By Rena
Last week I received a phone call from the local reporter. She wanted my reaction to the grant that Washington state was going to receive that teachers statewide would benefit from. I hadn't heard anything about this, so she filled me in.
Recently U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) applauded the announcement of a major investment to improve education throughout Washington state by giving educators the resources they need to use data to improve student outcomes. Washington state will receive a grant of over $17 million to further develop the state longitudinal data system (SLDS), funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, which will be used to develop data systems used to give educators insights into their teaching practices. Senator Murray led the delegation in sending a letter to the Institute for Educational Sciences in support of Washington State Research and Data Center, a unique organization that was created to integrate education and workforce data systems.
"Schools in Washington state are facing massive budget cuts that put pressure on teachers to do more with less," said Senator Murray. "This system will serve as a tool for educators and policy makers to know what is working in our schools and what can be done to better prepare our students to succeed in long-term careers."
Data systems of this type can help teachers create a more effective learning environment for students by identifying student achievement and the factors that lead to student success. Additionally, the development of these systems will allow for the integration of education and workforce data that can help educators flag improvements that can be made in our schools and colleges to better prepare our student for success in the workforce.
My initial reaction was one of confusion. It seems like an oversimplification of a very complex system. As no two children are alike, so are no two schools or school districts. What materials, programs, personalities, approaches work at one school for even a small group of students may not be successful in a neighboring school. I am hopeful that the use of this money is a beginning of examining a variety of interventions that have the potential to assist certain populations of students. There still remain many questions. Once systems, materials, and/or interventions have been identified, will there be funding for professional development, materials, evaluation systems to be sure that these continue to work for the student(s) that it is intended for?
We educators seem to be continually looking for answers to help students be successful, and we seem to continue to learn that it is simply not that easy. Students come from very diverse backgrounds with equally diverse needs. They mature, learn and grow at various rates.
I am hopeful that these funds do go towards the benefit of student learning, and not so much for studies about their learning and ways to document learning and for the design of yet additional testing or more data to store in binders.
It has been said before, you cannot fatten a pit by weighing it. The state would be better served to adequately fund schools so there are enough certificated teachers in the buildings to teach students. 17 million dollars could pay for a lot of teachers.
Opps, I did mean Pig, but Pit may have been a thoughtful slip… I can see you share my frustration with this much money being spent, without it helping students and maybe even teachers much.
I want to know about fattening pits. My mind is trying to wrap around that metaphor – I know it’s probably “pig,” but I like the idea of trying to fatten a pit. It seems to fit the constant battle to demand more of schools while reducing resources.
17 Million. My goodness. There is such a huge industry that rides on education – educational consultants, grad programs, professional development workshops that teach the latest “proven to work” strategies.
Meanwhile, my building has lost its truancy counselor, who worked with families to get kids to school. We’ve lost our intervention specialist, the woman who made sure homeless, addicted, and abused kids were taken care of so that teachers could focus on teaching them. We’ve lost half a counselor, so now have 2.5 humans taking care of the scheduling of 1200 kids. We’ve lost a secretary, who helped families and kids navigate the paperwork jungle of public education. We’ve lost our read-180 program that helped struggling readers catch up to their peers. We’ve lost our career counselor, who hooked kids up with jobs, volunteer opportunities, community tutoring programs, and walked kids through the college-application process. And I have 36 kids in my 4th period because our classes are getting bigger. Losing the support staff matters, and the results are going to show up when that 17 million is spent assessing how schools are “teaching.” Without the staff that helped students get to the point where they could learn, they come to class distracted or they don’t come to class at all. Or, like one little boy who floundered during the college application process, they manage to get through school only to stumble at the finish line because there’s no one – unless a teacher works through lunch or sets the stack of grading aside and works late – to help them complete those college applications Arne Duncan thinks every child and his family is prepared to do.
The situation has gotten ridiculous. Why is it always assumed children are ready to learn if a teacher is only ready to teach well? Why can we throw 17 million into researching results when we’re refusing to fill the tank? In schools where the children are so well cared for that they’re ready to learn, the results will be good. Hooray – let’s all teach like those teachers. In schools where the children are barely surviving their lives, the results will be poor. Don’t teach like me.
So, yes. I’d say that 17 million should be put back into the buildings that house the education of students, and not into the research industry that has latched onto public education like a big parasite.
I know what you mean, Rena. There’s an all-too-familiar ring to it, that a state invests in systems that we don’t really need. Maybe if the needs were less acute at the school level, we might start talking about how to work on information and data without that uneasy feeling.
Wow; news to me, too. Hopefully something good will come of this. It sounds like a variation of the “Value-added” assessment tool that’s been usewd in Tennessee for years.