Sometimes being a teacher sucks.....

[luvsJack]

Yeah there is Head Start, which is a great program for those who qualify assuming they can/will take advantage of it, and a more play-oriented program through the county university extension. I don't think either program reaches nearly as many kids as need it, though, because of logistical issues (transportation, childcare, etc.) or plain out laziness/lack of desire on the part of some parents. And of course the challenges vary from place to place - a low-income rural family working opposite shifts to get by with one car and no childcare is going to have different obstacles to taking advantage of what is offered than a poor urban family where the adult in the home just doesn't value education enough to sign the kids up.

There are still many, many adults who believe the school years should be enough and that kids do not need preschool or head start.

The school systems have jumped ahead of themselves in what they require these kids to know. Kindergarten should be there to give them equal footing. Until there is PreK-4 IN the school system (NOT head start), there should be no expectation nor required knowledge for K.

 

[mumom95]

Until people openly admit that failing schools aren't failing because of the teachers, they are failing because of the families of the students, it's never going to change. And lawmakers aren't going to come out and say that, because they would lose too many votes.

There are bad teachers out there. But you aren't going to find a whole school of bad teachers. So when you have a high school kid failing almost all his/her classes, you have to look past the variables and look at the constant, which is the kid and his/her family. And when you have a 4th grader fail the state tests, you have to look back and really ask what are the odds that all the teachers they have had have been bad.

Someday maybe a politician will stand up and say let's start holding the parents responsible for the child's educational performance. Start mandating the parent be involved with the process. I realize the parents may not have the educational background to help with subject material, but they can make sure the work is always done, the child spends the time studying and is always in school and paying attention to the teacher. If that happens, then maybe we'll start to see a change in student performance. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[sbell111]

Is everyone in this thread really upset because it is an expectation that schools will teach children to read? Really?

 

[kamik86]

I honestly think that the biggest problem with schools and the level of expectations on kids, with minimum wage laws, and with many many other problems is that people don't seem to understand one thing:

In EVERYTHING someone will always be on top and someone will always be on bottom.

There will always be the students that are the least educated, there will always be the people that can't get a job that makes a living wage, etc etc. If you educating all the students to a hire level the best students will simply learn even more and the standard will be raised. (IE when everyone graduates from HS you will need a college degree to get a job that gives you a good life style). People seem to think they can solve all the problems but some of these problems just can't be solved.

This is even true with poverty in general. If you raise the amount the poorest people have they will still want more because they will still be the poorest people. That is why the poor in America still want more and more even though to some parts of the world our poor are quite rich. The problem is that now having an internet connection, a television, a cell phone, etc. have become so normal that they are considered necessities.

There is no way to fix these problems as the lowest in everything will always be discontent.This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to move the bar higher... we definitely should. But you can't ask for every student to meet the "average" level. Which is what they do now.

 

[golfgal]

There are still many, many adults who believe the school years should be enough and that kids do not need preschool or head start.

The school systems have jumped ahead of themselves in what they require these kids to know. Kindergarten should be there to give them equal footing. Until there is PreK-4 IN the school system (NOT head start), there should be no expectation nor required knowledge for K.

I don't think kids NEED preschool either, however, I think it is helpful. If you chose not to send your child to preschool you should AT LEAST be reading to them and teaching them to count and teaching them the alphabet. Heck, even if you don't want to do that, let them watch Sesame Street so they CAN learn those things.

Is everyone in this thread really upset because it is an expectation that schools will teach children to read? Really?

No one is upset that the teachers are expected to teach kids to read, what they are upset about is that the state is putting their jobs on the line for things for which they have ZERO control over. How would you like to get paid based on the work production of someone down the street from you?

 

[Mrs. Charming]

So, a judge in NC has decided that some school systems are not doing as good a job as they should. He is having these school systems answer as to why many of their students are not "proficient" in reading. Some schools in my district will have to bring all their non-proficient students up to proficient level within three years, or the principal will be fired and the teachers will have to reapply for their jobs.

What he doesn't understand (and a lot of people do not understand) is that expecting all students to meet a level that has been determined to be the norm no matter what their home life, intellectual ability, or native language is just not fair to anyone. In my school, we have a low poverty rate, high parent involvement, and a low number of students with English as a second language. Most of our students are proficient. There are other schools in our district with a 67% poverty level, non-existent parent involvement and 30% ELL students. These schools also typically have lots of behavior problems. How can students starting out not even knowing how to speak English or recognize numbers 1-10 be as proficient as students who have been in preschool for 4 years and are reading and writing coming into kindergarten??? I feel bad for these teachers, because they are already doing their best, budgets have been cut once again, and they are fighting an uphill battle.

I think our education system needs to be seriously revamped. Instead of mandating that every child needs to meet this ambiguous level of proficiency, we should be looking at each child as an individual and looking at their GROWTH over each year. If little Johnny scores a 40% on an assessment, we should be using that assessment to see what we need to teach. Teach each child as an individual and then assess again. If the score is now a 50% and the norm is 70%, how can you say that is a failure? If little Johnny has shown 10% growth, that should be celebrated.

Sorry, just venting. This shouldn't affect me personally, but it bothers me......

That would make too much sense to judge by growth instead of some mysterious "norm." I never understood either. There are too many variables in children, and I think the judges, politicians, and even school administrators that are so far removed from the classroom that they really have no inkling of how children learn and progress. It's pretty sad that they're the ones making the rules, policies, and laws.

 

[wdwfan16]

That used to be the case, as recently as just one generation ago, but that's not the case any more. In our old district, the expectation is that kindergartners will come in with certain basic skills, knowing the alphabet and counting to 10, how to write their names, etc. And they're held back if they aren't reading on a basic level at the end of K.

Pre-K is the 0 knowledge level now (and pre-K isn't free so poor kids seldom attend), and K is heavily academic. It is a horrible system that sets disadvantaged kids and "late bloomers" up to fail because they just aren't capable of everything that is expected of them, but the schools feel this is the way to get ahead of the testing game.

This is how it is now. Our district has all 5 year olds tested. The less proficient half go to pre-K and the others go to K. This results in the K being half 5 year olds and half 6 year olds. Nobody cares if you are a year older. Parents of summer babies could ask for pre-K and parents who beleive their kids are not ready for K can ask for pre-K. All kids can go to pre-K as it is part of the school and not a special program. Some parents chose to keep their kids out of pre-K and start them in K at 6, but they do run the risk the kid is not ready and will fall behind. Pre-K is not manditory.


I have a problem with just using well Johnny is doing better than last year. But Johnny is now farther behind than he was last year. Eventually Johnny will be 18 and he will not be ready for the real world.

 

[FireDancer]

Many of the same things can be said about the parents involvement in education that can be said about parents involvement in nutrition, extra curricular activities, and many other things. Parents have to want to be involved. There is no way that anyone, even the government, is going to force parents to help their kids with homework, make them read to their kids, make them have an open dialogue with their kid's teachers, or prepare them for their education any more then they will make them to feed their kids a balanced diet or make them have physical activity every day.

I would be very involved with my children because I want to be. In the end the only kids I feel an obligation towards is my child or a child I assume legal responsibility for. I feel no obligation for other people's kids. There will always be the kids who's parents don't care and at that point the only choice those kids have is to self motivate or get themselves a mentor. I did have very involved parents (one much more-so then the other) but I also pushed myself just as much as they pushed me, often times even harder.

There are a lot of things that need changed. First, kids who don't pass their subjects should fail. This no-fail garbage is exactly that. Out in the real world if you fail you fail. If one of my employees isn't proficient enough to do their job they are fired. Along those lines, there has to come a time when kids who don't care enough to self motivate have to just be allowed to fall through the cracks. There is only so much any third party will be able to do. Even kids with very involved parents have to want to learn at some point. Even parents can only push so hard for so long before the kids have to take over.

The bottom line for me is that I am not responsible for propping up other people's kids and teachers aren't really either. Kids who continually fail and show no interest should be failed or expelled, just like employees that continually fail are fired. Harsh? Possibly, but I am not a hand holder, I am a crap or get off the pot person. I feel schools should be there to teach and if you don't want to learn or your parents don't want to help you it just is what it is. I don't see the need to keep propping everyone else up if they are unwilling to at least help you by contributing to their own or their child's education.

 

[skip323]

The classes are free for low income families but they are mostly attended by middle and upper class people. There is also a preschool program incorporated into the program. I find that there are all kinds of opportunities for low income families to get their child on track, they just don't take advantage of them. I guess if you are too lazy to get a job or see that your child is fed, you aren't going to get them to preschool either.

I think there is an assumption...around this country...that every child coming from poverty or not going to preschool...or poorly educated lives in a home of lazy people. In fact there are numerous people that love their children but don't work (can't find a job, were laid off from a job, disability all kinds of things)....OR work a number of part time jobs that do not provide the benefit of time, insurance or a lot of food. Rent is not cheap and Section 8 housing etc is not necessarily always available. Head Start still has inequities and is not necessarily available to all. Even Head Start can close when they are at capacity.

QUOTE "Is everyone in this thread really upset because it is an expectation that schools will teach children to read? Really?" QUOTE

As someone else just mentioned...the issue is not whether children can read or not. The issue is the expectation of when it will happen. I have students who come into high school (I am a counselor) with a 3rd to 6th grade reading level. Somehow, based on state requirements, the teachers are supposed to advance these kids to a 9th grade reading level in one year. Really? Kudos to all whose kids can do that....my own children, at home, do not advance at that level and they are both at or above level. I think we also need to recall that there are, for many of our kids, generations and generations of people who have been raised kind of "not knowing". Meaning....some people don't get that talking to a baby actually helps with language development. They don't get it! They just don't know. We assume that everyone has the same knowledge base when they do not. Much of what I do is based upon how I was raised. Suppose you had generations of a family who were "raised" without all of the little "secrets of success"? What you get is kids who are tremendously behind in every area! Many reports have recently come out acknowledging the fact that there are some HUGE discrepancies in kids even coming into Kindergarten. If that is the case imagine how vast those discrepancies are by the time these kids get to middle and hig school?

I would like to see a system that tests a child in the fall to see where they are and then tests again in the spring to determine if they have gained. If a child gains about 9 or 10 months in their reading, math etc then the teachers have done a great job! Also...just remember that most schools are now struggling to keep teachers in this current economy. Sorry but a classroom of needy, low kids packed to the gills with no desks leftover is NOT going to produce much advancement.

 

[tasha99]

Many of the same things can be said about the parents involvement in education that can be said about parents involvement in nutrition, extra curricular activities, and many other things. Parents have to want to be involved. There is no way that anyone, even the government, is going to force parents to help their kids with homework, make them read to their kids, make them have an open dialogue with their kid's teachers, or prepare them for their education any more then they will make them to feed their kids a balanced diet or make them have physical activity every day.

I would be very involved with my children because I want to be. In the end the only kids I feel an obligation towards is my child or a child I assume legal responsibility for. I feel no obligation for other people's kids. There will always be the kids who's parents don't care and at that point the only choice those kids have is to self motivate or get themselves a mentor. I did have very involved parents (one much more-so then the other) but I also pushed myself just as much as they pushed me, often times even harder.

There are a lot of things that need changed. First, kids who don't pass their subjects should fail. This no-fail garbage is exactly that. Out in the real world if you fail you fail. If one of my employees isn't proficient enough to do their job they are fired. Along those lines, there has to come a time when kids who don't care enough to self motivate have to just be allowed to fall through the cracks. There is only so much any third party will be able to do. Even kids with very involved parents have to want to learn at some point. Even parents can only push so hard for so long before the kids have to take over.

The bottom line for me is that I am not responsible for propping up other people's kids and teachers aren't really either. Kids who continually fail and show no interest should be failed or expelled, just like employees that continually fail are fired. Harsh? Possibly, but I am not a hand holder, I am a crap or get off the pot person.

The problem with not worrying about other people's children is that left untaught, at least some will become your problem. The kid who never learns any meaningful skills will become a burden on someone, probably on society (either through welfare or being put in prison). It's everybody's world and what happens to your neighbor affects you.

 

[golfgal]

Many of the same things can be said about the parents involvement in education that can be said about parents involvement in nutrition, extra curricular activities, and many other things. Parents have to want to be involved. There is no way that anyone, even the government, is going to force parents to help their kids with homework, make them read to their kids, make them have an open dialogue with their kid's teachers, or prepare them for their education any more then they will make them to feed their kids a balanced diet or make them have physical activity every day.

I would be very involved with my children because I want to be. In the end the only kids I feel an obligation towards is my child or a child I assume legal responsibility for. I feel no obligation for other people's kids. There will always be the kids who's parents don't care and at that point the only choice those kids have is to self motivate or get themselves a mentor. I did have very involved parents (one much more-so then the other) but I also pushed myself just as much as they pushed me, often times even harder.

There are a lot of things that need changed. First, kids who don't pass their subjects should fail. This no-fail garbage is exactly that. Out in the real world if you fail you fail. If one of my employees isn't proficient enough to do their job they are fired. Along those lines, there has to come a time when kids who don't care enough to self motivate have to just be allowed to fall through the cracks. There is only so much any third party will be able to do. Even kids with very involved parents have to want to learn at some point. Even parents can only push so hard for so long before the kids have to take over.

The bottom line for me is that I am not responsible for propping up other people's kids and teachers aren't really either. Kids who continually fail and show no interest should be failed or expelled, just like employees that continually fail are fired. Harsh? Possibly, but I am not a hand holder, I am a crap or get off the pot person.

Once you have kids and become close with their friends you may feel differently about this. We have a vested interest in how many of our kids' friends do because we like them. Some of the kids' teammates wouldn't be able to do the sports they do if we didn't help with rides, sometimes their friends have had problems at home and we have helped them through things or let them stay here as needed. Part of what is so very wrong with our country is everyone is out for themselves and the DON'T feel a responsibility for helping others. If everyone just helped a little bit, things would be SO much better.

 

[FireDancer]

Once you have kids and become close with their friends you may feel differently about this. We have a vested interest in how many of our kids' friends do because we like them. Some of the kids' teammates wouldn't be able to do the sports they do if we didn't help with rides, sometimes their friends have had problems at home and we have helped them through things or let them stay here as needed. Part of what is so very wrong with our country is everyone is out for themselves and the DON'T feel a responsibility for helping others. If everyone just helped a little bit, things would be SO much better.

I wasn't talking about friends and family as much as responsibility towards people I don't know or casually know. I don't care what strangers do as far as their children go (as long as they aren't abusing them) but I am involved with many of my friend's kids and with my nephew and young cousins.

They are all too young for school but I go to the parks and play with them, I babysit them, I sit down at gatherings and put puzzles together with them or read them a story. I help out when I can but I am not responsible for them or their education. There is a difference between choosing to help the people you love or care about them and feeling obligated to step in for some random kid's parents. All of my friends and family are very involved with their children and I have no doubt they will be involved heavily with their education. They all sit with their children and make sure they know their shapes, their letters, their colors and so forth and sometimes I sit and do this with them as well. I wouldn't do this with kids I don't care about and certainly wouldn't go on a crusade to force the people who should care to care.

I don't feel the need however to pick up where kids I don't know parents have let off. Their children are ultimately their responsibility, not mine.

 

[golfgal]

I wasn't talking about friends and family as much as responsibility towards people I don't know or casually know. I don't care what strangers do as far as their children go (as long as they aren't abusing them) but I am involved with many of my friend's kids and with my nephew and young cousins.

They are all too young for school but I go to the parks and play with them, I babysit them, I sit down at gatherings and put puzzles together with them or read them a story. I help out when I can but I am not responsible for them or their education. There is a difference between choosing to help the people you love or care about them and feeling obligated to step in for some random kid's parents. All of my friends and family are very involved with their children and I have no doubt they will be involved heavily with their education. They all sit with their children and make sure they know their shapes, their letters, their colors and so forth and sometimes I sit and do this with them as well.

I don't feel the need however to pick up where kids I don't know parents have let off. Their children are ultimately their responsibility, not mine.

Again, when you have children of your own, you will think differently. You WILL feel some responsibility and pride in their classmates doing well or teammates doing well-even if you only know them casually because you already do that with kids you know and you are a responsible person.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There are still many, many adults who believe the school years should be enough and that kids do not need preschool or head start.

The school systems have jumped ahead of themselves in what they require these kids to know. Kindergarten should be there to give them equal footing. Until there is PreK-4 IN the school system (NOT head start), there should be no expectation nor required knowledge for K.

Except for high risk populations--most children that are not high risk don't require preschool if they are in a loving home environment. They can still learn how to read without phonics "lessons" in PK3.

Even with Kindergarten getting more challenging--it isn't necessary.

Note--I'm not including high risk groups--those groups that do not get the necessary stimulation at home.

In Florida we have VPK--state pays for it, there is not enough classroom space for it, so it is funnelled to the pre-schools. They MUST teach to a state curriculum for the VPK students. The non-VPK self pay PK4 kids, don't have to learn from that curriculum. Some public schools have the space--but it isn't much and they do host a VPK. (VPK = Voluntary Pre-kindergartent for 4yo's).

 

[Colleen27]

There are still many, many adults who believe the school years should be enough and that kids do not need preschool or head start.

I'm actually among them. I think preschool/Head Start serve a valuable purpose for kids who aren't getting the preparation they need at home for whatever reason, but I don't think it needs to be universal.

Two of my three didn't/won't do preschool. My oldest did, primarily for socialization because he was an only accustomed to the constant company of adults, his 'daycare' when I worked was Grandma's house with no other kids, and we didn't really have many situations where he was around peers prior to starting school (pre-K). My middle didn't go to preschool; she's always been around other kids and learned everything she needed to succeed in K at home with me. The same will be true for my youngest; she's only 19mo now but has 3 little friends her own age and does "homework" with her brother and sister so I think she'll be fine academically.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The bottom line for me is that I am not responsible for propping up other people's kids and teachers aren't really either. Kids who continually fail and show no interest should be failed or expelled, just like employees that continually fail are fired. Harsh? Possibly, but I am not a hand holder, I am a crap or get off the pot person. I feel schools should be there to teach and if you don't want to learn or your parents don't want to help you it just is what it is. I don't see the need to keep propping everyone else up if they are unwilling to at least help you by contributing to their own or their child's education.

The problem with that sentiment is pure and simple legality.

Children are entitled to an education and long ago, the states accepted that burden and MUST do what they can to provide the child an education so long as that child is a minor and can't really decide they don't feel like ever learning how to read.

I do not believe in social promotion and find it a travesty that it exists and that probably is part of the problem--passing kids who cannot read just due to semantics of age and then later punishing teachers for not being able to teach them.

But expelling a child for not doing well is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Especially when some of these children that do not do well--are too young to really make that choice and simply aren't doing well b/c they can't do well.

So until the states release themselves from their obligation--then educators are stuck teaching to the common denominator and doing their best with those who fall out of those parameters.

I'm not a fan of that type of teaching, but understand why teachers are pretty much stuck. What I don't understand is why education is worse off than it was 20-30 years ago.

But even in the late 60s/early 70s...the school system was guilty of doing things. My mother was cast off and subsequently dropped out. I do think she might have had some learning disabilities that she may not even be aware of as well as some other issues--but for reading...she was astounding. But they opted to place her in "dummy classes" (her words, no offense to anyone!) due to her other short comings and she was one of those that they felt would never amount to much, so they should never bother. (and a silly anectdote--as an elementary school student---my mom read dictionaries....for fun.)

That seems to be happening a lot more lately and that is part of my confusion as using the students as an excuse.

But I can appreciate the struggles that teachers have and think that something transpired in teh past 20/30 years that have handcuffed the teachers. Standardized testing? NCLB? Social promotion? Increased poverty/foreign students? No idea.

 

[Colleen27]

There are a lot of things that need changed. First, kids who don't pass their subjects should fail. This no-fail garbage is exactly that. Out in the real world if you fail you fail. If one of my employees isn't proficient enough to do their job they are fired. Along those lines, there has to come a time when kids who don't care enough to self motivate have to just be allowed to fall through the cracks.

I think the question there becomes when. Kids aren't little adults, and employing professional reasoning/standards to them doesn't make sense, at least at an early age. All of the research shows retention in elementary school to be detrimental to long-term outcomes like high school graduation and college admission, but the testing mania has given schools a very strong incentive to retain lower-performing kids. At the same time, social promotion ceases to be useful/effective at some point when it starts to have a negative effect on motivation.

It is also important to remember in these conversations that many of the kids who are "dragging down" test scores are doing the best they can with their inherent abilities. There is a school in my area well known for an excellent program for autistic students. They're considering dismantling the program because although it is extremely popular with parents and is doing great things for the kids, the concentration of special ed population in one building puts the school in danger of being deemed "failing" when those autistic kids don't reach benchmarks based on neurotypical grade-level expectations.

 

[iwrbnd]

Many of the same things can be said about the parents involvement in education that can be said about parents involvement in nutrition, extra curricular activities, and many other things. Parents have to want to be involved. There is no way that anyone, even the government, is going to force parents to help their kids with homework, make them read to their kids, make them have an open dialogue with their kid's teachers, or prepare them for their education any more then they will make them to feed their kids a balanced diet or make them have physical activity every day.

I would be very involved with my children because I want to be. In the end the only kids I feel an obligation towards is my child or a child I assume legal responsibility for. I feel no obligation for other people's kids. There will always be the kids who's parents don't care and at that point the only choice those kids have is to self motivate or get themselves a mentor. I did have very involved parents (one much more-so then the other) but I also pushed myself just as much as they pushed me, often times even harder.

There are a lot of things that need changed. First, kids who don't pass their subjects should fail. This no-fail garbage is exactly that. Out in the real world if you fail you fail. If one of my employees isn't proficient enough to do their job they are fired. Along those lines, there has to come a time when kids who don't care enough to self motivate have to just be allowed to fall through the cracks. There is only so much any third party will be able to do. Even kids with very involved parents have to want to learn at some point. Even parents can only push so hard for so long before the kids have to take over.

The bottom line for me is that I am not responsible for propping up other people's kids and teachers aren't really either. Kids who continually fail and show no interest should be failed or expelled, just like employees that continually fail are fired. Harsh? Possibly, but I am not a hand holder, I am a crap or get off the pot person. I feel schools should be there to teach and if you don't want to learn or your parents don't want to help you it just is what it is. I don't see the need to keep propping everyone else up if they are unwilling to at least help you by contributing to their own or their child's education.

I had to do this with my son when he was in high school. I finally said "Do well or flunk." I was tired of fighting him over school and he had to want to do better or I was wasting my time! He had organizational issues and we were more than willing to help but he just fought us. He finally pulled himself together and is getting great grades this year. I'm all for helping young children succeed but when they are in high school sometimes you do have to be tough.

 

[golfgal]

The problem with that sentiment is pure and simple legality.

Children are entitled to an education and long ago, the states accepted that burden and MUST do what they can to provide the child an education so long as that child is a minor and can't really decide they don't feel like ever learning how to read.

I do not believe in social promotion and find it a travesty that it exists and that probably is part of the problem--passing kids who cannot read just due to semantics of age and then later punishing teachers for not being able to teach them.

But expelling a child for not doing well is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Especially when some of these children that do not do well--are too young to really make that choice and simply aren't doing well b/c they can't do well.

So until the states release themselves from their obligation--then educators are stuck teaching to the common denominator and doing their best with those who fall out of those parameters.

I'm not a fan of that type of teaching, but understand why teachers are pretty much stuck. What I don't understand is why education is worse off than it was 20-30 years ago.

But even in the late 60s/early 70s...the school system was guilty of doing things. My mother was cast off and subsequently dropped out. I do think she might have had some learning disabilities that she may not even be aware of as well as some other issues--but for reading...she was astounding. But they opted to place her in "dummy classes" (her words, no offense to anyone!) due to her other short comings and she was one of those that they felt would never amount to much, so they should never bother. (and a silly anectdote--as an elementary school student---my mom read dictionaries....for fun.)

That seems to be happening a lot more lately and that is part of my confusion as using the students as an excuse.

But I can appreciate the struggles that teachers have and think that something transpired in teh past 20/30 years that have handcuffed the teachers. Standardized testing? NCLB? Social promotion? Increased poverty/foreign students? No idea.

Honestly, I don't think it is and in fact, I think a lot more is expected of kids then it was when we were in high school. Much of what the difference his, however, is the attitude of parents. When I was in school and you got in trouble at school, you KNEW you would be in worst trouble at home. Now, if a child gets in trouble at school it is automatically the TEACHER'S fault. . I don't remember a teacher EVER having to stop a class and "discipline" a fellow student, now, a lot of teachers spend a good portion of their class "redirecting" the 12 kids that are "ADD" in their class or having to deal with kids that throw bricks at their heads or swear at them. Can you imagine doing that when you were in school? How about poor Ember here that has to deal with a mom that is mad at her because Ember doesn't allow the child to PICK THEIR NOSE in class??? Can you imagine a kid getting away with that when you were in school?

If teachers were just allowed to teach and didn't have to put up with all the other crap, guess what, we wouldn't have any posts about schools on DIS.

 

[kimmar067]

So, a judge in NC has decided that some school systems are not doing as good a job as they should. He is having these school systems answer as to why many of their students are not "proficient" in reading. Some schools in my district will have to bring all their non-proficient students up to proficient level within three years, or the principal will be fired and the teachers will have to reapply for their jobs.

What he doesn't understand (and a lot of people do not understand) is that expecting all students to meet a level that has been determined to be the norm no matter what their home life, intellectual ability, or native language is just not fair to anyone. In my school, we have a low poverty rate, high parent involvement, and a low number of students with English as a second language. Most of our students are proficient. There are other schools in our district with a 67% poverty level, non-existent parent involvement and 30% ELL students. These schools also typically have lots of behavior problems. How can students starting out not even knowing how to speak English or recognize numbers 1-10 be as proficient as students who have been in preschool for 4 years and are reading and writing coming into kindergarten??? I feel bad for these teachers, because they are already doing their best, budgets have been cut once again, and they are fighting an uphill battle.

I think our education system needs to be seriously revamped. Instead of mandating that every child needs to meet this ambiguous level of proficiency, we should be looking at each child as an individual and looking at their GROWTH over each year. If little Johnny scores a 40% on an assessment, we should be using that assessment to see what we need to teach. Teach each child as an individual and then assess again. If the score is now a 50% and the norm is 70%, how can you say that is a failure? If little Johnny has shown 10% growth, that should be celebrated.

Sorry, just venting. This shouldn't affect me personally, but it bothers me......

...wow, how profound.....and simplistic....and sensible......[welcome to MY world]