A Challenge to the System (experience - challenge match)
The_Carpathia
hired for the the poorest schools and rookie teachers being given the
toughest classes. I realize that this is how it has been for a LONG
time, and it isn't exclusive to public schools. However, SHOULD it be
that way?
Just think about it. You get the most inexperienced and untrained
individuals and give them the toughest assignments (many times without
any help). Then, you scream when those schools score poorly upon
exams with their students. Meanwhile, the more experienced and
trained teachers get easy assignments with little direct
responsibility. I realize that this doesn't describe ALL experienced
teachers. Many go into administration, become team leaders, etc.
However, why do we have the practice of giving the toughest classes to
those least trained to handle them? It seems backwards. Why don't
those experienced teachers just leave off into retirement, if they
cannot handle the challenges unto which their experience would lead
them. In the military, you cannot stay in a low rank for very many
years. After so many years, if you have not been promoted to a higher
level of responsibility, you are forced out. I'm not saying we should
be that strict, but we SHOULD be involving the more experienced
teachers (by requirement...if necessary) with the more difficult
situations.
Kenneth Clifton
--
www.2008jesus.com
Bob LeChevalier
>So, I was reading this article about rookie teachers being routinely
>hired for the the poorest schools and rookie teachers being given the
>toughest classes. I realize that this is how it has been for a LONG
>time, and it isn't exclusive to public schools. However, SHOULD it be
>that way?
We can wish otherwise, but actions proposed to change it all have
problems.
>Just think about it. You get the most inexperienced and untrained
>individuals and give them the toughest assignments (many times without
>any help). Then, you scream when those schools score poorly upon
>exams with their students.
If you had been paying attention, this has been said (much more
effectively) for years - generally by those you call "liberals".
>Meanwhile, the more experienced and
>trained teachers get easy assignments with little direct
>responsibility.
On the contrary, they have hard assignments and plenty of
responsibility, because the expectations in the rich schools are much
higher. But they also usually get paid more in rich suburbs, and they
don't face the poor working conditions.
>However, why do we have the practice of giving the toughest classes to
>those least trained to handle them?
Because the turnover is highest in the schools with the toughest
classes, so that is where the jobs are.
>It seems backwards. Why don't
>those experienced teachers just leave off into retirement, if they
>cannot handle the challenges unto which their experience would lead
>them.
Why should they, when they can make money doing what they do well.
>In the military, you cannot stay in a low rank for very many
>years. After so many years, if you have not been promoted to a higher
>level of responsibility, you are forced out.
Not relevant. That is because the military has extremely LOW turnover
after the initial reenlistment, and there are fewer opening in higher
ranks than in lower ranks. Only be enforcing turnover by "up or out"
can they continue to get and retain new people of quality who might be
qualified to move up.
I'm not saying we should
>be that strict, but we SHOULD be involving the more experienced
>teachers (by requirement...if necessary) with the more difficult
>situations.
How do you enforce this? Unlike the military, the schools don't WANT
to lose those experienced teachers - turnover is already too high.
Furthermore, there is no real hierarchy, unless you go into admin (and
many of the best teachers have neither the ability nor the interest to
be administrators), so there is no "up".
Of course if you actually READ about the topic, you'll find endless
numbers of more detailed explanations of the pros and cons of various
proposals. The Washington Post typically has one or two LONG articles
a year going into such topics in considerable depth. Look for Jay
Matthews as reporter and you'll probably find some good ones.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Donna Metler
The military is actually a good analogy. Like the military, or like
international mission work in third world countries, inner city teaching
tends to attract the young, the idealists, the world changers. It's a hard
job, a demanding job, but has great emotional rewards if you thrive on this
sort of thing. The problem, of course, is that just when a teacher gets
experienced, they leave, because the job can't change to meet their needs. I
couldn't now, as a mom, teach 25 general music classes, plus band, plus
choir, plus guitar, getting to school at 6:00 in the morning, leaving at
4:00-5:00 in the afternoon, spending at least 10 hours a week at home
preparing for classes on top of what I did at school, spending about $5000 a
year out of pocket on classroom expenses, and so on. Since I'm now a parent
myself, and I have a daughter who wants to see her friends, go to her music
and movement class, go to the park, a school that wants parents to volunteer
and be involved, and so on, I have to make choices.
And one of the choices I made, several years back, was to not go back to
inner city teaching after my maternity leave. Instead, when I was offered an
adjunct position at a local university, I took it, preferring the part-time
job and flexibility over money.
Many teachers move to suburban schools and to private schools for the same
reason. The salary isn't usually higher. Private schools usually run 10-15K
a year less than the public system, and while we have equity between city
and county districts here, the city district offers supplements for Title I
schools, high ESOL populations, and so on that the county doesn't offer, so
moving from an inner city school to a more wealthy city school or suburban
school is usually a salary cut. But, it's usually an effective hours cut, a
stress cut, and a commute cut.
-----
I'd also add that a big problem is principal churn. I once had the
opportunity to work at a school where the principal had been there the
entire time-the school had been converted from a vocational high school to
an elementary school when a large amount of high density public housing had
been built nearby. She had fairly low turnover, especially for an inner
city school, because the staff was largely there for her.
Then she retired due to health issues.
Over the next 2 years, principals often lasted less than 6 months, with a
lot of interim retired principals pulled in to substitute. It was chaos.
Many teachers retired, if they could. Others transferred.
Pretty much the only teachers left standing were the young, inexperienced,
who didn't have the seniority to transfer.
Then, the school got a new principal-a retired marine, second career. Great
guy, and the school started to turn around. He got a fairly stable staff
built, where most of the turnover was "had a baby", "husband's job got
transferred", as opposed to "Leaving for a better school in the district".
Then, the district pushed him into retirement. Hello, principal churn.
Last I heard, most of the experienced teachers have, again, left for greener
pastures, and a school which was on the way up and had made great gains has
plummeted yet again.
Leadership makes a major difference in an inner city school. A good
principal makes a hard assignment very doable, and makes a school a place
that teachers stay. A poor principal, and any teacher who has the required
years of seniority will flee that sinking ship for one which still holds
water. And they're not going to go to anywhere that doesn't have stable
leadership or that the principal has a reputation for being an incompetent.
A teacher who has been successful in the inner city can pretty much write
her own ticket within a district, at least as far as getting the best of the
inner city assignments. She doesn't have to stay if the leadership isn't
there.
My best principals in urban schools have tended to be older, experienced,
and often second career, with the first career being outside of education,
who always planned to move into administration (although they've spent the
required years in the classroom). The worst have been teachers who moved
into administration because they were struggling in the classroom, and hoped
it would be easier. But, if you can't handle a classroom of urban kids and
everything that comes with it, you can't handle a school of urban kids,
their parents, and you can't attract a group of teachers who are actually
able to handle the urban environment and students, so you're left with the
young, inexperienced, and the older, but incompetent.
Good administrators build good schools. If you want the best teachers in the
district in a school, put the best administrator there, give them a lot of
freedom and control, and you'll get the staff.