This is a clash of values. This Ed Trust statement calls out the teachers union for low-balling expectations for kids. It’s a good illustration of how underneath the posturing and rhetoric and the substantive disagreements Chicago is really about what kind of school system they city is going to have – the old kind, which was a quasi-jobs program or the new type where performance and execution matter most. In that way the strike is an important national moment.Realizing that for many, many years, public schools were as much about the adults' employment as anything is critical to understanding why we find our system in its current shape.
****
Sara Mead makes a great point about teacher quality within schools:
First, policy conversations about equitable teacher distribution tend to focus almost exclusively on teacher distribution across schools, and how to get more effective teachers working in high-poverty schools. That's important. But research suggests that most of the variation in teacher quality occurs within rather that between schools. There is also evidence that the kids who most need good teachers tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to within school teacher distribution--exactly the opposite of what we want to have happen. If we're serious about ensuring effective teachers for all students, we need to engage issues of teacher distribution within as well as across schools.My experience in schools before my current one, especially when I taught in a large, district high school in Philly, backs this up. My class assignments during my rookie year were OK, but many other first-year teachers I knew were given classes with unusually high numbers of repeaters or just students with reputations as difficult to teach.
Combine this with a salary structure that lowballs younger teachers and one can see why half of all teachers quit in the first five years.
****
Per all of the twittering about MNPS playing chicken with the state, I kept thinking about this one hit wonder:
This isn't a political statement. I just wanted an excuse to post a Cowboy Troy video.
3 comments:
I am curious if you have any thoughts about what keeps coming to my mind:
Will we scare teachers away from the hardest schools and the hardest students because they are afraid that they will receive lower pay or lose their jobs because of lower test scores? What is the incentive to teach students who are ELLs, or who come from illiterate homes, if your pay is determined by test scores? Isn't it simple economics? You will try to maximize your salary, so why would you want to do the hardest job for the least gain?
I know you think that test scores can go up with good teachers, but you have seen it in your own scores, that it doesn't happen overnight.
I think that's why we should use value-added scores, among several other measure. Tennessee, thankfully, has a great value-added system that has told me for the past four years quite a lot about the impact I've made on students. Without getting into specifics, I've been pleased with how much my students have grown.
Incidentally, with value-added scores, those who teach at magnets often protest because they claim they have less room to grow their kids' learning. This is why I favor better tests (which are being piloted this year) and multiple measures.
Thanks for that answer, Wilson. Multiple measures is always best.
Post a Comment