As reported in today’s New York Times, Arne Duncan wants to set the standards for teachers’ colleges and use the power of the federal purse to evaluate them. It seems there is nothing that Arne Duncan is not competent to judge, other than the success or failure of his own initiatives. He has used Race to the Top funding to push test-based teacher evaluations (VAM), which have worked nowhere. He has used RTTT to impose Common Core standards, which are designed to align with tests that will fail most students. He has used RTTT to encourage states to privatize more public schools. Many districts now, spurred on by Duncan’ s rhetoric, are thinking of adopting the New Orleans model of an all-charter district, even though the Recovery School District rates 65th of 68 districts in Louisiana and most of the charter schools are graded as D or F schools by the state.
Duncan is a force for disruption and chaos in American education. Yes, of course, teachers’ colleges need higher admission standards, but judging them by the test scores of students taught by their graduates will discourage colleges from sending their graduates to distressed districts and serve as a warning to avoid special education and English language learners. As James E. Ryan, the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education sagely warns, “It’s all too easy to create perverse incentives.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Water does not rise above its level.
Public school teaching is not viewed as a prestigious profession in America. Raising admissions standards to teacher prep programs will not “raise” the profession, especially given the existence of five-week-trained, TFA temp teachers who escape any standard imposed upon trainers of career teachers.
Diane: when will it end? can we demand opposition to privatization/race to the top by the democratic candidate for President? we must!
Please excuse the long comment but I received this from the Council for Exceptional Children, Teacher Education Division. We need to flood the comments:
Dear TED Board:
After two years of anticipation, the Department of Education held a press
conference this afternoon to announce the release of the teacher preparation
regulations. Today, a variety of materials were posted on the website at
http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep, including the press release, fact sheet, and
detailed powerpoint presentation regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) which has been sent to the Federal Register and will be published in
the next several days. Also at this link is a draft of the NPRM which I
have now printed (405 pages) but not yet read!
I listened in to the press conference this afternoon which featured Sec.
Duncan, Asst. Sec. Ted Mitchell, Jim Cibulka President of CAEP, Mari
Koerner, Dean of Education at Arizona State University and Governor Bill
Haslam of Tennessee. Tomorrow an audio link to the press conference will be
available. Below is the press statement sent out by the Department of
Education.
Comments on the proposed regs have been rolling in. Those supporting the
regs include outgoing ranking member of the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce, George Miller, the Center for American Progress, Education
Trust, Teach for America and Educators 4 Excellence. Those raising concerns
about the regs so far include the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, The American Council on Education, the NEA and the AFT.
More dialogue is assured to follow.
The regs appear to be essentially the same as what was proposed at
negotiated rulemaking in 2012. This includes a mandate that every state
rate every preparation program and only the highest rated programs will be
eligibile to use TEACH grants. The metrics that must be used to determine
the ratings include: student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, new
teacher and employer feedback and accreditation by CAEP or state program
approval with specific requirements.
There is a 60 day public comment period for the regulations.
I will be sharing additional informatio n when it is available.
Happy reading and Happy Thanksgiving!
Let me know if you have questions.
Jane
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Communications & Outreach, Press Office
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
FOR RELEASE:
Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014
Contact: Press Office
(202) 401-1576 or press@ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education Proposes Plan to Strengthen Teacher Preparation
New Rules Build on Reforms and Innovation Efforts to Ensure Educators are
Classroom-Ready
The U.S. Department of Education today announced proposed regulations that
help ensure teacher training programs are preparing educators who are ready
to succeed in the classroom.
The proposal builds on the reforms and innovations already happening at the
state and program level across the country and by national organizations
like the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation and the
Council of Chief State School Officers. The new rule shifts the focus for
currently required sta te reporting on teacher preparation programs from
mostly inputs to outcomes – such as how graduates are doing in the classroom
– while giving states much flexibility to determine how they will use the
new measures and how program performance is measured.
“It has long been clear that as a nation, we could do a far better job of
preparing teachers for the classroom. It’s not just something that studies
show – I hear it in my conversations with teachers, principals and pare nts,”
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. “New teachers want to do a great
job for their kids, but often, they struggle at the beginning of their
careers and have to figure out too much for themselves. Teachers deserve
better, and our students do too. This proposal, along with our other key
initiatives in supporting flexibility, equity and leadership, will help get
us closer to President Obama’s goal of putting a great teacher in every
classroom, and especially in our high-need schools.”
The proposal would create transparency and create a much-needed feedback
loop among aspiring teachers, preparation programs, principals, schools and
states. This information will help prospective educators choose effective
programs to train in high-demand teaching fields, assist schools in
identifying the most effective programs to recruit from, recognize
excellence t o build on best practices, and help programs target their
improvement efforts.
Specifically, the proposed regulations would refocus institutional data
reporting already required under federal law on meaningful data at the
program level, support states in developing systems that differentiate
programs by performance on outcomes, provide feedback to programs about
graduates’ performance and satisfaction, and hold programs accountable for
how well they prepare teachers to succeed in today’s classrooms and
throughout their careers. In addition, by requiring data on new teacher
employment outcomes (placement and retention), it will shine a light on
high-need schools and fields and help facilitate a better match of supply
and demand.
Already, numerous states, institutions and other organizations are
demonstrating vital leadership in improving teacher p reparation. The
proposed rule aims to ensure that these innovative practices are taken to
scale and can be replicated in programs that are struggling.
For example:
* North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, and Florida were among
the first states to collect and report information about teacher preparation
programs and their graduates to the public.
*& nbsp; Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Rhode Island
all recently raised admissions requirements to get into teacher prep
programs.
* The University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s College of Education
benefited from data provided by Louisiana about the results their teachers
were getting in the classroom. The University used the results to improve
the university’s curriculum by including clinical experience and innovative
coursework. And you know what happened? The performance of graduates
improved.
* Colleges and universities across the country are also matching
supply of teachers to the demand in the field.
* At the University of Texas at Austin, the program, UTeach, is
drawing undergraduates with STEM majors into teaching. Nearly 90 percent of
the graduates from the UTeach Austin program become teachers, and about half
teach in high-need schools. What’s more, roughly 80% of graduates who become
teachers are retained after 5 years.
* Arizona State University and Urban Teacher Residencies United are
enriching the clinical experiences they provide, so their teacher candidates
can learn in real schools with the help of master teachers. Additionally,
thes e programs use the same teaching standards in preparation that teachers
will use on the job later. Eighty-five percent of Urban Teacher Residencies
graduates remain in the classroom after three years, compared to the 50
percent national average.
* Relay Graduate School of Education, founded by three charter
management organizations in New York City, measures and holds itself
accountable for both program graduate and employer satisfaction, as well as
requires that teachers meet high goals for student learning growth before
they can complete their degrees. Students of Relay teachers grew 1.3 years
in reading performance in one year.
* Fayetteville State University in North Carolina incorporates the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction competencies and standards
as well as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards into its
curriculum for master’s degree students in education. Of its recent
graduates, 87 percent of new teachers met or exceeded expectations for
student learning growth, compared to the 75 percent state average.
“We know how important strong teaching is to students’ education and life
outcomes – especially for our most vulnerable kids,” Duncan said. “Leaders
in this field are already moving in the direction of our proposal, and our
regulations try to align with their best thinking on how to prepare
effective educators who are ready to hit the ground running on day one. If
we are going to improve teaching and learning in America, we have to improve
the training and support that we give our teachers.”
Other changes in the proposed regulations include requiring performance data
reporting at the program – rather than the institutional – level and
requiring states to engage with a broad range of stakeholders – including
teacher preparation programs, school leaders and teachers – in designing
their systems. The proposal also changes eligibility for TEACH Grants
(teach-ats.ed.gov/ats/index.action) so that the money only goes to graduates
of programs rated effective or higher for at least two of the previous three
years. States must provide technical assistance to any teacher preparation
programs rated as low-performing.
The proposal would require states to report annually on the performance of
teacher preparation programs – including alternative certification programs
– based on a combination of:
* Employment outcomes: New teacher placement and three-year
retention rates in high-need schools and in all schools.
* ; New teacher and employer feedback: Surveys on the effectiveness of
preparation.
* Student learning outcomes: Impact of new teachers as measured by
student growth, teacher evaluation, or both.
* Assurance of specialized accreditation or evidence that a program
produces high-quality candidates.
The proposed regulations will undergo a 60-day comment period where the
public can submit suggestions. The final rule will be published in mid-2015.
A fact sheet on the proposed regulation can be found on
http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep, along with a version of the draft regulations, which
will publish in Federal Register in coming days.
I’m confused. First we were told that older teachers didn’t know what they were doing and that they needed to step aside so that the new teachers with fresh ideas could take over. Now we are told that the new teachers aren’t properly prepared to teach.
So it must be the colleges at fault, not the fact that teachers improve with experience. After all, medical students don’t get to operate on patients immediately upon graduation. They have internships and residencies.
How novel. New graduates could work under Master Teachers to learn their craft, given more responsibility as they get more experience.
Oops, I forgot. Teaching can be learned in just five weeks a la TFA training.
Which is it?
Ellen T Klock
Exactly. Where is the logic in a system that simultaneously demands “higher standards” and more extensive traditional teacher preparation from universities, and then seeks to circumvent university-based teacher education by encouraging alternative-certification programs?
This is what I don’t understand: If the purpose is to destroy the profession and make work casual, i.e. no one would train for it, wouldn’t sharpening grad requirements counter this sentiment? Of course, the whole thing is absurd, you have alternate cert programs (in some states it’s automatically given) and now there is the abuse of the H1b system for teaching in a market of double digit employment–shortages, lol.
And don’t blame teacher retention on the colleges. Teachers will be exiting the profession (both newly minted as well as those who can either retire or find a job in a different field) due to the negative impact of the CC and VAM. Also because of the low pay, reduced benefits, and the lack of job security many states are instituting.
Before you know it, school districts will find huge holes in their staffing that the teaching colleges won’t be able to fill.
Then what does Mr Duncan plan to do?
Ellen T Klock
“Before you know it, school districts will find huge holes in their staffing that the teaching colleges won’t be able to fill.”
“Then what does Mr Duncan plan to do?”
He’ll be gone. He won’t care.
How does TFA get a seat at the table? TFA has done little than promote itself at every opportunity at the denigration of students and teachers everywhere. Its own operations offer 5 weeks of training, and believes that traditionally trained teachers are substandard. I will never understand it. Honestly, if my kid wasn’t a teacher, I’d have no clue what was going on. I think that is the problem right there. If you don’t have kids in school or work in or know someone who works in education, you don’t have a clue.
This DOE is bent on destroying public education, and the usual suspects sit by and cheer – not because they feel what is happening is fundamentally right, but because they stand to profit from the disruption.
Duncan’s orders come from elsewhere – I don’t believe he has a brain in his head – but I do believe he enjoys the havoc “his” policies wreak.
When this administration is gone, it will be replaced, likely, by the same, if not worse, types.
They do realize they are wiping out the teaching profession, and the middle class.
The good news is that the government is trying to do something to improve public education, especially in high needs areas. My concern is that it will turn out to be another data driven hodge podge. They still fail to address two of the core issues, the inequities in how we fund public education and how to address the issues surrounding children of poverty. Unless they are willing to tackle these inequities, I am afraid it will be just more “smoke and mirrors” from the Obama administration.
It’s not good that the federal government is addressing education issues. Per the 10th amendment, it is not their purview, so mandates like NCLB and RTTT are themselves possibly unconstitutional. But you are right that they should be (but are not) addressing the underlying issues of poverty and basic income disparity. A close look at countries like Finland reveals that less economic disparity enables schools to be more efficient because kids come to school with less baggage and obstacles to learning.
The draft regulations are the most important for public comment. These regulations will have definitions. Find these and you have the key ideas in the regulations. Be attentive to the word “quality” and “growth.” The public comments are usually included in the final version with a response from an unnamed USDE official.
Be aware that this is a Gates and McKinsey & Co. effort with Duncan the figurehead. The
Arne Duncan is proof that Lord Acton was correct when he said, “”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
Although I can not agree that Arne Duncan is a great man.
Yes laurencoodley! We must elect a true progressive like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for President and not have a coronation for the corporately bought and paid for hillary clinton! Don’t even bother to consider a republican, as they are even a little worse than hillary!
I would scrutinize Warren’s educational positions very carefully before calling her a “true progressive”.
Exactly. Warren has focused on student loan debts, for which I’m grateful, but she came out in support of vouchers in one of her previous books and I have yet to see her publicly rescinded that position.
Hillary is a neoliberal like Bill and in bed with big business. She is no friend to public education –or any other public service that can be privatized.
Bernie has repeatedly warned of the threats of the plutocracy and privatization to our democracy. He is the only politician that I feel I can trust.
I don’t recall Hillary doing anything against public education when she was a senator in NY. I also see some of her former staff members as members of Democrats for Public Education.
Hillary is a typical center-right neoliberal who holds the party line and is pro national standards, pro charters, pro TFA, etc.
We can’t assume what people mean when they claim to be supporters of “public education,” because many are referring to charter schools, including the members of the Democrats for Public Education who voted this spring in favor of HB10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act, which supports charter school expansion, such as Congressman Mark Takano of CA and Congressman Marc Pocan of WI: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h217
In 1999, Hillary said to the NEA in Orlando,
“I stand behind the charter school/public school movement, because parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the unique needs of their children. Slowly but surely, we’re beginning to create schooling opportunities through the public school charter system -raising academic standards, empowering educators. When we look back on the 1990s, we will see that the charter school movement will be one of the ways we will have turned around the entire public school system.”
Yep, we can thank the Clintons for promoting the privatization of public education back in the 90s and the upheaval we are seeing in so many urban areas that overcome with privatization today. Note her push for choice while failing to mention how choice was and still could be offered within the public school system, such as with magnet schools. Also note the assumption that “the charter school/public school movement” is one and the same thing, as if privatized charter schools are synonymous with neighborhood public schools. Many who fell for that BS then know better today.
The Black Agenda Report warns that any back stepping on charters by the Clintons should be viewed as a play for votes: See, “Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton & the Arkansas Two Step” http://blackagendareport.com/node/14525
What would you do:
5 week TFA training program – 2 year teaching commitment with all the perks of a “career” teacher – lose other college debt
1-2 year teacher training program – pile on debt that can’t be discharged in bankruptcy on top of a BA, on a program that might flunk you based on metrics that are proven to be extremely fault for the same job.
Yes, I can see how the teaching profession is on an elevator…going straight to hell.
HIllary’s top advisors came up with the idea to standardize education at the federal level in the infamous “Dear Hillary” letter.
As far as I can see, there soon will be absolutely no reason to become a teacher. Who in their right mind will obtain their teaching credentials in the current climate? I think it is just an underhanded way to eliminate teaching as a profession. Can they seriously believe that they will be able to find enough cannon fodder to even pretend to staff schools adequately? Do they really believe their own idiocy?
I understand your pessimism, but this too shall pass. The Obama/Duncan regime are closing up shop soon. Their policy attacks are simply not scalable nor will they withstand the legal challenges that are sure to follow. The teaching profession will survive this onslaught and one day Arne, RTT, CC, VAM, and the test-and-punish reform will be smoldering on the ash heap of failed and discredited ideas.
The problem is both political parties are in bed with privatizer interests. The WORST thing educators can do is think this is a “fad” that will “pass,” and the “pendulum will swing the other way.” You are totally ignoring the neoliberal juggernaut that wants to privatize ALL of the public sector–worldwide–for private gain.
I am not ignoring the neoliberal pet dream of privatizing public education. But that’s all it will ever be. They will make some inroads, as the inner city systems are most vulnerable. But even those will not last when their ROI fails to materialize. The day will never come when the majority of America’s schools are run by private, for profit corporations. Knowing that it is indeed a fad, the latest shiny thing for profiteers does not mean we sit back and wait for it to pass without resistance. Current times are dark, but pessimism is the worst attitude we can adopt.
Inner city public schools are going the way of the dinosaurs. New Orleans is the prototype for the urban school district. This is not an isolated phenomenon from which suburban and rural districts have been granted immunity. It is unforgivable naïveté to fantasize that these reform developments are not coming to a community near you.
I can choose to view the events in Ferguson and say, “I need not worry because I am in New Jersey.” A more profound option is to examine what is happening in Ferguson to ask myself and others how these occurrences reflect the persistence of racism and white privege in American society. For those of us who do not sequester ourselves in gated communities, what does the future hold for the children of color growing up in poverty? I am an American and today is Thanksgiving. I fear greatly for the direction of our society, our educational institutions and our many misguided leaders.
The inner city is a target for privatization because they are hopeful that someone can improve education there. I know the privatizers will get lots of opposition in the suburbs. Even now in cities lots of African Americans realize they have victims of a “bait and switch.” Instead of excellence, students are often getting a cheap, narrow curriculum from untrained TFA novices or some cyber approach that does not work.
The only people who are hopeful are probably the parents being duped—-parents who want teachers to do their job for them. The corporate reformers don’t care. Their god is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and they will use anyone, even children, to reach those riches.
Here’s new release of Education Film:
“Edudeform Trek 3: the Wrath of Duncanister”
The idea that being an eduction major results in easy As neglects the fact thT most of my courses were outside the College of Education. And I had to maintain a high GPA to stay in the college. Someone should ask my current student teacher if he thinks being an education major is an easy A!
I do wish that education could be a five year program with more deeper methods and learning theory classes but we do not get paid enough for that extra year of tuition. Also I have been told, but not fact checked, that my state requires that it MUST be a four year program. So teachers must be experts in education and, for secondary, a content area in the same time as other majors are only content experts
The notion it is “easy” is just sexist garbage ultimately. If it weren’t for teachers, none of the other occupations would exist.
That’s the bottom line.
Alice,
Many programs are five years, complete a four year degree and add a year to become certified.
That year includes work in schools and whatever the state requires for knowledge of curriculum, instruction, evaluation, learning.
In the olden days, in rather large state universities, anyone interested in becoming a teacher was thrust into schools in the second half of the freshman year and for every year after that. They observed and assisted, and these practicum courses were tied on-campus classes that would now be called pedagogical.
All of these courses were in tandem with the “content” courses and made use of that content. This was about as seamless as the “two worlds” of study could be.
That basic structure meant that seniors who were in student teaching slots had long since learned enough about life in schools to know that they still wanted to teach and had not wasted a lot of money on a career path for which they were ill-suited.
Most of the fifth year programs started after the Holmes Group–major research universities– became the major critics of colleges of education. They thought a every teacher needed to have was a solid four year degree in a content area. Then you shoul have a year of pedagogy and also meet the state requirements for certification. Some of these fifth year programs were also designed to make it possible for students to extend that time and earn a master degree.
There can be no doubt that a lot of marginal teacher education programs were harbored in “state teachers colleges” where the content was not much deeper than the content required to teach high school. Much of that growth happened prior to and in the years following WWII when the baby boomers were creating a huge demand for teachers.
For historical perspective, my grade five teacher received her bachelor’s degree in the same year I did, and she retired two years later. The state had mandated the four year degree for the first time.
Two years of college had been sufficient for most of her career.
To people who would agree with my suggestion:
May I suggest that:
1) DOE leader will be exiled or in jail for life for committing genocide of democracy; or destroying the good foundation in Public Education; or looting Public Education funds for crooked/criminal private companies
2) All business tycoons, all banking executive will be exiled or in jail for life for severe damaging national economy, such as sub-prime scandal, Bre-X gold mine investment, buying out other competitor’s business then lay off 50% or more of the competitor’s employees…
3) All scientists who make up invalid research that damages any noble profession will be first suspended, then lost their degree for life for repeated the same offence second time.
4) All judges will lose their legal practice for intentionally committing crime against a noble profession.
5) All religious school leaders and supporters will be in jail for life for intentionally committing teaching children against public civility; or public academic procedure in both extra-curriculum, arts, literature, music, and STEM.
I welcome other suggestions which I cannot think more. Sincerely. Back2basic
It has already begun in Connecticut. I teach at Southern Connecticut State University. Even though we were accredited by CAEP and recognized nationaly as a program the state of CT put us on probation.
The reason……. Not collecting data on our graduate students, including when they leave the program.
We must resist VAM at every level and every step of the way. Stop using these measures in ways they were never intended.
CAEP is complicit in these destructive policies. There is one main reason. Unless the college is accredited by an accrediting agency approved by USDE students cannot use federal scholarship money for their education.
CAEP accreditation standards were written to please Duncan’s USDE and all of the lobbyists for on-line and alternative certification outside of a university program. Sharon Robinson, the well-paid head of CAEP has also had multiple years of service as a Trustee for Corinthian Colleges–scandalous online schools.
I conclude that a lot of teacher education faculty have been navel gazing and not paying attention to USDE policies, at least not until their own programs are being subjected to the same nonsense that has been hardwired into k-12 education.
Unfortunately, some of the faculty who have not been navel gazing are also making reputations by forwarding the vam scam, the edPTA test, the SLO process and the corruption of the language of education..e.g., “You need to impact the growth of your students.” where growth means increase your students’ test scores and at a rate that exceeds the norm for teachers who have a job alike assignment. That will mean you have “exceeded expectations.” That may also mean you have achieved more than “a year’s worth of growth.”
Language matters, and this nonsensical jargon should never be taken for granted as if it a proper way to talk about teaching, learning, achievement, and so on.
People still continue to believe that Duncan is the problem. He’s not. Not to say he’s a good guy, but if we get rid of him, the problem will not go away. The problem is above his pay grade, as his boss might say. But even his boss isn’t the problem. The real problems run very deep and have taken hold of this country – neoliberal ideology, celebration of ignorance, control of the media by the elite, money in politics, growing inequality, etc.
The only way the problem will ease up is if the powers that be have reason to cede their power, which they won’t do willingly. The fear of communism is what it took to get the robber barons to back off, but I don’t think we could generate enough interest in communism any more to be a threat. So what would the elite fear enough to back off? I’ve always considered myself pacifist/non-violent, but even I’m starting to wonder if violence is necessary. But it would have to be violence on a wide and fearful scale – revolution. Otherwise, as we’ve seen in Ferguson, any violence will just be used to further marginalize those who use it. But no one was paying attention in Ferguson before the violence either, even though they’ve been speaking out and protesting for a long time, so what else is there to do?
Who will be held “accountable” at Sidwell Friends, Lakeside Academy, Dalton, Andover, Exeter, and the University of Chicago Lab Schools, among others, for any “bad metrics” at those esteemed institutions?
Oh, I forgot…the teachers there won’t be subject to such evaluations. And why would they be? Everyone knows that they MUST be succeeding, or they wouldn’t be teaching at those exclusive, well-funded schools.
How silly of me.
Imagine this scenario….Next, teachers who have not been subjected to this “rigor” will have to go back to university to make up for gaps in their coursework. Probably experienced teachers at the top of the pay scale will be required to take the courses to become “current”. I really am not one for entertaining collusion and collaboration theories…but it gets stranger by the day. Is part of this an effort to design a standardized teacher prep program so we/they/I can be better indoctrinated to deliver standardized scripted instruction? Some days I wonder what planet I woke up on.
Total deregulation of teaching is the aim. Putting draconian requirements on teacher education is one of the means. Same strategy with K-12 education. Make everything look bad with data posturing as “quality” ratings.
These rating and “accountaility” schemes are rigged to radically reduce the number of university-based teacher ed programs in favor of a totally new concept of “learning agents.”
A learning agent is a self-appointed entrepeneur who markets educational services and products. All that counts is “performance,” or at least the illusion of performance, spiked with a lot of marketing savvy.
The forthcoming Consumer Reports on Education, a joint venture of USDE and Gates will provide ratings of service providers and products.
See http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Empowering%20Parents%20and%20Communities%20Through%20Quality%20Public%20Reporting%20Federal%20Policy%20Guide.pdf
I thought about maybe teaching a workshop at the local college which trains school librarians – in order to share my years of expertise.
Unfortunately, what’s tried and true is no longer relevant. They only want experts in new techniques and technology to interact with college students.
My ideas are irrelevant for today’s future teachers/librarians. They don’t need skills, they need to be informed about the latest gadgets.
I’ll just keep my know how to myself. If anyone is interested, they’ll know where to find me.
Ellen T Klock
MEANWHILE, IN REAL LIFE: I work in a school for at risk students, so we have an extremely high number of special ed kids. It’s no secret these kids need individualized support, they even have their own mandated Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to ensure their specific needs are documented and tracked.
But this is where it gets stupid. The requirements of creating and updating IEPs is so cumbersome, special ed students actually get LESS individual attention then our regular ed kids. Their teachers are taken out of their classrooms for subs because IEPs have to be done during official school time. In fact, the NYC DOE lost a lawsuit and had to pay reparations last year because so many special ed teachers needed to use personal time to complete IEPs.
So this is yet another case where excessive measuring and documentation is replacing actual, practical learning time and resources, mandated from the federal level. The USDOE is blind and deaf, doubling down on using standardized tests as part of what is supposed to be an individualized education, but last year’s new mandate to use test score results as 20-40% of teacher evaluations (APPR) has also resulted in a number of teachers leaving our school for “better” schools.
APPR didn’t stop punishing us there, the policy is now making it difficult for us to hire teachers – our students’ low scores ensure they will get rated lower on their APPR. The mission of our school is to take in the lowest performing kids in the area, so it’s absurd to set up a school for high needs kids and then punish teachers for working there.
But even more maddening is how they use Math and ELA scores against all teachers, regardless of subject taught. We have to tell prospective hires in art, dance or music that they are likely to have their teacher evaluations lowered because of Math or English state test results.
What you describe is a data driven world gone wrong.! How can anyone draw the correct conclusion from a flawed formula that is twisted to suit a particular agenda? The result is all the schools and teachers that work with poverty level students, ELLs (I was an ESL teacher), LD, EH, Language Impaired and conduct disorder students are “deficient.”
The evil ones know what they are doing. It is scary to me too. It is beyond evil what they are doing.
I work with a lot of learning challenged students. I love working with them, and we are making progress. At VAM time I will be terrified to look at the report. But, I can survive because I am close to retirement. What in the world are the younger teachers going to do?
I am so concerned that the state will try to take local control away from the boards of education, and they will not even be able to help their teachers – even when they know they have excellent teachers. Who in their right mind would invest $100,000 in a toxic hole as this? No one will make a plan to be poor and possibly homeless in order to fulfill a dream of working with children. They cannot afford to.