Teacher World

Recently, the teachers in our district were asked to give suggestions regarding ways that our district could cut costs since our most recent school levy went down in flames again and money is increasingly tight. Since we have made drastic staff cuts already and are about as bare-boned there as we can get, administrators and our school board are looking for creative alternatives to cutting costs, and who better to ask than teachers.

One suggestion that most of us sent in was to reduce the work week to four days which saves one day’s worth of operating costs for a district. So imagine my interest when I read that a recent Washington Post survey showed that a growing number of school districts are doing exactly what we have recommended.

While the numbers of schools that are trying this approach to cut expenses is not huge, it has more than doubled from an estimated 120 districts in 2009 to 292 currently. (This is out of an estimated 15,000 public school districts.)

This approach to reducing costs allows districts to save money on transportation and administrative costs, which include janitorial work, electricity, heat, busing, school lunches, etc. In order to shorten the week, the four days that school is in session would have to be extended.

One of the concerns to this method is that it can be a logistical problem for working parents who would have to find child care for their younger students on the day that school is not in session. A survey conducted in September among Florida business owners found that 65 percent of entrepreneurs in the state were against a 4-day week. On top of their concerns over the nightmare parents might experience in seeking day care for their students, they worried about the potential risk of leaving older students home alone unsupervised. They also expressed trepidation that the move to a 4-day week might severely impact the lowest-paid employees of school districts: food service personnel and bus drivers.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has expressed his displeasure with the growing trend saying that it would eliminate after school programs and would “hurt children” academically.

In a report in 2009, researchers at the University of Southern Maine found that there was “either no impact or a positive impact on academic performance” when schools moved to a 4-day week. However, according to Kathy Christie, chief of staff of the non-profit Education Commission of the States, which provides information to policymakers to help them make decisions regarding education, more research is needed in order to determine whether this trend is worthwhile or not. Last year, Christie told CNN, “There really is no strong research on how it affects student achievements.”

In lieu of thorough research, proponents of a 4-day week claim that student attendance would be higher if parents had one day a week to schedule doctor’s appointments and other errands that can only be accomplished during the week. This makes a lot of sense; students leave school all of the time for doctor, dental, and orthodontist appointments. And quite often, parents take their child out in the morning for an appointment and never bring them back all day.

Yet, while some districts are talking about reducing the school week, some districts who are struggling academically are considering adding a day to their week. Baltimore schools are considering adding Saturday school, and the superintendent of Memphis City Schools actually submitted a proposal earlier this year which would require students in elementary school up to fifth grade to attend school six days a week.

Our district has had to be creative in the past in order to be fiscally responsible. During the energy crisis in 1976-1977, I am told that the schools in our district went on split sessions, with elementary students attending school in the morning and older students attending in the afternoon in the same building. This allowed them to shut down one building for the winter, thus reducing fuel costs. By all accounts, students seemed to do just fine.

If a 4-day week can get school districts through this lean time, so be it. Teachers will rise to the occasion and make it work until our economy picks up again, and we can go back to normal. Drastic times call for creative measures. And this is an alternative that could work in these drastic times.

Changes in Teaching, Funding Education, low-performing schools, Teacher-World's Blog 4-day school, budget cuts, Washington Post survey

Teachers throughout our nation are paying the price for a minority of teachers who have misused social media with their students, and that price has been the imposition of stricter guidelines that ban private conversations between teachers and students on cell phones and online social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Not surprisingly, these guidelines are being met with resistance by many teachers who use this type of technology as teaching tools or to engage with their students.

Missouri’s new law, which imposed a ban on electronic communication between teachers and students, was declared unconstitutional by a judge after the state teachers union claimed it restricted teachers’ free speech. The law was revamped this fall, and the ban was dropped. However, school boards in the state were told to develop their own social media policies by March 1.

Missouri isn’t alone in trying to develop an appropriate policy. Even though school administrators acknowledge that most teachers use social media appropriately, school boards in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia have updated or are revising their social media policies this fall because they feel that there are increasingly compelling reasons to limit teacher-student contact.

Charol Shakeshaft, chairwoman of the Department of Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University, has studied teacher sexual misconduct for 15 years. Based on her studies, she said of electronic communication, “My concern is that it makes it very easy for teachers to form intimate and boundary-crossing relationships with students. I am all for using this technology. Some school districts have tried to ban it entirely. I am against that. But I think there’s a middle ground that would allow teachers to take advantage of the electronic technology and keep kids safe.”

 The superintendent of schools in Statesboro, Georgia, Lewis Holloway, instituted a new policy in the fall which prohibits private electronic communications. Why? He learned that a Bulloch County, Georgia teacher was arrested this past summer, charged with aggravated child molestation and statutory rape of her 14-year-old male student. And reports of the incident indicated that Facebook and text messages had helped her cultivate the relationship.

Holloway, who has been a school administrator for 38 years, said, “It can start out innocent and get more and more in depth quickly. Our students are vulnerable through new means, and we’ve got to find new ways to protect them.”

But it isn’t only sexual misconduct that concerns school administrators; they fear that teachers may reveal too much information on sites like Facebook about their private lives. In Muskegon, Michigan, a new policy was adopted last month which states that public school employees can face disciplinary charges if they post pictures of themselves using alcohol or drugs on their social media sites.

Jon Felske, superintendent of Muskegon’s public schools, explained, “We wanted to have a policy that encourages interaction between our students and parents and teachers. That is how children learn today and interact. But we want to do it with the caveat: keep work work — and keep private your personal life.”

Richard J. Condon, special commissioner of investigation for New York City schools pointed to a steady increase in the number of complaints reported involving inappropriate communications on just Facebook alone in the last few years. Only eight complaints were lodged from September 2008 through October 2009, compared to 85 complaints from October 2010 through September 2011.

Yet, educators worry that an effective way of engaging students who use social media to communicate will be removed if policies regarding the proper use of technology become too restrictive.

Jennifer Pust is the head of the English department at Santa Monica High School, where a strict no fraternization policy governs teachers’ online and offline relationships with their students. She said, “I think the reason why I use social media is the same reason everyone else uses it: it works. I am glad that it is not more restrictive. I understand we need to keep kids safe. I think that we would do more good keeping kids safe by teaching them how to use these tools and navigate this online world rather than locking it down and pretending that it is not in our realm.”

A teacher of English for 10 years at Grosse Point High School in Michigan, Nicholas Provenzano, expressed his frustration that “all of us using social media in a positive way with kids have to take 15 steps back whenever there is an incident.” But, he believes that the benefits outweigh the problems, and he communicates regularly with his students, mostly through Twitter, where he responds to their questions regarding his assignments. He admitted that on some occasions he has exchanged private messages with students regarding an assignment or school-related task.

He enumerated several advantages to using social media with his students. He is able to model best practices on social media use and has been able to engage some students through Twitter who do not raise their hand in class. Additionally, he said that using social media networks allowed him to collaborate on projects in other parts of the country.

Yet, in spite of the positive aspects of social media use in and out of the classroom by teachers, some teachers still favor a sharper barrier. For example, in Dayton, Ohio, the school board imposed a social media policy this fall which limits teachers to public exchanges only on school-run networks, and David A. Romick, president of their teachers union, welcomed the rules, saying, “I see it as protecting teachers. For a relationship to start with friending or texting seems to be heading down the wrong path professionally.”

Changes in Teaching, Teacher-World's Blog Charol Shakeshaft, Facebook, Lewis Holloway, social media policies, Twitter

Education Week reported on a national survey commissioned by Common Core, a Washington-based research and advocacy group which has voiced concern for some time over the impact of No Child Left Behind on our schools’ curriculum. The results of the survey, which were released on December 8, are not all that surprising, but it is interesting, nonetheless, to hear what other teachers are feeling across the nation.

Not surprisingly, most of the random sampling of educators who were surveyed said they felt that the high-stakes testing in math and English/language arts is pushing out other important subjects from classroom instruction. In fact, about two-thirds of the 1,001 public school teachers who were surveyed specifically indicated that such subjects as art, social studies, and science are getting less instructional time than math and English/language arts.

Ninety-three percent of those surveyed said the crowding out of other subjects is due, to a large extent on the state tests. In fact, 60 percent felt that in recent years their school has devoted more time to teaching test-taking skills. And 77 percent of them felt that the extra time devoted to English and math affects all students, not just struggling students.

Lynn Munson, president and executive director of Common Core stated in a press release, “During the past decade, our public schools have focused—almost exclusively—on reading and math instruction” in an effort to make “adequate yearly progress” under No Child Left Behind. She noted that even though the federal law “clearly identifies our ‘core curriculum’ as reading, math, science, social studies, and even the arts,” many of these subjects have been “abandoned.” She concluded, “As a result, we are denying our students the complete education they deserve and the law demands.”

Interestingly however, 46 percent felt that the additional time given to English and math have improved students’ “skill and knowledge” in one or both subjects. Thirty-two percent disagreed with that statement and 22 percent were unsure.

In the survey, teachers were asked to identify which subjects they felt were specifically getting less attention. The following indicates the percent of teachers surveyed who felt the following subjects were getting less time:

• Art: 51 percent say it gets less time.
• Music: 48 percent
• Foreign languages: 40 percent
• Social studies: 36 percent
• Physical education: 33 percent
• Science: 27 percent

Other random but interesting facts include the response by 24 percent who felt that science was getting more instructional time, which is far more than any other subject besides English and math. And, oddly, 10 percent of educators surveyed thought math was taking a hit and 12 percent said English/language arts were getting less time. Go figure.

I strongly suggest that you follow this link to see the whole survey. There are some rather interesting responses regarding what the typical elementary school student, middle school student, and high school student will have done before moving on from that level of their education. I think you will find the responses very interesting.

Changes in Teaching, No Child Left Behind, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Common Core, No Child Left Behind, public school curriculum, state achievement tests

I recently spotted a Mashable article which focuses on the five best ways for teachers to use Facebook. With advice from Reynol Junco, a teacher who published a study recently showing that certain kinds of Facebook features used actually correlate with higher GPAs, it seemed to be information worth sharing with teachers out there who are in a quandary over how, or even whether, to use Facebook with their students. And in the wake of Missouri’s law which banned relationships between teachers and students on Facebook and other social media (a law which was eventually repealed) it seemed like a pertinent topic for some further edification.

Junco explained the benefits of Facebook, saying, “Students are already very familiar with the platform and spend a lot of time on the site. Because of this, there is usually a good amount of activity [in class related Facebook discussions] because students receive notifications of new group posts in a timely fashion (something that doesn’t happen with Learning Management Systems).”

So, here is a brief summary of the top five tips from Junco and other teachers to help you use Facebook effectively in your classroom:

Use Facebook With a Focus:

Junco recommends using Facebook in a way that makes sense to students. “Instead of telling your students, ‘Hey, we are going to use Facebook for this course,’ it’s important to frame Facebook use in a way that will make sense. For instance, you could say ‘we are going to use a Facebook group in order to interact with each other, discuss course topics, and share links of interest.”

He recommends that teachers make certain that class participation on the social network is taken seriously. In fact, his research suggests that making these interactions mandatory and a part of their grade, makes the social media efforts utilized in the classroom most effective.

Friend Students Cautiously:

Linda Fogg Phillips, a Facebook expert, Derek Baird, an educational media consultant, and BJ Fogg, a behavior psychologist, recommend that teachers use Groups and Pages to communicate with their students.

* Groups: It is not necessary for members of groups to be friends. Every person in the group receives a message when any member posts a comment to the group. It is recommended that teachers use closed groups; in these groups the content of the group is private. However, unless you choose the “secret” option, the list of group members will be public.

* Pages: Pages on Facebook are transparent, open, and secure. Because they are public, anybody can like the page, allowing them to get updates in their news feeds from the administrator. Pages are ideal for compiling important current events and additional resources students may need. Conversation and content can be added by students by using the comments and notes features.

Use a Facebook Group:

Junco’s research suggested that the following Facebook group activities seem to be best incorporated into learning more effectively:
* Continuing class discussions
* Giving students who might be intimidated in a class setting a low-stress way to ask questions
* Providing students academic and personal support
* Helping students connect with each other and organize study groups

Use a Facebook Page:

Since these pages are open to the public and their content can be subscribed to by anybody, they tend to be more interactive resources than sites for private discussion.

Dr. Neil Hammerschlag, who utilizes a program at the University of Miami to expose students to ocean field research, uses Facebook Pages as a tool for staying in touch with updates in research and increasing the number of students he is able to reach. He uses Facebook to post newly published articles about ocean science, videos and photos of weekly shark trips, and research findings.

“We expose over 1,000 kids each year to ocean research,” he says. “But we want to work with more students. You can’t bring that many with you, but we can bring the ocean to them.”

Consider Other Alternatives:

Using Facebook with young children is a little dicey, as children 12 years old and younger are not allowed to have Facebook accounts and many districts block computer access to social network sites. For these teachers, Edmodo, Collaborize Classroom, Edublogs, and Kidblog are all free options that might fit what you are looking for.

The key to the use of any Facebook or other social networking sites in the classroom is finding a site that is both appropriate for student use and effective for classroom instruction. So choose wisely if you plan to incorporate these sites into your teaching strategy.

Changes in Teaching, Teacher-World's Blog Facebook, social networks

         Students from Holmes Elementary School in Miami

Okay, let’s talk turkey about Teach for America and its impact on improving the lowest performing schools.

First, with a crippled economy and college graduates facing huge obstacles in landing jobs after school, Teach for America is receiving some renewed attention. And why wouldn’t it? Corps members earn teacher salaries, and at the same time, some of their federal student loans are forgiven. Quite a draw for graduates in this tight job market! In fact, applications to join the corps members are sky high.

On top of that, some school districts like one north of downtown Miami are actively working to fill their staffs with Teach for America corps members.

Julian Davenport, an assistant principal at Holmes Elementary in Miami, said, “These are the lowest performing schools, so we need the strongest performing teachers.” Three-fifths of this school’s staff come from Teach for America.

And it is estimated that by 2015, due to a $50 million federal grant, recruits from Teach for America could make up one-quarter of all new teachers in 60 of the nation’s highest need school districts. Here in Ohio, Governor Kasich signed a bill in April which opened the door for Teach for America teachers to begin working in Ohio schools by the 2012-2013 school year. And the program is also expanding internationally.

So, what is the problem, you might ask? Well first, Teach for America has had mixed results in terms of teacher efficacy and career longevity. According to statistics, these teachers perform about as effectively as other inexperienced teachers. But that isn’t saying much, since novice teachers tend to be less successful in the classroom than more experienced teachers. Additionally, most of these corps members leave the teaching profession within five years.

Using its own review of external research regarding their members, Teach for America concludes that its members achieve student gains that are “at least as great as that of other new teachers,” with some studies showing they did better, and others showing they did worse. Teach for America does not release data to the public regarding information they gather on how their teachers are performing.  “We just don’t feel it’s responsible to show,” the program’s developer, Wendy Kopp said. “There are so many flaws in our system.”

But one finding that is consistent is the program’s high turnover rate. The organization reports that 33 percent of its graduates are still teaching, but in many districts, turnover rates are much higher. North Carolina, for example, reported that after 5 years, only 7 percent of Teach for America corps members were still teaching in the state.

Kopp and those at Teach for America argue that turnover rates are high in general across low-income schools, which is true, but among other teacher preparation programs, theirs has one of the highest turnover rates.

The other huge concern with Teach for America is the limited training and experience they have received before being thrust into a classroom. This inexperience and lack of training, critics say, perpetuates the same inequalities that Teach for America is supposed to eradicate.

Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, which advocates on behalf of low-income and minority children, and a longtime supporter of TFA, said, “There’s no question that they’ve brought a huge number of really talented people in to the education profession.” But, she added, “Nobody should teach in a high poverty school without having already demonstrated that they are a fabulous teacher. For poor kids, education has to work every single year.”

For me, that is one of the major issues I have with Teach for America. I don’t care how intelligent these graduates are; without proper training and intensive classroom experience with students to learn how to communicate that knowledge to kids in a way that they will understand, you should not be in a classroom. Period! And there is no way that can be accomplished in one field experience, which is apparently all corps members get.

Let’s get real! These “teachers” aren’t being placed in schools where conditions are advantageous for instruction. They are being placed in some of the toughest schools which have a record of extremely low performance. I question how effective experienced teachers can be in these schools, let alone these novice young people.

I am sure that there are some naturally good teachers in Teach for America who are able to eventually overcome their lack of preparation and become excellent teachers. Please don’t think I am denigrating these young people, or their desire to make a difference in the schools where they are placed. I applaud their efforts, but I don’t feel they are being given the opportunity to become awesome teachers before they are zapped into a classroom with no real preparation or tools of the trade.

Let’s face it, if Teach for America was as effective as it claims, why aren’t more schools turning around when these teachers are placed there? And why do so many of these young people quickly gravitate to other careers, abandoning the students who need good teachers?

Expand Teach for America? Work out the problems that keep the program from being truly effective before expanding something that seems to be rather mediocre at best. Could it be a successful program? Absolutely! Is it currently successful? You be the judge.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, low-performing schools, Teacher Education, Teacher-World's Blog Teach for America, teacher efficacy, teacher training, Wendy Kopp

Heavy controversy surrounds Idaho’s new education plan which, among other things, makes Idaho the first state to require high school students there to take at least two of their high school credits online in order to graduate.

In spite of the fact that this proposal received heavy opposition this past summer at public hearings across the state, the education board gave its initial approval to the online graduation requirement in September. Over the month of October, trustees collected feedback regarding this requirement during a 21-day public comment period.

Those who were for the virtual classes claim that it will help the state to save money while better preparing its students for college. But those who were against the requirement claim that it will reallocate state taxpayer money to the out-of-state companies which would provide the online curriculum and the laptops. They also expressed concerns that the state will ultimately replace teachers with computers.

Board member Don Soltman said, “A majority of the comments felt there should not be an online learning requirement.”

Yet, in spite of huge opposition to this online requirement, the plan received final approval Thursday. This law will apply to students who are entering the 9th grade in the fall of 2012. It will then go before Idaho lawmakers for review in the 2012 session, which begins in January.

It comes as no surprise that the Idaho Education Association criticized the decision in a statement on Thursday, where they said that the board “overruled the wishes of a majority of Idahoans and disregarded parental choice” by mandating the online credits.

Online learning advocates, however, feel that this requirement is reasonable because it is necessary for children to be prepared for life after high school.

Susan Patrick, president of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, a Washington-based nonprofit, and an obvious proponent of online learning, argued, “There is still a live teacher. It may be at a distance, but that teacher is still instructing and interacting with the student.”

One of those opposing this new requirement is Kendra Wisenbaker, an elementary school teacher in Meridian, the largest school district in Idaho. While she agrees that some students may actually flourish from online learning, she also expressed concerns, saying, “The poor kids are guinea pigs. I am a little conflicted, I am. It won’t work for every kid, and I think requiring it is a horrible idea. But it shouldn’t be an option for saving money,”

Members of the Idaho State Board of Education have stated that the majority of the opposition people are expressing is directed at the whole education law, not just the online requirements. While state legislatures nationwide are tackling education policy this year, education experts agree that Idaho has made some of the most far-reaching changes of any state.

Idaho’s new education plan is introducing merit pay, limiting union collective bargaining rights, and reallocating money from salaries toward changes which include more classroom technology; all part of the changes backed by Idaho’s governor and Tom Luna, the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Some in Idaho have praised Luna for changing how the state’s limited education dollars are being spent and for working to fix a badly broken system.

But others, including educators, have heavily criticized Luna’s plans. In fact, a group sought to recall Luna because of the education changes, but they failed to garner enough signatures earlier this year to be successful. Since then, parents and teachers who want to overturn the new laws met a June deadline to put three repeal measures on 2012’s November ballot.

What’s my opinion? First, while I understand the need to cut costs, I don’t understand how that is going to happen if tax dollars are simply being sent out of the state to provide curriculum and technology.

Second, online learning is certainly a wonderful alternative for some students and being exposed to this avenue of learning is probably very constructive for them. But to make it mandatory is ludicrous. There are students who will struggle with this method of instruction: students on IEPs, those with ADD or ADHD, students with vision problems, etc. Forcing all students to conform to this type of instruction is diametrically opposed to basic educational philosophy which requires us to meet children’s individual needs based upon their dominant learning style. Shouldn’t the superintendent of public instruction be well-versed in basic school pedagogy?

Finally, do I worry that computers could take the place of teachers some day? Well, who can really say what the future holds, but I will tell you, without any hesitation, that there is no computer online course on this earth that can ever replace a caring, sensitive, child-motivated, highly-trained, competent teacher. Teachers don’t just teach; they nurture. No online program can ever compete with that.

Changes in Teaching, Educational Reform, Merit Pay for Teachers, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog Idaho Education Association, Idaho's new education plan, K-12 Online Learning, online classes, Tom Luna

I have blogged in the past about California’s controversial new law which requires its public schools to teach all students, of every grade starting in kindergarten, about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans in history classes. The issue these schools face is two-fold: how do you fit this into the current history curriculum, and how early should such instruction begin?

Donald Wilson, an openly gay principal from Wonderland Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles, where his teachers talk about diverse families, and the library houses books on homosexual authors, admits, “At this point, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.”

Yet, by January, according to Education Week, teachers across the state will have to formulate a plan for how and when their students will learn about LGBT Americans due to this state’s landmark law. 

Paul Boneberg, executive director at the GLBT Historical Society in San Francisco, expressed similar concerns, saying, “I’m not sure how we plug it into the curriculum at the grade school level, if at all.”

Adding to frustration is the fact that all adoptions of instructional material through eighth grade have been curtailed until 2015 in order to save money, and the earliest California schools would have access to new textbooks with LGBT content is 2019, according to a state Education Department spokeswoman.

The Los Angeles Unified district has been a pioneer in LGBT education since 1988, when its school board passed a resolution which directed both students and staff members of this district to refrain from slurs regarding sexual orientation. And in 2003, accusations that staff members were involved in bullying LGBT students compelled the district to improve its efforts to educate students about this sensitive subject, according to Judy Chiasson who is the coordinator for human relations, diversity, and equity.

The nation’s first chapter on LGBT issues appeared in a high school health textbook in 2005, in L.A. Unified. Issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, struggles LGBT individuals face, and anti-LGBT bias were addressed in this book, as well as a statement that caused religious conservatives grave displeasure; the book stated that sexual orientation is not a choice.

An educational support group for LGBT youth, the Safe Schools Coalition, has stated that at the elementary level, these topics would be inappropriate. Rather, they maintain that at this level students should only be exposed to curriculum regarding family diversity, gender stereotypes, and anti-bullying.

This is what the teachers at Wonderland have decided as well, where their emphasis is on the simple fact that families come in all different configurations. “The issue is never going to move beyond the diversity of family,” Principal Wilson said. “If it were to move beyond that, we would address it as a breach of developmentally appropriate instruction.”

But the middle and high schools are a different story. In California, sex education begins at fifth-grade, so more specific LGBT instruction would be suitable, and some experts even say, necessary because these are the years where bullying really starts to increase.

In 2005, at Downtown Magnets High School, a lesbian student was beaten up on a school bus. The school responded to this intolerance by creating a Gay-Straight Alliance club, providing staff sessions focused on being inclusive, and a concerted effort by some teachers to integrate these issues into their instruction. As a result of these changes, students say that their school has a safe and nurturing environment.

David Columbus is a senior and the president of the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance club, and he knows what it’s like to grow up bullied and teased for being gay. There was even a time when he wished he were dead. But he says that at school he has thrived due to the support he has felt there.

Jennifer Vanegas, a straight member of the club, said, “This law’s going to educate kids about LGBT people, and once you get education, you’ll respect them, and nobody’s going to bully them anymore.”

But this new law faces some stiff opposition in the community just 60 miles east of Wonderland, where the evangelical Calvary Chapel Corona members are so opposed that at least seven of its families have pulled their children from public schools in protest.

One of those who pulled his children, Bryan Breuer, stated, “This law teaches children that it’s OK to be gay, and that’s not my Christian values. I don’t understand trying to force this on my children.”

And conservative Christians aren’t the only ones who are opposed to the implementation of this law. Some teachers, like Grace R. Callaway who is a public school teacher near Yuba City, said she will not teach LGBT issues to her fifth-graders and sixth-graders because she feels homosexuality is a “destructive lifestyle.”

This raises the question, how will administrators deal with teachers who refuse, due to religious or personal beliefs, to teach this curriculum when it is mandated that they do so?

As teachers and principals throughout the state of California have already begun to meet to decide when they will introduce LGBT lessons into their curriculum, and how to make it fit naturally, I can only wish them luck. This is a sensitive issue which can bring out the best and the worst in people.

I do not envy the difficult task which lies ahead for these schools to create just the right balance at just the right time.

Bullying, Changes in Teaching, Teacher-World's Blog California's LGBT school legislation, LGBT curriculum, Los Angeles Unified School District, Safe Schools Coalition, Wonderland Avenue Elementary School

I received a forwarded message through my email regarding a new Wisconsin teachers’ handbook which sounded so unbelievable to me that, at first, I thought it must be a hoax. So I did some research and found, much to my amazement, that not only is it true, but somehow I missed this story at the end of August, and maybe you did, too. So, here is a tragic story that teaches a valuable lesson: How unfairly teachers can be treated when collective bargaining goes out the window.

At a hugely attended meeting in New Berlin, Wisconsin, on August 29, the school board of the New Berlin school district voted unanimously to approve a new employee handbook which took effect this year. It was the second public meeting to discuss the passage of this handbook, since the initial meeting became so raucous that police had to be called in.

This second meeting of the school board was more controlled (probably the appearance of police cars with lights flashing all over the parking lot helped to subdue the crowd a little) but it was still charged with emotion, as districts all over the state have been adopting new handbooks spelling out wages, work rules, and benefits, now that collective bargaining is a thing of the past.

The crowd that gathered represented the two factions in this heated issue: teachers and union supporters who were concerned that the harsh rules will negatively affect their work and the reputation of the district as a whole and those in the community who support Governor Walker and want to see lower taxes.

Education Association President Diane Lazewki said that the changes proposed by New Berlin were further-reaching than the handbooks being adopted in other districts in their state. She said, “I would be surprised to see any other handbook as punitive as ours.”

So, is the new handbook punitive? Well, before I go any further, let me share some of the handbook’s more surprising mandates, from the email I received:

* Workdays for elementary will increase by 60 minutes and Secondary by 30 minutes
* Staff must be available to students before and after student schedules for at least 30 minutes per day
* You can be required to work an additional unpaid 15 hours; no more than 3 hours a week
* No pay for subbing during your preps; Principals can assign you to sub
* Certified staff hours are 1520 per year full time (190 days for this year only)
* The 2012-13 school year starts on August 15th and runs until June 15th
* You may be required to start as early as 6:15 AM and end as late as 5:00 PM
* You may be required to attend in-service or other training, outside your regular work schedule
* Next year, if we do not change the political landscape, pay will be based on performance; pay is insured this year because of the NBEA agreement.
*  You are not allowed to drop any licensure without the superintendent’s approval
* Dress Code: Skirts below knee, no sweatshirts, no jeans, no large logos, no open shirts, etc.
*  Be dismissed for having students as friends on Facebook
* Jury Duty: regular pay, but you must show documentation to the district that you’ve tried to change the jury duty time to July and August
* Evaluations: Done yearly without notice
*  Collaborative time twice weekly for 2 hours a week.
* You must report all traffic incidents (except speeding) or any tickets you have received to the District within 3 days or face dismissal even if it occurs during your time off
* Take away all microwaves, refrigerators, and coffeemakers, even though each administrator and the District have these items.
* 4 initial sick days and earn l day per month based on good attendance
* However those who have accumulated over 45 days will not be awarded any days until they have used enough days to fall below the 45 day cap.
*  Long term disability reduced from 90% of pay to 60% of pay. If ill or have had surgery and do not have any sick time built up, you will be short pay. You will also have to pay your insurance premium during any disability leave.
*  No days will be added to sick bank, which will be discontinued after this year, erasing any safety net for those who become critically ill.
* Resign before first day of school, you must pay $200 plus board contributions of benefits (insurance).
* Resigns after the first day school, $2000 plus benefits payments if not 60 days notice given

Sound a little punitive to you?

Art Marguardt, New Berlin School Board member, said that the board and the administration had spent extensive time on the handbook and denied that they were trying to be punitive. He said that the atmosphere has changed in Wisconsin from the unions having their way to the elected representatives now having the dominant voice. That’s “hard for some people to swallow,” he said.

Leslie Potter, who is a teacher at New Berlin West, told the board that the new rules would require that she work more hours but would limit the time she spends with her students and expressed concern that it eliminated any reference to prep time for teachers. “The school board says that they value collaboration,” she added. “We request that they approach this handbook in the same manner.”

After teachers had their say, a community member spoke up, saying that he represented the 5.5 million taxpayers in the state who approved of Walker and were in favor of what he was doing. While many in the auditorium broke into applause, teachers and union supporters sat silently, and eventually they walked out before the man was done speaking.

The bottom line is this: the New Berlin school board unanimously accepted this new handbook, and it sends a chillingly, clear message to teachers everywhere about what may be coming to their state in the future.

My state of Ohio is another state like Wisconsin, whose governor has pushed for a bill to end collective bargaining. Our unions fought back, and the state has one more chance to keep what is happening in Wisconsin from happening in Ohio. I appeal to those of you who live in Ohio to vote no on Issue 2 this November, and spread the word to others to do the same.

I don’t care how you try to spin the facts; this new handbook sounds punitive, and it certainly will do nothing to improve the morale of the teachers who work in that district or the quality of instruction that the students will receive.

Changes in Teaching, teacher evaluations, Teacher's Unions, Teacher-World's Blog collective bargaining, extended school day, extended school year, New Berlin, teacher handbook, Wisconsin

Some very troubling news from Education Week states that it isn’t just charter schools pulling taxpayers’ money from public schools; online schools do as well. And recent studies out of Colorado reveal that these online schools are not nearly as successful as the public schools which help fund them. 

According to Education Week, Colorado taxpayers will spend $100 million this year alone on online schools. Yet state education records and interviews with school officials show that, in general, these schools are failing their elementary and high school students. And if this isn’t enough to rile you up, millions of the tax dollars going to K-12 online schools are going for students who aren’t enrolled there anymore.

On top of that, public schools take a further hit when former students who leave these online schools because they have fallen even further behind academically return to public schools which are expected to absorb these students and catch them up. All the while, the online schools and their parent companies get to keep the state funding. Does this make any sense?

Education Week cited the example of high school senior, Laura Johnson, who was one of 39 students who left Florence High School outside Pueblo, Colorado, last year to enroll in GOAL Academy which was one of the largest online charter schools in the state.

Laura and a dozen of her former classmates returned to Florence disillusioned by their experience and behind academically. Here are the sad statistics: when these 39 students left to go attend GOAL, almost a quarter million dollars in state funding (comparable to four to five teachers’ salaries) went with them, but when the dozen returned to Florence mid-year, the funding did not follow them. Instead, GOAL got to keep it.

A 10 month investigation by I-News Network, a Colorado based in-depth news consortium, and Education News Colorado, a nonprofit, used previously unreleased Colorado Department of Education data to follow 10,500 students who were enrolled in the 10 largest online schools starting in 2008. These students accounted for more than 90% of all online students in the 2008-09 school year. Quoting from the study, here is what it found:

• Half the online students wind up leaving within a year. When they do, they’re often further behind academically than when they started.
• Online schools produce three times as many dropouts as they do graduates. One of every eight online students drops out of school permanently—a rate four times the state average.
• Millions of dollars are going to virtual schools for students who no longer attend online classes.
• The churn of students in and out of online schools is putting pressure on brick-and-mortar schools, which then must find money in their budgets to educate students who come from online schools mid-year.

Earlier this month, after hearing the findings of this study, State Sen. President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said, “We’re bleeding money to a program that doesn’t work.” And last week, he asked that the state audit committee complete an emergency audit of online schools before the state legislature meets in January.

Shaffer said that the public had a right to know the findings, especially in light of the state’s budget problems. “We spend over $100 million a year on online schools now—in an environment where we’re cutting $200 to $270 million a year from brick-and-mortar schools,” he said.

Online programs’ officials cite a variety of factors which contribute to the high numbers of students who leave their programs. Heather O’Mara, executive director of one of Colorado’s largest online programs, Hope Online, listed these: brief experimentation with a new approach to learning, parents not home to oversee their children’s studies, and working with at-risk students who see these schools as their last resort.

O’Mara said, “We are all so different, we are serving different audiences and students are enrolling for very different reasons. At Hope, we particularly target kids who are at risk, who have not been academically successful, not only at their previous school, probably several schools before that.”

And yet, according to the I-News/EdNews analysis, only about 120 students of the more than 10,000 who entered online programs last year were identified as previous dropouts who were returning to school, and only 290 entered after spending the year before in an alternative school for troubled youth. Additionally, among the 2,400 online students who had taken a state standardized reading test in a brick-and-mortar school the year before, more than half had scored proficient or better.

Dropout rates were also studied, and the results showed that in the state’s online schools, dropouts outnumbered graduates by three to one, while the opposite of that was true in terms of the statewide average, where graduates outnumber dropouts by three to one.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say, this just doesn’t make any sense, especially when our public schools are taking such a beating financially already.

Stay tuned for part two tomorrow when I wrap up this blog about online schools in Colorado…

Changes in Teaching, Funding Education, state achievement tests, Teacher-World's Blog Education News Colorado, Education Week, educational funding, GOAL Academy, Hope Online, I-News Network, online schools

With school starting again in districts all over the country, it is important for those of us in education to remember that in order for our students to learn and be successful in our classrooms, we must provide a safe environment in which children feel accepted and encouraged by their teachers and their peers. In other words, we need to work together to build bully-free schools.

We all know how common bullying is in schools, and we have certainly seen the terrible consequences of relentless bullying. The website eHow family recently provided some important information regarding this subject, and I would like to share some of its more salient points and conclude with a recent study regarding bullying and its possible affect on grades.

First, we are already aware that often bullies are kids who have been bullied themselves and are trying to regain some power by dominating someone else. But eHow family tells us that often these kids who become bullies were either abused by adults or witnessed some type of domestic violence at home. These kids generally target someone who is different or socially isolated to continue the pattern of abuse. 

Kids who are bullied may experience problems in school, such as trouble concentrating. They usually experience difficulty interacting with their peers because they are self-conscious and afraid of rejection, especially if the child who is bullying them is accepted and liked by other children. The victim may begin to steer clear of school activities like class reports or presentations and group projects. Some will even stay home from school, resulting in excessive absences which lead to poor academic performance.

The self-image of a bullied child is adversely affected due to the emotional pain of name-calling and verbal harassment and the physical pain if they are being pushed, hit, etc. They begin to fear that all of their peers see them as the bully does; weak, or a “loser”. They may even begin to feel that they somehow deserve the bullying, which will negatively affect their social skills. And often, fear that they will be tormented even more if they tell an adult keeps them silent.

As children get older, their increased size and hormonal changes make them more aggressive. As a result, victims of bullying are at risk for more serious injuries. And both the victim and his bully have a greater risk of behaviors that include dropping out of school, running away from home, or alcohol and substance abuse. Teens who are bullied, as we have certainly read in recent news reports, may even become suicidal.

There are some devastating long-term effects of bullying which can last well into adulthood. Victims may have difficulty trusting others, fearing that they will always be hurt and betrayed which can affect their friendships and other relationships. It is also likely that that their relationship issues will affect future educational and career opportunities. A common issue shared by victims and bullies is anger. Victims may even hold on to a desire for retaliation.

Now, preliminary results from recent research indicate that bullying may contribute to a drop in high school students’ grade point averages (GPAs). The study polled 9,590 students from 580 U.S. high schools, and here’s what researchers found.

Compared to those who weren’t bullied, students who were bullied in tenth grade experienced a 0.049 drop in their GPA between ninth and twelfth grade.

Lisa M. Williams, the lead author and a doctoral student in sociology at Ohio State University, had this to say in a news release: “This effect, though small, is highly significant and suggests that bullying negatively affects GPA even after factoring in previous grades, family background and school characteristics often associated with achievement, which are all variables the study controls for.”

These effects were stronger among high-achieving black and Hispanic students. Black students, for example, who had a 3.5 in ninth grade and then were bullied in tenth, experienced a 0.3 points decrease by the time they reached twelfth grade. The drop was more significant for Hispanic students who started with a 3.5 GPA in ninth grade and reported being bullied in tenth; they experienced a 0.5 point decrease in their GPA by twelfth grade.

When you compare those statistics with those of white students with a 3.5 GPA in ninth grade who were bullied in tenth, their decrease was only 0.03 points by twelfth grade. So what is the difference?

“Stereotypes about black and Latino youth suggest that they perform poorly in school,” Williams said. “High-achieving blacks and Latinos who do not conform to these stereotypes may be especially vulnerable to the effect bullying has on grades.”

So, what’s the point? Very simply, no matter how you feel personally about the issue of bullying in schools, it is clearly a detriment in regards to students’ ability to succeed both emotionally and academically. We owe it to our students to do more than most schools currently do to get a handle on this pervasive issue.

I volunteered recently to take a newly enrolled student who is attending our school this year to escape ongoing bullying at his previous school. My question is this: If schools are doing all they can to establish a zero tolerance of bullying, why would any student have to leave a school to escape being bullied?

It is clear that we are not effectively resolving bullying issues in our schools. Too many of us have the attitude that bullying has always been around, will always be around, and we aren’t going to be able to stop it. We need to change that way of thinking.

I am not naive enough to think that all bullying is going to be irradiated in our schools, but we certainly owe it to our students to make it a priority to teach children at an early age that bullying is unacceptable. We need to teach, as part of our curriculum, how to affectively get along with others even when they are different from ourselves.

Every essential skill that students need to learn to be successful in and out of school requires repeated reinforcement. So too, interpersonal skills need to be reinforced just as persistently.

And when bullying occurs in our schools, we need to act every time, relaying the clear message that our schools are bully-free zones.

We can change the way children interact with other children, but like anything else we teach, it will take time, perseverance, and commitment. I think it’s well worth the effort.

What about you?

Bullying, Changes in Teaching, Teacher-World's Blog, teen suicide Bullying, high school GPAs