The impetus for today's thoughts come from an article posted by a friend on Facebook. It's title "I'm Sick of Appreciating Teachers" gave me hope, especially as it was posted during 'Teacher Appreciation Week'. However, the words that followed crushed me. Simply stated, it was just another in a long line of puff pieces determined to glorify teachers, and set them on a pedestal that very few among the human species could ever hope to achieve.(1)
The main gist of the article seemed to be that teachers simply aren't paid enough for the work they do. Which is a joke, as I have previously documented. She laments that teachers are not paid ''a living wage" which is as dumb of a statement that can be made. Teachers are paid well for the job they do, and what's more, they chose their profession. Sometimes they chose it because it was what was available at the moment, others chose it because it had a very convenient schedule, and yes, there are those who do it simply because they believe in educating the next generation.
I would love to say that I am wholly in the last category, but I'd be a liar if I didn't pretend that a teacher schedule isn't something that I enjoy. The hours in the day (though they often appear to take longer than normal ones) are not horrific, and the day to day schedule as far as when days off come along is pretty brilliant, much better than I have experienced at any job in the private sector, for instance.
To be clear, the days off are a necessity, because it is not just teachers who get worn out, but students, too. The current stretch that we are going through at my school (post April-vacation until the end of the school year is perhaps the most brutal on the calendar for all parties involved. There is only one scheduled day off (Memorial Day), and there is a plethora of state and district tests/assessments that need to be completed, with the result being that many students end up going through the days not unlike the cast of The Walking Dead.
However, the biggest problem that Kate Kooyman made in her article was to issue a blanket statement of how brilliant, un-thanked, and mistreated all teachers are. It's a faulty line of thinking, no different than the public assumption in some sectors that other public sector positions are all good, quality people who are only interested in serving the public. Like the U.S. Congress or POTUS, for instance. This simply is not true. As is the case in every occupation, there are those who do their best, those who care, others who are malcontents, and then those who are simply there because they have no better options. It's important to note: being a Teacher does not make you a Hero, it does not put you in line for Sainthood, nor should there be a constant outpouring of affirmation about how much the profession is appreciated. Teachers, like everyone else, are people who are (for the most part) trying to get through their day while doing the best they can.
If Miss Kooyman and others who are so inclined to prop up the teaching profession really cared about increasing the amount of take-home money teachers receive, perhaps they could get on board with what Governor Scott Walker has done in Wisconsin - eliminate public sector unions and the protection they provide to those who are not doing their jobs properly. As a bonus - those teachers who remained behind saw their pay increase by up to $10,000 per year. Keeping poor teachers on the job simply because is bad policy. Forcing teachers to join unions and pay dues even if (or despite) they disagree with the union and its policies is abhorrent. Correcting these problems will help to lift up the profession, and make it more worthy of appreciation.
Except - it shouldn't be necessary. Teaching is a job - one that can be highly rewarding - chosen by the person who endeavors to do it. It should not be necessary to constantly heap praise upon it anymore than it should be to blame them for failures that are beyond their control.
(1) Bearing in mind, I am a member of the profession.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Thursday, July 24, 2014
The Real Problem With Common Core
If there is one issue that can unite people of all political persuasions, it is their strong dislike of the Common Core which has taken to American schools like locust to a new crop of wheat. Most of the discontent focuses on how problems are presented to students, or how teachers are affected in the way they are able to present material. These are both very real concerns, however, I don't believe that either one of them gets to the heart of the matter.
The biggest problem I have with Common Core is its top down philosophy, and the notion that one size fits all as far as education goes. The thought process at the beginning (I hope) was likely a good one- all students should have the same opportunity to learn exactly the same material, regardless of where they went to school.
If only the architects of Common Core had took the time to read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (disclaimer: I have not. I have, however, watched the 1995 Showtime movie of the same name, starring Sean Astin. I feel this is nearly the same thing.), they might have realized the flaw in that line of thinking.
Human beings are not equal, in any way, manner, or form. It's what makes the world a great place to live. For instance- I have absolutely no musical ability whatsoever, I couldn't tell you the difference between a C sharp and an A minor (nor am I astute enough to know if that is even something real.) Somehow I've stumbled through life without this ability, while millions around me are much more gifted. Here's what's great about that- I absolutely love listening to those talented musicians perform. There are few things in the world to me as listening to a person/band who knows what they are doing.
If in a Harrison Bergeron type world, those talented musicians were all relegated to simply average, would my enjoyment of their performance increase because they were more like me? I shouldn't think so, but that is the underlying philosophy behind Common Core, or at least that's how it's appeared as I've made my way through pedagogical process to become a licensed teacher.
The bigger problem with Common Core past its seeming desire to make everyone 'equal', is that it further erodes local control over what is taught in individual schools. With the top down (or "factory") method of education, parents, teachers, principals, and other educators are cut out of the decision-making process. Instead, what they are left in charge of is how to implement the Common Core so that they are able to receive the federal funding that comes along with it. Without that money, the schools would be even less able to provide a 'quality' education than they currently are able to do.
The problem that I've noticed with this mentality, however, is that it causes educators to feel like they have less control over what they are teaching, because along with Common Core comes a plethora of mandated tests that are extremely important. Way more important than allowing students the opportunity to actually study something in depth, for instance. Or learn how to critically think.
Sure, those in charge will tell you that is exactly what students are learning. I'm here to tell you that's a lie. What students are learning is how to manage the tests that they need to pass, but they aren't actually learning material. They are engaged in learning "knowledge" which is the lowest form of learning that can transpire. Sure, they might be able to tell you that Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that Columbus set sail in 1492, or Sir Isaac Newton 'discovered' gravity, but more often than not, that will be the extent of student 'learning'.
They are not able to engage in discussions that might point to the significance of any of those events, nor the ramifications that transpired as a result. They'll simply know whether to circle "A", "B", "C", or "D" on their state-sponsored, high stakes test. Which is an important skill in this moment, but not something that helps them prepare for their future.
What it will take to defeat Common Core (and yes, it is an enemy that must be defeated) is a united front between parents and educators. They must demand that education is returned to the local level, and then they must work together to return the focus to student learning. In the short term, there will be hiccups. Educators may need to figure out ways of getting by with less money. This will not be pleasant, but it may be necessary.
Whether parents or educators have the wherewithal to make such a stand will determine whether or not Common Core is beat back. There are always decisions to be made. The easy one is to simply roll with the status quo, despite the fact that there is no proven benefit to it. The right choice, though more difficult, will help set our nation back on track, and allow students to reach their full potential, wherever they are strongest.
The biggest problem I have with Common Core is its top down philosophy, and the notion that one size fits all as far as education goes. The thought process at the beginning (I hope) was likely a good one- all students should have the same opportunity to learn exactly the same material, regardless of where they went to school.
If only the architects of Common Core had took the time to read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (disclaimer: I have not. I have, however, watched the 1995 Showtime movie of the same name, starring Sean Astin. I feel this is nearly the same thing.), they might have realized the flaw in that line of thinking.
Human beings are not equal, in any way, manner, or form. It's what makes the world a great place to live. For instance- I have absolutely no musical ability whatsoever, I couldn't tell you the difference between a C sharp and an A minor (nor am I astute enough to know if that is even something real.) Somehow I've stumbled through life without this ability, while millions around me are much more gifted. Here's what's great about that- I absolutely love listening to those talented musicians perform. There are few things in the world to me as listening to a person/band who knows what they are doing.
If in a Harrison Bergeron type world, those talented musicians were all relegated to simply average, would my enjoyment of their performance increase because they were more like me? I shouldn't think so, but that is the underlying philosophy behind Common Core, or at least that's how it's appeared as I've made my way through pedagogical process to become a licensed teacher.
The bigger problem with Common Core past its seeming desire to make everyone 'equal', is that it further erodes local control over what is taught in individual schools. With the top down (or "factory") method of education, parents, teachers, principals, and other educators are cut out of the decision-making process. Instead, what they are left in charge of is how to implement the Common Core so that they are able to receive the federal funding that comes along with it. Without that money, the schools would be even less able to provide a 'quality' education than they currently are able to do.
The problem that I've noticed with this mentality, however, is that it causes educators to feel like they have less control over what they are teaching, because along with Common Core comes a plethora of mandated tests that are extremely important. Way more important than allowing students the opportunity to actually study something in depth, for instance. Or learn how to critically think.
Sure, those in charge will tell you that is exactly what students are learning. I'm here to tell you that's a lie. What students are learning is how to manage the tests that they need to pass, but they aren't actually learning material. They are engaged in learning "knowledge" which is the lowest form of learning that can transpire. Sure, they might be able to tell you that Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, that Columbus set sail in 1492, or Sir Isaac Newton 'discovered' gravity, but more often than not, that will be the extent of student 'learning'.
They are not able to engage in discussions that might point to the significance of any of those events, nor the ramifications that transpired as a result. They'll simply know whether to circle "A", "B", "C", or "D" on their state-sponsored, high stakes test. Which is an important skill in this moment, but not something that helps them prepare for their future.
What it will take to defeat Common Core (and yes, it is an enemy that must be defeated) is a united front between parents and educators. They must demand that education is returned to the local level, and then they must work together to return the focus to student learning. In the short term, there will be hiccups. Educators may need to figure out ways of getting by with less money. This will not be pleasant, but it may be necessary.
Whether parents or educators have the wherewithal to make such a stand will determine whether or not Common Core is beat back. There are always decisions to be made. The easy one is to simply roll with the status quo, despite the fact that there is no proven benefit to it. The right choice, though more difficult, will help set our nation back on track, and allow students to reach their full potential, wherever they are strongest.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Teachers Are Not Underpaid
A complaint that is heard far too often is that there needs to be more money put in to schools, because by golly, our teachers simply aren't paid enough to deal with this current generation of students. I imagine this argument isn't a new one, and in fact goes back nearly to the day that Horace Mann helped found Westfield State University (nee "Westfield Normal School") as "the people's college" way back in 1838. With the advent of social media, and the need to fill 24 hour news cycles every single hour of every single day, we all are aware of how underpaid teachers are.
However, I feel the question must be asked, are they really underpaid? I posit this question as someone who has recently completed the requirements to gain my initial license within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To begin to answer the question, I looked at the average salary for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the most recent year I could find it (2011-2012), and found, not surprisingly, that the numbers simply don't bear that out. Of the approximately 325 school districts spread out throughout the Commonwealth, only one (1!) district has an average salary that is less than $51,109. How the good people of Florida, MA manage to keep their average teacher salary at just a touch over $37,000 I don't know. Perhaps they've brainwashed their teachers in to thinking that they're teaching in the state of Florida, and they're only a stone's throw away from the nearest beach. What I do know is that they are definitively an outlier, as the average teacher salary within the Commonwealth is just a touch under $71,000.
Many people complain that this simply isn't enough for what teachers do, and the impact that they have on young students who are in their charge. While what teachers do in the classroom (good teachers, at least) cannot be quantified, the expense in terms of dollars and cents easily can be.
I had a professor who put forth a statistic as if it was a fact (it was a class where I expect she knew what she was talking about) that stated that if you netted over $35,000 in a year, you were in the top 1% of wage earners world wide. That would seem to jibe with what wikipedia has to say on the topic. The list on wikipedia also notes that the average salary in the United States as of 2012 is roughly $55,000, or just about $16,000 short of what the average teacher in the Commonwealth earns.
For those that might argue that the pay scale is top-heavy, and new teachers are vastly underpaid by comparison, I'm here to tell you, that's simply not true. As I have been applying out for jobs over the last few months, I have not been able to find a "full-time" teaching position that pays less than just under $42,000 (and even with that, there are bonuses if you're willing to teach in certain districts that increase that pay level.) I'll grant, I've pointedly avoided Florida, MA, but still, I have not been able to find a job that pays less than that. For 10 months (9, really) worth of work. Sure, there may be some 'long' days (I have a hard time listening to conversations about 'long' days, when the school day is less than 7 hours long.) It's a good gig, if you can get it.
So the next time you hear someone complaining about how underpaid teachers are, I beg you to remember that in the Commonwealth of MA (and likely everywhere else, too), teachers are part of the 1%.
However, I feel the question must be asked, are they really underpaid? I posit this question as someone who has recently completed the requirements to gain my initial license within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To begin to answer the question, I looked at the average salary for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the most recent year I could find it (2011-2012), and found, not surprisingly, that the numbers simply don't bear that out. Of the approximately 325 school districts spread out throughout the Commonwealth, only one (1!) district has an average salary that is less than $51,109. How the good people of Florida, MA manage to keep their average teacher salary at just a touch over $37,000 I don't know. Perhaps they've brainwashed their teachers in to thinking that they're teaching in the state of Florida, and they're only a stone's throw away from the nearest beach. What I do know is that they are definitively an outlier, as the average teacher salary within the Commonwealth is just a touch under $71,000.
Many people complain that this simply isn't enough for what teachers do, and the impact that they have on young students who are in their charge. While what teachers do in the classroom (good teachers, at least) cannot be quantified, the expense in terms of dollars and cents easily can be.
I had a professor who put forth a statistic as if it was a fact (it was a class where I expect she knew what she was talking about) that stated that if you netted over $35,000 in a year, you were in the top 1% of wage earners world wide. That would seem to jibe with what wikipedia has to say on the topic. The list on wikipedia also notes that the average salary in the United States as of 2012 is roughly $55,000, or just about $16,000 short of what the average teacher in the Commonwealth earns.
For those that might argue that the pay scale is top-heavy, and new teachers are vastly underpaid by comparison, I'm here to tell you, that's simply not true. As I have been applying out for jobs over the last few months, I have not been able to find a "full-time" teaching position that pays less than just under $42,000 (and even with that, there are bonuses if you're willing to teach in certain districts that increase that pay level.) I'll grant, I've pointedly avoided Florida, MA, but still, I have not been able to find a job that pays less than that. For 10 months (9, really) worth of work. Sure, there may be some 'long' days (I have a hard time listening to conversations about 'long' days, when the school day is less than 7 hours long.) It's a good gig, if you can get it.
So the next time you hear someone complaining about how underpaid teachers are, I beg you to remember that in the Commonwealth of MA (and likely everywhere else, too), teachers are part of the 1%.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Assistive Technology Embedded Within Windows 7
The assistive technology embedded within a computer's OS is not something that many people may take in to consideration when purchasing a PC, but for those who need it, it is a wonderful resource.
I began my exploration of the different options that Windows 7 provided by looking to this Microsoft page which explained just how easy it was to access the technology. By simply pressing the windows key and the letter "U", I was brought to the screen below:
The options for different assistive technology within Windows is quite impressive. In the section at the top, a simple mouse click allows for any one of the options to be chosen. When I selected the magnifier, it doubled the size of the text on the screen, which makes it easier for those who may have vision problems but are not blind to be able to see the screen. The narrator option was just as easily activated, and it serves to read text as you mouse over it. This could help vision-impaired persons, or it could be a benefit to those who suffer from dyslexia, or any disability that makes reading problematic. The on screen keyboard allows for users to utilize their mouse on a pop-up keyboard, which will assist anyone who might suffer from a disorder such as cerebral palsy to still manipulate a keyboard and put their thoughts down on a page. The last option up top to "set up high contrast" seems like something that may be useful to all users if the glare from the screen is causing eye strain, but it doesn't seem like it provides any particular benefit to those suffering from a disability or disorder.
For those that would like to utilize it, speech recognition software can be activated. This could be useful to someone who is a quadriplegic, or who suffers from a disorder that affects motor control in their hands. There are also options to make the keyboard or mouse easier to use, settings to help readers focus on the screen more easily, and an option to use text or visual cues as a substitute for sounds. Overall, the AT that is available within the OS is fairly inclusive for a large segment of the population that may suffer from any of the disorders/disabilities discussed, and many more that were not touched upon.
The options for different assistive technology within Windows is quite impressive. In the section at the top, a simple mouse click allows for any one of the options to be chosen. When I selected the magnifier, it doubled the size of the text on the screen, which makes it easier for those who may have vision problems but are not blind to be able to see the screen. The narrator option was just as easily activated, and it serves to read text as you mouse over it. This could help vision-impaired persons, or it could be a benefit to those who suffer from dyslexia, or any disability that makes reading problematic. The on screen keyboard allows for users to utilize their mouse on a pop-up keyboard, which will assist anyone who might suffer from a disorder such as cerebral palsy to still manipulate a keyboard and put their thoughts down on a page. The last option up top to "set up high contrast" seems like something that may be useful to all users if the glare from the screen is causing eye strain, but it doesn't seem like it provides any particular benefit to those suffering from a disability or disorder.
For those that would like to utilize it, speech recognition software can be activated. This could be useful to someone who is a quadriplegic, or who suffers from a disorder that affects motor control in their hands. There are also options to make the keyboard or mouse easier to use, settings to help readers focus on the screen more easily, and an option to use text or visual cues as a substitute for sounds. Overall, the AT that is available within the OS is fairly inclusive for a large segment of the population that may suffer from any of the disorders/disabilities discussed, and many more that were not touched upon.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Assistive Technology in the Classroom
(graphic courtesy of http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/at/at_02.html)
Classrooms across the country have become far more inclusive in recent years, and a lot of that is due to the usage of assistive technology that has become far more common. Resources that can be utilized vary nearly as much as the ways they can be put to use by educators for students that need assistance.
Websites such as enablemart.com now exist with a plethora of solutions for each student. One fairly expensive piece of equipment that is available there is the QiCare Page Turner, which allows students to be able to read books in a more independent manner. The device (or a less expensive alternative) allows the child to read a book or magazine in a "hands free" manner, which lets them focus solely on reading the material in front of them. The pages are turned by the student pressing a button or switch, or in the case of the QiCare product, by using a foot pedal.
Not every solution has to be a high-tech or expensive process. Prince George County in Maryland has put together this site that offers many low-cost or no-cost solutions for students and teachers. Some of the solutions offered for issues with perception include the use of large print books/magazines, the use of headphones, and the use of manipulatives amongst many others. For those students that struggle with fluency and/or communication, they suggest word banks, using procedural checklists, and blocks or 3D models.
To bookend the thought of the expensive technology that may be available at specialty sites such as EnableMart, this site that many products that are available at local stores, or may already be in the classroom waiting to be used. One low-tech option, low-cost option is a specialized rubber pencil grip, which allows students that need assistance grasping their pen or pencil to have better use of their writing utensil.
Whether it is a PDA, an iPad (or other type of tablet), or a simple pair of headphones, the range of assistive technology is nearly endless, and the benefits to the students are as well.
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Flipped Classroom
In Mary Beth Hertz's overview of what a flipped classroom is, and the pros and cons of running one,
she goes through scenarios where a flipped classroom may work.
A good working definition of what a flipped classroom is would be an environment that allows children to learn at their own pace, so that they feel they are making progress. In her article, a lot of emphasis is placed on the role of videos being utilized in order to carry this mission out. The down side of that process was that not all schools have access to the necessary equipment or technology to carry out this plan, and she specifically mentioned rural areas that may not have high speed internet.
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about possibly utilizing this strategy as a teacher. My intention is to teach younger children (2nd grade, hopefully) and I would want to see what kind of studies have been done with regard to how video learning affect the minds of children that age. At the same time, if it was a benefit to a segment of the class, then I think it could be a good tool to help those who are not learning at the same pace as their classmates keep up. Helping students learn is the primary goal of a teacher, so it will become necessary to be better educated on how flip classrooms are panning out across the country, with special consideration to the age group I plan on teaching before I make a final decision as to whether I would utilize it in a classroom.
A good working definition of what a flipped classroom is would be an environment that allows children to learn at their own pace, so that they feel they are making progress. In her article, a lot of emphasis is placed on the role of videos being utilized in order to carry this mission out. The down side of that process was that not all schools have access to the necessary equipment or technology to carry out this plan, and she specifically mentioned rural areas that may not have high speed internet.
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about possibly utilizing this strategy as a teacher. My intention is to teach younger children (2nd grade, hopefully) and I would want to see what kind of studies have been done with regard to how video learning affect the minds of children that age. At the same time, if it was a benefit to a segment of the class, then I think it could be a good tool to help those who are not learning at the same pace as their classmates keep up. Helping students learn is the primary goal of a teacher, so it will become necessary to be better educated on how flip classrooms are panning out across the country, with special consideration to the age group I plan on teaching before I make a final decision as to whether I would utilize it in a classroom.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Role of Technology in the Classroom
Dr. Perry's thoughts on how technology is a dual-edged sword for both teacher/parents and student/children. Through pointed questions, he gets to the heart of the matter: technology that engages children (such as computers) is something that has a learning benefit, while passive technology (such as television) is something that should be avoided. Television not only is a passive technology, but time spent watching it could be better utilized involved with other developmental experiences.
He also believes that there is a time and a place for different types of learning, and that what might be appropriate for a teenager might not be appropriate for a toddler or a young child. Part of this comes from what content is involved, and whether or not it is age appropriate, but also it comes down to if an action is appropriate for an older child. As he noted, it would not be proper for a 14 year old to miss an afternoon of school to be at home being coddled and rocked (though I would argue that in certain extreme situations, this may be called for, regardless of the age of the child.)
The major theme that he hit on is that children need to be actively engaged in the way that best suits them at their personal level for learning. Videos, computers, games, and even cards all can play a role in a child's development if they are utilized at the proper time and with care. The key is for their to be interaction and to allow a child's natural curiosity help steer her/his ability to learn.
My thoughts on the subject weren't overwhelmingly changed by what Dr. Perry presented, because a lot of what he says feels intuitive. Anyone who has had the opportunity to watch young children knows that they want to learn as much as they can from whatever source will best provide it for them. With regard to television, I know that most times when I watch, I feel more lethargic than active, so I am not surprised at all with his conclusion that it is a more passive technology that is not necessarily suited for younger children to learn from.
He also believes that there is a time and a place for different types of learning, and that what might be appropriate for a teenager might not be appropriate for a toddler or a young child. Part of this comes from what content is involved, and whether or not it is age appropriate, but also it comes down to if an action is appropriate for an older child. As he noted, it would not be proper for a 14 year old to miss an afternoon of school to be at home being coddled and rocked (though I would argue that in certain extreme situations, this may be called for, regardless of the age of the child.)
The major theme that he hit on is that children need to be actively engaged in the way that best suits them at their personal level for learning. Videos, computers, games, and even cards all can play a role in a child's development if they are utilized at the proper time and with care. The key is for their to be interaction and to allow a child's natural curiosity help steer her/his ability to learn.
My thoughts on the subject weren't overwhelmingly changed by what Dr. Perry presented, because a lot of what he says feels intuitive. Anyone who has had the opportunity to watch young children knows that they want to learn as much as they can from whatever source will best provide it for them. With regard to television, I know that most times when I watch, I feel more lethargic than active, so I am not surprised at all with his conclusion that it is a more passive technology that is not necessarily suited for younger children to learn from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)