Sometimes being a teacher sucks.....

[iwrbnd]

And we're an elementary school! I remember being shocked last year when I thought a kindergartner might punch me. Today I was bitten by one of my kindergartners, my hand is rather swollen at the moment. And it's just another day in my classroom. That's what's tough. I'm lucky. My kids take the alternate assessment. That means I choose the criteria from a predetermined list, design the activities, and grade it. My fellow teachers aren't so lucky. The kid that has spent most of the year in the recovery room telling every adult to **** off and point blank refusing to do work or follow directions? He is expected to pass the test with the same level of proficiency as the kids who have been in the classroom all year and have done the work.

There is talk in our state that if a kid tests in 3rd grade below proficiency (3rd grade is the first year for testing), that they will determine how much that kid has to improve each year to reach proficiency by 8th grade. I like this better than the current method, but it still means that the 3rd graders will all be held to the same exact standard and some will not make AYP.

Wow! I'm shocked because I'm in a school district next to Blue Springs and we always look up to yours! I thought the Blue Springs School District was perfect!

 

[skater]

This must be so frustrating for teachers. They know that each individual is different and learns at a different pace and in different ways. Trying to lump them all together has never made sense.

I can tell you as a homeschooler, that I had one who could read at age 5 before I could teach it to her (no kidding) and two boys who couldn't read much until age 8 despite daily lessons from me starting at age 4/5. But they're fine now - you wouldn't be able to tell it at this point. Some kids are not ready to read by age 5, and I'm not sure that we don't hurt them more by forcing it on them.

 

[golfgal]

This must be so frustrating for teachers. They know that each individual is different and learns at a different pace and in different ways. Trying to lump them all together has never made sense.

I can tell you as a homeschooler, that I had one who could read at age 5 before I could teach it to her (no kidding) and two boys who couldn't read much until age 8 despite daily lessons from me starting at age 4/5. But they're fine now - you wouldn't be able to tell it at this point. Some kids are not ready to read by age 5, and I'm not sure that we don't hurt them more by forcing it on them.

I guess I will disagree with you on this point, absent any learning disability, kids should be reading competently by the end of 1st grade-so age 6-7. I also believe that you can't force a kid to read. It is a cognitive development that happens at a point in their development, almost like a light bulb turning on.

 

[skater]

I guess I will disagree with you on this point, absent any learning disability, kids should be reading competently by the end of 1st grade-so age 6-7. I also believe that you can't force a kid to read. It is a cognitive development that happens at a point in their development, almost like a light bulb turning on.

You can disagree . That's what makes this a forum - I like to hear different opinions and I appreciate the respectful way you disagreed.

I will say that my 12 year old who didn't read well until 8 is now a very intelligent 12 year old. He can read anything and has lots of accomplishments in his young life. Does it really matter that he didn't read competently until the age of 8?

 

[luvsJack]

I guess I will disagree with you on this point, absent any learning disability, kids should be reading competently by the end of 1st grade-so age 6-7. I also believe that you can't force a kid to read. It is a cognitive development that happens at a point in their development, almost like a light bulb turning on.

Your statements are contridicting each other. Your last statment is true, it is something that they must be devlopmentally ready for. The first statement is dependent upon the child's developmental stage at that age. Sometimes that light bulb doesn't go off until some time in 2nd grade so closer to age 8 or maybe later if the only exposure they get to books and reading is in the classroom.


It is also goes back to that exposure (or lack thereof) a child received prior to entering K. Again, with the changes in K, all of the children are not starting on the same foot when entering 1st grade and should not be expected to all be at the same place when leaving 1st grade.

BTW, on your response to my statement that the methods a teacher uses in a classroom should be evaluated: I certainly hope that any teacher is aware that children learn differently and that different methods must be used to address the different learning styles. If he/she is not aware of this then that is the very teacher that must be evaluated!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

?? where is this? It's 5 before 9/1 to K here.

State law--btw--county law cannot trump state law on matters of education...at least when it comes to homeschoolers.

So to explain....

My 9yo is a summer birthday...she will turn 6 over the summer. She is not compulsory until that happens, but she would be eligilbe for first grade based on her age.

Contrast that with my 7yo who has a fall b-day...she turned six prior to that Feb date....so she would actually have to start school at age 5 and be only eligible for Kindy.

But attendance law requires that they must have completed Kindy to enter first grade.

Consequently--for ease of transition...most homeschool families that are planning to homeschool Kindy are suggested to homeschool first grade as well. The reason--with the exception of my 7yo, the county will not accept my declaration of homeschool status for my other children b/c they are not compulsary in their K-year. Thus, the county has no record and thus the county can on a whim say--nope, your child must do K at age 6. But once they are declared for 1st grade. They can go to second grade without issue. Bizarre--but that's how it works.

My 3yo is a spring birthday as will my new baby--both after the Feb deadline...making them 6 by the time school starts in the fall and eligible for first grade based on age.


I think it is goofy--but it is what it is:

. How is compulsory school attendance defined?

Florida Law (Section 1003.21, Florida Statutes) states that all children who are either six years of age, who will be six years old by February 1 of any school year, or who are older than six years of age but who have not attained the age of 16 years, must attend school regularly during the entire school term. A student who attains the age of 16 years during the school year is not subject to compulsory attendance beyond the date of which the student attains that age if he/she files a formal declaration of intent to terminate school enrollment with the school district.

Not sure why the Feb 1 deadline---but essentially kids born Feb 2-the "cut off age" in Sept....technically are not compulsary for Kindy (on age alone). Weird weird weird...but true.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

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......

Amen sister! I feel your pain. I teach in the same kind of system. NCLB is the worst culprit of all!

 

[torinsmom]

This must be so frustrating for teachers. They know that each individual is different and learns at a different pace and in different ways. Trying to lump them all together has never made sense.

I can tell you as a homeschooler, that I had one who could read at age 5 before I could teach it to her (no kidding) and two boys who couldn't read much until age 8 despite daily lessons from me starting at age 4/5. But they're fine now - you wouldn't be able to tell it at this point. Some kids are not ready to read by age 5, and I'm not sure that we don't hurt them more by forcing it on them.

I guess I will disagree with you on this point, absent any learning disability, kids should be reading competently by the end of 1st grade-so age 6-7. I also believe that you can't force a kid to read. It is a cognitive development that happens at a point in their development, almost like a light bulb turning on.

I can tell you my experience as a preK/K teacher, which I have been for the last 11 years. For the first 9 years, I also had 3 year olds in my classroom(public Montessori program). Anyway, I have found that most children become interested in learning letter sounds between the age of 4 and 5. If you have fun materials that teach phonics, they will naturally gravitate towards that type of "work". I have had 4 year olds learn all the letter sounds in the span of 2 weeks!

On the other hand, when I have had students come in as kindergartners who did not know letter sounds, they saw learning them as a chore, and it took much longer. I'm not saying every child is like either of these examples, but I do think that it is easier and more enjoyable for children to learn to "read" at 4 or 5 than it is for older children to do the same.

This year, I have 9 preK's, aged 4-5. 6 of the 9 are reading 3 letter phonetic words and the other 3 know about 3/4 of their letter sounds. We work maybe 20 minutes 3 times a week on them with these guys. The readers make words with magnetic letters.

Of my 10 kindergarteners, 9 were reading at the beginning of the year. All 8 that were with me last year were reading, as was one student who came from another preschool. At this point, all my K's are reading at or above grade level and have learned all the kindergarten and first grade sight words.

Marsha

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

Wow! I'm shocked because I'm in a school district next to Blue Springs and we always look up to yours! I thought the Blue Springs School District was perfect!

As far as I know it is. I don't teach in Blue Springs. I teach in another one of the metro districts.

 

[Took]

I completely agree and I'm a teacher! I don't think our expectations are developly appropriate. We just want to say our kids are doing this at this grade and it looks good! The truth is we ask so much and go at such a fast pace the basics aren't learned solidly. Everything builds on the basics and pretty soon you're behind. I think we are setting our children up for failure.

BINGO! I agree that the testing craze is a major part of the problem. If we just stuck to basics for the young years--reading, writing, arithmetic -- our kids would be so much better prepared for advanced subjects later.

 

[Took]

This must be so frustrating for teachers. They know that each individual is different and learns at a different pace and in different ways. Trying to lump them all together has never made sense.

I can tell you as a homeschooler, that I had one who could read at age 5 before I could teach it to her (no kidding) and two boys who couldn't read much until age 8 despite daily lessons from me starting at age 4/5. But they're fine now - you wouldn't be able to tell it at this point. Some kids are not ready to read by age 5, and I'm not sure that we don't hurt them more by forcing it on them.

OMG, I have to agree absolutely. I was not pushed much early on. I read and did math at a 'normal' pace -- that is, I seemed "bright" but wasn't pushed much to "excell." I did do well in the SRA (remember that system?), but the teacher didn't push hard. We learned at our own pace, and NO ONE pushed. No one insisted I read x number of pages a night or do 500 math problems in 1st grade. The focus was play and "light skills" in K and 1st.

When I was ready (about 4th grade), I started reading much more and reallly enjoying it, so I kept it up and became highly proficient. I took off in math about 4th grade, too, again because I started to like math. Everything was low pressure.

I don't remember any "pushing" until about Junior High -- maybe 7th grade.

At any rate, the pushing and testing and "high standards" stuff seems blown way out of proportion to me. Kids are never really allowed to develop individually, nor do most seem to enjoy reading and learning. It's all such a chore. Sad AND ineffective.

 

[agnes!]

OMG, I have to agree absolutely. I was not pushed much early on. I read and did math at a 'normal' pace -- that is, I seemed "bright" but wasn't pushed much to "excell." I did do well in the SRA (remember that system?), but the teacher didn't push hard. We learned at our own pace, and NO ONE pushed. No one insisted I read x number of pages a night or do 500 math problems in 1st grade. The focus was play and "light skills" in K and 1st.

When I was ready (about 4th grade), I started reading much more and reallly enjoying it, so I kept it up and became highly proficient. I took off in math about 4th grade, too, again because I started to like math. Everything was low pressure.

I don't remember any "pushing" until about Junior High -- maybe 7th grade.

At any rate, the pushing and testing and "high standards" stuff seems blown way out of proportion to me. Kids are never really allowed to develop individually, nor do most seem to enjoy reading and learning. It's all such a chore. Sad AND ineffective.

That's because we're not teaching our kids to love learning
and
we're not teaching our kids to learn,
we're simply teaching our kids
to hate school.
And on that score?...
I must say the system (at least in my house) is doing a bang-up job.

agnes!

 

[golfgal]

Your statements are contridicting each other. Your last statment is true, it is something that they must be devlopmentally ready for. The first statement is dependent upon the child's developmental stage at that age. Sometimes that light bulb doesn't go off until some time in 2nd grade so closer to age 8 or maybe later if the only exposure they get to books and reading is in the classroom.


It is also goes back to that exposure (or lack thereof) a child received prior to entering K. Again, with the changes in K, all of the children are not starting on the same foot when entering 1st grade and should not be expected to all be at the same place when leaving 1st grade.

BTW, on your response to my statement that the methods a teacher uses in a classroom should be evaluated: I certainly hope that any teacher is aware that children learn differently and that different methods must be used to address the different learning styles. If he/she is not aware of this then that is the very teacher that must be evaluated!

My statements are not the least bit contradictory, that cognitive development takes place between the ages of 4-7, some kids learn earlier than that and that is rare, kids that can't read at all by the end of 1st grade should be tested for learning delays. Like I said, every child should be reading competently (for grade level of course-not that they should be reading War and Peace in 1st grade) by the end of 1st grade.

 

[stm61]

it's not just politicians and parents who don't understand that not all children are capable of achieving the same goals. I teach a self-contained EMD class (the highest of mentally disabled). That's the label on the room, in actuality most of my kids score in the TMD (trainable, next step down in classification) range. I have 6th graders who struggle with pre-primer words, a 5th grader that doesn't know the alphabet or numbers, etc. I was told last year by the principal and asst. principal that ALL of my students WOULD be on grade level by the end of the school year! Guess nobody ever told them what the MD part of my room's title is. Maybe they thought it meant future doctors. Anyway, the point is that these are educated people, who SHOULD know better, but they still held unreasonable expectations. It took the head of the spec services dept to convince the principal that miracle's just don't happen that way.

 

[mom2boys]

What a way to get teachers only wanting to teach in suburban, middle class schools with no English Language Learners! Horrible decision that penalizes teachers for taking a challenging job.

Exactly. In our district, two elementary schools "failed" to improve after 3 years. During their improvement period, the school day was extended by 30 minutes every day. At the end of the period, ALL teachers had to reapply for their positions. Guess what? The teachers who were decent did get rehired at high performing schools. How is that helping the kids who need them the most?

 

[luvsJack]

My statements are not the least bit contradictory, that cognitive development takes place between the ages of 4-7, some kids learn earlier than that and that is rare, kids that can't read at all by the end of 1st grade should be tested for learning delays. Like I said, every child should be reading competently (for grade level of course-not that they should be reading War and Peace in 1st grade) by the end of 1st grade.

Everyone does not develop at the same rate or at the same age. It is not an exact thing which is set in stone. There are many, many factors that effect a child's rate of development that have NOTHING to do with have a developmental or leaning delay or disability. The amount of the written word the child is exposed to has a lot to do with it also. I have worked with children from ages 0 through 2nd grade. When I taught preschool, I had some kids that could read at the end of the year in pre-k; when I worked with second graders there were children that did not read on grade level until the end of second grade (about age 8)--I remember those kids especially because it was like the light came on during the last semester of school and all of a sudden they could do it!

There is no hard and fast rule for all children. It doesn't work that way.