Teacher rips up first grader's math assignment

[Tanaqui]

Success Academy, of course, is a charter network that previously has been accused of having a list of students that "have to go", presumably to keep their test scores up.

 

Well, now there's a video of a teacher in one of their schools tearing up a first grader's work and berating her to "go to the calm down chair" (ironic, given that she's the only one in the room who isn't calm, all the students being bizarrely well-behaved and quiet for that age), which is re-opening discussion of whether discipline at Success Academy schools is simply too harsh. I mean, anybody can have a bad day (although usually our coworkers aren't surreptitiously filming us just in case we lose it, which does seem to imply that this teacher flies off the rails often), but the concern is that school culture might be encouraging this sort of reaction in teachers.

 

I don't know what goes on in those schools, but for my money, I just can't figure out who designed those uniforms. I see kids in those uniforms around the city sometimes, and all I can think of is that bright orange polo shirts just scream "school to prison pipeline". I mean, who wears that color orange? Prisoners, mostly. (Yes, I know their sartorial decisions are the least of their problems, but still.)

[Chris in VA]

First reaction?

 

OH HELL NO.

[Tanaqui]

Oh, and just found this: Apparently, there's a response video. I haven't watched it yet, it's 22 minutes long, so maybe it'll completely change my perspective. Who knows?

[HomeAgain]

When my oldest was in K, I sat in his class one day so I could understand why he was coming home with pulled cards every day and to understand the teacher's methods better.  At recess, I stayed in the room while the teacher went out, and across the hall in the other K classroom I heard screaming: "Just make a 1!  Just make a 1!  RIGHT THERE!

I peeked over to a teacher yelling at a little girl she kept in at recess.  She had lost it.  Nobody was surprised or much interested when I told them, including the girl's parents.  "She should have done what she was told."

I am heartily for password protected nanny cams in classrooms, or two-way mirrors where the class is clearly seen from a hallway or small room set between classrooms.

[OneStepAtATime]

Oh, and just found this: Apparently, there's a response video. I haven't watched it yet, it's 22 minutes long, so maybe it'll completely change my perspective. Who knows?

I watched quite a bit of it.  I wonder how many were responding because they were asked to by the school?  And several admit this is how they work with their kids at home, so their philosophies are, I guess, similar to the teacher's?

 

As a parent of a child that struggles in math, and as a child who struggled in math myself,  I am honestly saddened that these parents think punishing a child, especially one that young and in front of her classmates, for apparently getting confused and giving the wrong answer is a perfectly acceptable practice for a teacher.  Do teachers have bad days?  Yes.  But if this is the norm, she should not be teaching.  That child may be terrified of trying to do ANYTHING in class again.  

 

FWIW, I still have to fight a negative reaction to math after all these years because of a couple of bad teachers and because of my own father (who was a really great guy, by the way) and their negative reactions when I would seemingly know an answer one minute and get it wrong the next.  I hated Dad telling me in a very angry, frustrated voice that I should already know the answer.  We had already discussed it.  That's great dad but I can no longer recall the info.  Sorry.  It isn't there.  And yelling just makes it 20 times harder to remember.  I am not deliberately TRYING to be obtuse.  I really, really, really want to be done with math for the day.  I promise I am trying.  I just can't remember.   

 

That video just makes me sad.

Edited February 14, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that it shows a lack of understanding of how children actually learn. 

[Gil]

I won't sit here and pretend that I haven't erased/balled up/torn/discarded my kids work when they've been sloppy because I have. However its not reactionary when I do it. They already know the conditions on which I will discard their work and make them do it again. Plus I give warnings and reminders "You need to pay attention. If you keep giving me sloppy work and sloppy effort, then I'm going to discard all of it and make you start again until your output shows me you've put in respectable effort." Its been that way since K for both of them so that's where I'm coming from. I'm very much a tough love sort of parent but when I watched the video all I could think was geez lady, just chill out.

 

Its so freaky to watch that woman flip out and then growl at the child "Go sit in the calm down chair".  It seems like a clip from one of those lifetime suspense movies The Perfect Teacher, where the person in the title is a sociopath who flips out and tries to kill or kidnap someone by the end. The teachers body language and voice are just so aggressive and angry. Like she might have physically hurt the child if there weren't so many witnesses around.

 

I wish that there was more context to the video. No doubt the teacher sure comes across as a nut and pretty aggressive, I wonder was the kid doing anything before the video started to upset/aggravate her? Its human to have slips of anger--even for early elementary teachers--so I think that even more important is how did the teacher respond/treat the child afterwards? Did she go over and speak calmly to the child, explain why she'd gotten upset with her? Listen to the girl and if teacher realized that teacher had made a mistake, did she apologize to the girl and explain that she'd made a mistake to the class? Did she encourage her to do better? Did she and the group welcome the girl back into their midst after wards to dispel the stigma of having been "the bad one" at math time?

 

For me it wouldn't matter. I pulled my youngest from Kindergarten at PS because his K teacher was being mean to him. Based on that clip alone, I would want to pull my kid from her class, but I imagine that if I had a kid in her class I'd have an "in the know" perspective to how she deals with things like this. I might still want to pull my kid.There being a problem with the schools administration shouldn't be factored into whether or not the woman should be forced out of her career.

 

I'd like to know how that teacher genuinely feels about herself now that she's seen herself on camera? I'd like to know if the TA pulled out the phone because it was bizarre or because this is par for the course with this woman.....

 

[Gil]

Oh, and just found this: Apparently, there's a response video. I haven't watched it yet, it's 22 minutes long, so maybe it'll completely change my perspective. Who knows?

I've watched a part of it, but I'm not sure what to make of it. These parents (if they really are parents) seem to have a different perspective of Ms. Dial. That's fine. Like I said, I'm strict/mean to my kids when I need to be.

 

Based on their commentary Ms. Dial is invested in the kids of the community--coaches soccer, taught K-3 (sounds like) and the kids mostly love her. I guess that should count for something. I just can't take other adults being passive aggressive a-holes to my kids, it doesn't work for me.

 

Being popular is not the same thing as being a decent person.

 

[Tanaqui]

Re: the second video

 

I hate listening to people read aloud when I can see the text, so I mostly just kept skipping ahead and reading each clip. MUCH faster this way :)

 

Am I right in thinking there were only three or maybe four parents' voices in the video?

 

I watched quite a bit of it.  I wonder how many were responding because they were asked to by the school?

 

I think that video was put out by Success Academy, so already there's a bit of a credibility issue. You know they'll only include positive voices.

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tanaqui

[fourisenough]

Oh, that's horrid. That woman has no business teaching first graders. I'm sickened by watching her shame that child. We all lose our patience at times, but it should NEVER look like that.

 

I beat myself up if I even get to the point of flaring my nostrils and taking a deep breath. Protecting my child's dignity (especially while educating) is my number one goal.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My understanding from the article is that the filming was done precisely because the student teacher was horrified at what was happening every day.  So this wasn't a matter of there just happening to be a one time slip up from a teacher when the video tape happened to be running. 

[Alessandra]

There have been so many articles about the harsh conditions at SA schools. This fits in with all the things I have been hearing about. It's scary to go to the SA website and see the map of how the organization is spreading.

 

I saw several large groups of orange shirted kids at a big chess tournament recently. Every other kid was wandering, meandering, talking, sitting on the floor with a chessboard, whatever, before the games started. That is what happens at chess tournaments -- kids are well behaved, but individual. The SA kids were marching through the halls in a perfect line. Every kid behaved like all the others. Eerie the way normal kid behavior had been tamped down.

[Peaceful Isle]

I have been a teacher and I have taught in the classroom with little ones. I have never yelled at a student, and I've had some doozies. They are children. They need love, care, and attention. They are not all smart, or well behaved, but the teacher needs to be calm and loving.

[sewingmama]

I sent my kids to kindy when they were 4.  One time at morning drop off I was lingering and some of the kids were painting.  One teacher went beserk and yelled mean things at a kid because he mixed the watercolours together...not purposely mind you..4yos are not great at washing their brushes well when changing colours but it ended with the teacher banning the kid from painting ...I mean WTF.

 

Another time this same teacher had to changer a diaper for a 3yo special needs child who was allowed to enrol early for extra socialisation and support. The teacher went beserk again yelling at the child the whole time she was changing him and telling him he was dirty and too old for this and that he stunk and was disgusting,  The kid was autistic and she knew he had special needs.

 

I quizzed my kids pretty hard but they both denied having ever been yelled at and seemed happy to go ... otherwise I would have pulled them out. 

 

To OP... I saw that video earlier this week.  It seemed to me she was picking on the kid and had something against her because before she even made the mistake she was being harsh with her.  The girl probably made the mistake in the first place because she was terrified of the teacher.  I have a perfectionist child who cries at every mistake he makes on his own...he would be to petrified to do anything in this class if he had a teacher like that. I'm surprised the parents of the child were not more concerned...I would never allow my kid to be punished for an innocent mistake like that.  They would be unenrolled the second I found out about it.

[Alessandra]

Success Academy hires many, many Teach for America staff for both teacher and administrator positions. Many/most have minimal actual classroom experience. there are fairly tight controls on how classes are taught. A lot of teachers burn out quickly, so high turnover and few veteran teachers.

 

SA is pretty well known for its rules. Students have to sit straight, hands in a certain position, eyes on the teacher. There are rules for how they walk down the halls.

 

The NY Times has had multiple articles about Success. The Got to Go list at one school shows how students who are predicted to do badly on standardized tests, which begin in third grade, are eased out. Frequent calls to a parent asking them to pick up a child in the middle of the day are one example.

 

John Merrow on PBS has an enlightening interview with the SA founder.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

And, really? One parent even said the teacher loved her child unconditionally? Am I the only one who thinks that's a weird statement, and something weird to expect from teachers in general?

 

Yeah whatever.  That's BS.  I don't care if a teacher loves my kid.  They need to do their job in a professional manner.  Raising their voice out of frustration once in awhile I could get over.  Tearing up school work?  No way.  That is out of control.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It didn't seem like the kids were particularly upset either. That kid went to their calm down chair right away, didn't bat an eyelid. Other kids didn't either, so it very much seems like this was business as usual in that classroom. And perhaps that's why the kid got confused, because this kind of high-pressure environment will make you do that? 

 

Yeah if this is business as usual I could see just not "hearing" it anymore. 

 

I had a couple of teachers who did questionable things.  We are taught to respect teachers and not ask too many questions about how they do things.  So kids often do not know that a teacher is behaving inappropriately.  I didn't think to say anything about the fact one of my teachers screamed at some students and called them stupid.  Of course now looking back I know it was wrong, but then, nope.  And I wasn't that young.  This was 5th grade.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah, that happened to me. I have dyscalculia. There was frequent detention as well and one teacher did the old ruler thing. Being on the receiving end of those things, I definitely cared about that. I was really happy when I didn't have that teacher any more. 

 

That's terrible and so not helpful. 

[mathmarm]

I wonder what sort of communities these schools are cropping up in? If these schools are often located in areas of a lower socio-economic class then the parents and community may be a whole lot more willing to put with accepting the "tough love" of highly effective teachers because they think its for the best in the long run? Or at least a whole lot better than the "tough love" of less effective teachers in other schools?

 

According to one former SA teacher this is the school culture/philosophy.

[Tsuga]

I won't sit here and pretend that I haven't erased/balled up/torn/discarded my kids work when they've been sloppy because I have. However its not reactionary when I do it. They already know the conditions on which I will discard their work and make them do it again. Plus I give warnings and reminders "You need to pay attention. If you keep giving me sloppy work and sloppy effort, then I'm going to discard all of it and make you start again until your output shows me you've put in respectable effort." Its been that way since K for both of them so that's where I'm coming from. I'm very much a tough love sort of parent but when I watched the video all I could think was geez lady, just chill out.

 

I think you and I come from similar backgrounds and have very similar philosophies because we have seen the other side of the tracks. As my kids get older, I have found a couple of things work much better than tearing things up (generally I will help erase if it's school homework and there's only one copy and it can't get ripped and they have done work that I believe shows blatant disregard for the teacher who put work into the assignment):

 

1. I want you to look at this and tell me why it is your best work or nearly your best work.

2. If you were to present this to your teacher, do you think that she would say, "This is really quality work. You put a lot of effort into this."

3. Taking the assignment away (no tearing up / balling up) and put it up and say, "You are clearly not in a state of mind to complete this assignment. We will come back to this when you are ready to put your all into it--either in 1 hour or when you come to me, whichever comes last."

 

I think these express the same feelings but without being so destructive which in the long run I found my kids modeling in inappropriate situations. I don't recall balling things up but definitely just taking something and being like, "NO." And leaving it. But that was not helpful.

 

 

 

I wish that there was more context to the video. No doubt the teacher sure comes across as a nut and pretty aggressive, I wonder was the kid doing anything before the video started to upset/aggravate her? Its human to have slips of anger--even for early elementary teachers--so I think that even more important is how did the teacher respond/treat the child afterwards? Did she go over and speak calmly to the child, explain why she'd gotten upset with her? Listen to the girl and if teacher realized that teacher had made a mistake, did she apologize to the girl and explain that she'd made a mistake to the class? Did she encourage her to do better? Did she and the group welcome the girl back into their midst after wards to dispel the stigma of having been "the bad one" at math time?

 

Did she apologize for losing her temper? This is the reason I couldn't teach: too much of a temper.

 

 

 

That video made me feel sick. 

 

If you can't control your anger around first graders, maybe don't teach first grade.

 

It doesn't surprise me. Although there are many wonderful teachers out there, there are always some who, strangely, seem to not like or understand small children.

 

I know it seems odd that people don't understand or like small children. But I get it. They are the ones who have dealt mainly with compliant, agreeable, cheerful children mostly. Maybe their own child or children fit this mold. And they think to themselves, "The children are like this because of my parenting style. Because I'm authoritative." And the inverse to that is, "If a child is hyper, combative, oppositional" (read: active, creative, inquisitive) that is because their parents didn't do their job. So I need to make up for that. I need to fix that." 

 

And what they realize slowly is that so many kids just obviously have nutty parents who didn't teach them not to talk back, not to be creative, etc. etc.

 

And they get upset because they feel that, because these kids don't meet their standard of "normal", they don't like those kids. Certain posters on WTM come to mind, actually. "I just did X, and my kids turned out normal, maybe your kids are not compliant and agreeable because you screwed them up." Seriously, if you have an intense kid it feels like that.

 

So I can totally see a teacher thinking she just loves children. If only there weren't these poorly raised children who keep drawing outlines of numbers instead of numbers.

 

I wonder what sort of communities these schools are cropping up in? If these schools are often located in areas of a lower socio-economic class then the parents and community may be a whole lot more willing to put with accepting the "tough love" of highly effective teachers because they think its for the best in the long run? Or at least a whole lot better than the "tough love" of less effective teachers in other schools?

 

According to one former SA teacher this is the school culture/philosophy.

 

 

Yep, that is a big part of it. The community is at high risk for disorder because when you are disordered you end up poor (though, not necessarily vice-versa) so they instill extreme measures to keep the external disorder out of the classrooms. But it is hard, and stressful. And there is a lot of blame for poor outcomes, so the ground is ripe for selling something that "works", you know? But because the real reason for falling outcomes has so much to do with the environment and not the fact that people aren't trying, they end up making up for all kinds of things and using selectivity (so it's not really a public school) to "prove" their model.

 

Well couldn't we all do that if we could cherry pick students!!! The point is how do we make it work for everyone, IEPs, 504s, the non-English speakers, the kids who are going through separation issues because of a parent deployed, in prison. That's the whole project, that's what makes it so hard, that's why I hate hate hate these charters: because they are lying about the goal, the method, and the success, all of it.

 

If you have to exclude a single child, then your entire model is a failure of public education. Now, that is fine for private education, your money, do what you want with it. But my tax money going to exclude a child with dyslexia, a dad in prison, anxiety? No, that makes me really angry. REALLY angry.

[Alessandra]

I wonder what sort of communities these schools are cropping up in? If these schools are often located in areas of a lower socio-economic class then the parents and community may be a whole lot more willing to put with accepting the "tough love" of highly effective teachers because they think its for the best in the long run? Or at least a whole lot better than the "tough love" of less effective teachers in other schools?

 

According to one former SA teacher this is the school culture/philosophy.

It depends. Many "no excuses" charters are in lower socio-economic communities. It is often said that the hedge fund billionaires who help fund them would never send their own kids to such a place, lol.

 

Other towns have charters that serve more advantaged students than the general population. Examples are in Hoboken and Red Bank, NJ.

 

But what most charters have in common is that they underserve special needs, English Language Learners, and the poorest (free lunch as opposed to reduced lunch).

 

Success has a reputation for weeding out kids who are not expected to perform well on standardized tests, thus leading to high scores for the school. And they do not backfill (take new students in older grades).

Edited February 14, 2016 by Alessandra

[eternalsummer]

 

 

Well couldn't we all do that if we could cherry pick students!!! The point is how do we make it work for everyone, IEPs, 504s, the non-English speakers, the kids who are going through separation issues because of a parent deployed, in prison. That's the whole project, that's what makes it so hard, that's why I hate hate hate these charters: because they are lying about the goal, the method, and the success, all of it.

 

If you have to exclude a single child, then your entire model is a failure of public education. Now, that is fine for private education, your money, do what you want with it. But my tax money going to exclude a child with dyslexia, a dad in prison, anxiety? No, that makes me really angry. REALLY angry.

 

I've just realized that this is a mirror of what happened with my DS7 and the Waldof Methods public charter here; I am not surprised as the school is run by the board, which is basically founding parents (the director is also a parent), and many of the review comments during the annual review (they're made public, but anonymous) sound something like "please get rid of the kids who don't sit quietly and do their art."

 

I don't know if I mind my tax dollars funding a system like that, as long as they also fund special programs for kids with whatever problems keep them from fitting in at the various charter schools.  I do wish, however, that they were more upfront about it, so we hadn't wasted 6 months trying to make a situation work that was kind of doomed from the beginning.

[SKL]

What can I say ... I hate it, but I don't think it's terribly unusual.  I've had family members experience this and nothing was done about it.  Once when I was a volunteer library aide, a second grade teacher came in and screeeeeamed at the 2nd grade boy whom I was trying to help (he was apparently taking too long to find a book).  It made me jump and I was horrified.  The librarian said nothing.  I told a friend of mine who was another teacher there, and her comment was "well, she's going through a difficult divorce."  When I did student teaching in a low-income school, I saw a little boy shoved hard against a brick wall by his teacher - in front of another teacher and 2 classes full of kids - because it took him too long to tie his shoes.  Other than me, nobody was fazed.  Lord knows what happens when nobody's there to witness.

 

I can understand that we want our kids to be tough enough to deal with real life.  But in what real world does a work supervisor come up and physically slam people or scream bloody murder over stupid stuff?  Yikes.  Even in my crummiest job, nobody ever ripped up my work, or really disrespected me severely.  In bad relationships, yes, but I hope that's not the model they are striving for....

[SeaConquest]

What can I say ... I hate it, but I don't think it's terribly unusual. I've had family members experience this and nothing was done about it. Once when I was a volunteer library aide, a second grade teacher came in and screeeeeamed at the 2nd grade boy whom I was trying to help (he was apparently taking too long to find a book). It made me jump and I was horrified. The librarian said nothing. I told a friend of mine who was another teacher there, and her comment was "well, she's going through a difficult divorce." When I did student teaching in a low-income school, I saw a little boy shoved hard against a brick wall by his teacher - in front of another teacher and 2 classes full of kids - because it took him too long to tie his shoes. Other than me, nobody was fazed. Lord knows what happens when nobody's there to witness.

 

I can understand that we want our kids to be tough enough to deal with real life. But in what real world does a work supervisor come up and physically slam people or scream bloody murder over stupid stuff? Yikes. Even in my crummiest job, nobody ever ripped up my work, or really disrespected me severely. In bad relationships, yes, but I hope that's not the model they are striving for....

I absolutely worked for psychotic partners who screamed and went ape sh*t over stuff. Perhaps, it's because I come from a family of intense screamers that I became mostly immune to it.

[Gil]

I can understand that we want our kids to be tough enough to deal with real life.  But in what real world does a work supervisor come up and physically slam people or scream bloody murder over stupid stuff?  Yikes.  Even in my crummiest job, nobody ever ripped up my work, or really disrespected me severely.  In bad relationships, yes, but I hope that's not the model they are striving for....

This is far more common than you might think. I've had more than one coworker or manager at more than one job act nastily or directly treat me like sh!t on the job. I have a boss right now who's a total b---h, but the job pays fairly well and so I'm not going anywhere, any time soon unless they fire me.

 

The truth of the matter is: Those types of teachers exist in most schools--the question becomes: "Is this teacher effective?" When the answer is yes, many parents are willing to bet that the end will justify the means. Because many of the teachers in B&M schools you'll find are just as or much more abusive as Ms. Dial comes accross as being in that vidoe, and guess what? They are highly ineffective. I was lucky because I had the very viable option of taking my kid out of PS when he had a mean teacher. We didn't need her. The only thing worse than a mean but effective teacher, is a passive, ineffective one who will quietly let your child pass year after year so that their shortcomings in grades K-2 become failings in grades 3-5 and leaves them crippled in grades 6-10, when most students drop begin to drop out.

 

I was able to withdraw the boys from PS because I never felt that my sons education was dependent upon her, or her school, or the  administration of the PS. Many hundreds of parents need the school and so they put up with whatever teacher that their child winds up with. Many parents have dealt with the exact same thing or even worse when they were students--I was mistreated by a few teachers during the years that I was in PS. One of my best friends was slapped in the face and shoved off the desk (he was sitting on his desk instead of in the seat.) Being yelled at was par for the course. I had a grade school teacher who tore up and threw out sloppy work--announcing everything that was wrong with it to the whole class, rating it in a way that most posters here would feel was abusive. It probably was, but we took it in stride. Parents and the whole school knew about her tactics and didn't care.

[Gil]

Well couldn't we all do that if we could cherry pick students!!! The point is how do we make it work for everyone, IEPs, 504s, the non-English speakers, the kids who are going through separation issues because of a parent deployed, in prison. That's the whole project, that's what makes it so hard, that's why I hate hate hate these charters: because they are lying about the goal, the method, and the success, all of it.

 

If you have to exclude a single child, then your entire model is a failure of public education. Now, that is fine for private education, your money, do what you want with it. But my tax money going to exclude a child with dyslexia, a dad in prison, anxiety? No, that makes me really angry. REALLY angry.

I'm not well informed about these schools or any charter to begin with, but I'm not sure that I feel angry at the idea of them cherry picking students they feel best fit their "model"  (I'm not sure how they manage that as I thought charters admitted through lotteries?). I'm genuinely curious: are charters supposed to be a model for public education? I don't know anything about how charter schools are operated apparently.

 

Now, I don't agree with the idea of kicking out kids when you realize that they have special needs, but is this practice wide spread in Charter schools in general or is this SA being shady?

 

Without knowing more about this phenomenon I can't say that I begrudge a school coming into a community and finding a way to help a large part of its population. Its not like PSs largely do a good job spending tax dollars either and I know that no school can be all things to all people, and I'm aware of a lot of bureaucratic corruption in public and private schools also. I'd have to do a lot more research to have an informed opinion, but my gut reaction is one of indifference.

 

Now I want to educate myself on charter schools. Where should I start?

 

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Gil

[Alessandra]

Here is a long article about SA, with lots of links. (Links that I clicked on may no longer be in blue, just paler).

 

http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-growing-storm-around-success-academy.html?m=1

[Tsuga]

 

I'm not well informed about these schools or any charter to begin with, but I'm not sure that I feel angry at the idea of them cherry picking students they feel best fit their "model"  (I'm not sure how they manage that as I thought charters admitted through lotteries?). I'm genuinely curious: are charters supposed to be a model for public education? I don't know anything about how charter schools are operated apparently.

 

Now, I don't agree with the idea of kicking out kids when you realize that they have special needs, but is this practice wide spread in Charter schools in general or is this SA being shady?

 

Without knowing more about this phenomenon I can't say that I begrudge a school coming into a community and finding a way to help a large part of its population. Its not like PSs largely do a good job spending tax dollars either and I know that no school can be all things to all people, and I'm aware of a lot of bureaucratic corruption in public and private schools also. I'd have to do a lot more research to have an informed opinion, but my gut reaction is one of indifference.

 

Now I want to educate myself on charter schools. Where should I start?

 

Well, I fully admit that I learned what I did in the University of Google. The Atlantic, the New York Times have headed investigations.

 

My understanding is that screaming, yelling etc. is not widespread; at least, that's not what I've heard most about. What I've heard about repeatedly in many charters and public magnet schools is screening, and self-selection based on failure to advertise and provide basic special education services, which are hard enough to get in some "regular" schools. So the highest ranking schools nationally are almost exclusively in states which have charters; they are almost exclusively magnet, charters, or test-based, i.e. they exclude people. 

 

On the one hand, I don't mind that there are programs which serve the most talented students. That's not a problem. But it should be explicit and I don't think that those schools should be ranked, using test scores, against "regular" schools. It makes it impossible to appear competitive without making it extremely difficult for special needs students and neighborhood students to attend.

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2012/10/18/how-exam-schools-fared-in-the-best-high-schools-rankings

 

Charter schools aren't supposed to use exams and I don't think they do. What they do is make it difficult for children who are falling behind to get services they need by pushing them to seek services elsewhere.

 

I support education for the highly motivated, talented, and so on, but these school should not be considered in the rankings of public schools and they should not replace excellent neighborhood schools.

[Gil]

 

 

On the one hand, I don't mind that there are programs which serve the most talented students. That's not a problem.

 

I support education for the highly motivated, talented, and so on, but these school should not be considered in the rankings of public schools and they should not replace excellent neighborhood schools.

Disclaimed, I have not read the articles linked but I just need to asks: Are you talking about charters in general taking (and retaining) typically developing NT kids and pushing them to excel or are we talking about them purposefully "collecting" kids that would fit the label of "gifted" or "advanced"?

 

I thought it was the practice of charters pushing and supporting average, NT kids to excel beyond baseline expectations, while trimming the lower performing students who'd need support outside of the schools interest/capabilities to excel?

 

There is a difference. Most NT kids are capable of mastering and exceeding base-line goals set by state or national curricula. The average non-gifted X graders could meet the skill benchmarks set for X+1 or X+2 graders if they were taught, trained and pushed to that end.

 

If the End-of-Year goal for all first graders was to read fluenty at a rate of 90 wpm, with teachers, parents and staff working to that end using only the "most effective" materials and methods, then a LOT more kids would be hitting that bench mark (I think).

 

For example, in my state, basic reading fluency wasn't expected/required until the end of 3rd grade, so all through K-2 its "still okay" and "no cause for intervention" if the kids are routinely underperforming their grades EOY goals because "we have time to get them up to speed later" (which is often code for "we're indifferent to their success so we'll keep pushing them through with sight words and phonics-avoidance tactics that make it seem like the kids are doing okay when really their problems are compounding. Due to beauracracy and policies beyond their control, most of our teachers are procrastinating or unable to address the root of the problem because they are required to use Latest Product whether it works or not.). I used that as an example because I'm pretty convinced that explicit, systematic phonics instruction delivered effectively and consistently practiced would get the vast majority of NT kids reading fully by the end of 1st or middle of 2nd grade. If only so many districts didn't have an "obligation" to use balanced literacy or whole word methods as their default method of reading instruction.

[...................]

A good friend of mine recently got hired at a charter in North Carolina. They are a group or brand of charters, not just this one.

 

She tells me that all the moms called it the "gifted" charter. I asked her how that is possible since kids are chosen by lottery? She explained that everyone knows how they push the kids to excel, that their goal is to be several grade levels ahead in certain subjects and that the kids who can't keep up just end up dropping out because they burn out- usually around 2nd or 3rd grade. The higher the grade the smaller the classes and the more kids leave.

 

Another strange thing was that this school uses a type of learning where the ENTIRe curriculum is memorized and scripted and the teachers are not allowed to stray from it. The students are taught to repeat the teacher as a group to basically parrot everything. Supposedly their test scores are high.

 

The whole thing sounds very Orwellian to me.

 

 

(Of course we parroted our times tables in catholic school and maybe some grammar songs.)

[Tsuga]

Disclaimed, I have not read the articles linked but I just need to asks: Are you talking about charters in general taking (and retaining) typically developing NT kids and pushing them to excel or are we talking about them purposefully "collecting" kids that would fit the label of "gifted" or "advanced"?

 

I thought it was the practice of charters pushing and supporting average, NT kids to excel beyond baseline expectations, while trimming the lower performing students who'd need support outside of the schools interest/capabilities to excel?

 

There is a difference. Most NT kids are capable of mastering and exceeding base-line goals set by state or national curricula. The average non-gifted X graders could meet the skill benchmarks set for X+1 or X+2 graders if they were taught, trained and pushed to that end.

 

If the End-of-Year goal for all first graders was to read fluenty at a rate of 90 wpm, with teachers, parents and staff working to that end using only the "most effective" materials and methods, then a LOT more kids would be hitting that bench mark (I think).

 

For example, in my state, basic reading fluency wasn't expected/required until the end of 3rd grade, so all through K-2 its "still okay" and "no cause for intervention" if the kids are routinely underperforming their grades EOY goals because "we have time to get them up to speed later" (which is often code for "we're indifferent to their success so we'll keep pushing them through with sight words and phonics-avoidance tactics that make it seem like the kids are doing okay when really their problems are compounding. Due to beauracracy and policies beyond their control, most of our teachers are procrastinating or unable to address the root of the problem because they are required to use Latest Product whether it works or not.). I used that as an example because I'm pretty convinced that explicit, systematic phonics instruction delivered effectively and consistently practiced would get the vast majority of NT kids reading fully by the end of 1st or middle of 2nd grade. If only so many districts didn't have an "obligation" to use balanced literacy or whole word methods as their default method of reading instruction.

 

I am talking about a group of school types:

 

1. Schools with testing admissions, i.e. separate schools that are 100% test-based admission, like Stuyvesant in New York City. This is the most famous example. I don't mind that they have a gifted academy. I mind that it's counted as a school in the rankings when they are not a general admissions school.

 

2. Schools with lottery admissions which discourage non-G&T kids from applying, being counted in the rankings, like Seattle's Raisbek Aviation Academy. Would I love my kid to go there? Yes. Do I think it's a great school? Yes. Do I think that it should be counted as anything other than a public school for accelerated kids? No, I do not. It should not be given extra funding. It should not be "rewarded" for excluding lower-performing children.

 

3. Schools with lottery admissions which overtly claim to be fully public, like charters, but which in reality create problems for special needs kids or kids with temporary issues, so that those kids leave the school, problems like bureaucratic issues, suspensions for minor issues, and excessive punishments, i.e. bureaucratic bullying.

 

So I would say I think some schools are really G&T schools and should not be counted in the standard deviations when considering state standards and which schools are "underperforming" nor should they be rewarded for finding highly exceptional children and catering to them--any more than special ed schools would be, when compared to peer-schools. They should exist but not be rewarded for existing.

 

But others, like those in group three, are discriminatory and those need to stop, as they pull funds away from neighborhood schools in the name of "excellence" but excluding the disabled is not "excellence" it is cruelty and anti-democratic, anti-social behavior.

[Gil]

A good friend of mine recently got hired at a charter in North Carolina. They are a group or brand of charters, not just this one.

 

She tells me that all the moms called it the "gifted" charter. I asked her how that is possible since kids are chosen by lottery? She explained that everyone knows how they push the kids to excel, that their goal is to be several grade levels ahead in certain subjects and that the kids who can't keep up just end up dropping out because they burn out- usually around 2nd or 3rd grade. The higher the grade the smaller the classes and the more kids leave.

Knowing how abysmal many PS schools can be in preparing students to actually do anything academic and how damaging this can be for students in all tax-brackets I'm a big supporter of holding ALL the kids to higher standards and pushing them to excel academically. The weird thing is most PS "gifted programs" are not for intellectually gifted kids at all, they are just for the advanced/higher performers. Sort of how so many immigrant children tend to perform exceedingly well in academic settings in the US--its not that they as a whole are "smarter" than American kids, but the behind the scenes work ethic, tenacious practice and utter mastery of fundamental skills allows them to excel much, much faster. These Charter schools seem to be doing something similar.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about just letting kids drop out if they can't keep up if these schools aren't making an honest effort to support them in grades K-2 to help them keep up in grades 3+. It would be fair if all the kids admitted were offered reasonable support to help them keep up with the schools expectations. However I'm still not sure that I can fault a school for choosing to allow families to leave/opt out of that pace, rather than lowering the standard for the whole to avoid having to "teach to the lowest common denominator". So long as the charter schools aren't adjusting the established curriculum so that they can 'force out' students, why is this viewed as a problem? Many times on this board I have seen where postets complained or smugly noted that in PS teachers have to teach to the lowest common denominator and keep the kids at a pace slow enough for everyone to keep up.

 

Another strange thing was that this school uses a type of learning where the ENTIRe curriculum is memorized and scripted and the teachers are not allowed to stray from it. The students are taught to repeat the teacher as a group to basically parrot everything. Supposedly their test scores are high.

I'm a big fan of direct and explicit instruction. And I'm very big on the memorization of facts, even before I found this board. Isn't that a good part of what an elementary level classical education is? Valuing the possession of knowledge? Getting kids to memorize and discuss facts and things that are true about their world? Giving the kids worthwhile things to know, think about and discuss? Teaching them things that will be "brought to life" as they move through life?

 

Vaguely knowing that there are "a lot of ways to classify animals" is not the same thing as having strong familiarity with the major classes of animals from reciting them every day during a unit study or actually having memorized, discussed and understood how animals are classified. If you've memorized the classes of animals, then when you read about an animal being in X class or genus then it makes sense and kids can make connections to what they know.

 

Hearing 3rd-hand that the "ENTIRE curriculum is memorized (by students)" and that teachers are required to follow the script (teach what the school says they teach, in a method that is proven to be really effective for instructing both large groups and small groups, doesn't bother me in the least. Why is it wrong for schools to adapt what sounds like the same insanely successful model practiced by many of the homeschooling families on this very board?

 

Without hearing from an insider or witnessing for myself that this is carried out in some insanely draconian fashion, why should anyone care that kids are expected to memorize and know facts about the world that they live in, the language that they speak and history of their species and race?

The whole thing sounds very Orwellian to me.

Why?

(Of course we parroted our times tables in catholic school and maybe some grammar songs.)

 

 

[Tsuga]

I think there are a lot of good things about the charter models.

 

What I do not agree with is that they will have the insanely "successful" results if they are asked to use their publicly funded monies to reach 100% of students in a given catchment area.

 

I actually like uniforms, wouldn't mind more memorization (our kids in this suburb drill math facts quite a bit), and so on. That's not the issue (ETA: for me, anyway, that's not the issue).

 

The issue is that when funding is tied to performance, you don't improve your "performance" on tests by refusing to serve people who don't do well on tests, whether that is implicit or explicit--particularly not when we are dealing with entrenched poverty and a heritage of institutional racism.

 

You invest like hell in those kids with the best methods for 100% of them and the costly accommodations and special work for the special needs kids until you have equal education for all, not a system in which kids like ours, in a wealthy suburb, can ALL get a good education with dual-immersion and hands-on academic learning from grade 6 on for kids that aren't fitting in, and then in the poor suburbs, one "good" school for the top performers and everyone else can go to a school that functions as part of the primary-to-prison pipeline.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tsuga

[Gil]

I think there are a lot of good things about the charter models.

 

What I do not agree with is that they will have the insanely "successful" results if they are asked to use their publicly funded monies to reach 100% of students in a given catchment area.

 

I actually like uniforms, wouldn't mind more memorization (our kids in this suburb drill math facts quite a bit), and so on. That's not the issue (ETA: for me, anyway, that's not the issue).

 

The issue is that when funding is tied to performance, you don't improve your "performance" on tests by refusing to serve people who don't do well on tests, whether that is implicit or explicit--particularly not when we are dealing with entrenched poverty and a heritage of institutional racism.

Aaaaaahhhh! Now I get it! Doy Gil!

 

You invest like hell in those kids with the best methods for 100% of them and the costly accommodations and special work for the special needs kids until you have equal education for all, not a system in which kids like ours, in a wealthy suburb, can ALL get a good education with dual-immersion and hands-on academic learning from grade 6 on for kids that aren't fitting in, and then in the poor suburbs, one "good" school for the top performers and everyone else can go to a school that functions as part of the primary-to-prison pipeline.

I agree with you there. It would be interesting to see what it would take to make that a feasible reality for many charters. I'm not informed about any requirements about the funding that they receive. Now I want to investigate charters in my region and see what the community could do to change the way that "excellence" charters support kids who are struggling with the academic expectations. Lots to chew on mentally.

 

[Tsuga]

It's not feasible because investing in society is not profitable and charters operate on the principle that education can be profitable.

 

Elite education is profitable.

 

Public education--making sure that everyone has a chance--is not profitable. There is no profit in serving the poor, because they're poor. The definition of this class is "cannot give anyone monetary profit". 

 

It might be sustainable in a decent society but it's not profitable.

 

The idea that anyone could somehow make a profit off of serving them shows a gross misunderstanding of either capitalism, or social services, or poverty, or money, or disability, or just plain humanity. I don't know. How anyone could promise this is beyond me. There are some things that just cost a ton of money, and serving the poor and disadvantaged unsurprisingly are among them.

 

If we want EVERY child in this country to have the same opportunities at least to be middle or upper-middle class through hard work, they need access to a curriculum that fosters their talents beyond the early tough stages for many kids with ADHD, ASD, or any number of issues that rich kids get helped through (and rightly so).

 

Right now that's not happening. What is happening are kids left behind in crappy public schools; homeschooling; private schools; or being persecuted in success factories.

 

The communities for their part are often in a very difficult situation. This is their ONE CHANGE for their average or above-average child to get an excellent education. They can't do private. They can't homeschool. They NEED this to work. I don't blame them. They can't advocate for these schools to fail because they need selective schools that are accessible to them.

 

People have turned this over and over in their heads:

 

How can we get a society which values money over people to serve people when they are losing money?

 

I dunno, you tell me.

[...................]

To me choral group recitation in every subject all day is weird, as is the fact that teachers are 100% scripted (not the plans- then actual specific words that must come out of their mouths)

 

But then that's why I homeschool - I don't think group think is healthy, and have always taught my kids through conversations and explorations of ideas :)

 

I guess it's better than a failing public school if those are the choices ....you have good points and these things aren't as cut and dry as we all would wish,

 

But I'm glad for homeschooling. :) and if i were to choose a school for my kids it definitely wouldn't be using the DI model. I would want teachers that have their own thoughts and moments of inspiration even if that includes less than stellar days. I would not want my kids taught to the test or acheiving for achievement's sake. :)

 

But I know that those type of schools are hard to find and education is just like anything else - there are a hundred viable ways to go about it.

[Tsuga]

I think there is a balance. The charter model described herein is extreme. We are both lucky and intentional in the fact that our kids have access to a diverse, child-centered public education. 

[Gil]

To me choral group recitation in every subject all day is weird, as is the fact that teachers are 100% scripted (not the plans- then actual specific words that must come out of their mouths)

I don't know about the teachers being 100% scripted part--never heard of it, but if that's true that's extreme and sounds like the extreme minority.

 

As for "choral recitation in every subject all day" sounds like it could be a method called "whole brain teaching" (You can see examples of WBT for K-12 on YouTube).

 

It seems sound, but I'm not an educational researcher.

 

 

[Tsuga]

100% scripting of teachers is not an extreme minority.

 

Not having to pay trained teachers but instead delivering standardized curriculum is an integral part of the low-cost, high-output model. Remove the teacher and you remove a big part of the costs. The salaries are just a part of it. Then you have pensions, health insurance, disability insurance. People are expensive. They demand the right to work for a living wage, they expect to be paid enough to be able to live within 45 minutes of their work.

 

When you make it so that you can hire more replaceable and less qualified people, you automatically save money.

 

That's not just a part of one model. That's a worldwide low-cost education model to serve the poor. For professional reasons I won't go into it more. But it's The Next Big Thing.

 

A lot of big donors in education and global humanitarianism want to do this. Too expensive to fund teacher's colleges. And then do you know what those darn teachers do when they get paid 30% of a private sector salary for the same level of skill? They leave.

 

Seriously. I work in third world education. Money and turnover is huge, huge, huge problem and standardization and getting teachers out of the equation is a big deal.

 

Now you might ask, "Why not pay civil servants like teachers a living wage to retain the best? Why not respect and honor them?"

 

And I don't know. I just don't know. I don't know why they are "government waste". I don't know. But that's how it is.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Tsuga

[Gil]

100% scripting of teachers is not an extreme minority.

...

 

When you make it so that you can hire more replaceable and less qualified people, you automatically save money.

I had not heard of/noticed that.

 

I knew of there being scripted curriculum for teachers to use, and that it helps when you have someone thats a poor or inexperienced teacher, but I didn't realize that word-for-word delivery of the script was widely expected/demanded by some school administrations. Makes sense though, now that I think about it. Especially given the justification you mention.

 

Huh, how weird. O_o

[Bluegoat]

I think there are a lot of good things about the charter models.

 

What I do not agree with is that they will have the insanely "successful" results if they are asked to use their publicly funded monies to reach 100% of students in a given catchment area.

 

I actually like uniforms, wouldn't mind more memorization (our kids in this suburb drill math facts quite a bit), and so on. That's not the issue (ETA: for me, anyway, that's not the issue).

 

The issue is that when funding is tied to performance, you don't improve your "performance" on tests by refusing to serve people who don't do well on tests, whether that is implicit or explicit--particularly not when we are dealing with entrenched poverty and a heritage of institutional racism.

 

You invest like hell in those kids with the best methods for 100% of them and the costly accommodations and special work for the special needs kids until you have equal education for all, not a system in which kids like ours, in a wealthy suburb, can ALL get a good education with dual-immersion and hands-on academic learning from grade 6 on for kids that aren't fitting in, and then in the poor suburbs, one "good" school for the top performers and everyone else can go to a school that functions as part of the primary-to-prison pipeline.

 

Really, the whole idea that funding would be tied to scores and such is completely bizarre and will inevitably end up with bad results.

 

I think a lot of the issue with dealing with various kinds of special needs is that in fact - almost no one is funded enough to make this work in the classroom.  Not the regular schools, not the charters.   Honestly I can't blame parents whose kids are simply not learning much because of chaotic classrooms from opting out to the degree that they can.  It doesn't seem a lot worse that where before there was one dysfunctional class, now there is one functional and one dysfunctional.

 

It isn't really the way to do things IMO, but I don't know what other options people are being given.

[...................]

It is totally weird. (as in, not in the current light but in the lens of the past 7,000 years of human existence.)  

 

Just because something "works" to "produce" [high test scores] doesn't mean it's healthy.  Hours and hours per day of group choral recitations and 100% scripted lesson plans is  definitely Orwellian.  

[SanDiegoMom]

Some of our greatest learning leaps happen with discussions that have veered widely from the topic at hand. Following a script seems like a pretty bad fit for any but a very linear thinker.

 

I'm so glad we can homeschool.

[Alessandra]

The video has gone viral, internationally. It is in Senegal and India so far.

 

http://dianeravitch.net/2016/02/16/a-roundup-of-commentary-on-the-eva-video-it-has-gone-viral/

[Sahamamama]

I haven't read all the replies to the OP, just watched the video. My first thought was how uniformly seated and still all the children were -- legs crossed, hands clasped -- in a classroom of six and seven year olds! It was surreal. I realize that's the "carpet policy" of the SA schools, but... wow.

 

The teacher sounded hostile, sharp, and critical. The other children seemed to think her treatment of the targeted student was "normal." At least, they went on with business-as-usual, and the student herself just went to the "calm down chair." The irony in that is enormous.

 

What a horrible, horrible environment for these children, day in and day out. I would hate for that to be my child's life. However, without knowing what the alternatives would be for those students, it's hard to say that SA is the worst option for them.

 

I'm a strict teacher, in a sense. I don't allow my children to fidget, interrupt, goof off, slouch, roll their eyes, drift off, hum, sniffle, pass gas in the classroom (we have to work in there!), burp, chew gum, tap their pencil (drives me nuts), or a myriad of other distracting behaviors. Children can learn not to be annoying. They can learn not to interrupt, they can learn to stay on task and maintain focus. But I don't think it has to be handled roughly.

 

So, yes, my three girls have to focus, but not at that level and not for six or seven hours a day! And they don't march in straight lines from room to room, either. They bop all over this house, and have pleasant days for the most part. And no uniforms, though that's the least repressive aspect of SA, it seems.

 

I guess my thought as a mom is, "What kind of life is that for a six year old?" Because if a little child is forced into that level of restriction and repression at such an early age, for such a long day, and every day (including some Saturdays), then that becomes the majority of that young child's life.

 

I think a young child should have a lot more freedom than that -- freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of thought -- and time to play, rest, and snuggle. Where's the warmth in SA? I just wanted to scoop up those little kids and hug them, honestly.

 

It's painful to think of a six year old in that kind of classroom every day. Awful.

[Tsuga]

I had not heard of/noticed that.

 

I knew of there being scripted curriculum for teachers to use, and that it helps when you have someone thats a poor or inexperienced teacher, but I didn't realize that word-for-word delivery of the script was widely expected/demanded by some school administrations. Makes sense though, now that I think about it. Especially given the justification you mention.

 

Huh, how weird. O_o

Look up "school in a box". It's an acclaimed, successful model. Serves the rising working and middle classes who want private schools. Results susceptible to accusations of selection bias.

 

However deman is high and families are thrilled and donors like what they see. Where I work we don't fund it due to fees excluding our target groups. We see a lot of groups like this.