Technology vs Teachers, part 3

(Part 3 of 3. See Part 1 here and Part 2 here)

ONLINE LEARNING 

Many students are being “left behind”, even in this age of widespread education reform. And that’s with teachers and the same classroom! Take the teacher presence out of the classroom experience—why would you expect the students to succeed? 

Yes, the online course requirement will surely “allow students to take subjects that were not otherwise available at their schools and familiarize them with learning online, something [Superintendent Luna] said was increasingly common in college.” (NYT article)

Even when I was in college at the turn of the millennium, several of my classes had an online component. Over email, we would discuss readings from class and share our reflections. However, I can firmly say that it was too slow and impersonal to feel the same as an in-person discussion. There are certainly elements that can complement or reinforce things from a class, but I do not agree that “learning” online (as opposed to practice or reinforcement) is something that happens in college, nor should it. 

I asked my college-age sister about her experience with online components to classes. She said they have discussion groups and can look at the syllabus or other class information, and for one there's even a webcam feature, which is a neat way to do modern 'office hours' or class discussion.

Online learning still requires a teacher somewhere. What it means is that those teachers might be responsible for even more students than a standard classroom, with all the attending grading and other time. Plus there is less person-to-person contact, which makes it more difficult and time-consuming to discuss a complex concept with a student. If you had the option of stopping by a student’s desk for a few minutes to review their work as they were working, and sending a series of twenty emails over three days, which would be the best use of everyone’s time? 

Not to mention the ease of distraction; we adults have all lost hours to the internet when we were “supposed” to be doing other things. Kids are going to be no different! Who will be there to keep them on track in class?

“[Ms. Rosenbaum] said she was mystified by the requirement that students take online courses. She is taking some classes online as she works toward her master’s degree, and said they left her uninspired and less informed than in-person classes. Ms. Rosenbaum said she could not fathom how students would have the discipline to sit in front of their computers and follow along when she had to work each minute to keep them engaged in person.”” (NYT article)

Discipline is the number-one issue that most teachers face—more so than even curriculum. When you’re teaching in a classroom, you can see who is with you and who is lost, not just by how many hands are raised, but also by eye contact, body language, and facial expression. All that nuance is lost when everyone is communicating only through the computer.

Perhaps one reason that it may work better in college is that the students are there more voluntarily, and they are independently trying to work for their own grades. It’s difficult enough to engage a 17 year old who cares more about upcoming graduation than concentrating on their math teacher. Plus, college professors have a high expectation of their students—a lot more passive listening and note-taking, fewer assignments, longer essays, more in-depth exams. If you do the work, you pass; if you don’t, you fail. High schools are more politically motivated to pass their students. I know the middle schools I taught at sure were.

Sometimes I tend to think that all kids hate school and think that teachers are dumb. But they understand that they need good teachers and good schools to help them do their best. Kids want to learn and want to succeed. (At least, until the system beats it out of them.) Kids know better than anyone if their teacher is really invested, and kids want good teaching more than anyone else. 

“Last year at Post Falls High School, 600 students — about half of the school — staged a lunchtime walkout to protest the new rules. Some carried signs that read: “We need teachers, not computers.”

Having a new laptop “is not my favorite idea,” said Sam Hunts, a sophomore in Ms. Rosenbaum’s English class who has a blond mohawk. “I’d rather learn from a teacher.”” (NYT article)

Technology vs Teachers, part 2

(part 2 of 3 in response to the NYT article about Idaho--see Part 1 here)

CRITICAL THINKING

Students do not learn critical thinking from looking at a website or searching for something on Google. Students do not learn critical thinking from watching a video on YouTube. Students do not automatically become good writers by reading blogs and tweeting. 

All of those tools do not, cannot, should not replace teachers and teaching. They are just that—TOOLS—that good teachers can use to guide students in developing their critical thinking and reading skills. Teachers are what make the difference. Teachers provide essential direction and feedback to students, leading students to making significant connections between the outside world and their own, and helping them read, write, and talk about it in a meaningful manner.

 “Teachers don't just teach the curriculum; they process it, they analyze it knowing their students' skills.  They invest their time in it so that students will want to invest their own.  They make it meaningful, relevant, and they make it fun.  Technology can help with that, but it shouldn't replace.  Teachers do more than just teach; they shape, they mold, they model behavior, and they connect.  Often that connection is worth more than any curriculum.  Worth more than any computer program.” (http://mrspripp.blogspot.com/2012/01/teachers-do-more-than-teach-why.html)

Teachers have various kinds of curriculum resources that they must present to their students. But each teacher puts their own spin or emphasis on what they teach. Teachers and students aren’t widgets, or robots, and they aren’t all on the same level—within a class or across grades. There must be some element of customization to take student achievement level into account, let alone student interest level. Certainly, technology can aid in both of those. 

"No technology is good or bad by itself; it's what you do with it," James Gee, an Arizona State University professor who has studied the use of video games in education, said. "Games are turning out just like books. Handing a kid a book doesn't make them better students or more literate. And the same gap can develop with technology." (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120109/NEWS03/201090316/Learning-teaching-via-video-games)

There have been good teachers for as long as teachers have existed. Good teachers will continue to do good teaching with or without technology. Surely, all teachers should have the means and capacity to incorporate technology appropriately into their classrooms. Surely, there are still teachers who turn on a video to placate students.

As teachers are asked to do more and more with less time and less money, is it really a good idea to force one kind of resource in schools? Not even a specific curriculum or standard list with actual content, but just technology? Does it become yet another pro-forma part of what teachers must do, like bulletin board displays and micro-managed wording about objectives, aims, teaching points, etc—just use the computer for the computer’s sake? Will there be any allowance for teacher style and comfort, or will they be forced to use it all the time every day? Who will be the judge of a good use of technology vs bad? 

A couple days ago, Dr. John B. King, Jr., the NY Ed Commissioner, sent an email to all teachers, asking everyone to begin using the new Common Core standards and exemplars in their classroom.

“In every ELA classroom (or any classroom where literacy plays a significant role), the Common Core calls for thoughtful learning experiences around rigorous texts – you should conduct close readings of those texts with your students and ask deep and thought-provoking, evidence-based questions about the texts to facilitate evidence-dependent conversations and build students’ ability to marshal arguments about the texts.” 

Notice there’s nothing in there about technology. There’s no suggestion or requirement to use a computer, an interactive game, or smartboard. The Common Core wants students to go in depth, to THINK, and it allows that teachers are the ones responsible for getting the kids there. It’s about talking and writing, on a deep level, which is what leads to critical thinking, not just the blanket use of technology. 

Anyone can pull up a video on the internet. Not just anyone can incorporate that into a meaningful lesson, with thoughtful work from students before and after, as part of a complex curriculum. “… Ms. Rosenbaum [an Idaho teacher] did use a computer and projector to show a YouTube video of the devastation caused by bombing in World War II. She said that while technology had a role to play, her method of teaching was timeless. “I’m teaching them to think deeply, to think. A computer can’t do that.”” (NYTarticle)

I asked @19Pencils (the twitter account for www.19pencils.com, an educational new/sharing website) for a response to the Idaho article: “High tech doesn't make straight A students. And high tech doesn't replace good teaching. It's a tool. High tech also makes vast assumptions of staff, IT dept, etc. Student gains are only as good as the support.”

Technology is a tool, and an important one, but the critical piece is the teacher.

Technology vs Teachers, part 1

(I split my response into three chunks because it was so long)

Last week, the New York Times published an article about Idaho’s new state initiative, which will give every student and every teacher a laptop, and make two online credits a graduation requirement for high school students. 

At first blush, it sounds like a good idea. Kids need to be connected! Kids need to learn technological literacy! Teachers need to harness the power of online resources! Schools need modern tools!

But then the details of the program begin to sound irresponsible and dictatorial, rather than inspirational and helpful.

First, all this technology will be *required*. “Teachers are resisting, saying that they prefer to employ technology as it suits their own teaching methods and styles. Some feel they are judged on how much they make use of technology, regardless of whether it improves learning.” After all, the computer is not the teacher. And you know there will be older teachers who don’t understand technology, who will either forsake it entirely, or use it in an inefficient manner.

Two, with education budgets spiraling into freefall, Idaho will use tens of millions of dollars to provide the physical resources as well as the necessary training for the 15,148 teachers in the state. Idaho already has the 2^nd lowest per-pupil spending in the nation. Is there really enough money to spare to focus so much on one aspect of school? 

“Mr. Luna, the superintendent, said training was the most essential part of the plan. He said millions of dollars would be set aside for this but that the details were still being worked out.” Is it fair to divert money that could pay teachers a more livable wage (starting salary is now a mere $30,000, though there is another new reform called Students Come First, which attempts to increase teacher pay, including pay-for-performance) to instead pay for computers that may or may not be used to their best advantage?

TECHNOLOGY AND MISINFORMATION

To me, the most disturbing part is that the state leaders don’t seem to understand how school or students work.

“For his part, Governor Otter said that putting technology into students’ hands was the only way to prepare them for the work force. Giving them easy access to a wealth of facts and resources online allows them to develop critical thinking skills, he said, which is what employers want the most.

"When asked about the quantity of unreliable information on the Internet, he said this also worked in favor of better learning. “There may be a lot of misinformation,” he said, “but that information, whether right or wrong, will generate critical thinking for them as they find the truth.””

This frightens and angers me—that the governor believes students will magically acquire critical thinking just from having access to Wikipedia? When teachers around the country already fight a losing battle over internet-printed “essays” in all grades and subjects?

“Schulte (2002) reported the results of a Rutgers University study based on 4,500 high school students from 25 high schools around the country. The study found that 72 percent of the students admitted to  “seriously cheating on a written work” and more than half had “copied portions of a paper from the Internet without citing the source.”

Donald McCabe, the founder of the Center for Academic Integrity, is quoted as saying that “…cheating is starting younger—in elementary school in fact. And by the time students hit middle and high school, cheating is, for many, like gym class and lunch period, just part of the fabric of how things are….What’s changed is technology. It’s made cheating so easy. And the vast realms of information on the truly, worldwide Web are so readily available. Who could resist?” (in Schulte, 2002).” (http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=9) 

Now think about how much the digital world has changed since 2002!

Now, to their credit, perhaps some of the Idaho teacher training might be about teaching responsible web use, to ensure students do not plagiarize, and making it clear that teachers will be able to catch them and enact appropriate consequences. 

(I am very doubtful of that, however; as more and more it seems like parents feel like they have the right to defend and enable their children, regardless of the behavior; schools feel more and more pressure to bow to parents’ will rather than adhering to the code of conduct.) 

Let’s hope at the least there is a state-wide teacher membership to Turn It In!

[continue reading Part 2]

Way to go, American Education!

Heh, you have to know that's sarcasm--has anyone used a line like that in sincerity, ever?

A study was recently done by Marist College, about some super-basic knowledge of American history. "Only 58% of residents know that the United States declared its independence in 1776. 26% are unsure, and 16% mentioned another date."

Even worse: "[F]or the second year, about one in four Americans doesn’t know from which country the United States declared its independence. While 76% correctly cite Great Britain, 19% are unsure, and 5% mention another country."

For both questions, people in the age group 18-29 had the highest percentage of incorrect answers.

No Child Left Behind started in 2001. Sure has done a good job, eh?

You can't be serious?

(edited to have the good stuff up top!)
Please read this brief article summing up American inequality:

"In this ridiculous country, it’s “class warfare” when working people would like a fair wage and health insurance, but it’s “Morning in America” when the top 1% have harvested nearly every dollar of financial gain in this country for the past 30 years. Corporate taxes have dropped as quickly as CEO salaries and bonuses have risen, and we’re all supposed to “take one for the team” while Wall Street criminals make up new ways to earn billion-dollar bonuses while you get to spend a couple of months arguing with your insurance company (if you’re “lucky enough” to have health care coverage) over whether your kid’s concussion or dad’s cancer is something that might be covered."

It's talking about this set of data showing exactly who has what in this country.


Jon Stewart put together an incredible segment on Monday's episode.
Part 1:



Those talking heads make me see red.

Part 2:




Last week I got into a very long facebook thread about unions...

Person 1: "That doesn't change the fact that public employees are paid less, as compared to their education level, than private employees. They are underpaid and yet the target of budget cuts. When we complain about America losing in science, medicine, education, etc. it is in no small part due to the fact that our teachers are underpaid, that they don't have the resources necessary to be successful, and that they are subject to ridiculous standardized testing that doesn't actually test what students know."

Person 2: "Whether or not teachers are underpaid is debatable. Some are much better compensated than others, and teacher pay in low-income communities certainly outstrips the average pay of taxpayers in the locale." ...

Me: I think everyone who understands what teachers actually DO (ie, a lot more than 9-3 or whatever) along with the importance of their work would say that teachers are vastly underpaid. think of doctors and lawyers, who are held in high regard... for doing good and necessary work, and have the salary to match. police and firefighters, who do public good, get overtime. if you paid teachers for all the time they were working, plus perhaps hazard pay for the noise, threats, lack of break time, etc, salaries would skyrocket (justifiably).

Administrators (good ones, at least!) do a lot of work, and get a lot more shit (from board/superintendent/etc, as well as from teachers, as well as from students/parents/community), so I'm okay with them getting paid more. it's relative though--should an admin make twice as much as a teacher? no way. a certain percentage more? sure.

Person 3: "Government employees (including teachers) are NOT underpaid relative to their peers in the private sector. At low and mid range positions, they are significantly overpaid. This is not opinion, but the conclusion of numerous studies conducted over the past 30 years." ...

Me:

i'll go back to the teacher issue--there are some districts/states where teachers earn a decent STARTING salary (there are at least as many where the starting salary is just barely above a living wage), but the advancement does not match private sector salaries. i'm a perfect example: at 25, when i started teaching, the NYC starting teacher salary was $43,000 (now it's $49,000)[keeping in mind there are both state and city taxes, so the take-home is not nearly what you'd think]. after six years of teaching, at 30, i was making about $56,000, with a master's degree. my friend worked for the city for four years, without a master's degree, and got up to about $65k, and now after a little more than a year in the private sector she's making more than $80k. she's 28. if i continued teaching, i wouldn't earn $80k until i was 48.

for me to get to $100k, i'd have to teach for 22 more years *and* get 30 more credits (which of course cost money). i'd be 52. and freaking exhausted.

Can you think of any private sector professions whose employees can earn $100 before they're in their fifties? YES. Many without an advanced degree, even. My friend will earn $100k before she's 35.

Now, NYC pays its teachers "relatively" well. In many states, there's simply no way for a teacher to earn anywhere near $100k--EVER. *and* they're required to keep taking (ie, paying for) coursework and pay for certifications/tests.

(Do you have to pay for another year of college to earn your raise?)

So yes, teachers ARE underpaid relative to their private sector peers.

Unions have a tough job. Teachers' interests need to be protected, but then you get into bad teachers vs good and who needs to be protected "more." I don't have an answer or solution to that. I know that teachers work their asses off for not enough money and no recognition, and in fact get all kinds of shit from people who don't know better about getting summers off. Teachers deserve the teensy tiny raises that unions have managed to secure (many of which are now gone), and teachers don't deserve to lose their pensions that unions may have bargained away or that states frittered away. Teachers don't deserve to have huge classes because of budget cuts.

I also know that there are really bad teachers who don't do anything all day but still collect a paycheck. Does it make me angry that they still have jobs when there are many qualified, eager teachers who don't have jobs? Damn straight. (Do I also know that there are many, many idiots out there collecting paychecks for not doing anything in other fields? Yes indeedy.)

Anyway, the Wisconsin governor appears to believe that he can just invalidate unions or pretend they don't exist. Like them or not, you just can't do that.

Person 2:
"I don't agree that you are comparing peers. My wife is a teacher and we love it, but her "full-time" teaching job is only 0.7% full-time employment. Divide your pay by 0.7 and you would be making $70k per year if you worked the same schedule as the rest of us. Our state pay schedule is lower than yours, but the pattern of increase is basically the same. On the receiving end, I'd love higher teacher pay. On the accountability side, I'd like to see pay that wasn't based on how long you've been on the job."

Me:
your wife is a teacher and you still think her job is only quote-unquote full-time?

Same schedule as the rest of you? You can't be serious.

Hours spent in front of children are only part of the equation. Our friend S is at school for nearly twelve hours a day as a public school teacher, and I did the same as a charter school teacher for two years, which meant that I was with kids for eight hours a day instead of six.

Can you actually take a lunch break for more than 15 minutes? Can you come back from lunch and it doesn't really matter because there aren't thirty short people waiting for you in your cubicle? Can you go to the bathroom whenever you want? Does your boss require you to decorate your cubicle with certain amounts of meaningless paperwork every few weeks? Do the parents of your colleagues question your methods and motives? Do any of your colleagues or 'underlings' actively try to prevent you from doing your work, by yelling at other people, throwing things, disrupting everyone else? Are you required to submit all the work you're going to do for the next week, in detail, with the reasoning behind every piece, to your boss a week or more in advance? Are you allowed to have a personal life as a human being without worrying if it will be acceptable to the general public? Does your boss evaluate you (and can they fire you) after only seeing you work once a year, or never?

[More that I thought of later] If you manage others, do your employees talk back, refuse to do their work, call you and the other employees names or threaten you?
Does your office have a functioning air-conditioner?
Do you have a working copier??? Do you get to use it at will without knowing that within a few months, your entire office will run out of paper and can't afford to buy more?
Do you have a supply closet??!!!
Or do your colleagues break all of their and your writing utensils, pencil sharpeners, file holders, calculators, etc? And then refuse to work unless more magically appear, from money out of your own pocket?

There are a lot of difficult jobs out there. Almost none of them are as difficult as teaching.

Person 2:
"Wow. "Almost none of them as difficult as teaching" is a pretty bold statement. Yes, there are many kinds of challenges from all kinds of jobs. I think we can also agree that you cannot be fired due to one bad observation by your pri...ncipal. Due process requires much more than that. Nor, for that matter, can you be fired for churning out kids who've learned nothing during their time spent in your classroom. My father-in-law is the HR Director for another school district and has published a book on HR administration in education. I'm not anti-teacher, I'm against the holier-than-thou attitude of many educators who claim they work endless days when it simply is not true.

Twelve hour days are brutal. I know from often working them myself. I, and you, also know that it is far from the norm in teaching."

Me:
My statement above is indeed a bold one, and I stand by it.

Hearing about your wife's experience, I'm sure, then, that you understand that for most teachers, there's almost no time during the day to do the daily work of teaching--grading an...d preparing for the next day/lesson. That has to be done on one's own time, whether it's at home or at school. Some teachers leave school right away and work for hours at home. I never took work home, myself.

Regardless of the number of hours worked, the intensity of the time in-classroom is insane (you have to be "on" every second, with your eyes in every corner). The work that is done inside a classroom is almost unrivaled--a teacher is also a parent, a nurse, a psychologist, a mediator, a data analyst, a behavior therapist, a battle strategist (seating charts! line spots!), etc etc. Teachers have to teach kids how to be people, so to speak, not just how to multiply.

This is why teachers are underpaid compared to their peers.

Here in NYC, your supervisor gives you a rating at the end of the year, based on observations. In many schools, administrators are too busy or incompetent to do those or do them correctly (with pre- and post- meetings with individual teachers). In my fourth year of teaching, my principal never once set foot in my classroom. My AP, who was awesome, observed formally and informally a couple times.

If a teacher gets an unsatisfactory rating, that can be the start of the process to get them out. If you're in your first few years, a U could allow the admin to deny your tenure.

This is why unions have such a tricky job--some teachers really do deserve those U ratings and need to be fired. But because of union politics and bureaucracy, it's become almost impossible to get rid of a teacher. Other U-rated teachers are the victims of admin bullying and need union protection. Ratings can be really subjective or can be recorded without any actual evidence to back it up (see again busy or incompetent administrators).

Again, I don't have the answers for how to protect schools from bad teachers and teachers from bad administrators. But I do believe that unions have to exist (and hope to whatever-deity-you-want that somehow things improve) so that kids get the kind of teaching they need in order to--oh right--earn more money than teachers in professional jobs as adults.

Person 1:
"Mr. President, in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23 1/2 percent of all income. The top 1 percent earned... 23 1/2 percent of all income--more than the entire bottom 50 percent. That is apparently not enough. The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent has nearly tripled since the 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the top 1 percent earned about 8 percent of all income. In the 1980s, that figure jumped to 14 percent. In the late 1990s, that 1 percent earned about 19 percent. And today, as the middle class collapses, the top 1 percent earns 23 1/2 percent of all income--more than the bottom 50 percent. Today, if you can believe it, the top one-tenth of 1 percent earns about 12 cents of every dollar earned in America."

Do the richest 1% pay 12% of the US tax revenue?

"If you can believe this, since between 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income created in this country went to the top 1 percent--80 percent of all new income. That is why people are wondering and asking: What is going on in my life? How come I am working longer hours for lower wages? How come I am worrying about whether my kids will have as good a standard of living as I had? From 1980 until 2005, 80 percent of all income went to the top 1 percent."

In that period did the richest 1% pay 80% of the US tax revenue?

The answers, of course, are both "no." Because we all know, whether we'd like to admit it, that the tax burden in America is on the poor, not the wealthy. Who make their millions on the backs of those paying the lions share of the US tax revenue."

Person 3:
"The speech is nice, [Person 1], but his conclusion is flat wrong. And so is yours. The working poor hardly pay income taxes in this country. It's not trickery or loopholes that does this. It's the tax code.

The tax burden has steadily shifted over the last couple decades to being more heavily born by high earners, not the working poor. Don't trust political speeches to provide facts. Check it out for yourself at the source - the IRS."

Person 4:
"Lol. Of course the rich pay more in taxes in pure dollars. But they most definitely do not as a percentage of their income. Tax rates are currently at an all time low. But people still whine. For the wealthy they have never been lower. But ...maybe if we give them more then things will get better. Right? There's a reason Bush sr. called it voodoo economics.

The ultimate result of conservative fiscal policy is a feudal state with no middle class. It is wealth redistribution to the top. It has worked quite well with inflation adjusted income going nowhere in thirty years for most Americans. Meanwhile a fraction of the upper crust enjoys meteoric income growth.

This action in Wisconsin is just the next step on that road."

Person 3:
"[Person 5], the percentage is precisely the issue. The percentage is absolutely higher for high earners. Check the IRS stats. This is not a matter of opinion." ....

Me:
yes, of course the rate is higher, but does that mean that those wealthy people are actually paying those rates? perhaps a better way to look at is the effective amount they pay. there are so many ways that rich people (and corporations) get out of paying those taxes, since their income isn't all necessarily a paycheck that gets taxed a standard rate (inheritances, stock revenue, real estate, etc).

This is an old example, and seems to be cited often. but it's effective:

"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than ...$46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed.

The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Person 6 then goes on to talk about why a flat tax is a good idea and that trickle-down economics is real...

Another person pointed out the flaw in flat tax but that it's not such a bad idea.

This thread had gotten really long and it finally petered out.

teaching teachers and schools

I saw some interesting links on GothamSchool's round-up, and I have some thoughts to share...

First, the former First W Lady is starting a school initiative! It's targeting middle school, because "research has shown that ...6th through 8th grade..is a crucial time in determining future success" as well as high school success/dropouts.

So this program wants to improve middle school classrooms: "The program focuses on 11 elements for success, including school leadership, reading interventions, effective teachers, dropout prevention and school, student, family and community support."

I think this is great. Middle school has long been the redheaded, defiant stepchild of the school system. (There are some AMAZING teachers accomplishing AMAZING things with twelve and thirteen year olds year after year--I say give them Wall Street-level bonuses! They EARN IT.) It's where kids start to question academics and self-worth more in terms of social level. It's where many kids experience some nasty bullying. So the more programs on helping kids do better at a difficult age and be in a position to achieve more later in the life, the better.

But reading this article felt like deja vu to me. Is this really news, that middle school is where things fall apart?

And then I remembered. That's what charter schools are. This entire article is saying exactly what charter schools want to do and what they're for.

I think this is completely hilarious. Is George W Bush and his institute still so blind to the world that he's twenty years behind in education news? Tee hee.

But sure, really, the point is, more focus on helping kids = good news!

--

Also, someone wants to grade the schools who make teachers! I say full steam ahead! My teacher ed experience was underwhelming to say the least. In my elementary ed program, I had a fantastic literacy teacher, a completely useless social studies teacher, and pretty good math and science teachers. But we had ZERO class about discipline or management. We had to take a child development course, which interestingly enough, completely nullifies the idea of standard achievement on tests on children below 13, as according to some development theories, kids don't develop those kinds of skills until that age. Anyway.

On a basic level, I think it's pretty silly that education programs don't think they should get graded. After all, students get grades, schools themselves get grades, and we've all heard that now teachers get grades! Hell, even restaurants get graded!

"They [education programs] are faulted by a recent wave of education advocates as emphasizing education theory over hands-on classroom training, and as graduating teachers with weak academic skills."

If we do want to produce intelligent, thoughtful citizens through schools, it stands to reason that education programs are supposed to put the right kind of teachers in place to achieve that. I have worked with many intelligent, driven, and determined teachers who are doing the right things and getting good results. However, I've also worked with teachers who can't spell very well on their posted charts [and let me be clear--if you're not the best speller, fine! But take your time and carefully prepare anything written for your students to see! Shouldn't they learn by example in the right way?], or who focus on coloring instead of learning (there was a science teacher like that in my high school! I was really glad that I'd taken that class at another school and that I'd actually learned stuff instead of just coloring things.), or who generally don't seem as, well, smart.

Teaching is HARD, and you have to know a LOT of things about many different subjects, not to mention actually being able to control your class well enough to teach them those things that you know.

Throw your stupid theory out the window. Theories don't teach kids, especially not in New York City. Why on earth is there not a multi-course discipline/management curriculum? Or is there? If so, please enlighten me and let me know if it's effective.

Now, is it an ed program's job to give someone a complete education? No, the teacher has to bring something to the table. But there needs to be some accountability, some competition or selectivity.

"To arrive at its ratings, for example, the group has requested detailed information about courses, textbooks and admissions selectivity."

That sounds like a good start.

"An alliance of organizations representing education schools said in a statement at the time that grading them based on textbooks and course descriptions was like 'evaluating the quality of restaurants by only requesting that menus be mailed to the evaluator — without sampling the food or visiting the site.'"

Oh snap! Good rebuttal!

Surely there must be more to it, though? The group's founder "said that short of sitting in on a college’s classes for a year, her evaluation methods are sound." This article doesn't elaborate on what those methods might be.

Another opponent "said the ratings were focusing on superficial “inputs” rather than “outcomes,” like how well teacher graduates perform in the classroom." Hmm, interesting! How does one test an education program? How do you 'evaluate' teachers on a broad scale and then link it back to their graduate programs?

I don't know. I'm not sure if there really is a way to do that. I still don't believe that there's any concrete way to evaluate teachers at all, actually. There's so much give and take beyond just academics in the classroom. But that's a whole different can of worms and we won't get into that here. :)

yikes

You might have read the news about a riot in a high school:

http://gothamschools.org/2010/12/09/murry-bergtraum-students-riot-after-bathroom-access-denied/

The story seems to be that after a fight, the principal announced all bathrooms would be closed. In reaction, "hundreds of students began running through the fourth floor hallways at top speed, screaming and shouting."

First, of course the decision to close all the bathrooms is not at all an appropriate one. I don't think anyone will argue with that. The principal will need to think about how to step up consequences for the student body in a logical manner.

Second, I can't see ANY logical reason to 'riot' or join hundreds of your peers running screaming through the halls. That's just mob mentality and it's dangerous.

Third, I experienced something like this quite often at my school last year. Not hundreds, but an entire class (or two) of middle school students consistently ran screaming through our hallway. Like, on an everyday basis. Was anything EVER done about this? No. Occasionally I would attempt to go out there and blow a whistle (sometimes loud noises will stop a group of kids from doing something crazy.)(Several times at lunch, the middle school would start a food fight, and teachers either weren't there or wouldn't do much, so I'd run over and blow my whistle like crazy. It was usually enough to at least get the kids to stop throwing and screaming.), but they would either ignore me, make a rude comment, or nearly run me over.

I hated that my younger kids had to hear that all the time. Whenever it happened, I would try to show my exasperation at that and tell the kids, this is the WRONG way to be--you better not do that! You know better! I had some crazy ass moments with my class, but it was NEVER like that.

Fourth, there are over two hundred comments on the site, mostly from students or teachers in the school. It is ALARMING to read them.

The second comment (not from a student) says, "Another managing fiasco with Leadership Academy fingerprints all over it. Bloomberg’s New York."

STOP IT. That's just ridiculous and I'm tired of people doing this. Anything goes wrong with one person at one school and they just say it's the chancellor's or mayor's fault. It's LAZY. The mayor made sure to hire principals who wanted kids to riot? The chancellor visited the school and encouraged the students to fight for their rights by actually fighting? COME ON.

I'm neither for or against the chancellor or mayor, but I do have the critical thinking skills to assign responsibility to the appropriate person or people. In this case, the school's principal, safety officers, and the students.

Anyway, back to the comments: the majority of them are by kids. For one, some students were just saying that the principal was wrong, but many of them eemed delighted with the disruptance, saying the principal deserved it, and crowed about 'wildin' and promising more riots tomorrow. Just one example: "Lml this skool is live….teachers nd da damn principal is wildin for shutting da bathroom I hope therez a riot every day -_-"

Additionally, there are actual threats: "Yup dam sure we rioted, she has the nerve to say no bathroom because of one fight, she should be dam sure we ain’t kick down her door & throw a bottle at her head"

Also, many of the comments said things like, "you don't know what you're talking about because you weren't there; shut the fuck up." Except spelled worse and more disrespectful.

For two, the spelling (I'd say at least 95% spelled 'principal' wrong, but it went oh so much further than that), grammar, and frequent lack of punctuation is just beyond atrocious. Quite scary, actually.

Look, I taught ten/eleven year olds. They wrote like that. One might say they don't know any better at their age. I did everything I could to help them write coherently, use proper punctuation, and not use abbreviations. But also, they're still kids. They're still learning and I always told them that now is the time to learn those silly mistakes, so that you don't have to make them when you're older.

But high school students still writing like that? I have a problem with that. You really don't know how to spell 'principal'? You really think it's okay to replace all letter Gs with Qs? (By the way what the hell is that about?? This seems to be a new thing--I see it on Facebook too with former students [who are still younger than high school]) You really think you can just omit punctuation altogether, or even worse, just separate all your phrases with ellipses?

This is far beyond being a "grammar nazi" or whatever. I know they're kids and they're not writing in a formal setting, blahblahblah. They're posting in a PUBLIC forum and they show ZERO notice of what they're writing. Completely careless. I can't believe that at their age they don't know any better, or that they're incapable of writing appropriately. They should know better!

Speaking of appropriate, maybe I sound like a cranky old lady, but when CHILDREN are THREATENING their school leaders and promising future violence ON THE INTERNET, there is a PROBLEM somewhere.

It's kind of making my eyes cross, there is so much wrong with it. I can't even articulate everything in my head right now.

I don't know how something like this gets resolved; it sounds like the school was a zoo that day, and after reading the article and knowing how things can escalate with angry kids, I imagine it wasn't much better today. I hope I'm wrong.

I can't help thinking of the future of these kids. How on earth will they fare if they get to college?

"An educator, Denise Pope, a lecturer at Stanford, says that the University of California requires remedial courses of half its students, even though their high school grades were stellar." That's referring to high-achieving students really motivated to get into college. What the hell happens to urban kids who aren't so privileged, whose schools are filled with this kind of ignorance and violence? "Recently released data from ACT shows that only 24 percent of high school seniors knew enough in four subjects — math, reading, science and English — to do college-level work." If that's an average, I'm scared to know how little some kids have to know to pull it down that far. Based on the existing achievement gap, we know that the kids who perform at a low level are much more likely to be kids in a high-needs school or population. It's just sickening that this is still happening. Do kids in privileged suburbs have riots in the hallways and promise to beat up their principal? Do rich kids know how or when to write any better? I don't know.

Kids these days. What are we going to do?

currenty

Watch out now--I'm going to take a break from blathering about my humdrum life and be in the now!

How wonderful that Prince William and Kate got engaged! I think it's so sweet and happy. I'm also glad that the media, in general, seem to be happy and nice about it, instead of snarky and trollish like it can be. (Though of course when gothamist posted about it, the legendary commenters immediately starting hating. What about NYC being the best, again?) Anyway, good on them, and congratulations! We can all use happy news like that once in a while.

Not quite congratulatory, but I suppose any former teacher blogger shouldn't ignore this passing of chancellor-baton that's just starting. I only taught under Klein, so thankfully I don't know what it's like to have a new chancellor every couple years. When I began teaching, I accepted the party line of disliking everything he tried to do. As time went on, and I was forced to think about it and understand that he was a person working hard for the system, I no longer hated him. Some of the decisions I found odd or ridiculous, but it's not hard to see that at least it's better than nothing.

And seriously, no matter what, the New York City school system has pretty much been fucked for a long time. It's completely broken and I don't ever see a way out of it altogether, because the system is just too big--too many buildings to maintain and build, too many kids to cram into those crumbling buildings, too many principals doing really great or really stupid things, too many kids who don't do much at all but still pass, too many angry parents who don't want their kids to take responsibility for their actions, too many parents who don't give a shit or who are too busy to care, too many teachers who work their butts off for not enough pay or acclaim, too many teachers who don't do a damn thing all day and still get paid, too much focus on fucking bulletin boards instead of real live learning, too many sensationalistic news reporters eager to break a new scandal about all the things wrong with the schools/the teachers/the chancellor/the union/the city/the world.

Was Joel Klein a hero for the schools? Eh, probably not. Did he and the mayor work hard to try and effect change? Yeah, I think we can all agree on that, even if we don't agree on the results. Can anyone be a hero for the schools? I doubt it--see above.

The pick for new chancellor, Cathie Black, does seem completely out of the blue. Along with pretty much everyone else, my initial reaction was wtf? A publishing exec? Huh? What does that have to do with schools?

However, in reading a little bit and thinking on it, I suppose that a schools leader on that level doesn't necessarily *need* school experience, because it is a high level managerial position. However, I do think that experience in schools, especially in inner-city public schools, would develop some humility and a dose of reality to those on the top. It makes sense that the person in charge of public schools knows what it's like to be in one, as a student and/or teacher. Which is why there's apparently the law that superintendents have to have at least three years' teaching experience. Good job, New York State!

On the other hand, I can see the benefit of bringing in someone fresh, who's not already bogged down in edspeak and teaching jargon, dismayed at the state of education. I don't think publishing prepares you to be a chancellor, but perhaps being a leader in one field might translate to being a leader in another one. Certainly good leaders all share similar traits, across disciplines.

One thing is certain--actually two. One, I would not want to be chancellor, because there's no way to win. You'll never be the good guy because there will always be groups clamoring to bring you down and argue against every single thing you do (whether it's deserved or not). Two, Cathie Black has her work cut out for her! She's jumping into an awfully big ocean on a fairly flimsy canoe.

I'm not sure it's anyone's place to question the placement. If the waiver is granted, then it's done and there's nothing we can do. Fighting and arguing and signing petitions isn't going to do much. Clearly, Bloomberg has his reasons, whatever they are, and his history shows that if he gets an idea, he will not give it up.

Furthermore, all that fighting does exactly the opposite of what needs to happen--focus on the kids. Okay, we have a new chancellor. Whatever. What are we going to do about this crazy broken system? How about we be realistic--there's no money to put into the schools, and not enough kids are learning what they should--what can we do to move forward?

Weekly Funny slash Depressing

I saw this on AprilMay and it cracked me up. Because it's funny and so utterly ridiculous, just like the education system.

No Child Left Behind - Football Version

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or of their parents.

ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren’t interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don’t like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game. It will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals.

If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind.

Just a Sub

Being in the classroom is hard.

I read Mrs Mimi's great take-down of this opinion piece by a substitute teacher. (Link: The Replacements) Mimi made some great points about the piece, and I wanted to add a few of my own.

Here is some background info: This is my 6th year teaching. (Holy cow!) I've taught at three different schools. The first two weeks of my first year were spent subbing (one in a kindergarten classroom as an assistant, and one in a very tough middle school that would go through four principals that year). I subbed for three months last spring at a few charter schools. So at this point, I've seen enough to know both sides of the story fairly well (and also to know that, as rough a time as I've had, things could be so.much.worse than I've ever had it).

This woman subbed once a week for two years. This does not make her a reliable expert to me. If she had ever been a classroom teacher, she wouldn't be saying most of this. Most of her 'facts' and all of her suggestions show little to no research on her part. Also, her tone is just too far out there.

She says that teachers are out all the time, and that while sometimes it's 'legitimate' (ie, sick), she implies that many teachers are just selfish and lazy and are absent all the time (they take a mental health day or go to an event (which, I agree, is weird and probably inappropriate)). Obviously she hasn't spent enough time in a classroom to know that teaching has to be one of the hardest jobs out there. Surely she has met teachers who cough and hack for days on end because even if you do bring yourself to take one day off, you can't take more than that, even if you need to. (I have had to cough, hack and spit over the garbage can in the middle of teaching, because I was still sick. The kids looked concerned and asked if I was okay. "Not really," I replied. But what else am I gonna do?)

So a mental health day here and again? Any teacher who's been a teacher for more than a few months knows that mental health is a real thing and it's a real thing that can bring you down down down. The teachers I know don't take it lightly and don't take advantage. But sometimes, yes, for god's sake, we need a day off. If you think subbing is so, so hard, because no one told you what to do, try that for an entire year, every single day, in the same room with the same kids! You will need an occasional day off too!

As a middle school teacher, I often had to cover another class during a prep. Usually it was older kids, ie, devils. As a sub, I almost never had a lesson plan left for me.

If a teacher wakes up sick one morning, how is he or she supposed to magically send a substitute plan to the school? Ain't gonna happen. Are teachers required to have generic sub plans submitted to the office? Of course. Does everyone do that? Who knows. Do the plans make it to the classroom on the occasion that a sub requires it? Probably not.

Teachers know that a sub in their room means total chaos and destruction will most likely ensue. One day I returned from being out and things (charts and bulletin boards attached by nails) had been TORN OFF the walls.

Naturally, if you know ahead of time that you're going to be out, you want to leave something for the sub (because you can sympathize about the panic when faced with a group of unfamiliar, rowdy students with nothing to do, and because you want to minimize the damage to your classroom). You can't do anything new, because the kids probably won't get it and you don't want to trust a stranger to teach it how you want it to be taught. You basically have to find some busy work for the kids. Any sub worth their salt knows this and wants this. The sub can't really do much other than say, "I'll have to tell your teacher that you x/y/z." But it's better to have something concrete to give That Kid to do than nothing at all.

Are there bad teachers who don't give a shit about anything and never leave anything at all for the sub or the class to do? GOD, YES.

So guess what? I always brought a bunch of stuff with me. I wanted to be prepared, just in case! I have an assortment of games, activities, generic lessons (often grammar related, since I taught english for so long) to be ready with. I'm like a scout--always prepared! Can you imagine the alternative?

It sounds like she's had tough times with a few plans from a few teachers. And that sucks. But, and this might be my martyr complex talking, be grateful for anything left for you at all, for crying out loud! Also, there is always a good student somewhere who can tell you about those mysterious routines teachers might mention.

Point/counterpoint for her so-called fixes:
"School administrators should provide substitutes with basic training in classroom management, teaching, contacting the office and dealing with medical emergencies."
YES. Of course. That would be the professional thing to do. Realistically though, if you're going to a different school each day, and showing up 10-30 minutes before school begins, there's not a lot of time for this, for the sub or for admins.

"They should check with their subs during the school day."
This sounds like common sense, doesn't it? It never happened to me. Nor did I really expect it. Administrators, good ones and bad ones, are freaking BUSY PEOPLE. They have demands coming in from all sides all day long. There's no time to talk to a sub about how she's feeling that day. Especially if, like in so many big nyc schools, there are anywhere from two to eight subs in the building at once. The sub has the unfortunate duty of taking on a difficult task with little to no thanks or feedback. Come on, you have to know that going in!

"And they should form district-wide advisory committees (comprising the superintendent, principals, teachers and substitutes) to find solutions to problems related to substitutes."
That sounds awfully complicated, vague and, again, unrealistic. There are way too many big problems that schools/districts need to worry about. Subs should be certified and trained, sure. But I don't think that they can do much more than that. Subbing can really suck, and teachers have to be absent sometimes. End of story, really.

"To minimize the need for substitutes, principals should require that teachers call them personally when they’re ill — calling in to a machine increases absences."
Meh, I don't know about that. Teachers feel guilty about taking a day off; they're thinking about their students and their classroom. That doesn't change if they're talking to a machine.

"They should keep track of all teacher absences."
Um, they do that already. Where are you that they don't? Why on earth would you think otherwise?

"And they should hold in-service training sessions for teachers on weekends or during the summer, rather than on school days, or else conduct them in the classroom with the students."
No Effing Way. Are you on glue? NO.

"Principals should also try to arrange for other teachers to use their prep time to fill in for absent colleagues. British secondary schools do this — and pay teachers a stipend for the extra work."
Again, they already do this in secondary schools. It sucks, but those teachers deal with it. Because of course teachers of adolescents need to have even more stress during the day, dealing with unruly, unfamiliar adolescents. But it happens, and teachers have to suck it up and do it. Who is this woman claiming all these outlandish things as suggestions?

To reiterate:
I've been Just a Sub. It's freaking hard. Ignored, left high and dry to suffer through a day. Some students are pleasant and polite, but many are not. And that's to their 'regular' teachers, so amplify that times a million for a strange substitute that they'll see for less than a single day. That's a hazard of the profession. (At least in this town.) Some subs work really hard to manage their temporary charges, and teachers admire them and are grateful to have them cover their classes. Some subs don't work very hard. Some subs do try hard, but the kids can make things really difficult.

I agree, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed about education, teaching, teachers, curriculum, discipline, management, and schools. Substitutes are a necessary thing, and I really empathize with the people doing it, but it's nowhere near even the first half of all the trouble facing schools nowadays. This lady needs to get over herself.

The Tenets of Good Professional Development

Unbelievably, I'm going into my sixth year of teaching. That means I have been to a LOT of professional development. Most of it has been a useless waste of time. However! I remain hopeful that it can be done well, and that it can be of use to teachers like it's meant to. Here is my Official Guide to PD. Feel free to add your own in the comments.

1. Workshops should last no more than 1 1/2 hours. Furthermore, teachers should not be sitting in the same room all day long. Parse the PD into different rooms. Once the bum goes numb, so does the brain.

2. When planning PD (as a supervisor or as a presenter), ask yourself the Golden Question: Is this DIRECTLY relevant to classroom teaching? This cannot be emphasized enough. Teachers should be able to think about bringing your content into their practices. Now, whether or not they decide to is another issue, but it should be easy to connect PD workshops to everyday teaching.

3. Encourage participation. It breaks up monotony and keeps people awake. It keeps them accountable for the information, it helps teachers get to know one another, and best of all, that's good teaching. Remember, professional development is supposed to help teachers get even better at their jobs. Modeling is an important skill not just for classroom teachers!

3b. That said, limit role play; adults will feel silly and roll their eyes and/or refuse to participate.

4. Give time for discussion and planning--teachers want that time to figure out how to use the information in their teaching, because remember, it needs to be RELEVANT.

5. Think about the timing of the PD--what do teachers need most? The week before school starts is *not* the time to discuss child psychology or fancypants theories--teachers are anxious to get working on specifics for the students that will be arriving all too soon.

6. When possible, use faculty members to lead PD. Good teachers want to learn from each other. Do panel discussions, brainstorms, small groups, etc. (Hm, doesn't this also sound like something teachers are expected to do in the classroom? Just because you're working with grown-ups doesn't mean you abandon good teaching strategies!)

6b. Make sure that presenters is not only qualified to lead a workshop, but that he/she is also a good speaker, and (here's that word again) RELEVANT.

6c. Please ensure that PowerPoints are spell-checked!

7. Ask teachers for their input and feedback--what are they most interested in? what do they think would be most useful? what new things do they want to learn about or explore? Then, if possible, have options to choose from.

8. Make sure the workshop is something new, or new enough, to be worthy of the time. For example, using technology in the classroom could be really useful, but if the school doesn't have technological resources, or if it's about things like overhead projectors, that's a waste of time. An old idea like, I don't know, group work, that's a no. (I hope this makes sense.)

9. Evaluations must ask about the RELEVANCE of the workshop and how effective the presenter was. Again, good PD should be good teaching!


Educators: What do you think? What did I miss? What would you add/change/delete?

Back Into the Fire

I am a teacher once again.

I accepted an elementary position at a charter school in June. It was a difficult decision. My mindset this summer is a polar opposite from last summer. I'm nervous about teaching a different grade level, about having one group of kids all.day.long, about surviving in another charter school, about maintaining patience and a personal life.

I think that being a little anxious will help me a bit. Don't they say that pride goeth before a fall? Last summer when I got that other job I was thrilled and thought it would be fantastic. Ha ha. Well, I fell damn near every week, some weeks every stupid day.

You'd think I would learn, eh?

At Original Middle School, I learned how to be a teacher. I learned that pre-teens can easily run a teacher's pride and/or dignity into the ground in about five minutes. I learned that pre-teens still love stickers and silly songs. I learned how to speak firmly and loudly without being mean. I learned how to entertain myself and my students with my lame dry jokes. I learned that I can't stand disruptions in my classroom--which includes mistakes by inept administrators. I learned that I could mold my classroom and make it a pretty great place to be. I learned that I like to learn and try new things and come up with new ideas. I also learned that I have a tendency to take on more than I can chew and have trouble following through with all my awesome ideas. I learned that kids sometimes actually like me. I learned that I will always have an insane parent. I learned that I can be successful and have fun in the classroom.

At First Charter School, I learned how to be humble again. I learned that it's really fucking hard to teach a brand-new subject. I learned how very important it is to have a place to send disobedient students (because I didn't have one). I learned that my awesome management was no good at a new school. I learned that I flounder easily without enough knowledge or support. I learned again that administration makes or breaks a school. I learned that I can't always be successful in the classroom. Part of me felt like I would never be and had never been successful in the classroom.

At Subbing Charter School, I learned that environment matters. I learned again that if there are no consequences, the students will run wild. I learned that I don't like hearing yelling at a school--from students, from teachers, from my own self. I learned that it's not worth it and I don't have to take that kind of crap.

Today was my first day working with New Charter School. I met a few people and took some notes about what I want to do. I didn't learn anything new about teaching or learning or being a charter school. But it was a good reminder of the important things--finding ways to reach the kids and teach them stuff.

I've learned that nothing is a sure thing. I think I can do this.

Memorial

I am very excited about having a three-day weekend. The class and I had a very rough week. Two students in particular are just ridiculously disruptive and unrepentant. Happily, two other difficult students are showing steps toward progress. They both did very well on quizzes late in the week, and when they saw their grades, they crowed with pride. I love that. Those are the ones that I think I'm getting to. They are a pain in my ass, and I'm a pain in their ass (because I don't let up), but they have started to like and respect me (and I, begrudgingly, might be loving them a little).

This has been my modus operandi for the past five years, actually. It's kind of hard to explain (I don't even know if I tried to articulate it during interviews last spring). You know, I just chip away and chip away at a kid, and just about always they start turning around. Sometimes it's only a little, and it's not like the kid suddenly gets an A in the class, but their attitude and their work start improving, bit by bit. By the end of the year, they totally love me, even if they would never admit it, and I totally love them back. (And it's taken me nearly five years to understand that about myself.) I don't think it's a great method and I think it's probably played a part in the gray hairs and insomnia that pop up here and there.

Dammit, this is why I want to leave teaching, but then say, wait, maybe it's not so bad. Gah! The day-to-day kills me. I have so little patience and I often tease instead of show kindness. (But I tease out of a good place, I promise; it's not malicious.) (The kids mostly get this. I think.) The never-ending overwhelming pressure to plan plan plan plan PLAN plan keepplanning PLAN wears me the hell out. I dread making parent phone calls--will someone answer? will the parent yell at you? will the parent threaten the child at you? will the parent be completely impotent? will a voice mail reach the intended parent or guardian? will a child care at all that a call was made?

Bonding with a kid is pretty cool. Seeing a kid who cares about the work, without prompting or begging or bribing, is pretty neat. Seeing a kid laugh at your stupid jokes is definitely cool. Watching a kid get a little better in school is fantastic. Getting a hug out of the blue is amazing.

Seeing how many kids do no homework sucks. Hearing kids cuss each other and you out, day in and day out, sucks. Looking at the quality of work done makes me want to die. Watching kids refuse to change and improve makes me want to throw them out the window. Hell, it makes me want to throw myself out the damn window. Especially when it's eleventybillion degrees in the classroom and we're all feeling smothered by humid, adolescent-tinged air.

There's always something wrong--not enough materials. Too many kids in the room. Things go broken or missing. Never enough books. Never enough parent involvement. Never a completely competent administration--you're lucky if there's one good one out of the bunch. Too many tests. Too many stupid inconsequential things like bulletin boards. Never enough hard-core discipline support that actually works. Never enough useful meetings--the development either isn't professional or doesn't develop anything. For god's sake, why is there no recycling program in NYC schools??

I've never been able to shut these out. I can't help the righteous indignation--goddammit, we shouldn't have to deal with this! Why can't something be done? Why can't we do this instead? Why don't we get more notice for events? Why can't the systems be logical, for crying out loud?

I've now worked in a handful of schools. None of them have the answers. All of them have problems, and though the schools themselves are sort of different, the problems are all essentially the same. The job is always essentially the same.

I really don't know if I'm cut out for it, and I really don't know if I *want* to be cut out for it.

pride and prejudice

Read at your own risk. This stuff has been rattling around in my head for quite a while, and it turned into a giant rambling mass that i can't even think about going back to edit or organize or clarify any further. you should know by now, faithful readers, that i'm not the most articulate on the block. but you can't deny my passionate ideas. :) so yeah, this post: it's long, it covers all kinds of things, and it's probably all selfish drivel. here it is anyway.

So a post summarizing and linking to my 'being resigned' post sparked quite a debate among commenters over on gothamschools. i think that link was responsible for a tripling of page hits, which i can never complain about.

there are some nuances of the debate that i'm having trouble reconciling. i commented early in the thread, in response to another comment, but i chose not to respond to the further comments.

the debate started about me and my quality of teaching but grew into an interesting tangential discussion about responsibility of learning.

one thing that bothered me was that it didn't seem like any of the commenters had actually read my blog at all, but instead were going on an excerpt from one post and another person's summarization of me and my teaching career. i was unfamiliar with almost all the names of the commenters too, which sort of proved my point to myself. now, i suppose this is a pride issue for me (i can admit to a bit of comment whoredom, like most bloggers, i'm sure--comments and page hits are a boon to the ego).

but the bigger issue is it seemed irresponsible. who are these people to make judgments and comments when they really have no idea of what happened? i'm not trying to be all defensive, i'm just thinking of realistic reporting and knowledge. just because someone posts a blurb about some other event, you think you can pontificate and judge that event when you have done nothing to actually learn about it first hand? It smacks of laziness and quick judgments, and the fact that I was the subject of the judging is only the impetus, I swear. :) it's like those hundreds of people who make derogatory comments on an online news brief. when you've only got a few sentences to read, surely you realize on some level that you're not knowledgeable about the situation. And sure, everyone's entitled to his opinion, but jesus, at that point you really don't even deserve to have an opinion!

Understand I'm not knocking the commenters on that gothamschools post here. (And my earlier point about reading will be proven--I'm betting they'll never see this.) I wish they had taken some time to read and get some more background of the situation.

the events that took place that fateful day (which i have since christened Freedom Day, and put it in my online calendar to observe it annually) were the culmination of five months plus four YEARS. not only is that a lot of blog, it's real life that even the most dedicated reader can never fully understand, because only i lived it. i've written anecdotes, both good and bad, over the years. i've talked about lessons i taught or wanted to teach or funny/stupid/awesome/ridiculous things my kids have said/done/written. i've talked to real life friends and family about my experiences, but even they were never in the classroom with me. i could babble for months and never convey the complete truth. because really, what is truth in a classroom of thirty people and managed by more behind the scenes? each of us in that room has a different reality and perspective. and days i thought were great maybe were bad, maybe days i thought were shite were actually okay. maybe i was a stellar teacher, maybe i was the worst teacher of all time.

my instinct, and probably yours too, is to say that it's somewhere in the middle--that all teachers fluctuate in that middle zone. we've got off days just like everyone else, only our off days are either caused by or forced upon thirty other people (or up to a hundred for us secondary teacher) stuffed in the room with us. teachers don't get to hide in their cubicles or take extra long lunches on bad days, and most of us won't call in sick even when we're actually very ill.

one mention was the school, and that someone could be good at one school but bad at another. and that's a weird phenomenon, don't you think? i mean, sure, each person has her own style and moving to a new workplace is very stressful and awkward. but are the kids really so different? are the schools really so different from each other?

and i was able to clarify this today in an interview (related to schools). my school *was* supposed to be different. it had all these ideals, promises, posters, chants. in the grade i was teaching, those promises and posters had nothing to with the reality. and the fact that all of the staff had the same experience (to varying degrees, naturally)? and that i was the THIRD teacher in this grade to be forced out? what does that tell you about how different that school really was?

sure, i wouldn't have 'been resigned' (my term for unofficially fired) at a public school, not until the end of the year at least. i would have toughed it out, which was my plan (well, that was my plan trumping my 'give up and run away in defeat plan,' that i steadfastly refused to obey), but i wasn't given the opportunity to do so. and that's okay--it's certainly much better for me and my health and well-being.

which brings me to another point i meant to make a couple months ago and now is ever so much more relevant. DC Teacher Chic quit her teaching job suddenly, what, back in November maybe? I hadn't read her blog before, but i saw a linked post on another blog (maybe gothamschools?) and clicked over to read about it. she had written a lengthy post and there were over eighty comments there. in the post she described and summarized the main issues that had contributed to her decision. so many of them were all too familiar--illness, anxiety, insomnia, migraines, but also incompetent and unsupportive administration who didn't control or punish students that bullied and abused teachers. i was never assaulted by a student, thank god (i would have been out of there immediately if i had; i was shocked that she stayed), but i was threatened by and bullied by parents, and admin did nothing about it.

anyway, her post made it clear that she didn't take the decision lightly and that she didn't want it to happen this way, but that it was best for her. almost all of the commenters were very supportive and even congratulated her on getting out of a ridiculous situation. and so of course there was one very loud dissenting voice. the flame-thrower (because s/he kept writing and responding, which the nasty ones always do--why???) insisted that that was a selfish decision, because it left the kids in the lurch. who would be responsible for them now, who would teach them now, what would happen to them now?

those questions have rolled around my head for five years, people. it's why i've never given up. it's why i take as few days off as possible, coming in to teach when i can barely talk or am hacking up phlegm in the middle of my lesson (sorry for the graphic tmi), why i never let the seed of doubt grow into a reality. the fact was and is that in these big cities, kids need teachers, period, and further, they need teachers who don't suck. too many kids in my old school simply didn't have a teacher, or had a teacher who did suck.

BUT. is it really a fair trade when a person's mental and physical health is on the line? who is more important, the kids with the potential futures or the teacher trying to help them achieve that future? the reality is that the two fates are intertwined--if the students are the cause of the teacher's distress, the teacher can't function properly, and that cycles back to affect the students. (as in, if too many students are acting up, and the teacher is trying to manage them but can't because detentions, timeouts, dean visits, parent calls, etc haven't worked, then the students can't learn as much because instruction time is wasted and everyone is frustrated (except for the kids acting up--they feel, rightly, that they 'won').

so is it a fair trade? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. if a person is working in an office and has an allergic reaction to the wall glue or chair plastic or whatever, do we force them to keep working there, suffering? Please. i'm sure teams of lawyers have made millions fighting against that.
But here's some dude telling a teacher that was successful for something like five or eight years, no, you should keep teaching no matter what. your health and well-being and happiness are secondary.

come on, dude. that is fucked up. seriously. this is what we get for venerating the martyr teacher--the one who sacrifices everything--family, health, time alone to rest and recuperate--in books and movies. people that take this job and keep it do it because we know it's incredibly important, and we all work hard because we know we can never work hard enough, because the work will never be done, because these kids need so much and most of it we can't give them. and some people are willing and able to make those sacrifices and yes, they are inspirational heroes. Are they realistic role models for the legions of young teachers out there? No way! Look at the demographics of charter school teachers, just as an example--young people, the vast majority upper middle class, unmarried and without children. You know why? Because the teachers with families and outside responsibilities (you know, the real world, the one that is causing heartbreak for so many urban children, is a force the rest of us have to deal with too) can't deal with stressful twelve-hour workdays when they face another entire workday at home that night. I can't even imagine being a regular public school teacher with children, let alone a baby or two! I've been tired for five years, and i'm single and childless! Many days I could just barely get through the day on my own, and then usually I could go home and veg out. I can't imagine the stamina and patience that the parent teachers have.

Wait, this was a tangent, what was I trying to get at? Oh yes--priorities. Who really matters the most? Yes, the children matter. That's why I was there, that's why you're there, and that's why I never actually quit, even when my body and brain were begging me to. I would never ever make a decision for another teacher, and I will never ever judge someone for leaving the classroom. If it's not right for you, if it's unhealthy for you, and you make your decision, then I will support that. For two reasons: first, because an unhappy and unhealthy teacher is not a great teacher, and second, because quitting is not at all an easy decision. So if someone is able to make that decision, then it was probably coming anyway and had been thought over and was most likely the right thing to do for all parties.

This wouldn't be a problem if we had more qualified teachers. It's not my job to worry about the eighth-graders at my old school who NEVER HAD AN ENGLISH TEACHER. I can't save them. I can't actually 'save' any of my students, because any problems are so much bigger than my forty-five or ninety minutes with them a day. I always wanted to do my best, I always wanted to help them, and it breaks my heart that some of these kids can't get what they need--from their peers, the school, their parents, the community. I have to remember my place and my limitations (of time, money, patience, energy, knowledge, etc).

So. Was I a bad teacher? No. In fact, the number of times I despaired over being a bad or ineffective teacher tells you (and me, in my conscience) that I couldn't have actually been one. And I don't know if this makes sense to anyone else, but the fact that I worried about whether I was doing a good job meant that I was putting a lot of effort and heart into the job. Does that make sense in reality? I'm not sure. But I think a truly ineffective teacher wouldn't think about all the things that need to change and try new things and continue engaging students in thoughtful discussions or activities in and out of the classroom. My principal this year called me tenacious, way back in the fall when I was still crying all the time but I wasn't giving up on my standards or my job. I took it seriously and I worked my butt off. Did it work? Eh, I have no idea. But honestly, I felt that way all the time in past years--I always looked back and despaired, oh god, have my kids learned ANYTHING this year?! even when their evaluations listed the things they learned and explained how I was a hard teacher but explained things to them so they could learn it.

Those little things can motivate us again after a hard day or a difficult week or an impossible month. I think I got trapped in my negativity at times (which one of my supervisors correctly called me on and tried to encourage me to think about the part of the day that worked)(which when it was only a minute or two, out of twelve hours, was hard to take seriously) and other times I doggedly pushed forward, always thinking of new things to try, or possible strategies, games, lessons, talks with disruptive students. Is it fair to expect a teacher to be perfect every second of the day? I say no, but maybe that's because I'm highly imperfect. :) Teachers are human, we have needs, we have minds. You can't judge me (or DC Teacher Chic, or anyone else) because you haven't been in my shoes, you haven't been in my mind (lucky you). You may have read my blog (thank you!), but remember, even that's only snippets when I choose or remember to share.

Good god, I think I've been typing solidly for an hour or more. My elbows hurt. Is that a thing, blog elbow? Sorry this has been so very long and rambling--I went back earlier to add a 'warning' at the top. If you made it all the way through it, phew, that was rough, hope you weren't too confused/traumatized/enraged/disgusted/surprised/weirded out. Cheers. :)