Comments on: Tell Me What to Think, re: this whole public school thing

By: RickMonday

RickMonday — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:36:00 +0000

I dont understand the problem that teachers have with NCLB? It is basically a standardized test, similiar to the Iowa Basics that I took while in school. Maybe it is a good thing that the teachers are teaching to “the test” for the test includes reading, writing, and math. God knows that the way they were teaching before wasnt working.

By: Kath

Kath — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:54:56 +0000

Just found the story on the SJR’s website. Looks to me like district officials are doing what’s been done so many times before in other districts: They’re making structural changes — for example, carving up big schools into smaller schools within schools — but no mention of examining instruction and curriculum. If you don’t pay attention to how teachers are teaching, and support them in their own learning so that they can make needed changes to their instructional practice (because, contrary to what many think, teaching is not intuitive for most educators; it’s not something we just know how to do. We need to be taught, we need to observe great teachers in action, and we need ongoing, meaningful support so we can become better instructors and classroom managers), K-12 education isn’t going to improve. I’m not saying structural changes are useless, but they won’t matter in the long run unless they’re accompanied by a long, hard look at improving teaching practice. Not an easy task, either. Teachers are very resistant to change and to any reforms that they feel they don’t have a voice in crafting. So smart districts will include teachers and principals in the planning and design of reforms. But many don’t do this. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop there.

By: Kath

Kath — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:46:06 +0000

I need more context, Dan. What’s going on in District 186? Sounds like a “restructuring,” perhaps.

I can say this much. You wondered if what’s been done was done “solely for the sake of doing something,” and I can say from the perspective of someone who’s studied ed policy for 3 years that this often is the case. But fill me in, and I’ll try to give you some good feedback.

By: shoo

shoo — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:58:23 +0000

Thanks, I remembered why I stopped reading the comments on the sj-r.

It’s been almost a decade since I’ve been in the halls of SSHS, but I had both Bolden and Wind as teachers. They were both great educators but I can see them filling the role as administrator just as well.

I think you can blame this on NCLB as it was required of the district to do some reorganizing or they would lose funding.

Has there been any response from the principals losing their jobs as to why scores were lower for testing?

By: rock-robster

rock-robster — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:56:54 +0000

I think there are two major things happening here. First and foremost, the whole public school world shakes and quakes at the mere mention of NCLB. It dominates the K-12 public policy debate. Education is changing, and in many ways for the worse, as a result. Public grade schools, middle schools and high schools are now almost exclusively about building curriculum to support the testing goals of this federal law. The fact that 186 did so poorly meant something had to be done or else we would have faced austerity plans, budget cuts, etc.

Second, I think we fell victim to the disease known as a new Superintendent. It’s a long and illustrious tradition of educational administrators to come in, look around and say
“What can I do to make my mark here quickly and authoritatively, without really knowing much about the long-term barriers and opportunities? I know! You, over there in the big office . . . YOU’RE FIRED!”

Job well done!