I was searching on edweek and found an article about teacher student load. The article discusses that reducing class size will improve student success. The article also discusses decentralization. Check it out here if decentralization is new to you. This seems like it would make the education system a lot more efficient, localized, and focused.
After working in the school system for the first time last year, I discovered that I did not function well when class sizes got much over 15. I do not know if it is because of my low multi-tasking skills or what, but when class sizes reached anything over 20, it definitely affected my performance. There was so much to manage that by the end of the school day, I found myself aimlessly wondering around not getting a whole lot accomplished. My brain was fried and there just seemed to be so much to handle.
My biggest class was right after lunch with 31 students teaching Algebra 1. More than 20 of these students were male, after lunch, after energy drinks, and the class was Algebra 1. So, I do realize that there are more factors playing into a rowdy class then just class size, but class size had a lot to do with my ineffectiveness for the majority of the semester. Having 31 students is too many. When I found this article, I was reminded of my conversation that I had with my wife and my ideas to reform the education world.
After my seasoned 1 year in the classroom and 1 year as a substitute teacher, my recommendation for fixing the system is has 2 parts. Lower class size and extend the school year. The first part is generally accepted and I will be sure to explain the latter. By lowering class size, students will behave better. Teachers will have a better handle on inspiring and making personal conversations with students. More contact and individual attention have always shown to boost student performance. Lower class sizes will also reduce teachers spending countless hours grading papers. This time is not affective and does not give us the “bang for our buck.” Less time grading papers will leave more time for student interaction, feedback, and lesson prep.
My other idea is to extend the school year by 20 days. Now hold on! Check this out. I would not extend student seat time with this, it would be 1 month of added teacher days and this is why. There is no time scheduled in for lesson development, assessment, professional development, and collaboration. When in a teacher’s workday are you supposed to get this all done? By adding 1 month to the teacher’s schedule, there would be time for this. Lessons could actually change a little from year to year, and just maybe, a new one could be developed to replace the decade old ones. Teachers could collaborate on what works and work to coordinate department units. Professional development could take place outside of class time which would reduce money spent on substitute pay.
By adding 1 more month, teachers salaries would could support them for the entire year and they would not have to worry about getting a summer job. The added days would not add stress; it would actually spread the workload of the year out. These 2 easy adjustments would have the biggest impact on improving student achievement. Yes, more teachers would need to be hired and salaries would need to increase. Savings on substitute teachers would help, and the sky rocketing of student achievement would also help make up the difference.
What do you think?
Philip
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Maybe schools are getting TOO much $$$$$
With all the debate about the education system in the world, a lot of talk is about how much money to give them. In fact, a lot of the talk is about how much MORE money to give the schools. What if they are getting too much money already? In this article, Ben Chavis claims that schools do not need more money. Ben Chavis was the principal at American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA.
He claims that the stats do not back up the money. In the article, he claims that some Oakland, CA schools have a $602 million budget for there school year and more than 90% of their students fail. Mr. Chavez turned his school around with less than $8,000 per student. (This seems really high by itself) By using the motto, "If you act like a winner, you'll be treated like a winner. If you act like a fool, you'll be treated like a fool." According to Mr. Chavez, the school excelled in everything including physical fitness.
I love it. It is a great motto to live and teach by. Many times in the education world, we teach students that no matter how badly or inappropriately they behave, we are going to do anything at their beckoning call. There are no consequences for their actions, and we would NEVER call someone a FOOL. Students need to realize the direct connection between actions and consequences. If you are responsible and respectful, you get more privileges and opportunities. If you are a fool, you can not be trusted.
"The American public has been conned into believing that public schools need more money." Chavez is on to something here. We need to understand that money is not the answer to all of our troubles.
One thing that I disagree with is the negative flavor that the article gives to administrators when it comes to money. I do feel that people receiving stimulus money should be held accountable, but private companies have proven to spend the money foolishly and need to be monitored closely. Of course administrators always want more money, but for the most part, it is for the kids. They are not getting personal gain out of more money for their schools. This article may change the focus off of the money issue and change it to more improvising with the money the do have. Maybe by being held accountable, schools will be pressured into spending their money wisely as well.
Philip
He claims that the stats do not back up the money. In the article, he claims that some Oakland, CA schools have a $602 million budget for there school year and more than 90% of their students fail. Mr. Chavez turned his school around with less than $8,000 per student. (This seems really high by itself) By using the motto, "If you act like a winner, you'll be treated like a winner. If you act like a fool, you'll be treated like a fool." According to Mr. Chavez, the school excelled in everything including physical fitness.
I love it. It is a great motto to live and teach by. Many times in the education world, we teach students that no matter how badly or inappropriately they behave, we are going to do anything at their beckoning call. There are no consequences for their actions, and we would NEVER call someone a FOOL. Students need to realize the direct connection between actions and consequences. If you are responsible and respectful, you get more privileges and opportunities. If you are a fool, you can not be trusted.
"The American public has been conned into believing that public schools need more money." Chavez is on to something here. We need to understand that money is not the answer to all of our troubles.
One thing that I disagree with is the negative flavor that the article gives to administrators when it comes to money. I do feel that people receiving stimulus money should be held accountable, but private companies have proven to spend the money foolishly and need to be monitored closely. Of course administrators always want more money, but for the most part, it is for the kids. They are not getting personal gain out of more money for their schools. This article may change the focus off of the money issue and change it to more improvising with the money the do have. Maybe by being held accountable, schools will be pressured into spending their money wisely as well.
Philip
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Obama Controversy
I have been really busy lately and feel dead to the world at times. However, I did listen to and watch President Obama’s speech to the school at Arlington, VA. I was substituting at a school and the main teacher planned on showing it, if it wasn’t for this, I probably would not have known about it or the heated debate. I am glad I got to see it, because afterward, I found out about the huge debates that were going on. I was shocked to find out that many were outraged at the fact that President Obama was speaking to our students in our schools. If you missed it check it out. Here you will find the links to the video and text of the speech.
Many schools in some states did not support it including the Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. Many parents did not want there students to be in school if the President’s speech was going to be aired. Conservative republicans were supposedly the ones behind this. While this may be true for some, it wasn’t for all conservatives. Reverend John Piper claimed that this is exactly what he has been praying for; for Obama to motivate our country about education. Also, others like Craig Dunham, supported the speech and was surprised at the amount of criticism that took place.
As far as I could tell, the biggest complaints were that President Obama was going to push his socialist ideologies that it was a political stunt, that the term “don’t let your country down” was not appropriate, that he should not have been speaking to elementary students, and finally, the president should not be speaking in schools. However, I cannot find any articles that pinpoint exactly why the controversy started. I thought that if it was the conservative republicans there would be a website with information as to why the speech should be prohibited. If anyone can tell me where to find this, please do.
I tend to side with Mr. Dunham and Mr. Piper. I can see where some fears in the complaints stem from with the previous paragraph, but I still do not find the inappropriateness of the president coming into the schools. I was surprised when they outlawed God in the schools, but am totally floored by the fact the President Obama is next. If the President can not come in, then what are we saying to our kids? Our countries boss can not come in and speak to you!! Motivation in education does need to be revamped and watching a presidential speech is not going to corrupt your kids like Mr. Dunham and Mr. Piper were saying.
I found no real political overtones in this speech and I did think it was motivating. I also think that by winning the Presidency, you do win the right of speaking to 1 school in your 4 year tenure, well maybe 2.
Here is a blog with comments from other readers on both sides of the spectrum and one more article to stimulate your thinking.
What do you think?
Philip
Many schools in some states did not support it including the Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. Many parents did not want there students to be in school if the President’s speech was going to be aired. Conservative republicans were supposedly the ones behind this. While this may be true for some, it wasn’t for all conservatives. Reverend John Piper claimed that this is exactly what he has been praying for; for Obama to motivate our country about education. Also, others like Craig Dunham, supported the speech and was surprised at the amount of criticism that took place.
As far as I could tell, the biggest complaints were that President Obama was going to push his socialist ideologies that it was a political stunt, that the term “don’t let your country down” was not appropriate, that he should not have been speaking to elementary students, and finally, the president should not be speaking in schools. However, I cannot find any articles that pinpoint exactly why the controversy started. I thought that if it was the conservative republicans there would be a website with information as to why the speech should be prohibited. If anyone can tell me where to find this, please do.
I tend to side with Mr. Dunham and Mr. Piper. I can see where some fears in the complaints stem from with the previous paragraph, but I still do not find the inappropriateness of the president coming into the schools. I was surprised when they outlawed God in the schools, but am totally floored by the fact the President Obama is next. If the President can not come in, then what are we saying to our kids? Our countries boss can not come in and speak to you!! Motivation in education does need to be revamped and watching a presidential speech is not going to corrupt your kids like Mr. Dunham and Mr. Piper were saying.
I found no real political overtones in this speech and I did think it was motivating. I also think that by winning the Presidency, you do win the right of speaking to 1 school in your 4 year tenure, well maybe 2.
Here is a blog with comments from other readers on both sides of the spectrum and one more article to stimulate your thinking.
What do you think?
Philip
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Separation of Church and State
So the article that caught my eye was the one about the principal and the athletic director that are going to be on trial because of saying a prayer at a banquet. So the article peaked my interest because I have heard the comment before that "Separation of Church and State" is not even in the constitution and that the way we use it now was not the original intent. So before we dive into this, I noticed in the article above that they were turned in for improper proselytizing. I do feel that this is a strong word for asking a blessing on the food. But anyway, back on topic. The goal of this blog is to answer my 2 questions. Is the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution and was that the orinal intent?
Due to time, I am going to take on the latter on for this blog. Was the original intent of the phrase "separation of church and state" to keep Christianity out of the school? I use Christianity here because this is the only religion that I see getting into trouble. I have not heard a lot of controversy from any other religions in schools so please comment if you know of any! So, I first just searched for the phrase and I found that Thomas Jefferson was the first to use it.
He used it in response to a letter. It sounded legit that the phrase was meant as we see it today. However, he was responding to a letter so I thought it necessary to read the original letter.
First of all, I was amazed at the respect of the writers to their new elected president. I wish we still talked like that today! After reading the original letter, I got a different flavor. I now saw it from a new context. The national government seems to be trying to mess with the states. Which Jefferson puts his foot down on. Next, it sounds like religions are starting to get suppressed. Their liberties are starting to diminish. It is a plea to the president to do something about it. His response? There should be a "separation of church and state," not a separation of state and church! His solution is that government should not suppress religious practices and that men can worship as they see fit.
After reading the original letter, I loved the passion that is still in the air for freedom and they are not giving any of it away; it cost too much the first time! I do think that the original intent of the phrase was on the opposite side. Government needed to stay out of the church. So as far as original intent, it was different.
What do you think?
Philip
Due to time, I am going to take on the latter on for this blog. Was the original intent of the phrase "separation of church and state" to keep Christianity out of the school? I use Christianity here because this is the only religion that I see getting into trouble. I have not heard a lot of controversy from any other religions in schools so please comment if you know of any! So, I first just searched for the phrase and I found that Thomas Jefferson was the first to use it.
He used it in response to a letter. It sounded legit that the phrase was meant as we see it today. However, he was responding to a letter so I thought it necessary to read the original letter.
First of all, I was amazed at the respect of the writers to their new elected president. I wish we still talked like that today! After reading the original letter, I got a different flavor. I now saw it from a new context. The national government seems to be trying to mess with the states. Which Jefferson puts his foot down on. Next, it sounds like religions are starting to get suppressed. Their liberties are starting to diminish. It is a plea to the president to do something about it. His response? There should be a "separation of church and state," not a separation of state and church! His solution is that government should not suppress religious practices and that men can worship as they see fit.
After reading the original letter, I loved the passion that is still in the air for freedom and they are not giving any of it away; it cost too much the first time! I do think that the original intent of the phrase was on the opposite side. Government needed to stay out of the church. So as far as original intent, it was different.
What do you think?
Philip
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)