Published Feb. 2nd, 2011 in Ed Week
I think the relational aggression this article looks at becomes a larger issue as students enter middle and high school. I know at the high school where I currently work, bullying is an issue and ongoing battle for staff. There are several points in the article I found to be very true and worth reflection.
1) Emotional scars are real and potentially more painful that physical abuse.
2) Adults have minimal impact on stopping this type of bullying because the bully is receiving peer reinforcement.
3) The need to confront relational aggression is even more urgent now that students interact more online, where there is minimal adult supervision.
The program introduced in Seattle schools, Steps to Respect, sounds promising as it teachers bystanders to stand up for victims. The traditional anti bullying program teaches bystanders to take away the bully;s power by not feeding their need for attention. Bystanders are instructed to not be spectators, avoid laughing, and to not spread rumors by discussing the incident. The steps program instead teaches bystanders to always get involved to assist the victim by insisting the bully stops or by involving adults who can mediate the issues. Another similar program focuses more on helping both teachers and students understand the difference between normal social interactions and harassment.
I think all schools can benefit from character education programs and that they can go a long way toward the ultimate goal of educating students for their future lives. It's imperative that students have a good understanding of how their actions can impact someone else before they leave high school.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
No Pass, No Drive Laws Spreading
Published Jan. 26th, 2011 in Ed Week
I was surprised to read that the majority of states have implemented a policy that requires students to have consistent school attendance, strong academic performance, and/or good behavior in order to receive a driver's license. This is a new development since my time as a teenage driver. I did receive a discount from my insurance company for good grades, but that is far different that the DMV prohibiting me from getting a license unless I met certain requirements. I am now curious to discover Oregon's rules for new drivers.
I think this model is potentially a great concept. Similar rules are in place for high school sports. Students must maintain a certain GPA and follow behavior codes. Driving is a privledge that I agree teenagers must earn.
In the article it states that New Mexico is trying to take this concept a step further by tying state test scores to receiving a license. They require a score near proficiency on state reading and math tests. Although its sad to say, I suspect a large percentage of the students where I currently work would not meet this requirement. I definitely think each state, maybe even each school district should set their own requirements. Students should be pushed to succeed within their ability levels.
I was surprised to read that the majority of states have implemented a policy that requires students to have consistent school attendance, strong academic performance, and/or good behavior in order to receive a driver's license. This is a new development since my time as a teenage driver. I did receive a discount from my insurance company for good grades, but that is far different that the DMV prohibiting me from getting a license unless I met certain requirements. I am now curious to discover Oregon's rules for new drivers.
I think this model is potentially a great concept. Similar rules are in place for high school sports. Students must maintain a certain GPA and follow behavior codes. Driving is a privledge that I agree teenagers must earn.
In the article it states that New Mexico is trying to take this concept a step further by tying state test scores to receiving a license. They require a score near proficiency on state reading and math tests. Although its sad to say, I suspect a large percentage of the students where I currently work would not meet this requirement. I definitely think each state, maybe even each school district should set their own requirements. Students should be pushed to succeed within their ability levels.
Shaping the Debate Over Value Added
Published Jan. 26th, 2011 in Ed Week
After our discussion in grad sem class last month, I was very interested in reading more about the controversial value-added topic. This article in Ed Week was written by an economist to educators in an attempt to find common ground on the subject. I do agree that there are points that individuals on both sides of the debate can agree on.
1) There are good reasons for concern about the current system of teacher evaluations where 90% of teachers are currently ranked as highly effective. If this were an accurate portrayal, more students should be passing state tests and less students becoming drop outs. Everyone can conceed there is room for growth here and at the very least, evaluations need to be more honest.
2) If goal of evaluation is to improve the art of teaching with the hope of increasing learning opportunities for students- then who can argue with working toward improving the evaluation system?
The conflict seems to arise when we look at what the best form of evaluation may be. From an economist's perspective, "if we get rid of ineffective teachers and provide financial incentives to the remainder to improve, then students will have higher test scores, yielding more productive workers and a more competitive US economy." One estimate mentioned that just cutting low performing teachers alone could generate $100 trillion dollars in national income.
However, as the author of the article keenly pointed out, the logic of such economists makes most educators cringe. They fail to see that constant drilling and testing will lead to killing a student's motivation in school. Inquiry based learning will be replaced teaching to a test. Not to mention the numerous influences on a child's life beyond their homeroom teacher that can contribute to the way a student performs on a test.
There needs to be a middle ground between this outcry for better teacher evaluation methods and the teacher's desire to to do what is best for students while also feeling safe and appreciated in their place of employment. The concept of value added testing may be the wave of the future, but I think in time the supporters of this movement will see how ineffective and inaccurate this formula will be. It is seriously disheartening to read in this article that a New York City judge has allowed the local schools to publish performance ratings of teachers. I am a HUGE supporter of changing the current evaluation system of teachers, but I will never support this current concept of value added testing as a means of evaluation.
After our discussion in grad sem class last month, I was very interested in reading more about the controversial value-added topic. This article in Ed Week was written by an economist to educators in an attempt to find common ground on the subject. I do agree that there are points that individuals on both sides of the debate can agree on.
1) There are good reasons for concern about the current system of teacher evaluations where 90% of teachers are currently ranked as highly effective. If this were an accurate portrayal, more students should be passing state tests and less students becoming drop outs. Everyone can conceed there is room for growth here and at the very least, evaluations need to be more honest.
2) If goal of evaluation is to improve the art of teaching with the hope of increasing learning opportunities for students- then who can argue with working toward improving the evaluation system?
The conflict seems to arise when we look at what the best form of evaluation may be. From an economist's perspective, "if we get rid of ineffective teachers and provide financial incentives to the remainder to improve, then students will have higher test scores, yielding more productive workers and a more competitive US economy." One estimate mentioned that just cutting low performing teachers alone could generate $100 trillion dollars in national income.
However, as the author of the article keenly pointed out, the logic of such economists makes most educators cringe. They fail to see that constant drilling and testing will lead to killing a student's motivation in school. Inquiry based learning will be replaced teaching to a test. Not to mention the numerous influences on a child's life beyond their homeroom teacher that can contribute to the way a student performs on a test.
There needs to be a middle ground between this outcry for better teacher evaluation methods and the teacher's desire to to do what is best for students while also feeling safe and appreciated in their place of employment. The concept of value added testing may be the wave of the future, but I think in time the supporters of this movement will see how ineffective and inaccurate this formula will be. It is seriously disheartening to read in this article that a New York City judge has allowed the local schools to publish performance ratings of teachers. I am a HUGE supporter of changing the current evaluation system of teachers, but I will never support this current concept of value added testing as a means of evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)