Let's be honest: I'm a pretty good reading teacher. Here's the secret: I like reading. My kids can sense how excited I get about books, and it makes them get excited about them too. Some of them are stubborn at first. They refuse to admit that reading is cool, or fun, or exciting. They simply will not have it! But, sooner or later, they find that book they love and they're hooked for life. Today, I get to sit in awe and peer up from a reading conference at a silent classroom of 28 kids that are mesmerized by their books.
Well, I've never had a math moment like that. Most of the time, I feel really overwhelmed with how much I have to differentiate for math. I'm supposed to have 3 simultaneous groups playing three differentiated math games all happening at once as I teach one of the three groups?! And that's supposed to happen twice a day?! What! There is one of me, and 28 of them. How is this possible? That feeling, the overwhelmed, I don't want to do this, I'm nervous to do this, kind of feeling...kids pick up on it. So no, I have not been able to teach kids how to be mesmerized by their math games.
Well, today I may have had a breakthrough moment. Today was family game night, and I was asked by our brilliant math coach to volunteer and help out at the fifth grade table. When I showed up at 5:30, there was only one fifth grader at the fifth grade table, but oh. my. god. That child was a child that I DEFINITELY did not expect to show up. Let's just say that he is far from passing math, and while he is very brilliant and definitely knows how to work a system or two, he needs some serious one on one math support that I haven't been able to provide often. Today, I got to play math games for 2 whole hours with this student, his mom, and our tech coach, and it was FUN! My student didn't want to leave, and got his mom to stay an extra hour. He took a math packet home, took math posters home, and even kept the scratch paper from our games as "memories."
This is the first time I've felt so excited about teaching math. It was relaxing and exciting and happy, and the student felt that excitement. Now, part of this is very clearly that there were 3 adults on deck to help one student, and when do you EVER see a ratio like that? I don't know if it's possible to transfer that same support and excitement to a class of 28 with 1 teacher and 28 kids, but maybe, just maybe, with a little support (2 teachers? 1 teacher 1 coach? 1 assistant teacher and one teacher?) I could figure out a way to love teaching math so my kids can love learning it...
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Some Numbers:
TWO: The number of weeks left until my second trip to the Dominican Republic.
THIRTY-FIVE: The number of school days left before the State Tests (Ima throw up).
SIXTY-EIGHT: The number of school days left until I finish my second year teaching.
HoCOW!
THIRTY-FIVE: The number of school days left before the State Tests (Ima throw up).
SIXTY-EIGHT: The number of school days left until I finish my second year teaching.
HoCOW!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A genuine Milestone
Birthdays are generally artificial milestones. Real, life-changing milestones don't generally fall on birthdays. This year, I'm lucky to have both happen in one week. Everything seems to be coming together in a way I could only pray for, but could never really expect to unfold in reality. Some highlights include:
1. Conversations with my family that are more open than any conversations we've had in as long as I can remember.
2. One of my closest cousins marrying a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent woman who is now, happily, part of my family.
3. The closest people in my life coming together to give me an SLR camera complete with a case and telephoto lens so I can pursue a passion for photography.
4. A ticket purchased to the Dominican Republic for March 28-April 2 with my brother and my good friends, with an exciting school visit scheduled.
5. Shopping with my brother for our respective birthday gifts.
This week is one I will always remember. It's a week where many fragmented parts of my life have finally converged in an unexpectedly pleasant way. It is a week that's lifted a heavy burden off of my shoulders and made me excited about the possibilities of the following year. I couldn't have asked for a better way to celebrate my birthday.
1. Conversations with my family that are more open than any conversations we've had in as long as I can remember.
2. One of my closest cousins marrying a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent woman who is now, happily, part of my family.
3. The closest people in my life coming together to give me an SLR camera complete with a case and telephoto lens so I can pursue a passion for photography.
4. A ticket purchased to the Dominican Republic for March 28-April 2 with my brother and my good friends, with an exciting school visit scheduled.
5. Shopping with my brother for our respective birthday gifts.
This week is one I will always remember. It's a week where many fragmented parts of my life have finally converged in an unexpectedly pleasant way. It is a week that's lifted a heavy burden off of my shoulders and made me excited about the possibilities of the following year. I couldn't have asked for a better way to celebrate my birthday.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Teacher Report Cards
Excuse me while I step onto my soapbox.
On Monday, as an upper grade team, we spoke about the new "teacher data initiative." This initiative uses students' standardized testing scores in English Language Arts and Math to determine teacher effectiveness.
A few points of clarification:
1) Last year, it was clear that these scores were to have NO impact on teachers. According to an agreement between the UFT and Chancellor Joel Klein in October 2008. This means they were not intended to be used for hiring, firing, or tenure decisions
2) This February, Bloomberg made the top-down decision (I assume based on Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative) to use these reports as a component to making tenure decisions, effectively reversing the agreement single-handedly.
How is this report determined?
-According to the 2008 Teacher Data Initiative Report:
TVA mathematically isolates individual teacher contributions to student performance gains on the State tests. Teacher reports predict each student’s growth in student achievement based on characteristics of students, classrooms and schools that are outside of the teacher’s control. The Predicted Gains are compared to the Actual Gains for each student in a teacher’s class. Value-Added: the difference between Actual and Predicted Gains.
Essentially, an algorithm predicts what my students should get in my classroom if they had a "generic" teacher. This prediction is based on two years of testing, 3rd grade and 4th grade, by the time the students get to 5th grade. When they actually take the test, their actual data is compared to what they were predicted to get with this "generic" teacher. If they did better, I get "value-added" points! If they did worse, I get "minus" points.
This data is then compiled together and I am compared to my colleagues within the New York City, and am assigned a percentile in ELA and a percentile in math to tell me how I compare to the rest of the teachers in NYC.
What's wrong with this?
1) Tests are not reliable: Tests are magically easy during campaign years. The grading system is different based on how much money is in the budget for summer schools (since students that fail are required to take summer school).
2) Predictions are arbitrary: A "generic" teacher doesn't exist. Deeming this number the appropriate number based on essentially 2 tests in each subject doesn't seem statistically sound.
3) Only 4-8 teachers are held accountable: Since testing starts in grade 3, the algorithm can only produce predictions for 4th grade and up. This means that teachers who are already in high-stress, high-stakes testing environments are the ones who then have this extra added pressure of producing high results. This teachers already feel that pressure from administrators since funding is so directly tied to test results. On the other hand, teachers who might need more accountability, such as intervention teachers (AIS, ELLs, SETTS), coaches, do not have teacher data reports since they are not tied to a specific class. Additionally, lower grade teachers also do not have a number tied to their teaching practices.
4) All upper grade teachers are measured the same way: Teach a special education class? Who cares. Teach English language learners? So What. Teach in a low-income school? So. This is your 1st year teaching? And. The list goes on. If I am teaching in a failing school, I am expected to make the same progress with my kids that a teacher teaching in a school with high-income kids would be expected to make on those tests. If I am teaching a general education population, my colleagues teaching in Special Education classrooms will be rated in the same way I am. Which brings me to my next point...
5) Drives teachers away from teaching in challenging environments: It's easier to be deemed successful in a high-income classroom. It's easier to be deemed successful if you teach general ed students. Why are we creating incentives for teachers to leave low-income, high-need areas?
6) Success is ONLY based on ELA and MATH on your grade level: If a student comes to my classroom not knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and I teach them to do all of that, they are still only tested on 5th grade standards, which go well beyond that work. This means their academic growth in math is not accurately measured through the 5th grade test. Additionally, we are meant to teach 5 subjects a day in our classrooms: Reading, Writing, Math, Social Studies, and Science.
7) Creates the Wrong Incentives:
Teachers are more likely to test prep their kids all year in ELA and math instead of providing genuine instruction. Teachers are also much more likely to CHEAT on tests since their asses are on the line if their students perform poorly. Does that sound like a good incentive structure?
8) Creates a distrustful dynamic: Because of the above, these tests create a negative dynamic within schools. Firstly, teachers will look to the previous year's teacher and question how the kids received the results they did. Was it fair? Did the teacher test prep all day? And, the thought no one wants to admit is, could the teacher have cheated on proctoring the test? Also, teachers now have a percentile attached to their teaching. So, where before you worked colleague to colleague as equals, now, theirs a sense of competition factored into a team dynamic, which is not constructive in a collaborative teaching environment.
9) Ultimately, it hurts the kids: At the end of the day, the kids are worse off. They already have the pressure of testing starting at the ludicrous age of 8. Now, not only do they have that pressure, but they also feel a much greater pressure from their teachers because their teachers want them to perform at a higher level than their prediction. The teacher's job is on the line, so the kids better step up. The kids are more likely to receive less genuine instruction and more test-prep instruction, which in the end, hurts the child.
My question is: has anyone who was responsible for this brilliant idea been inside a school for more than a day? Has anyone actually taught in one?
I will now step off the soapbox. Thank you for humoring me.
On Monday, as an upper grade team, we spoke about the new "teacher data initiative." This initiative uses students' standardized testing scores in English Language Arts and Math to determine teacher effectiveness.
A few points of clarification:
1) Last year, it was clear that these scores were to have NO impact on teachers. According to an agreement between the UFT and Chancellor Joel Klein in October 2008. This means they were not intended to be used for hiring, firing, or tenure decisions
2) This February, Bloomberg made the top-down decision (I assume based on Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative) to use these reports as a component to making tenure decisions, effectively reversing the agreement single-handedly.
How is this report determined?
-According to the 2008 Teacher Data Initiative Report:
TVA mathematically isolates individual teacher contributions to student performance gains on the State tests. Teacher reports predict each student’s growth in student achievement based on characteristics of students, classrooms and schools that are outside of the teacher’s control. The Predicted Gains are compared to the Actual Gains for each student in a teacher’s class. Value-Added: the difference between Actual and Predicted Gains.
Essentially, an algorithm predicts what my students should get in my classroom if they had a "generic" teacher. This prediction is based on two years of testing, 3rd grade and 4th grade, by the time the students get to 5th grade. When they actually take the test, their actual data is compared to what they were predicted to get with this "generic" teacher. If they did better, I get "value-added" points! If they did worse, I get "minus" points.
This data is then compiled together and I am compared to my colleagues within the New York City, and am assigned a percentile in ELA and a percentile in math to tell me how I compare to the rest of the teachers in NYC.
What's wrong with this?
1) Tests are not reliable: Tests are magically easy during campaign years. The grading system is different based on how much money is in the budget for summer schools (since students that fail are required to take summer school).
2) Predictions are arbitrary: A "generic" teacher doesn't exist. Deeming this number the appropriate number based on essentially 2 tests in each subject doesn't seem statistically sound.
3) Only 4-8 teachers are held accountable: Since testing starts in grade 3, the algorithm can only produce predictions for 4th grade and up. This means that teachers who are already in high-stress, high-stakes testing environments are the ones who then have this extra added pressure of producing high results. This teachers already feel that pressure from administrators since funding is so directly tied to test results. On the other hand, teachers who might need more accountability, such as intervention teachers (AIS, ELLs, SETTS), coaches, do not have teacher data reports since they are not tied to a specific class. Additionally, lower grade teachers also do not have a number tied to their teaching practices.
4) All upper grade teachers are measured the same way: Teach a special education class? Who cares. Teach English language learners? So What. Teach in a low-income school? So. This is your 1st year teaching? And. The list goes on. If I am teaching in a failing school, I am expected to make the same progress with my kids that a teacher teaching in a school with high-income kids would be expected to make on those tests. If I am teaching a general education population, my colleagues teaching in Special Education classrooms will be rated in the same way I am. Which brings me to my next point...
5) Drives teachers away from teaching in challenging environments: It's easier to be deemed successful in a high-income classroom. It's easier to be deemed successful if you teach general ed students. Why are we creating incentives for teachers to leave low-income, high-need areas?
6) Success is ONLY based on ELA and MATH on your grade level: If a student comes to my classroom not knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and I teach them to do all of that, they are still only tested on 5th grade standards, which go well beyond that work. This means their academic growth in math is not accurately measured through the 5th grade test. Additionally, we are meant to teach 5 subjects a day in our classrooms: Reading, Writing, Math, Social Studies, and Science.
7) Creates the Wrong Incentives:
Teachers are more likely to test prep their kids all year in ELA and math instead of providing genuine instruction. Teachers are also much more likely to CHEAT on tests since their asses are on the line if their students perform poorly. Does that sound like a good incentive structure?
8) Creates a distrustful dynamic: Because of the above, these tests create a negative dynamic within schools. Firstly, teachers will look to the previous year's teacher and question how the kids received the results they did. Was it fair? Did the teacher test prep all day? And, the thought no one wants to admit is, could the teacher have cheated on proctoring the test? Also, teachers now have a percentile attached to their teaching. So, where before you worked colleague to colleague as equals, now, theirs a sense of competition factored into a team dynamic, which is not constructive in a collaborative teaching environment.
9) Ultimately, it hurts the kids: At the end of the day, the kids are worse off. They already have the pressure of testing starting at the ludicrous age of 8. Now, not only do they have that pressure, but they also feel a much greater pressure from their teachers because their teachers want them to perform at a higher level than their prediction. The teacher's job is on the line, so the kids better step up. The kids are more likely to receive less genuine instruction and more test-prep instruction, which in the end, hurts the child.
My question is: has anyone who was responsible for this brilliant idea been inside a school for more than a day? Has anyone actually taught in one?
I will now step off the soapbox. Thank you for humoring me.