|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 2, 2013 10:49:21 GMT -5
In the thread titled "Failure Analysis" a recent op-ed piece from The Wall Street Journal was copied-and-pasted. I took exception with the article, but notice this desire for old-fashioned toughness is being discussed currently on the main stream TV news programs even today. There is a book being released this week dealing with getting tough with students, and it would not surprise me if it will outsell Fifty Shades. But the classroom is not the proper place for tough talk or corporal punishment, especially not elementary or middle school classrooms. But what about parents and even students who want tough? Here are some options for toughening-up which are available today: - Academically, there are AP© courses and College-level courses in the high school.
- Athletically, there are Little League, CYO, PAL, WFC, and, of course, our school teams.
- Other great options are the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and their demanding programs leading through progressively higher ranks up to Eagle Scout for young men and the Gold Award for young women.
- There are summer camps for both athletics and academics
- There are other organizations, like Habitat for Humanity and several religious/church organizations which conduct working missions to poverty stricken areas in the U.S. or overseas, especially in the Caribbean Basin.
- Ultimately there is military service and Basic Training, which I guarantee will provide all the toughening-up most young people will ever need.
Actually, I found the WSJ article to have a huge disconnect from its own subject matter and thesis by NOT pointing to military service as both a worthwhile and a highly effective option for toughening-up young people. And given that part of the premise for needing toughness is the ubiquitous habit of the media comparing the youth of America with their so-called counterparts in other nations, then I must consider their not also pointing to the service obligations undertaken by Israeli youth to have been nearly unconscionable on the part of the authors. You want tough? We got tough! But let's not confuse the roles of public schools and the military, or any of the other great organizations I listed above. And don't confuse their respective but different opportunities to appropriately develop young people according to their ages and physical and mental capabilities. There is a time for toughness, and a time for nurturing. Nurture, first. Then teach the basics. Toughen, later. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by rr on Oct 2, 2013 13:03:19 GMT -5
Chris,
I read the article and my take-away was not about corporal punishment or name-calling...I think the message is more about getting away from the 'everyone wins' mentality and getting back to some of the tactics that prepped prior generations for life.
Have you heard that recently they've recently outlawed games like tag and kickball at recess at some local schools? The reasons are unclear right now, they may be justified but I think it's just another step in the wrong direction for the kids. I'm all for safety and the like but sometimes kids play and they get hurt and the learn from it. Are we coming to a point where our kids go to school and aren't learning how to cope with reality?
It goes back to my feeling that often times people can learn more from failure than success. In my opinion, this relates to many things, the Common Core and tests, sports, work, etc.
By the way, I'd be INSANELY surprised if a book dealing with education does better than the Fifty Shades books... : )
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 2, 2013 14:53:21 GMT -5
rr inquired about this: "...they've recently outlawed games like tag and kickball at recess at some local schools? " I honestly was not aware of that, and cannot comment about it. By some local schools, are you referring to one or more Wantagh schools? Concerning the article, my take could have been similar to yours, except it is not possible to distill any benign conclusion from the very specific examples given by the author of a teacher, during a lesson in class, calling students "idiots", "poking them in the arm with a pencil", and "torturing them through adolescence". There is another problem with taking a "tough" approach in public schools. Students run the gamut of ages from 4 to 11 years, including boys and girls, possessing a broad spectrum of abilities and disabilities, and parents from widely varied cultural and social circumstances, even in Wantagh. Some parents would not want "tough" for their child, some children would be adversely affected by having a "tough" teacher (tough for the sake of being tough), and many teachers would want no part of taking a "tough guy" approach in their classrooms. I posted the Wantagh School District Mission Statement previously: Our District's Mission:
Through a commitment to educational excellence in a secure, supportive environment, the Wantagh Public Schools shall inspire students to develop a strong sense of individual worth and respect for others, to become lifelong learners and independent thinkers, and to fulfill themselves as concerned citizens in a diverse world. It would be difficult to find the right place to insert the word "tough" in there. Although edited in 2008, this statement predates Carl Bonuso, and was adopted during the Superintendency of George Besculides, perhaps as long ago as 20 years, if memory serves. George Besculides was by far the toughest Superintendent I have ever worked with, dating back to and including his predecessor, Arthur Venezia in the early eighties. But Besculides' "toughness" was grounded more in self discipline, self assuredness, and personal courage and dedication to the goals of our district than it was ever about acting like a "tough guy". Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by rr on Oct 2, 2013 16:05:43 GMT -5
I was referring to Wantagh El...
I think part of the reason why teachers want no part of that role is because they're afraid of the potential backlash from overly sensitive parents. I'm certainly not advocating anyone calling my kid a name or poking or hitting him in any way - I'd have a pretty big issue with that. What I'm talking about is a no-nonsense teacher that has high expectations and isn't afraid to tell me that my child needs to work harder.
When I was a kid, if I got in trouble at school - it was a problem - - - - for me. Nowadays when a kid gets in trouble at school its a still problem, but for the teacher because the parents are headed down there to argue with anyone.
Which in my opinion is what's happening with Common Core...parents are taking their frustrations out on anyone they can Pearson, Bill Gates, the faculty, administration, school board, whoever...they're not happy that their kids test scores are low and a scapegoat is required...it's not about the kids learning process. If it were about that we should be advocating for a longer school year or less holiday breaks...
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 3, 2013 5:58:50 GMT -5
Maybe someone would care to expound on the 'No Tag @ Recess' restriction at WES? As for no-nonsense teachers, I know Wantagh has its share, especially in the high school, but I believe also in other buildings. You are correct about the resistance of some parents, and that can start at the pre-school level and continue throughout a child's school years. In my experience, Wantagh does not have what I would consider a real problem in either regard, however. Teachers get the job done for the most part, 99% of our students graduate and go on to college, and the parents and the teachers beam with pride when all is said and done. Newsday has an article featuring (LI) Regent Roger Tilles talking about Common Core and the 2013 Assessments. Although Tilles gets it, even he is not calling out King for violating the PARCC assessment development and implementation schedule, to which King had agreed, which called for Common Core assessments to be developed last year and this year, then implemented in 2014-15, with the scoring standards then set in 2015. Commissioner King was not only way out of line to release the Common Core assessments in 2013, but he was way out on a limb, and apparently all by himself. Commissioner King should be replaced, pronto! Chris Wendt IMPORTANT Links concerning Common Core Assessment development, implementation and standard-setting schedule: www.parcconline.org/assessment-developmentwww.parcconline.org/field-testwww.parcconline.org/major-milestonesNY is a member State of the PARCC consortium. WHY did Commissioner King jump the gun on this schedule by TWO YEARS?-CW
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 3, 2013 10:57:09 GMT -5
I wanted to re-visit this remark: "What I'm talking about is a no-nonsense teacher that has high expectations and isn't afraid to tell me that my child needs to work harder." I have done some thinking and some asking around about how this might apply to Wantagh. The term "nonsense" is highly variable, given the ages of children in our schools (4 to 19), and the various stages of childhood development they all go through, albeit on seemingly individual (personal) schedules. Intrinsic to the process of education is managing the manifestations of children's development, their maturation process and progress, and a wide variety of ever-changing behaviors among some three thousand plus kids, in Wantagh. I don't think there can be any such thing as a literal "no-nonsense" teacher. Then you have to think about the opposite of a no-nonsense teacher, and there again you have a continuum of tolerance for "nonsense" that is highly situational based both upon the teacher and the individual and the group (classroom) of students. Any newbie teacher who tolerates too much "nonsense" will likely fail at classroom management, not pass probation, and then be replaced. Tenured teachers have at least passed classroom management evaluations. But some of them have been known to later relax their individual tolerance for "nonsense", and even a few have, tragically, initiated or participated in "nonsense" of their own. I believe these to have constituted a minuscule minority over the years, however. Here are some Wantagh stats (2011-12) to help put this in perspective: - Enrollment = 3,426 (5 schools, 13 grade levels)
- Annual Percentage of Student Suspensions = 1% (Lowest on the Continent!)
- Number of Teachers = 269
- Number of Classes Taught = 1,023
- Percent of Teachers with Less than 3-years Experience = 3% (implies 97% are tenured)
- Percent teaching out of certification = 0%
- Percent with MA+30 credits = 73%
- Teacher Turnover Rate (Under 5 Years Experience) = 35% (implies "tough" probationary standards and a well-functioning tenure approval process)
Given our stellar graduation rate and commensurate go-to-college rate, most "nonsense" appears to have been effectively managed in Wantagh, in my opinion. Best regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by rr on Oct 3, 2013 11:29:05 GMT -5
Chris, I think you're taking my comments too literally...I'm by no means discrediting any teachers in Wantagh despite some bad experiences in the past...our current teachers are EXCELLENT. Again, my comments are in a general sense directed at the culture today and the fact that we (parents, Facebook groups, and the media) are taking some of the power away from the schools and teachers. We've exposed kids to the fact that if we call and argue for them then they don't have to take a test or they won't get in trouble for acting out in school and generally there are no repercussions to their actions.
Teacher turnover, in my opinion, is high because young teachers look at the profession more for the benefits than the actual profession. It's VERY hard to be a good teacher and when they realize it's more than just great benefits, pensions, and vacations, well they leave. And that's what we need, we need to weed out the loafers. However, once that golden ticket of tenure is granted, well there's plenty of opportunity for manipulation...at least there used to be. I think the new testing and standards is creating more accountability in the teachers and well further help us find the best of the best. It's getting harder for the schools to hide those teachers that no longer have the motivation or the ability to engage students.
I hate to keep harping on this but I'm a parent of two young kids and I see this stuff everyday. I sit with kids and do homework, I go to Curriculum Night and talk to the teachers...you're looking at this information in a vacuum, you're looking at data points with no context.
If I may plug in a sports reference it's like looking at the passing yards of a QB whose team is down by 40 points at halftime so the other team lets him throw for 400 yards in the game but his team still loses. His stats look great until you look at the final score and look even further at the reasons why he threw for so many yards. We're "throwing for a lot of yards" but does it really mean anything if the kids aren't prepared for college and the real world??
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Oct 3, 2013 20:35:52 GMT -5
RR,
Great analogy.
the issue as always is that Chris doesn't take the time to read what is posted. As you said the author no way condones name calling and any sort of corporal punishment. She laid out ways in which some of what her old teacher did could be used today to help our kids to become better prepared for the world. And she lays out some support to what she is putting forth. And Wantagh may have a great graduation rate as well as kids going onto college but I know from my neighbors that a lot of the kids are not prepared and come back home and go to NCC to help improve their grades.
Spouting out unrelated data points just distracts from the conversation. Common core as a mew curriculum is a good place to start, as even Tilles said in the article. Testing may not be all it should be but that is distracting from the fact that our kids are learning more, as is evidenced by some of the words my 4th grade daughter is learning, such as digress, which is a lot of what Chris does.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 4, 2013 6:22:40 GMT -5
rr…I have 9 grandchildren, two are too young for school, and the other seven range from Kindergarten to a College Freshman. My observations are not made in a vacuum. You cannot sit on the fence and prophesy, worriedly, about problems that may possibly exist at some future time when your kids head off to college, on the one hand, but then agree that we don’t have those problems in Wantagh now, because stats don’t win football games, on the other hand. Parents taking their children’s parts in disputes was a new phenomenon back when Don Sternberg first took over as WES Principal and my wife was advocating for our child to receive services. In other words, parental involvement is not all that new. Back in the fifties and sixties, yes, it was “School call…hit child”, even if the phone call was to deliver news about the kid winning a scholarship, as one popular stand-up routine had it, back in the day. The new standards? To me, this is just another in a very long litany of curriculum iterations, some of which were stunning successes, while others were total (and expensive) flops. Flops, like what? “New” “Math” for starters, and “The Metric System” for seconds. (I did retain the fact that 2.54 centimeters equals one inch, but that was totally contrary to the goal of the entire “Metric System” crusade which was supposed leave me thinking[/u][/b] metrically, instead of just knowing how to convert between the two systems!) This is not coming from within a vacuum. This thread was about teachers talking tough to their students; but it could also be about what you would like to conjure as “no nonsense” teachers, if there were such beings working in our public schools. But this thread was not intended to be about Common Core Curriculum. That having been said, I do want to take you up on your expectation that... ”… the new testing and standards (are) creating more accountability in the teachers and will further help us find the best of the best. It's getting harder for the schools to hide those teachers that no longer have the motivation or the ability to engage students.” Counterpoint: the very FIRST thing our erstwhile Commissioner of Education did upon realizing what a complete disaster the 2013 Assessments were, was to issue an order to all school districts instructing them NOT to use the scores in any teacher performance appraisals. Ergo sequitur, NY schools lost an entire school year’s worth of ANY benefit from assessment scores as teacher evaluation tools. And next year, the 2013 assessment scores will not be valid as a baseline to gage teacher improvement, either. So, in reality, NY school districts will have lost two years’ benefit from Assessment scores as a result of BAD TESTS, given in the last school year. If you want something to worry about concerning your kids’ educational future, then make your issue the ineptitude of the NY State Education Department. But I digress. (Yes, Greda, I do digress...) Part of this massive marketing strategy for The Common Core Curriculum is a nefarious ploy to convince you, meaning you, readers, that we (meaning the Wantagh School District) have problems that we do not actually have, and, then to convince you (as parents) that the curriculum is the reason for those problems, and, finally, to make you believe with all your hearts that the Common Core Curriculum will be the solution—a panacea—for those problems. Intertwined in this marketing scheme is a healthy dose of fear mongering directed toward parents to convince them that our teachers (meaning all teachers everywhere, but especially those who teach in YOUR child’s school, unless you live in Jericho, of course) that they are inept, soft, ineffective, and that, too can be attributed to a weak, ineffective, outdated curriculum. If the Regents, NYSED, and the NY Legislature were serious about improving teacher job (career) performance, then they would not have had to bother with APPR and its circuitous and dubious path of using Common Core test scores to rate and motivate, or remove ineffective faculty members. The simple, direct solution would be to amend Section 3020a of the Education Law to eliminate the traditional role of the third part hearing officer, and instead empower School Superintendents to discipline teachers up to and including discharging them, subject to a confirming vote by the Board of Education. There could still be an appeal to an arbitrator, but the appeal and the power of the arbitrator should be limited to factual matters only, and NOT to the discipline assessed: did the teacher do (not do) what he or she had been charged with doing (not doing)? But the arbitrator should NOT be allowed to substitute his/her judgment for that of the Superintendent and school board so far as the penalty assessed, provided the facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. “Sentences” (penalties) should not be delayed awaiting appeal or the issuance of arbitrators’ decisions. Just saying. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by rr on Oct 4, 2013 8:25:25 GMT -5
Chris,
Once again, I think the scores for the first few years will be relatively meaningless...but in a few years the score will mean something. Once the teachers get comfortable with the new curriculum. At that point, we can then expect that the scores will normalize and the ineffective teachers can be dealt with.
I can't speak to the history of curriculum changes in Wantagh or the state because I'm just now dealing with this from a parents perspective so I'll take your word for it...doesn't change my mind that these new standards will be more effective than the standards from a few years ago.
Not sure I agree with your rules adjustment - in my opinion the Superintendent is simply too close to the situation in most cases and could jeopardize their own authority by ruling on matters like you mention. In a perfect world, maybe - but I think we all know this is not that. An impartial 3rd party is required in these situations - it should be fact based, not based on anyone's experience or history with the teacher in question. You don't see a conflict of interest in leaving those decisions within the district instead of to an outside, impartial party?
Marketing strategy? Seriously? So what is to be used instead of the new workbooks, the kids use texts from the 70's? I still don't understand when people say its a marketing ploy / conspiracy by Pearson and Bill Gates. New texts are new texts and they need updating...all the time, whether the curriculum is old or new. Am I wrong? Seriously, I simply don't understand that line of thinking?
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 5, 2013 21:25:32 GMT -5
rr opined thus: "...I think the scores for the first few years will be relatively meaningless...but in a few years the score will mean something. " I must urgently correct this line of thought! The scores, 1, 2, 3, 4, resulting from the Assessments, already mean something! Important things, like... - Under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), those scores indicate (and create rights for which) certain children are entitled to receive remedial services (Score = 1) or supportive services (Score =2), which services the school district is lawfully required to provide.
- Under the the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), an intervening approach to deciding which services to provide to which specific children and when, called Response to Intervention (RTI), is designed to refine the process of providing supportive and remedial services.
- Following the federal Race-to-the-Top initiative, NY adopted Education Law §3012-c, Annual Professional Performance Review for Teachers and Principals (APPR) which mandates that at least 20% of the evaluation be based upon student test scores, which for elementary and middle level students means the (NCLB) Assessment scores.
- Concomitant with APPR evaluations primary purpose to identify, improve, or weed-out ineffective teachers, APPR is also supposed to be a significant determining factor in granting tenure awards. I think you would regard that as an important part of the function of finding or determining the best of the best teachers.
As you are likely aware, the first thing Commissioner King did when he learned how miserable the 2013 Assessment scores really were, was to prohibit those scores from being used in conjunction with APPR, thus DEFEATING two important intended uses of taking those tests: improving teacher effectiveness, and tenure awards. The second thing John King did was to instruct NYSED to change the threshold raw scores for student eligibility for supportive and remedial services, because and obviously, there would be a huge demand for those services based on the tragic scores turned in, and that would bust most school budgets next year. Unfortunately, that directive undermined the most basic of all the reasons for having those NCLB assessments in the first place: to identify children as early as possible who were falling behind their grade levels and give them the services they need to catch up or overcome or compensate for disabilities. There will be lawsuits arising out of that latest decision. So there is the problem in a nutshell. NYSED used bad assessments in 2013, two years ahead of schedule, and then abrogated several federal and state laws which prescribed important uses for state assessment scores intended to help NY students, their families, their teachers and their school districts with real and present problems. This is NOT a curriculum problem. It is a bad tests problem. It s a competency problem at NYSED and in the Commissioner's Office. Sincerely and passionately, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 7, 2013 6:50:14 GMT -5
I want to provide some better, more tangible connectivity between assessment scores and their importance to the actual functioning of the Wantagh School District. The assessment results, independent of whether or how well they reflect the curriculum, are deeply intertwined with our educational, administrative, pupil personnel services, and human resources operations. A lot of time, effort and money have been expended developing and coordinating programming and the requisite (mandated) policies, regulations, and formal District Plans and Reports around assessment results. Here are some links that will be helpful to anyone who will take the time to explore them: Academic Intervention Services Plan (AIS)Professional Development Plan (PDP)Response to Intervention (RTI) Policy (Draft - Published) Annual Professional Performance Review Plan (APPR) - this is a 560-page .pdf file, accessible for downloading (and reading) through the District website at " District Plans and Reports", click on " APPR", and look for the download dialog box to appear, then download (open) the file for reading. Wantagh 2011-12 District Report Card (NYSED) Wantagh 2011-12 Accountability Report (Performance Indices--PI's & Adequate Yearly Progress--AYP Determinations)(NYSED) I become livid over the thought that careless implementation of the 2013 Assessments by Commissioner King has compromised the integrity of such a significant amount of the policy infrastructure and procedural underpinnings of our district, all things carefully designed and orchestrated to provide YOUR CHILDREN with the best possible education we can afford. Keep in mind, on the order of the Commissioner of Education, the 2013 Assessment Scores cannot be used for APPR evaluations, and the set-points for AIS have been rigged to save money by reducing student eligibility for services to which they may otherwise be entitled to receive under Federal and State laws. Chris Wendt (Edited for technical correction 10-07-2013)
|
|