This school year I am fortunate to be able to teach an elective in our high school - Intro to Personal Finance. Being back in the classroom, even though it's only for 45 minutes a day, is revitalizing. The kids are just great! Their curiosity, desire to learn, and eagerness to pepper me with questions has kept me learning, too.
Throughout my coursework for my MBA, I was regularly reminded that there was much about money that I had never been taught. I am fortunate that being stingy with a nickel comes naturally to me and that my parents did impart budgeting skills and reinforced the idea of saving. But, I never learned about the real value of money...how you can use your money and how you can leverage the money of others to help you (and others) make more money. My goal for my students is that they will leave my class prepared to successfully navigate the complex decisions associated with their own personal finances and know a bit about how money works in the world.
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to attend the most amazing conference, with a horribly long name - The PwC and Knowledge@Wharton High School Seminar for High School Educators on Business and Financial Responsibility. 150 high school teachers of personal finance, economics, and business were selected from a pool of applicants to attend (all expenses paid - thanks PwC!) the event on Penn's campus. We heard from Wharton profs, PwC execs, and fellow teachers. I've been to plenty of conferences in my day, and this was hands-down the best. The purpose of the seminar was to provide teachers with background knowledge and new ideas, and to encourage more financial literacy education in our schools. There were no end-of-course deliverables...no state reports due at the conclusion like other conferences and courses, it was really a chance to just sit back, soak up some knowledge, and learn from the best.
One would think that educators would relish this opportunity; to have a weekend with food, hotel, and travel all paid for and be able to learn. We are teachers, right? One would think and hope that as teachers we recognize the value of new knowledge. And, one would think that if we teach a subject, we therefore are interested in the subject and would want to know more about it. Reasonable hypothesis?
Incredulously, there were teachers who through their actions proved this thesis incorrect. Rather than listen attentively to the speakers, there were teachers spending hours shoe shopping on-line, playing Bedazzled on their iPad, editing photos on their computer, chatting on-line, taking a nap, and texting non-stop. I wanted to scream. I wanted to call out these ungracious dopes. Not only could the speakers see this inattentiveness, but so could all the program's sponsors and organizers who stood at the back of the auditorium ready to attend to any need we might have had.
Did I mention that some of these profs have worked directly with US Presidents, the FBI, global leaders, etc.? And, that PwC has committed $160 million to this cause? Really people...you just ignore them and do something you could have done sitting on your lazy ass at home...taking up conference space that others wanted!?!
If this were the Muppets, this would be the part when Kermit's face crumples in response to Miss Piggy. You know the face...it's the one when he just can't believe what he's seeing or hearing from her. That's how I felt seeing these supposed professionals just disregarding the opportunity unfolding right in front of them. I left the conference both invigorated by the experience, and disgusted by some of my peers.
But then I heard something that mitigated that disgust. A fellow teacher at the conference shared that he had been close to deciding that this year would be his final year of teaching. He was worn down by the requirement to teach subjects that weren't his area of certification. The pressure of having to act like an expert in a content area when you're not is a real stressor for teachers. They are forced into this situation by understaffed schools and it's just not good for students or the teachers. He commented that participation in this conference was causing him to rethink his thoughts about leaving the profession. Good teachers shouldn't feel like they need to leave the profession because of poor administrative or budgetary decisions. That he found the conference invigorating is wonderful. I am glad for him and for his students, and hope he really does stick with it. He's the kind of teacher we want in our schools; the others mentioned above...not so much.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
One Size Does Not Fit All
Stick with me on this blog, please. It may seem at first that this is a real estate blog, and then I delve into individual learning styles, but the real point of this blog is that current standardized testing cannot be used as a tool to assess all teachers' abilities to teach.
The house across the street from ours was for sale. For a few months, there was a For Sale sign on the front lawn. At the beginning of December, the For Sale part of the sign was gone, but the agents' info part - the bigger part at the bottom - was still there. Right after Christmas, the sign had a top again. It read Sold. I noticed the 3 versions of the signs. My older son noticed the 3 versions of the signs. My husband and younger son didn't notice that the top part had been missing, or when the Sold sign went up. They were both surprised when I told them that the house had sold, even though the sign had been up for days. When I asked them, neither had noticed that the original top of the sign had been missing for 3 weeks.
It seemed to me that these changes would be hard to miss. The sign was directly across from our house, and easily visible when we'd drive to our house - from either direction.
This got me thinking. How was it that two smart guys could not notice something that seemed so completely conspicuous to me and Jacob? Individual differences. That's how. Everyone sees things differently. People like different things and accomplish similar tasks or goals through different methods.
Everyone learns differently, too. What might seem obvious to a teacher and half the class might not even be on the radar of the other half. One student learns best by listening; another by seeing; and yet another by doing. Many educators have caught on to this concept in the past decade or so. Classroom lessons and assessments include strategies and methods that allow students to learn and demonstrate learning in a variety of modalities.
So how is it then that standardized tests are administered only one way- paper and pencil - and typically only assess a few subjects, leaving many untouched? Every state has different assessment requirements for its public schools. In Pennsylvania, the annual standardized tests for grades 3-8 and 11 include reading and math. Writing and science get assessed three times during a student's 13 years from K to 12. PA's testing is fairly rigorous compared to other states' assessments. Some states don't evaluate writing or science, focusing exclusively on reading and math. What about history, foreign language, the arts, technology, etc? Why is writing only looked at 3 times, but reading is assessed 6 times? Isn't history important?
Politicians, education reformers, and many fed-up taxpayers advocate merit pay for teachers. I agree. Teachers and all school personnel should be paid based on performance, not just how many years they've been in the classroom. However, proponents of merit pay often include in merit pay a component that ties a teacher's students' standardized test scores to that teacher's salary increase. This post is not going to explore the many areas of concern regarding standardized testing, i.e. testing biases, the effects of outside influences on a student's progress or lack of progress, teaching to the test, and adults cheating for high-stakes tests. My focus is that the current system of testing just doesn't cut it for inclusion in merit pay.
Why? Many reasons. The tests are subject specific and leave out a good percentage of the subjects that a student learns at school. If there's no history assessment, what test results would be used for the history teacher's merit pay? And, there's no standardized testing in the primary grades (K to 2). What test results would be used for the 1st grade teacher's merit pay? And how about those Spanish teachers, art teachers, vocational teachers, special education teachers, etc?
If the tests don't include all subjects and all grade levels (and I am certainly not advocating for more standardized testing!), the merit pay systems that include tying standardized test results to individual teachers' raises overlook the fact that the education provided by many teachers isn't ever assessed via current standardized testing.
Back to my theses...current standardized testing cannot be used as a tool to assess all teachers' abilities to teach. Even without exploring the many areas of concern tied to standardized testing, it's simply not equitable to all teachers in a school or a district.
There's a posting on the Freakonomics' website debating the concept of teacher merit pay. Interesting reading if you've stuck with me this long.
The house across the street from ours was for sale. For a few months, there was a For Sale sign on the front lawn. At the beginning of December, the For Sale part of the sign was gone, but the agents' info part - the bigger part at the bottom - was still there. Right after Christmas, the sign had a top again. It read Sold. I noticed the 3 versions of the signs. My older son noticed the 3 versions of the signs. My husband and younger son didn't notice that the top part had been missing, or when the Sold sign went up. They were both surprised when I told them that the house had sold, even though the sign had been up for days. When I asked them, neither had noticed that the original top of the sign had been missing for 3 weeks.
It seemed to me that these changes would be hard to miss. The sign was directly across from our house, and easily visible when we'd drive to our house - from either direction.
This got me thinking. How was it that two smart guys could not notice something that seemed so completely conspicuous to me and Jacob? Individual differences. That's how. Everyone sees things differently. People like different things and accomplish similar tasks or goals through different methods.
Everyone learns differently, too. What might seem obvious to a teacher and half the class might not even be on the radar of the other half. One student learns best by listening; another by seeing; and yet another by doing. Many educators have caught on to this concept in the past decade or so. Classroom lessons and assessments include strategies and methods that allow students to learn and demonstrate learning in a variety of modalities.
So how is it then that standardized tests are administered only one way- paper and pencil - and typically only assess a few subjects, leaving many untouched? Every state has different assessment requirements for its public schools. In Pennsylvania, the annual standardized tests for grades 3-8 and 11 include reading and math. Writing and science get assessed three times during a student's 13 years from K to 12. PA's testing is fairly rigorous compared to other states' assessments. Some states don't evaluate writing or science, focusing exclusively on reading and math. What about history, foreign language, the arts, technology, etc? Why is writing only looked at 3 times, but reading is assessed 6 times? Isn't history important?
Politicians, education reformers, and many fed-up taxpayers advocate merit pay for teachers. I agree. Teachers and all school personnel should be paid based on performance, not just how many years they've been in the classroom. However, proponents of merit pay often include in merit pay a component that ties a teacher's students' standardized test scores to that teacher's salary increase. This post is not going to explore the many areas of concern regarding standardized testing, i.e. testing biases, the effects of outside influences on a student's progress or lack of progress, teaching to the test, and adults cheating for high-stakes tests. My focus is that the current system of testing just doesn't cut it for inclusion in merit pay.
Why? Many reasons. The tests are subject specific and leave out a good percentage of the subjects that a student learns at school. If there's no history assessment, what test results would be used for the history teacher's merit pay? And, there's no standardized testing in the primary grades (K to 2). What test results would be used for the 1st grade teacher's merit pay? And how about those Spanish teachers, art teachers, vocational teachers, special education teachers, etc?
If the tests don't include all subjects and all grade levels (and I am certainly not advocating for more standardized testing!), the merit pay systems that include tying standardized test results to individual teachers' raises overlook the fact that the education provided by many teachers isn't ever assessed via current standardized testing.
Back to my theses...current standardized testing cannot be used as a tool to assess all teachers' abilities to teach. Even without exploring the many areas of concern tied to standardized testing, it's simply not equitable to all teachers in a school or a district.
There's a posting on the Freakonomics' website debating the concept of teacher merit pay. Interesting reading if you've stuck with me this long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)