NCLB | Rose On Politics

Last night, Superbowl Sunday, I went to my friends place to watch the game and hang out. I’m thinking we’ll order pizza, have a few beers, place a few dollar bets here and there, and hopefully watch Ben Roethlisberger lose. Both of the guys I watched it with are teachers, and as I found out, Sunday nights are work nights. This is the third year my friends are teaching, they started out through the Teach for America program and both of them had family members who were teachers. As it turned out, in your third year of teaching in New York City, teachers have to go through an assessment process to determine if they should be granted tenure or not. So instead of being able to watch football, one of them spent virtually all day yesterday, the weekend, and about three quarters of the game, building a portfolio based on the last two and half years of his teaching.

In all honesty I don’t think I’ve ever seen my friends work so hard. Both of them were the type of students who didn’t have to work hard to get an A in class. Yes, I hate those people too, but obviously I’ve digressed. The portfolio he put together was huge. It had graphs of their student’s performance, tests they administered, assessments by their principal, and their own take on the results. It was in a twelve inch three ring binder with barely any room left. What also took me by surprise was that out of the twelve teachers that were up for tenure at my friends school, only two of them were going to get it.

There has been a lot of pressure to change tenure systems in public schools. In New York City, a key administrator from the Department of Education warned that if the New York does not change how tenure is granted, it can be in serious jeopardy of not receiving money from the Race to the Top program, or the No Child Left Behind. States across the country are competing for these grants and any additional funds school districts can get would be a big help. While many states are considering to simply remove tenure for teachers, New York City has taken a different approach.

Before he left, School Chancellor Joel Klein wrote a open letter to the teachers and described the problem as “a loose tenure system isn’t good for anyone—it hurts students, it disrespects successful teachers, and it leaves those who are not up to the difficult job to struggle.” It makes sense. There is no possible way that all teachers will be as good as we would like for our students, and in most cases, some will be better at one aspect of it then the other. In 2010, New York rated teachers on their effectiveness, and only if they were deemed effective or highly effective would they even be considered for tenure.

I liked the assessment my friend put together for three reasons. First, it didn’t just focus on standardized tests. Instead, it looked at the overall picture and took into consideration other important aspects of teaching that standardized tests don’t. Those aspects include experience (the amount of years a teacher has been in the classroom), where the teacher was teaching (looked into demographics, what kind of school the teacher is in), and tests delivered in the class room.

Quick Tangent: Standardized tests and tests delivered by teachers are very different. Standardized state tests only gauge what students should know, and only tells us which classes/teachers did better than others. The tests administered by teachers tell us the same information, but also allows for something to be done about it. Standardized tests are given at the end of the year where by that time the students have either learned the information or not. But teachers who give their own tests can give them early on or in the middle of the year to determine which of their students needs help. The teacher tests are also created in conjunction with the principal to make sure they are acceptable.

Second, it keeps teachers on edge. My friend wants tenure, who wouldn’t? You don’t have to worry about losing your job (unless you do something really bad), in New York you get all the Jewish holidays off(which most school districts in the country don’t), your salary usually increases as the years go by, and most importantly, you get out around 2:30pm leaving you the rest of the day to get errands done. Tenure is a great carrot to hold over teachers heads to make sure they don’t lose focus and give them something to achieve. Critics always worry about the teachers who are slacking off, but if they know they can get canned when they don’t have tenure and are forced to prove they are doing work (work that most teachers want to do), it makes everyone happy.

Third, and I think the most important one, it makes teachers evaluate themselves. Believe it or not, teachers work weekends. My friends get up at five in the morning to get to school on time, and trust me, as a twenty-four year old that’s no easy task! They are usually exhausted and don’t have the energy to think about the classroom (that is unless you go out to drinks with a bunch of teachers. You will, without question, hear some great stories.). As much as I hate to give my friends more work to do, they should be looking to see what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they can improve.

Even if you have tenure, assessments are always a good thing. There’s no reason why anyone shouldn’t be looking to improve their work. In the classroom, assessments are the teacher’s responsibility. They can’t argue someone else is telling them how to do their job, or that the tests are bad. If their own assessments show they’re not doing a good job, proper steps can be taken to help them, or it will show they are just not cut out to be a teacher.

These teacher assessments can be combined with programs that are already being designed to help teachers. There are plenty of growing websites and blogs that are working to devise ways that help teachers teach. Combining them with assessments will give all teachers a fair shot for them and their students to succeed.

The debate to determine how to hold teachers accountable won’t stop, and it shouldn’t. Teaching is one of the most important jobs in this country, and those who do it shouldn’t be demeaned. But it is important to know which ones are doing well so we can acknowledge them for it. Standardized testing became popular because it’s the easiest way to assess teachers, and the easiest way for states to qualify for federal grants. Students deserve better, and figuring out ways (like self assessments) to make schools better is the least we can do.

Out of the several issues President Obama will have to tackle these next few years, renewing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law will be one of the toughest. One would think that a piece of legislation that Senator Kennedy pushed through Congress, and was signed by President George W. Bush, that in this new bipartisan era it wouldn’t have much problem getting through. But then again, the first vote to be taken in this new Congress is the “job-killing” repeal of the health care law.

The biggest problem President Obama will have trying to re-authorize NCLB will be that both Democrats and Republicans have issues with it, and some are legitimate. When the law was first enacted funding for NCLB was non-existent. States that were trying to implement its policies were unable because there was not enough money in the federal budget. This lead to the second problem: in order to qualify for what little funding there was, states had to device a way which would assess schools. The law never said that standardized tests had to be implemented, but it was the cheapest way to qualify for the federal money.

Since Arne Duncan took over the Department of Education, he devised a new way for states to compete called Race to the Top. The difference here was States had more standards to meet. Yes students still had to take tests, but more charter schools had to be created, and assessments had to be submitted. But in every race there’s always a loser. While most states changed their education system in order compete for the millions of dollars being dangled in front of them, most states did not receive any money, or not as much money as they thought they would or should get. When the second round came up, the states that got shunned threatened not to participate and derail Obama and Duncan’s image of how schools should be run.

I have no problem with using money to get what you want. It’s done all the time. Whether it is to stop people from drinking and driving, regulate pollution in streams and rivers, or building new wind turbines for energy, this is how our current government works and has for a long time. The problem I do have with this policy is that it won’t help children learn.

Making students take tests won’t get students to understand what they are being tested on. Where Secretary Duncan and school Superintendents around the country should focus its efforts, is figuring out the best methods to teach teachers how to teach, and the best practices that enable students to learn. Then, incentives can be given to states based on what we know works, instead of assuming a one shoe fits all approach. Which brings me to my second point.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been studying which teaching practices work best. One of the key findings is that smaller classrooms produce better outcomes for students. Reason being; the teacher is able to give those students the attention they need. But if you’re going to give more money to states to hire more teachers and build more schools, you have to make sure the teachers being hired actually know how to teach. The Gates Foundation is looking at what the best teachers are doing now, so teachers of the future can learn from them.

One of the recommendations by the Gates Foundation is to take the students that are seriously struggling and put them into other areas where they can get the help they need. They are not specific on which students they are, only that the students who will be moved should be based on the criteria they develop. But let’s assume the students that are moved have learning disabilities.

In the past, I have written about learning disabilities, and while the research being done will indirectly help teachers teach these students, it is still not an issue that is being dealt with. Even the best teachers will have to adjust their methods so the student with a disability can properly learn the material. But shifting them to another room is not the answer. As long as they are willing to work hard, students with disabilities can be in the same classroom as his or her peers, but putting them in another room will only make them feel as if they are below everyone else.

There is no reason why Congress needs to politicize this issue. When NCLB was first enacted in 2001, there were obviously aspects of the bill both liberals and conservatives liked, otherwise, it would not have passed. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama should talk about the success this bill has had since it was first enacted and how it is a way to enact changes to a system that desperately needs it.

Many more studies need to be conducted, and this post does not even begin to scratch the surface of what is wrong with our education system. But once there is a compilation of methods that are proven to effectively teach students, incentives should be given to states to teach, and teach those policies to its teachers.

Category Archives: NCLB

Teachers Take Tests Too

Teaching to Teach

Twitter Updates

Recent Posts

Archives