By Travis
The school of the future will not be housed on a cloud, or a floating pod. The school of the future will not have whole sides of buildings made out of windows, nor will students sit, discussing great works of literature through their hand-held discussion devices.
No, the school of the future is more real.
It IS attainable.
It IS possible.
The school if the future will have No Tardies, No Failing Students, and No Homework. The school of the future is only a few years away.
By Travis
It's final’s week. Students have worked hard all semester and we are deep into final exams. There is a silence that has fallen over the school like late winter snow.
I hear the clickty clack, tippity tap of words being created, one letter at a time, as my students demonstrate their understanding of literature elements. It is a pleasant sound. Meditative.
Between exams, the sounds are less than peaceful. All I hear are swear words and derogatory remarks in the hall. Not PG-13 swearing, stuff that parents would laugh off. I’m talking the 7 Dirty Words, and then some. I am unsure why there has been a spike in swearing, but it is #!$*@ annoying.
Each spring the uncertainties of student enrollment, teacher transfers or retirement, and funding make budgetary predictions difficult.
To remain financially sound some districts send out pink slips to the newest teachers. In no way is this ideal. These teachers face uncertainty about their employment future. Some of the district’s best teachers, who happen to be new hires, may not have their contracts renewed.
New legislation, yet to be introduced, may change how districts respond to RIFs. Instead of RIFs base on level of experience they may be based on a teacher’s evaluation relative to other teachers.
This bill, I assume, is in response to schools being unable to retain effective teachers when they are forced to lay off staff.
In 2009-2010, 3% of Washington’s teachers were given RIF notices. 87% of those teachers were recalled. Evidence does not suggest that the best and brightest young teachers are losing out to ineffective veterans.
Still, this idea is compelling. Shouldn’t the best teachers be the last ones to be laid off? Yes. If only it were that simple.
Distinguishing between the best and the worst teacher in a school may not be that difficult. But it is much more difficult to distinguish between the second and the third worst (one may keep their job while the other may not).
New evaluation systems are expected to have different criteria for novice and experienced teachers. Is a good novice teacher more effective than an average experienced teacher? Who wins in this RIF race a teacher with five years of solid student growth and one recent year of poor growth or the second year teacher with two years of average growth?
What are the recall rights for a RIFed teacher?
When the art program is cut can somebody determine the relative effectiveness between a high school and elementary art teacher?
The idea, keeping the best, is elegant. Implementing this idea? Not so much. Since relatively few new teachers actually lose positions this law is unlikely to result in an improved teaching force.
I'd like to see lawmakers put their efforts elsewhere. If lawmakers want to address the problems related to RIFs they should fulfill their paramount duty and fully fund education. And they should allow local school districts the time and space to implement the new evaluation criteria. Many stakeholders came together to put this evaluation model in place. Rolling out this system will be challenging. Rolling out this system while simultaneously addressing the complexities of a new model for RIFs seems unwise. But I'm no lawmaker…
By Rob
Some time ago I was struggling to set up procedures during my literacy instruction. I was attempting to meet with a guided reading group while the reminder of my class was engaged independently in a meaningful activity. For some students the “independent” activity was a too challenging and they needed support. For other students it was too easy and they were finishing early. Other students had difficulty remaining on task and caused disruptions. These are the challenges of a novice teacher.
All things considered I was doing pretty well but I knew it could be done better. But I wasn’t sure how. I was building the boat as I was crossing the ocean.
I spoke with some other teachers and we shared the same struggles. After I confided in my principal I found this “struggle” reflected in my evaluation. Prior to that evaluators found little to criticize. I regretted opening up my practice.
By Travis
The message is clear. Very clear.
On the surface, the message comes across as positive, saying there is an organization out there to help children. I am all for helping children.
However, there is hidden message. An agenda, perhaps? This subtle meaning sends its message to the community even if the community does not consciously read it that way.
By Travis
Principals are near useless. Near…I would not be so mean as to say totally. I know they serve a purpose. But, hey, let’s be honest. How often is your principal in your classroom? If you are lucky, it is twice a year for the district mandated formal observation. Principals do not teach classes so how could a principal possibly understand life in your classroom? They cannot relate. When seen in the big picture, principals do not do much to impact instruction, and as such, are near useless.
However, my principal is not. Lisa teaches.
By Mark
I sat at a table with two other teachers, two building administrators, and the top two admin from the district office. We'd spent the better part of an hour sorting through the assessment rubrics and frameworks associated with the new teacher evaluation system mandated through legislative action in Senate Bill 6696.
Silence settled on us all at once. The weight of what we were examining suddenly became overwhelming.
Like so many things in education, the ideas and philosophies behind this new evaluation system (in brief: a shift from the binary satisfactory/unsatisfactory on a menu of teacher behaviors to a four-point continuum of evaluation using as many as sixty individual descriptors of teacher practice) we could all agree were sound, necessary, and powerful both in terms of evaluation and potential professional development.
But as we began to picture how it all could transition from philosophy to action, the beast began to be revealed.
By Mark
For me, mentally, the coming December holiday break marks the "half-way" point in the school year. While this is not necessarily chronologically true, it is certainly emotionally true.
Back when I was a pre-service teacher, I remember seeing a chart like this one that graphs a first-year teacher's motivation and emotion over the calendar year–with November and December being the pit of disillusionment–but don't despair, rejuvenation and hope are just around the corner!
Ten years later, I feel like the chart still applies to me. It is always in November and December that I wander the web to see what other kinds of jobs my credentials and dispositions might match.
By Mark
Senate Bill 6696 has put into motion changes in the way teachers are evaluated.
First… the relevant language of the bill (from the link above):
Evaluations. Each school district must establish performance criteria and an evaluation process for all staff and establish a four-level rating system for evaluating classroom teachers and principals with revised evaluation criteria. Minimum criteria is specified. The new rating system must describe performance on a continuum that indicates the extent the criteria have been met or exceeded. When student growth data (showing a change in student achievement between two points in time) is available for principals and available and relevant to the teacher and subject matter it must be based on multiple measures if referenced in the evaluation.
Classroom Teachers. The revised evaluation criteria must include: centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement; demonstrating effective teaching practices; recognizing individual student learning needs, and developing strategies to address those needs; providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum; fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment; using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning; communicating and collaborating with parents and the school community; and exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning. The locally bargained short-form may also be used for certificated support staff or for teachers who have received one of the top two ratings for four years. The short-form evaluations must be specifically linked to one or more of the evaluation criteria.
Here in southwest Washington, ESD 112 is leading a group of districts who are beginning the process of adapting and implementing the evaluation procedures described in this bill. Of course, the first step is a careful reading of relevant parts of SB 6696.
There are two elements of the language above that I like in particular. To begin, there's this:
By Rob
My school is in the third round of No Child Left Behind sanctions. Among other procedures these sanctions call for ‘corrective action’ to be taken.
Arriving at this point wasn’t a surprise. It’s taken many years to get here. Our school has been labeled ‘failing’ for a while but only after seeing last year’s test results do I feel like we’ve failed. No teacher at our school wanted to enter the third round of NCLB sanctions. Round 2, Schools of Choice, was embarrassing enough.
There was pressure to improve our school’s test results. I sensed a change in the tone of my evaluations. Many new teachers were not hired for year two. A veteran teacher was removed. It seemed to me that the pressure was high and morale was low.
Perhaps other teachers felt this pressure more acutely than I. Last year many of them have transferred elsewhere. Of 23 classroom teachers 11 are novice (in their first or second year). In my tenth year teaching I’m the second most experienced teacher at our school.
I’ve wondered how we’ve arrived at this unfortunate point. Each fall we receive our state’s standardized test scores. Teachers, energized and committed, face the challenge. We’ve created systems for tracking student progress, providing extra support, engaging families, growing professionally, and improving instruction. I believe some of these systems have been of great benefit to students.
While I thought these systems were beneficial our data never really showed it. Here’s what it shows: (click the picture for a clearer view)
In 2011 our scores dropped 30% to under 40% of students passing the 4th grade reading MSP. The year before 71.4% of students passed the 3rd grade reading MSP. The test didn’t get harder. The state average pass rate remained flat. This isn’t isolated to one grade. Our 3rd grade reading pass rate fell 13.1% from the previous year. Our 5th grade reading pass rate fell 32.8% from the previous year.
This drop in performance is startling. So what happened? Who knows? I wish I had more answers and fewer questions.
Did the students consistently miss a particular type of reading comprehension question? That could be addressed with an adjustment to the curriculum.
With a 37% mobility rate could the students who left be the ones who passed in 2010. Might they have been replaced with students who didn't pass? How about the families who left because of school choice (a NCLB sanction for schools in step 2 of improvement)? Did the student population change significantly? Are we comparing the same students from year to year?
Did students who narrowly passed the MSP in 2010 narrowly miss passing in 2011? Did a slight drop in performance signify a drastic drop in the percent of students meeting standard?
Did significant numbers of non passing students come from specific classrooms?
Could school community, teacher morale, and the shame & blame policies of NCLB account, at least in part, for a dramatic drop in student performance?
Answers to these questions are important as a school undergoes “corrective action.” I don’t know if anybody is asking these questions. I don’t know if answers are available. But I’d like to know exactly what problem I’m correcting and we all deserve a clearer answer than ‘you didn’t meet adequate yearly progress again.’