teachers into regions in need.
This article underscores why NCLB is such an ineffective policy. It doesn't take a standardized test to determine which schools are failing and which are succeeding. Graduation rates usually are a good enough indication of that. Most failing schools already know they are failing schools, and so, apparently, do the students in those schools, if Solomon's testimony holds any weight.
So instead of the funds that went into those standardized tests to supposedly identify failing schools, they would have been far better used to do things like make sure all schools have good resources and attract talented teachers into regions in need.
Here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, some tenured and state certified to teach in Oklahoma teachers got laid off from the Tulsa Public School System so that "Teach for America" folks could take their place.
It didn't matter how qualified the now former teacher was.
I don't know exactly how it is now; but, before I could be certified to be a teacher in the 1960s here in Oklahoma, I had to take so many credit hours in Education, psychology and counseling, in addition to my major as well as do intern teaching one semester before I could be certified to teach in the state.
Here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, some tenured and state certified to teach in Oklahoma teachers got laid off from the Tulsa Public School System so that "Teach for America" folks could take their place.
It didn't matter how qualified the now former teacher was.
I don't know exactly how it is now; but, before I could be certified to be a teacher in the 1960s here in Oklahoma, I had to take so many credit hours in Education, psychology and counseling, in addition to my major as well as do intern teaching one semester before I could be certified to teach in the state.
From what I have read about the Teach for America program, one of the things that those involved in it are to do is teach the students how to pass the standardized tests required by the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act.
The teachers no longer teach real class subjects like they are supposed to do to the children. They just teach the children how to pass standardized tests made up by for-profit testing companies.
From what I have read about the Teach for America program, one of the things that those involved in it are to do is teach the students how to pass the standardized tests required by the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act.
The teachers no longer teach real class subjects like they are supposed to do to the children. They just teach the children how to pass standardized tests made up by for-profit testing companies.
Ah, the "Teaching to the Test" canard.
No Child Left Behind had some huge flaws, but standardized testing was not one of them. Those standardized tests introduced a measure of accountability. They established measurements that allow us to compare districts. In order to pass the tests, students needed to actually learn something, meaning that teachers would be expected to provide some genuine instruction.
It's nice to have teachers who know lots of things before they start teaching, but what really matters is students who know something when class is done.
LV
Ah, the "Teaching to the Test" canard.
No Child Left Behind had some huge flaws, but standardized testing was not one of them. Those standardized tests introduced a measure of accountability. They established measurements that allow us to compare districts. In order to pass the tests, students needed to actually learn something, meaning that teachers would be expected to provide some genuine instruction.
It's nice to have teachers who know lots of things before they start teaching, but what really matters is students who know something when class is done.
LV
Actually, graduation rates by themselves are almost meaningless. If the curriculum is watered down enough "graduation" could signify nothing more than a government-mandated waste of one's precious youth. And while failing schools might know they are failing, if there's no penalties and no accountability, a failing school system might decide failure's not so awful. (Ever heard of Detroit?)
NCLB fails because it doesn't shake up the public schools enough. Standardized testing was one of the few good features -- they establish solid expectations and give schools goals to shoot for aside from passing a new millage increase and enhancing perks for administrators. The next education reforms will challenge the top-down power structures that have built up around education through charter schools, vouchers, and other methods that introduce flexibility and choice. My hope is that standardized tests will remain in place.
LV
Actually, graduation rates by themselves are almost meaningless. If the curriculum is watered down enough "graduation" could signify nothing more than a government-mandated waste of one's precious youth. And while failing schools might know they are failing, if there's no penalties and no accountability, a failing school system might decide failure's not so awful. (Ever heard of Detroit?)
NCLB fails because it doesn't shake up the public schools enough. Standardized testing was one of the few good features -- they establish solid expectations and give schools goals to shoot for aside from passing a new millage increase and enhancing perks for administrators. The next education reforms will challenge the top-down power structures that have built up around education through charter schools, vouchers, and other methods that introduce flexibility and choice. My hope is that standardized tests will remain in place.
LV
Kudos on what sounds like an excellent job. The fact is if more good teachers like yourself made this type of effort we WOULD see a difference in our inner city schools.
I hope that one of the biggest lesson you are teaching these students that the "can make it". And that our great nation, with all of its flaws, is one of the few countries where the poor have a chance to not be poor anymore. If their eyes on focused on how "unfair" things are to them, they'll never make it. You have to focus them on the "opportunities" they have. Even if others have more opportunties, God has placed them where they are for a reason and he can help them soar like eagles.
What a great way to invest your life. My prayers are with you.
Kudos on what sounds like an excellent job. The fact is if more good teachers like yourself made this type of effort we WOULD see a difference in our inner city schools.
I hope that one of the biggest lesson you are teaching these students that the "can make it". And that our great nation, with all of its flaws, is one of the few countries where the poor have a chance to not be poor anymore. If their eyes on focused on how "unfair" things are to them, they'll never make it. You have to focus them on the "opportunities" they have. Even if others have more opportunties, God has placed them where they are for a reason and he can help them soar like eagles.
What a great way to invest your life. My prayers are with you.
Of course, the problem with the standardized tests, and there are many, but I'll only address one, is that the make up of the class has an effect on the outcomes. A few teacher friends of mine have expressed frustration that if they are teaching a class of challenging students, such as those for whom English is a second language, they are still held to the same standard. And so the teacher looks like they aren't doing their job, even though their job is far more difficult than the teacher who has a class full of native speakers.
Of course, the problem with the standardized tests, and there are many, but I'll only address one, is that the make up of the class has an effect on the outcomes. A few teacher friends of mine have expressed frustration that if they are teaching a class of challenging students, such as those for whom English is a second language, they are still held to the same standard. And so the teacher looks like they aren't doing their job, even though their job is far more difficult than the teacher who has a class full of native speakers.
In New York City, nearly 200 churches have adopted a local public school for meaningful service and advocacy since September 2008 as part of 20/20 Vision for Schools -- the movement to see public education transformed in NYC and beyond within a single generation of students. Kids who began first grade last year are the high school graduating class of 2020. They are the generation for whom the promise of public education -- that if you stay in school you will be equipped with the character and skills necessary to succeed in life -- must finally be realized.
Restoring justice to education, i.e. eliminating the two-tiered system Nicole so eloquently describes, is an issue that requires leadership, and one our congregations are uniquely suited to lead. On any given Sunday, 50%-80% of every congregation -- the people who sit in the pews -- are directly connected to schools. That means they are already positioned by God for impact, if only our pulpit people -- pastors, teachers, etc -- would activate them as salt and light within those schools (Ephesians 4, Matthew 5). 20/20 Vision is committed to open sourcing our experience, sharing best practices, and learning from anyone or any organization willing to move towards meaningful reform. Engage the movement online at http://2020schools.net
In New York City, nearly 200 churches have adopted a local public school for meaningful service and advocacy since September 2008 as part of 20/20 Vision for Schools -- the movement to see public education transformed in NYC and beyond within a single generation of students. Kids who began first grade last year are the high school graduating class of 2020. They are the generation for whom the promise of public education -- that if you stay in school you will be equipped with the character and skills necessary to succeed in life -- must finally be realized.
Restoring justice to education, i.e. eliminating the two-tiered system Nicole so eloquently describes, is an issue that requires leadership, and one our congregations are uniquely suited to lead. On any given Sunday, 50%-80% of every congregation -- the people who sit in the pews -- are directly connected to schools. That means they are already positioned by God for impact, if only our pulpit people -- pastors, teachers, etc -- would activate them as salt and light within those schools (Ephesians 4, Matthew 5). 20/20 Vision is committed to open sourcing our experience, sharing best practices, and learning from anyone or any organization willing to move towards meaningful reform. Engage the movement online at http://2020schools.net
There are ways to address this problem: in particular schools and teachers should be evaluated on both their raw scores and on academic progress -- comparing students' knowledge prior to and after the school year.
The fact that measuring is difficult is not a reason to give up on measurement, it is a reason to develop more complete and fair measurements.
LV
There are ways to address this problem: in particular schools and teachers should be evaluated on both their raw scores and on academic progress -- comparing students' knowledge prior to and after the school year.
The fact that measuring is difficult is not a reason to give up on measurement, it is a reason to develop more complete and fair measurements.
LV
The next education reforms will challenge the top-down power structures that have built up around education through charter schools, vouchers, and other methods that introduce flexibility and choice.
Which won't work, because those "better" schools in practice will exclude the kind of kids we're talking about. That's why they're "better" -- the reputation of a school is inversely proportionate to its accessibility; "if anyone can go there it can't be all that."
The next education reforms will challenge the top-down power structures that have built up around education through charter schools, vouchers, and other methods that introduce flexibility and choice.
Which won't work, because those "better" schools in practice will exclude the kind of kids we're talking about. That's why they're "better" -- the reputation of a school is inversely proportionate to its accessibility; "if anyone can go there it can't be all that."
It depends what you mean by "better". If you mean "more prestigious" then you probably have a point. But I mean "better than the current crapulance offered up by a lot of public school systems", and I have a lot of experience -- Milwaukee, Washington DC, even the Cornerstone schools in Detroit -- to back it up. School choice might not get urban kids into Snootytoot Prep but I'm quite confident it will get them better schools than they have now.
LV
It depends what you mean by "better". If you mean "more prestigious" then you probably have a point. But I mean "better than the current crapulance offered up by a lot of public school systems", and I have a lot of experience -- Milwaukee, Washington DC, even the Cornerstone schools in Detroit -- to back it up. School choice might not get urban kids into Snootytoot Prep but I'm quite confident it will get them better schools than they have now.
LV
Well, my parents were teachers and saw first-hand the games that people
played. The reality is that private and charter schools will scoop up the
better students because they have more involved parents and, more likely, more
stable domestic situations, which contribute mightily to a child's performance
in the classroom -- an issue that "choice" supporters ignore. In fact, the
voucher system in Milwaukee was pretty much a failure and Polly Williams, who
spearheaded it, admitted that she felt she had been used; when one study that
touted it as a success (trumpeted on the Wall Street Journal's editorial
page), the teachers' union pointed out so many holes in it that the results
had to be withdrawn. Besides, have you noticed that folks who have their kids
in the "better" schools oppose vouchers? The reason is simple: "We put our
kids in this school so we wouldn't have to deal with that."
Well, my parents were teachers and saw first-hand the games that people
played. The reality is that private and charter schools will scoop up the
better students because they have more involved parents and, more likely, more
stable domestic situations, which contribute mightily to a child's performance
in the classroom -- an issue that "choice" supporters ignore. In fact, the
voucher system in Milwaukee was pretty much a failure and Polly Williams, who
spearheaded it, admitted that she felt she had been used; when one study that
touted it as a success (trumpeted on the Wall Street Journal's editorial
page), the teachers' union pointed out so many holes in it that the results
had to be withdrawn. Besides, have you noticed that folks who have their kids
in the "better" schools oppose vouchers? The reason is simple: "We put our
kids in this school so we wouldn't have to deal with that."
Dr. Baker-Fulgham,
Thank you for your work and for your perspective. I too am hopeful that we as Christians will believe that children can learn--and that it is not broken families or broken children that are the problem, rather a broken system (and we are all part of it). When we start caring as much about the education of our students as we do about things like teacher tenure and teacher employment, we will start to fulfil the promise our country makes to ALL of its students. Thanks again!
Dr. Baker-Fulgham,
Thank you for your work and for your perspective. I too am hopeful that we as Christians will believe that children can learn--and that it is not broken families or broken children that are the problem, rather a broken system (and we are all part of it). When we start caring as much about the education of our students as we do about things like teacher tenure and teacher employment, we will start to fulfil the promise our country makes to ALL of its students. Thanks again!
One surprise for me, in my brief stint as a headmaster of a private Christian academy in a middle-class suburb (that should not have been a surprise): The public system is required to serve all children. It does not. There are many children in it that function poorly or wash out altogether. SOME, simply need a different option. Schools are big institutions. Institutions are structured around the needs of the institution--not of the child. Yes, a slice of the very activist parents will land their children in private schools--but there are a surprising number of desperate parents who land their children there because they have completely failed in the public system.
One surprise for me, in my brief stint as a headmaster of a private Christian academy in a middle-class suburb (that should not have been a surprise): The public system is required to serve all children. It does not. There are many children in it that function poorly or wash out altogether. SOME, simply need a different option. Schools are big institutions. Institutions are structured around the needs of the institution--not of the child. Yes, a slice of the very activist parents will land their children in private schools--but there are a surprising number of desperate parents who land their children there because they have completely failed in the public system.
are you implying that qualifications are the most important thing in determining teacher effectiveness? because studies have shown that TFA teachers are some of the most effective teachers in their placement schools, even without all your credit hours of education, psychology, and counseling. TFA teachers do go through intensive training that has been likened to boot camp for teachers, but the most important characteristic of TFA teachers is their enthusiasm and their dirve to eliminate educational inequalities in schools that are usually lacking in such teachers. with the state that american public education happens to be in, enthusiastic, effective teachers like those that work for TFA are (in my opinion) needed more than those who can simply tout "qualifications" but can't deliver results. I am not implying that you yourself did not deliver such results, but maybe those that your district laid off weren't able to produce marked academic improvements in their struggling schools.
are you implying that qualifications are the most important thing in determining teacher effectiveness? because studies have shown that TFA teachers are some of the most effective teachers in their placement schools, even without all your credit hours of education, psychology, and counseling. TFA teachers do go through intensive training that has been likened to boot camp for teachers, but the most important characteristic of TFA teachers is their enthusiasm and their dirve to eliminate educational inequalities in schools that are usually lacking in such teachers. with the state that american public education happens to be in, enthusiastic, effective teachers like those that work for TFA are (in my opinion) needed more than those who can simply tout "qualifications" but can't deliver results. I am not implying that you yourself did not deliver such results, but maybe those that your district laid off weren't able to produce marked academic improvements in their struggling schools.
All yoru comments are exactly right. Standardized tests are a "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessment. But children do not come as "one size."
There are many factors in play as well. The outcome can be affected by many things... whether the child is tired, sick, or unmotivated to do his best. As a former teacher, I can recall upper grade students who would unabashadly admit that they simply did not even bother to try. They just bubbled in whatever. There was no repurcussions for them because the test did not determine their class grades or whether they moved on to the next grade.
There is a place for standardized tests. They are ONE type of assessment, and they can give insight. However, to get a truly accurate picture of a student's academic growth, one fill-in-the-bubble test won't be a good assessment of that. The test does not reflect, or take into account, the diversity and variables within the classroom that can affect outcome.
All yoru comments are exactly right. Standardized tests are a "one-size-fits-all" approach to assessment. But children do not come as "one size."
There are many factors in play as well. The outcome can be affected by many things... whether the child is tired, sick, or unmotivated to do his best. As a former teacher, I can recall upper grade students who would unabashadly admit that they simply did not even bother to try. They just bubbled in whatever. There was no repurcussions for them because the test did not determine their class grades or whether they moved on to the next grade.
There is a place for standardized tests. They are ONE type of assessment, and they can give insight. However, to get a truly accurate picture of a student's academic growth, one fill-in-the-bubble test won't be a good assessment of that. The test does not reflect, or take into account, the diversity and variables within the classroom that can affect outcome.
