Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Notes from Redesign Team Community Forum submitted by Lisa Neville
Nottingham High School Redesign Team
Second Community Forum
3/12/11 Second PLA Redesign Plan Community Forum
Start 10:00 AM End 12:50 PM in the school cafeteria
Attendance: 40-50 participants including teachers, family members and community members. Redesign
Team members: Shirley Copes, Jim Fischer, Barry Lentz, and Brian Pulvino. Introduced by PTSO Redesign
Working Group co-leaders: Gena Christian and Steve Swift.
History of our Current Situation as a Persistently Low Achieving School
Nottingham High School was designated a Persistently Low Achieving School because graduation
rate and annual yearly progress scores for students do not meet the state standard. A PLA school
must submit a grant application to the state and if the plan is approved the school is eligible to
receive a 1.8M grant each year for 3 years. The grant application is renewable annually. Once the
plan is approved and implemented it will be evaluated with three site visits each year from the
state. The grant has four parameters, it must
1. Develop and increase teacher leadership competency
2. Contain comprehensive classroom strategies
3. Increase learning and create positive school culture
4. Demonstrate operational support
A team composed of teachers, administrators, family representatives, and community members
will create the plan. Team members are:
Name School Position Held Email
Austin, Mark Nottingham Teacher mausti63@scsd.us
Azzolino, Thomas Nottingham Teacher tazzolino@scsd.us
Como, Therese Nottingham Teacher tcomo@scsd.us
Copes, Shirley Nottingham Parent shirlgram08@hotmail.com
Fischer, Jim Nottingham Parent jrfischer10@twcny.rr.com
Formica, Donna Nottingham Vice Principal dformica@scsd.us
Lentz, Barry Nottingham Parent belsyr@aol.com
Little, Thomas Nottingham Teacher tlittle@scsd.us
Mangram, Jeff SU Professor jamangra@syr.edu
Maynard, Dave Central Office Coordinator for SS dmaynard@scsd.us
Pulvino, Brian Central Office Spec. Ed. Director bpulvino@scsd.us
Shallish, Lauren SU Grad Student leshalli@syr.edu
Stamoulacatos, Nick Nottingham Teacher nstamoulacatos@scsd.us
Thomas, Cecily Nottingham Student Cecilythomas17@gmail.com
Wiles, Tracy Nottingham Counselor tdaige-wiles@scsd.us
Page 2 of 7
The district called for Nottingham High School community members to apply to the team,
interviewed and then selected the team members. The Nottingham PLA Redesign Team began
meeting Jan 6, 2011.
The district has chosen the transformation redesign model (see attached description of the 4
possible models.) The redesign plan document deadline has been extended by one week to
3/21/11. The district must submit the grant proposal plan in April 2011.. The plan can be added
to on an ongoing basis including the annual grant renewal applications for the two following
years.
Current Student Schedule
Currently Nottingham runs a 5x4 block schedule. Students usually take 5 classes meeting on days
2 and 4 and 4 different classes meeting on days 1 and 3 with “Fifth block” on days 1 and 3 being
“Study and Support.” Study and support is intended to be a working study hall. In many cases
students have study and support scheduled with a teacher who they are likely to want to get
support from. For example many AP Calculus students have their student and support period with
the AR Calculus teacher. Students can also get passes to spend time with any available teacher
they need to see for extra help, make up work, or to participate in special activities. There are
some clubs that meet during study and support. Currently there is an early college high school
support program funded by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation with 85 9
tutors in the cafeteria during this time. In practice many students are not using study and support
as it was intended and parents report having recently heard an announcement that made study
and support sound optional.
Barry - This Wednesday March 16, the Curriculum committee of the BOE will hear updates from
the school redesign teams. Community members need to show up and speak to their concerns at
that meeting. The monthly meeting is in the boardroom at the district offices at 4pm. They review
the PLA process monthly at these meetings. [Update: the Nottingham Redesign Team did not
present the Nottingham Plan at the March 16
for March 30
th grades meeting withth meeting. The presentation has been rescheduledth in the Board Room at 4:00 PM]Discussion of
PLA Redesign Plan”
“Highlights and Examples under Consideration for Inclusion in the Nottingham(see attached document)What is not in the content document?
1. A great deal of the discussion in the redesign team right now is focused on how to provide
professional development and support to staff. They are also working out how to make the
best use of the data on student performance to get data into useable form for staff and
families.
2. The organizational model of the school. Right now the team is looking at:
a. One school with two to three “houses” to create “small learning environments” of
200-450 students with a dedicated set of staff in each group that would stay with
students through their high school experience. Possible configurations;
i. 2 teams on 2 different houses perhaps breaking 9
groups.
ii. 3 houses
Page 3 of 7
b. What is the role of SU?
i. Right now the consensus of the team is not for a model that would involve a
dedicated early college high school in one house in which SU has
administrative control
ii. The team is interested in having SU as a partner providing support for
students who previously have not been able to benefit from the many
opportunities to do college level course work that exist through current
partnerships with SU, LeMoyne, SUNY, OCC< Bryant Stratton and RIT.
iii. The team will hear from a representative from SU about possible structural
support on Monday 3/15/11.
th graders into smallerDiscussion of possible schedule options (see attached 4x4 block proposed schedule)
1. Early student start time vs/late teacher time –families want to know what teachers think is
the best schedule
2. 4 x 80 minute instructional blocks with a 40 minute block at the end or the beginning of the
day. The 40 min. block will provide time for teacher collaboration, planning and
professional development on certain days and student support time on other days. This is a
model that has been put forward several times – this structure allows the smallest class
size with the teachers the district can afford to provide. This is a budget issue and it also
allows time for teacher collaboration that currently does not exist.
3. The Centro contract is up this spring. The school start time depends somewhat on Centro
or other private bussing company contract. The Board of Education wants family input on
potential bussing contract possibilities. Families should let the school board know what
they think and can do so by attending board of education committee meetings where any
person in attendance can raise concerns or comment on policy. See the district website for
committee meeting times.
4. What do teachers think would be the best schedule?
5. Resource – currently it is ½ of 5
become one of the 8 blocks in the 4x4. More special education support services will be
provided in the classroom next year. Budget cuts are resulting in a move to consultative
model rather than pull out resource model. A student would receive the support in one of
her classes rather than in the resource room.
6. The 4x4 schedule would substantially reduce the number of study halls. Those present
report that the community wants full scheduling without study halls.
7. One parent heard an announcement at the end of fourth block that 5
and that students can leave the building.
8. Several teachers spoke to supporting teacher time at the end of the day
9. Several parents spoke to late teacher time because their kids would not use the early
teacher time
10. A teacher spoke to the late teacher time to make sure students would be at school
11. A parent supported later student start time with optional student attendance at teacher
time stating that research says that adolescents need to sleep later
Page 4 of 7
12. A parent offered the idea that different teams or small learning communities (houses)
could start at different times – late teacher time and early teacher time teams. She
encouraged the redesign team to think creatively about this.
th block. Resource is currently a block in the 5x5. It wouldth block is now optionalA teacher
impressions of the redesign process.
asked family representatives Shirley and Jim to speak of their interests and about theirShirley Copes – Is the proud grandmother of two current Nottingham students and two successful
graduates. Her passion is increasing family involvement in the school. She states that we all have
only one thing in common, the student. The staff and families are here because of the students.
Families need to feel welcome and need to be in the building and to come to events at the school.
Most families do not know their student’s teachers. We all need to parent each other’s children and
our kids’ peers. She told a story of having asked a student to pick up his trash in the hall as an
example of the very small but meaningful acts that can improve behavior in the school. The problems
our students face are serious and we need to meet their needs. Her grand children report a huge
range of classroom structure and student behavior in their classes. From organized classes with
clear expectations and well-behaved, engaged students to classes where there are no expectations,
little work and students are disrespectful. She feels that all adults and students need to work
together and points out that if you don’t have parent partnership you are nowhere. At the movement
there is nothing in place for family involvement. But, she promises, we are going to get creative
about how to engage families. Part of the Individual Learning Plan will be a contract of behavior
that each child and family will have to sign. Failing to abide by the contract would have
consequences making each student accountable for their behavior at weekly or biweekly meetings at
the school if needed.
Jim Fischer– Is a parent of two children one of whom receives special education services at
Nottingham. He is in graduate school at LeMoyne to be aspec. Ed. teacher himself and is excited
about bringing in the four-tier system to assess all students’ skills/needs in academics and behavior.
This approach would also mandate ongoing monitoring and adjustment of courses and supports as
needed to support all students in achieving. He feels strongly that behavioral expectations at this
school need to be implemented. Accountability will be a strong focus in this plan. Polite and
professional behavior between all staff and students is not optional. Respect between adults and
between students and adults must be demanded. He is also interested in helping students have a
voice in the redesign process and using a survey created by the PTSO working group asked all current
Nottingham students for their ideas and concerns about school. He reports that the initial readings
of the responses have echoed the concerns raised by adults on the redesign team.
Q. Will my kid have to less choice in variety of areas of study because of 4x4 block?
A. Yes – we do not yet know how restrictive the course options will be. We cannot
continue to offer as many of the highest-level course options because we have to reallocate money
to support the lowest performing and struggling students. The students at risk must be supported
to achieve.
Page 5 of 7
Q. How does the school’s normal funding fit into the redesign process?
A. Funding is complicated coming from a variety of sources including district wide grants.
For example, if the redesign team were to decide to keep 5
pay for a fifth block must come from PLA $ due to budget reductions. A 4X 4 block schedule is
proposed as a cost saving measure and to prevent larger class sizes.
th block next year the extra money toQ. What if the $ isn’t there to fund the redesign plan?
A. The plan would have to be adjusted on an ongoing basis if full funding is not granted.
The district is using grant money from a variety of sources to plan for next year.
members are encouraged to write to our governmental representatives to make sure that
they are accountable for adequately funding education.
All communityQ. How much administration would be added to the school to implement the plan?
A. That is not yet decided. But we do know that the plan has to be sustainable beyond 3
years of grant funding. So any additional or higher level staff would have to be both necessary and
affordable.
Q. Will there be different administrators next year?
A. Yes. The staff members on the redesign team are the only staff so far who have been
“hired” to serve at NHS next year. All other staff will be invited to reapply for their positions.
2011. At present principals for the three PLA High Schools are supposed to be approved by the
April 13 BOE meeting.
Q. When is application process for teachers going to start?
A. When the plan is approved the process of application, interview and hiring of staff for
next year would likely take place, in April and May
Q. Who has the final say in what the plan looks like when it is submitted?
A. After the redesign team completes their plan the superintendant, deputy
superintendants, other involved central staff and two district grants office staff finalize the
proposal from all district PLA schools. The district must submit a plan for all PLA schools together
as one document. It was noted that there were not significant revisions to the PLA plans
submitted by redesign teams at other schools last year.
Q. How much money is involved in school attendance?
A. Funding is tied to attendance
Q. Why is there no mention of attendance in plan?
A. Attendance expectations are built in to the 4 tiered instruction and behavioral
expectations and supports framework (see attached.) It is a part of the individual learning
plans that are planned to phase in over three years for all students.
Q. Is there a way to hold parents accountable for their child’s attendance?
A. Individual learning plan will include strategies to support attendance. Nottingham has
92%+ daily attendance at school rate. But while students are coming to school they are not
Page 6 of 7
attending certain classes. Actions must be planned to make sure students make it to all
their classes.
Comment -
school. Child welfare can be called in to support attendance.
Other government agencies should be called in and used to support theComment
dropped students need to reapply to school to return.
– in some states enrollment is rescinded if attendance is poor and onceQ. How will programming be communicated to staff and students? Currently the
“academies” system and teams are not well defined and implemented. Many students don’t
know which team or academy they are in.
A. A team will be created including 18 teachers to review and integrate the existing district
initiatives intended to support students in achieving. These include: PBIS (Positive Behavioral
Intervention Strategies,) ILP (individual learning plans,) Response To Intervention (RTI – also
known as - the 4 Tier Framework see attached) and
initiatives. The plan will strive to marry all current interventions and programming.
Courageous Conversations are all districtComment
mindful of the stress teachers are under as they add expectations for data collection
to the current workload. Make sure that teachers are not stressed by being asked to
fill out more paperwork.
– A parent who is also a teacher wants to make sure that the team isComment -
programs with acronyms be defined for families. Hearing RTI, PBIS, ILP means little
to non-educators and the presenters were asked to refrain from using educational
short hand and jargon in addressing these community forums.
A parent asked that the above-mentioned district initiatives and otherQ. Can we make sure that the arts are part of the redesign plan? Orchestra/band/drama.
Several people present spoke to the importance of the arts in student’s lives. A parent spoke to
orchestra as being strong in elementary grades and unsupported by the district at middle and high
school levels. She stated that orchestra is what gets her child out of bed and to school each day.
Several parents affirmed.
A. Opportunities for students in the arts will continue but some may be scaled back
because of budget cuts (e.g. orchestra). No PLA funds are likely to be designated for music
or art programs. The reality is that Nottingham is a PLA school because the most at risk
students are not graduating. 10% of SC students passed algebra regents. 64% of kids make
it in college. Kids with disabilities have a 50% pass rate. 1/3 of kids in advanced
placement ELA class pass the regents. We need to build in technical and vocational
experience. There are racial differences in advanced versus regular classes that should not
be there. Teachers are not stretching to teach with broad strategies to all students. Some
teachers are using less engaging strategies like round robin reading in regular classes not
the PowerPoint presentations and other learning opportunities offered in advanced
classes.
Q. Is there going to be an evaluation of the effectiveness of the redesign plan?
A. Yes. The state visits in November, March and May. Second year funding is based on how
those assessments reflects action on the plan. The plan has team plans with internal
monitoring and accountability. The school staff is not yet working smart to make sure that
everyone knows what to do and that they are expected to do it.
Page 7 of 7
Additional Comments made throughout the forum:
Parent
including the course instructor came to her house on a home visit as a matter of assessing her
child’s family support structure. Had her family needed additional support more visits would
have been arranged. She noted that her other child is a participant in the Woodrow Wilson Early
College High School Program and she knows that support staff from that program have conducted
home visits with some struggling students families. At SAS her child participates in afterschool
activities – when she is unable to transport her child staff offer rides to her child to attend
afterschool activities. Support with transportation supports family and student involvement.
– who has one child at Syracuse Academy of Science (SAS) reported that three staffTeacher
that their child cannot appropriately refrain from using technology (cell phone) in the classroom
the parent needs to act to help the student learn to use technology appropriately. All need to
recognize and follow the school policy; this teacher wants parents to back up staff in limiting
texting/phone use. Parents should not be texting/calling students while they are in class.
– About student behavior, the electronics situation is horrible. If a teacher tells a parentTeacher
did not enforce it. There must be enforcement. Without behavior there will never be academics.
- The initial PBIS addressed only behaviors. Teachers taught it but the administrationParent
– students often respond better to other adults than their own parent.Teacher
most important part of the process .– students want the guidance and structure adults provide. Parent involvement is the
A Note from Barry Lentz about Redesign
SCSD Board of Education Presentation
The presentation of the Nottingham Redesign Team’s Plan that was originally scheduled for the March 16th meeting of the Board of Education's Curriculum Committee meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, March 30 at 4:00 in the Board Room at the District's Central Offices, 725 Harrison Street. There was not enough time for all of the scheduled presentations at the March 16th meeting because of the special BOE meeting called for 6 pm to announce the hiring of the new Superintendent. The March 30 meeting is important and it would be good for as many parents as possible to attend. There is more dialogue among BOE members and presenters and, when time permits, more opportunity for community comments. We are currently working on a new Power Point presentation for the BOE meeting that I hope to be able to send to the Nottingham community email list prior to the meeting.
April 12th Community Redesign Forum
The next community forum for discussion of the Nottingham Redesign Plan is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, in the Nottingham Cafeteria. The forum will be divided into two parts. The first part will begin at 6:30 PM and will run until 7 PM. This will be largely an information session for those who have not attended a previous forum and would like more background information on how Nottingham became a PLA school and what the PLA redesign process involves. At 7 we will transition to a presentation of the key components of the Redesign Plan. This will include a discussion of what is required for implementation and critical opportunities for community engagement.
The “final” draft of the redesign plan was just completed this afternoon, Wednesday, March 23. The term “final” is in quotation marks because it is not the actual plan that will be submitted to the NYS Education Department in late April. There are still many variables in play that could result in changes to the plan. After the presentation at the Board of Education meeting next week, we should have a much clearer picture about potential changes. Given the amount of time before the next forum on April 12, I am hopeful that we will be able to be specific about those aspects of the plan that are fairly definite and those which may require some degree of modification.
I will try to provide an email update by the end of next week. As always, I encourage folks to contact the parent reps on the redesign team--Shirley Copes (shirlgram08@hotmail.com), Jim Fischer (jfischer10@twcny.rr.com) or me with questions or comments.
Barry Lentz
belsyr@aol.com
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Science Department Concerns about Redesign
Science Department Concerns for the Redesign Team to Address
(discussed by the Science department on March 10, 2011)
Compiled by Paula Nottingham – Co-chair
Students Dropping Classes after 2-weeks into the course. I, Ms. Nottingham, have had 2 seniors dropped from my Anatomy and Physiology course in the past month because they did NOT want to do the work & "my class was hurting their GPA." Other failing students have been shuffled from one teacher to another. What does that say about the teacher's class who the student was switched into? Plus, it seems as though the lower level courses (which were already overflowing at the beginning of the school year) become too full to move as the year progresses or there are NO seats for the “new” students to sit in.
We know that we want to get more students to graduate, but are we not setting them up for failure by allowing them to drop? In college, students with Federal, State, and/or Scholarship may have to REPAY their grants/scholarships if they drop below the minimum number of required full-time credits. They may also be ineligible for these funds the following year. The students need to know that if they decide to take a class, that there will be NO schedule changes, especially because they simply do not want to do the required work or because of their EXCESSIVE absences.
Back in the day when most of us were in high school, were you allowed to drop a class because you just didn't want to do the work? Would your parents let you drop? Were you allowed to quit something you started because of laziness or absenteeism? Enough said.
This DISTRICT needs to address the policy for Athletes
We understand that sports keep troublesome students off the street and out of other problems, but begging 2+ teachers to change grades (because the student is failing 4 or more classes) to allow a student to play a sport is UNACCEPTABLE! For us, it is always the same issue, the student is MORE than capable of doing the work, they simply just don’t try, they are too lazy, or they simply do not come to the class.
Back in the day when most of us were in high school, were you allowed to play sports if you did not hold a C+ average (75% or 2.5 GPA)? Enough said.
The Mandatory 50s Policy
All of us in the department would be happy seeing this policy removed. However, we are willing to compromise on ONE marking period. Plus, we would like the discretion to use the 50 policy for any marking period that a student has a major crisis (e.g. parent/sibling dying, etc.). We would like this policy to only occur for students who do NOT have more than 5 absences in the "50" marking period.
Back in the day when most of us were in high school, do you remember getting points/grades for doing nothing? …for being absent everyday? Enough said.
What if 20+% of the students are FAILING every teacher? Are you going to terminate everyone?
When we have a student who is failing with a grade much less than 50%, the student is typically failing everything. We call the parents numerous times and get the same excuses (yes - excuses). We almost NEVER see a change in the child's attitude/work performance and somehow that's our fault. We know other teachers have the same issues. There is 20-30% of the student population who we are NEVER going to see improvement because their parents care more about them having cell phones and I-pods visible than they care about their child doing work in our classes. You really need to think about the termination policy or else there might be NO core teachers available to teach.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Response to the New York Times article by Mr. King
Colleagues,
This article by Kristof (interestingly, the same name of the guy on "The Truman Show" who is artificially able to control every aspect of his universe) fails to adequately define "good teachers." This is a common fallacy; "good"-ness in a teacher cannot even be agreed upon as a meaningful defined attribute, much less measured with any objectivity. The article does make mention of teacher program graduates in the "top third of their class(es)"... does that make one a "good teacher?" Certainly not by default. (Book smarts de facto translates to classroom prowess?) Or will the totality of the post-redesign re-hiring process simply be to whip out our grad school transcripts? (I kid because I care...)
This article also seems to fault teachers entirely for the woes of schools, suggesting that the Japanese model of "larger classes, but with outstanding, respected, well-paid teachers" would save the day. This statement necessarily implies that it is the lack of "non-outstanding" teachers that is responsible for schools' failure. This negates the affirmative duty and responsibilities of the many other stakeholders in the educational process to ensure that the educational process works for all; if we just replace all our current "non-outstanding" teachers with teachers who got a 3.7 or higher in college, BAM, things will improve. But the part of Kristof's comment about the Japanese model that goes unnoticed, unaddressed, under the radar, is the word "respected."
"Respected" is a participial adjective, part of a passive construction which begs the question "respected by whom?" And that's the key. Pacific Rim Asia and its member nations have an almost unilateral cultural endorsement of (formal) education as a profound value and a necessary virtue. Until American society really understands and respects the job that we do as teachers, this type of change will not come in the measure that we might like to see. In many Asian countries, it is simply axiomatic -- teachers are noble and their mission is to be respected... so they ARE. These are countries where secondary education is HIGHLY competitive, where students must test INTO their high school of choice. De facto, an American public school model could not follow even the most basic tenets of the "Japanese" model for that reason alone. In Japan (Korea, etc,...) education is frequently tied to status, which maybe used to be the case in America, but perhaps no longer is (and maybe it should not be, because then we inadvertently de-value vocational education, military service, etc in the process, because it's not the "gold standard" of a 4-year university, and therefore "not good enough"). In many Asian countries, and in many Asian ethnic enclaves in the US, an education is sought by students with almost religious zeal, and enforced by parents with a near-dictatorial level of inevitablilty. The pressure is staggering, and predicated in the notion that an education is in and of itself an absolute Good. That is not, it seems, the mindset of the America in which we live... an America where teachers are not infrequently the scapegoats, fall guys and whipping boys of frustrated parents, overwhelmed administrators and opportunistic lawyers and politicians everywhere. Zounds.
Many Asian countries (and Asian populations in the US) have well-documented HIGH student suicide rates over academic failure, or the inability to make certain grades, achieve certain test scores, or get into certain vaunted institutions. Do we really want our schools to come to that? These are societies where it may be considered culturally taboo for student to speak out of turn to a teacher, to challenge/debate or ask questions, or even make direct eye contact in class. That's not how I imagine a successful classroom running!
What we do have in America is a staggering and wonderful diversity of students, schools, programs and options... a multitude of different tracks for students to follow, and opportunities for a much wider swath of the student population to find SOMETHING that works for them that they can then channel; into a career, a living, a vocation, a future. We do wrong if we try to force everyone into a 4-year college track; we deny the very diversity we should be celebrating. Oh, that's the other thing about many Asian societal/educational institutions -- almost total homogeneity. I know we don't want our schools to come to that!
And to declare that teacher X is "93% better than" teacher Y... that's just an attempt to conveniently quantify the abstract, to the extent that the discussion becomes meaningless. What is Kristof's rubric? Test scores? Class grades? Student self-reporting? Administrative observation? We are so desperate to force things into tiny little boxes that we can name and give a score to, that we lose sight of what the heck our positions are all about. We become creatures of pure, decontextualized data. My goodness, let's not give up to the point where we abandon our own common sense, reason, objectivity and standards to the first prophet that comes along dangling a bait that looks like hope, or the first system that looks "simple" enough to "manage." Our job is too important to resort to shorthand like that. I hope the Redesign Team's teacher contingent will represent well the concerns of teachers, at least to the extent that teacher concerns are valued by the State of New York, in the coming months/year. Good luck to all of us.
Respectfully,
Andrew
This article by Kristof (interestingly, the same name of the guy on "The Truman Show" who is artificially able to control every aspect of his universe) fails to adequately define "good teachers." This is a common fallacy; "good"-ness in a teacher cannot even be agreed upon as a meaningful defined attribute, much less measured with any objectivity. The article does make mention of teacher program graduates in the "top third of their class(es)"... does that make one a "good teacher?" Certainly not by default. (Book smarts de facto translates to classroom prowess?) Or will the totality of the post-redesign re-hiring process simply be to whip out our grad school transcripts? (I kid because I care...)
This article also seems to fault teachers entirely for the woes of schools, suggesting that the Japanese model of "larger classes, but with outstanding, respected, well-paid teachers" would save the day. This statement necessarily implies that it is the lack of "non-outstanding" teachers that is responsible for schools' failure. This negates the affirmative duty and responsibilities of the many other stakeholders in the educational process to ensure that the educational process works for all; if we just replace all our current "non-outstanding" teachers with teachers who got a 3.7 or higher in college, BAM, things will improve. But the part of Kristof's comment about the Japanese model that goes unnoticed, unaddressed, under the radar, is the word "respected."
"Respected" is a participial adjective, part of a passive construction which begs the question "respected by whom?" And that's the key. Pacific Rim Asia and its member nations have an almost unilateral cultural endorsement of (formal) education as a profound value and a necessary virtue. Until American society really understands and respects the job that we do as teachers, this type of change will not come in the measure that we might like to see. In many Asian countries, it is simply axiomatic -- teachers are noble and their mission is to be respected... so they ARE. These are countries where secondary education is HIGHLY competitive, where students must test INTO their high school of choice. De facto, an American public school model could not follow even the most basic tenets of the "Japanese" model for that reason alone. In Japan (Korea, etc,...) education is frequently tied to status, which maybe used to be the case in America, but perhaps no longer is (and maybe it should not be, because then we inadvertently de-value vocational education, military service, etc in the process, because it's not the "gold standard" of a 4-year university, and therefore "not good enough"). In many Asian countries, and in many Asian ethnic enclaves in the US, an education is sought by students with almost religious zeal, and enforced by parents with a near-dictatorial level of inevitablilty. The pressure is staggering, and predicated in the notion that an education is in and of itself an absolute Good. That is not, it seems, the mindset of the America in which we live... an America where teachers are not infrequently the scapegoats, fall guys and whipping boys of frustrated parents, overwhelmed administrators and opportunistic lawyers and politicians everywhere. Zounds.
Many Asian countries (and Asian populations in the US) have well-documented HIGH student suicide rates over academic failure, or the inability to make certain grades, achieve certain test scores, or get into certain vaunted institutions. Do we really want our schools to come to that? These are societies where it may be considered culturally taboo for student to speak out of turn to a teacher, to challenge/debate or ask questions, or even make direct eye contact in class. That's not how I imagine a successful classroom running!
What we do have in America is a staggering and wonderful diversity of students, schools, programs and options... a multitude of different tracks for students to follow, and opportunities for a much wider swath of the student population to find SOMETHING that works for them that they can then channel; into a career, a living, a vocation, a future. We do wrong if we try to force everyone into a 4-year college track; we deny the very diversity we should be celebrating. Oh, that's the other thing about many Asian societal/educational institutions -- almost total homogeneity. I know we don't want our schools to come to that!
And to declare that teacher X is "93% better than" teacher Y... that's just an attempt to conveniently quantify the abstract, to the extent that the discussion becomes meaningless. What is Kristof's rubric? Test scores? Class grades? Student self-reporting? Administrative observation? We are so desperate to force things into tiny little boxes that we can name and give a score to, that we lose sight of what the heck our positions are all about. We become creatures of pure, decontextualized data. My goodness, let's not give up to the point where we abandon our own common sense, reason, objectivity and standards to the first prophet that comes along dangling a bait that looks like hope, or the first system that looks "simple" enough to "manage." Our job is too important to resort to shorthand like that. I hope the Redesign Team's teacher contingent will represent well the concerns of teachers, at least to the extent that teacher concerns are valued by the State of New York, in the coming months/year. Good luck to all of us.
Respectfully,
Andrew
A recent e-mail sent out to staff by Dr. Ibarra
Something to think about...
Also, an article that would interest you: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html?src=me&ref=homepage
Recent scholarship suggests that good teachers, even kindergarten teachers, increase theirstudents’ earnings many years later. Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford University found that an excellent teacher (one a standard deviation better than average, or better than 84 percent of teachers) raises each student’s lifetime earnings by $20,000. If there are 20 students in the class, that is an extra $400,000 generated, compared with a teacher who is merely average.
A teacher better than 93 percent of other teachers would add $640,000 to lifetime pay of a class of 20, the study found
Have a good week
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Redesign Team would like to meet with teachers...
They have proposed Tuesday March 8 3:15-4 in the cafeteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)