Sunday, December 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Common Assessments Are a Test for School’s Technology
published April 27th, 2011 in Ed Week
As the state of Oregon moves toward a common assessment in all subject areas, a critical component involved in districts being able to administer the tests, will be technology. Currently, the OAKS test is taken by students online, and in the small district where I currently work, there are HUGE technology issues. When OAKS testing is taking place, everyone who is not on the internet for a critical reason is prohibited from using it. Streaming is banned all throughout the district all the time, because it causes students who are taking online classes to be bumped out of their program. As the number of tests delivered online increases, the more inconveniences it causes for all the other computer users in my district. The article noted many of the same problems in other school districts, citing capacity issues as a reason teachers may not be able to teach using internet based tools during testing season. I was somewhat surprised to read that Virginia is moving to an online based writing assessment next year. It does make sense that moving the assessment to an online format would make it easier for grading and reporting purposes, however I agree with the concerns presented including the notion that a young student’s keyboarding skills could affect the outcome of their score. I think the critical message to be received from this article is that although it seems ideal to deliver all tests through an online system, the state will have to make plans and have funds available to deal with all the little details and potential problems that will arise in regard to technology. To simply proceed without taking into consideration capacity issues is a recipe for disaster!
Budget Crunch Spurs Expectations of Increase in Pink Slips
published April 6th, 2011 in Ed Week
This article caught my attention as talk about pink slips being handed out has been rampant in the district where I currently work. Everyone has been busy speculating how many staff will be let go if a certain percentage of staff do not retire. The pressure on staff by administration to retire has been intense, and they have even resorted to offering large financial incentives. Last Friday it was announced that the quota of retirees was met, and thus no licensed staff were let go. The article mentioned that there is a timeline in each state for when layoff notices have to be given. I was surprised to read that Oregon’s deadline is one of the earliest in March. In this era of great instability in educational funding, I can imagine it would be hard to predict in March how many staff may be at risk of losing a job. I cannot imagine working in a place like Los Angeles, California or Providence, Rhode Island where nearly every single teacher was given a pink slip so that the districts could cover their bases and meet the deadlines. How unnerving would that be as a teacher to receive a pink slip every year? I wonder whether a teacher who is aware that they will not be in their job next year, is really giving 100% to their school community and other tasks such as PLC’s. I personally would rather wait until May or June to receive a pink slip or until a district is certain about the outcome of my position. It seems that this early warning system is just one more area in education that needs some serious revision.
Learning from Abroad
published April 6th, 2011 in Ed Week
I found this article to be incredibly interesting and would highly recommend it to anyone who is truly interested in improving the educational system in this country. It examined many of the characteristics of successful international education programs. If our country had the opportunity to wipe the slate of the educational system clear and start again, we might consider these components from other systems:
1) “Successful education systems focus intensively on what happens in schools and classrooms
between students and teachers.”
In nearly every conversation I’ve engaged in at Willamette, at the heart of every issue is the relationship developed between the student and the teacher. This concept seems like a no brainer, yet is not always the focus of every school.
2) “Strong education systems give their highest priority to helping their teachers and principals get
better at their work.”
Time is provided for teachers to collaborate and receive professional development training.
3) Some successful countries, like Singapore, require everyone interested in the educational field to attend school and work toward a master’s degree. Once an individual has been established as an effective teacher, they can choose which track to advance toward. They could become an administrator, a specialist in research and development, or continue as a classroom teacher. The pay scales for each track are comparable.
4) “Most high performing countries begin with some form of national curriculum.”
The article goes on to state that the curriculum is less structured so that it can be tailored to fit the needs of the local community. The curriculum provides guidance to teachers about how required topics might be taught.
5) “Most high performing systems provide students with a choice between a pathway leading to a
university and a pathway leading more directly to a career.”
When Oregon developed the CIM and CAM program, we were actually on track for developing a successful idea. Unfortunately, the implementation of the program was a mess and eventually led to its demise. The idea is solid, we need to further examine how international systems implemented their program.
6) “Countries with a strong education system do not leave it to the vagaries of the wealth of local
communities to fund education.”
Look at what has happened to the local districts with the downturn of the economy. They are left begging local communities for more tax money in order to provide services. Smaller, poorer districts are simply forced to cut staff and programs as the community can’t afford to pay more.
7) “High performing systems have a more collaborative and trust based culture. Their administrative
leaders are relentlessly positive and optimistic in their communications, stressing everyone’s
capabilities and contributions, not their deficiencies.”
Doesn’t it make sense to have administrators model the same type of interaction they hope their teachers will have with the students?
While the odds of such a major overhaul in the American education system are low, I feel that if we keep our minds open to what is proven to be successful elsewhere, there is in fact hope for the future.
1) “Successful education systems focus intensively on what happens in schools and classrooms
between students and teachers.”
In nearly every conversation I’ve engaged in at Willamette, at the heart of every issue is the relationship developed between the student and the teacher. This concept seems like a no brainer, yet is not always the focus of every school.
2) “Strong education systems give their highest priority to helping their teachers and principals get
better at their work.”
Time is provided for teachers to collaborate and receive professional development training.
3) Some successful countries, like Singapore, require everyone interested in the educational field to attend school and work toward a master’s degree. Once an individual has been established as an effective teacher, they can choose which track to advance toward. They could become an administrator, a specialist in research and development, or continue as a classroom teacher. The pay scales for each track are comparable.
4) “Most high performing countries begin with some form of national curriculum.”
The article goes on to state that the curriculum is less structured so that it can be tailored to fit the needs of the local community. The curriculum provides guidance to teachers about how required topics might be taught.
5) “Most high performing systems provide students with a choice between a pathway leading to a
university and a pathway leading more directly to a career.”
When Oregon developed the CIM and CAM program, we were actually on track for developing a successful idea. Unfortunately, the implementation of the program was a mess and eventually led to its demise. The idea is solid, we need to further examine how international systems implemented their program.
6) “Countries with a strong education system do not leave it to the vagaries of the wealth of local
communities to fund education.”
Look at what has happened to the local districts with the downturn of the economy. They are left begging local communities for more tax money in order to provide services. Smaller, poorer districts are simply forced to cut staff and programs as the community can’t afford to pay more.
7) “High performing systems have a more collaborative and trust based culture. Their administrative
leaders are relentlessly positive and optimistic in their communications, stressing everyone’s
capabilities and contributions, not their deficiencies.”
Doesn’t it make sense to have administrators model the same type of interaction they hope their teachers will have with the students?
While the odds of such a major overhaul in the American education system are low, I feel that if we keep our minds open to what is proven to be successful elsewhere, there is in fact hope for the future.
Excessive Testing Focus Saps Love of Learning (Who would have guessed?)
published April 6th, 2011 in Ed Week
This article looked at the effect of over testing students through the perspective of a South Korean education official. I read this article after reading the brief news article about comments made by President Obama in regard to his sentiments that too much testing makes school dull for students. Obama went on to mention that he thinks student performance should be measured in other ways, possibly including attendance. The Korean education official had similar comments about students testing, “We force students to memorize so much that they experience pain rather than the pleasure of acquiring knowledge through the learning process.” If teachers can focus on making school a fun and engaging experience than student attendance should rise, and students can focus on real learning, rather than rote memorization. In South Korea teachers are referred to as “nation builders.” Should teachers in America be given any less respect? The job of a teacher truly is to build the future leaders of our country. The best leaders are those who are passionate about their beliefs, not drones who repeat verbage. If we as educators are to cultivate the great leaders of the future, then we must reduce the repetitive and endless standardized tests!
This article looked at the effect of over testing students through the perspective of a South Korean education official. I read this article after reading the brief news article about comments made by President Obama in regard to his sentiments that too much testing makes school dull for students. Obama went on to mention that he thinks student performance should be measured in other ways, possibly including attendance. The Korean education official had similar comments about students testing, “We force students to memorize so much that they experience pain rather than the pleasure of acquiring knowledge through the learning process.” If teachers can focus on making school a fun and engaging experience than student attendance should rise, and students can focus on real learning, rather than rote memorization. In South Korea teachers are referred to as “nation builders.” Should teachers in America be given any less respect? The job of a teacher truly is to build the future leaders of our country. The best leaders are those who are passionate about their beliefs, not drones who repeat verbage. If we as educators are to cultivate the great leaders of the future, then we must reduce the repetitive and endless standardized tests!
School Meals Makeover Stirs the Pot
published April 6th, 2011 in Ed Week
I was shocked to read that school meal rules have not changed in 15 years. When I was a sophomore in high school in 1996, was the last time anyone has talked about what is served in school cafeterias. The new rules being proposed are an attempt to combat the childhood obesity levels and they target lowering calories, and incorporating more fruits/vegetables and whole grains. These new rules were proposed in January and open to comment until this April. It will likely take another year for the rules to be finalized, which sets the stage for the 2012-13 school year to be the first year this takes effect.
I am concerned about the increased cost to schools associated with the new menus. Fresh fruits and vegetables do cost more than some of the other foods previously served. The estimate in the article said it would cost school districts an additional $6.8 billion to comply with the new rules. At a time when districts are already facing major budget cuts and the necessity to lay off licensed teachers, this figure seems much too large for any district to handle. Another suggestion in the article was for the districts to help offset the cost by raising school lunch prices. As a parent I have several concerns about this. First, for families with multiple children in school this cost can add up fast! A school lunch in Dallas currently costs $1.80. I will have 3 children in school next year, which means I will be paying $5.40 a day/$27 a week/ $110 a month for one meal. An increase in price could really be a financial hardship for some families. My second concern is that my extremely picky eaters will not be interested in this radically “healthy” food. If less students are eating the food, it may lead to more food being wasted or tossed in the garbage.
While the idea behind the new rules is admirable, I think in all honesty will only lead to more hardship for families and small school districts. I could support incremental change that lessened to blow of the full transition, but will not support the new rules and timelines as they exist now.
I am concerned about the increased cost to schools associated with the new menus. Fresh fruits and vegetables do cost more than some of the other foods previously served. The estimate in the article said it would cost school districts an additional $6.8 billion to comply with the new rules. At a time when districts are already facing major budget cuts and the necessity to lay off licensed teachers, this figure seems much too large for any district to handle. Another suggestion in the article was for the districts to help offset the cost by raising school lunch prices. As a parent I have several concerns about this. First, for families with multiple children in school this cost can add up fast! A school lunch in Dallas currently costs $1.80. I will have 3 children in school next year, which means I will be paying $5.40 a day/$27 a week/ $110 a month for one meal. An increase in price could really be a financial hardship for some families. My second concern is that my extremely picky eaters will not be interested in this radically “healthy” food. If less students are eating the food, it may lead to more food being wasted or tossed in the garbage.
While the idea behind the new rules is admirable, I think in all honesty will only lead to more hardship for families and small school districts. I could support incremental change that lessened to blow of the full transition, but will not support the new rules and timelines as they exist now.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Programs Suffer Cuts in Funding
published March 9th, 2011 in Ed Week
I was rather shocked to read that literacy programs took the brunt of recent cuts in education funding. With the recent focus on improving test scores and the No Child Left Behind Act, it seems to me that literacy skills would be a key component to meeting those goals. The article said the Striving Readers program that used to receive $250 million was completely eliminated. I can’t even imagine how many families and children will be impacted by such a drastic cut. The Even Start Program, which was another literacy program, lost $67 million. Seventeen of these programs in Illinois will close, and they used to serve 643 families. Political pressure to decrease the deficit has led to many programs being reduced or cut this year, not just in education. The difference is that when educational programs are cut, it is kids we are hurting, and it is usually the neediest students who suffer the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)