Spin off - 'fixing' public education

[bookbard]

This is a 'spin off' thread from the one talking about homeschool regulations etc.

So what could happen to 'fix' the 'broken' public school system?

I can't speak to the US system. Looking at the Australian one, there's a few good things - a national curriculum (which lists outcomes for each grade across each key learning area). Phonics is prioritised in learning to read, and is linked to federal funding. There are cross-curriculum priority themes about Aboriginal Australia, Australia's link to Asia, and Sustainability. All good things.

They have to fix the fact that every state has a different starting age - anywhere between 4.5 and 6. 

They have to try to teach trainee teachers HOW to teach phonics and reading properly. They certainly don't seem to 'get it' at our local school. There's lip service to teaching sounds, but no real understanding. The spelling program is just atrocious. 

I think there's the same issues in maths. They go a lot slower than the USA, but end up catching up somewhere along the line. I feel like they have got some basic stuff right (big emphasis on 'friends of ten', place value), but I feel like other stuff isn't taught explicitly, and there's such a huge enormous emphasis on probability, right from K, that I don't quite understand. They do probability one day out of five - why??

The other major issue is the lack of specialised teachers for exceptional kids - either gifted or with learning difficulties. They used to pay qualified staff to support these kids, now a lot of these positions have disappeared. Same with teacher librarians, they're being fired and replaced with unqualified teacher aides. It's cheaper, basically, but they haven't the training or years of experience. 

We actually have a big issue with unemployment at the moment. I think the Dept could hire more teacher aides (employing unqualified people) and more specialised teachers (employing professionals). That would put money into the economy and would help education at the same time!

[HomeAgain]

I can speak for my area here.  I'm taking the education-concentration classes at our college right now, meant for eventual teachers of K-6.  I think a lot of the problem stems from right there.  Math is everything Liping Ma warned of, what, 30 years ago? 

Our school district loses about half the potential students to other private or charter schools, but they're not sure why.

Editing to add how to fix.

Because our district seems to rely more and more on teacher-created-resources, I'd love to see educational-concentration classes focused on getting into the weeds and learning how to break down standards into steps, and how to look at different methods to teach the same material to bring in multi-sensory approaches or illustrate a solution.  I'd like to see more of a goal-oriented focus, as in, "we're teaching this, but why and what is the follow on step so I know what to focus on for this one?"

I'd also like to see schools redesigned entirely, but that might be a more unattainable goal. 😄

Edited April 13, 2021 by HomeAgain

[LauraClark]

Less regulation. If they would let the teachers teach that would be a great starting place. Dh is an elementary ps teacher and it is so frustrating that everything is so micro managed. His specialty is science and he is never given time to teach it like he would like-unless it's a tested subject. Early on in his career (14ish years ago) there was a lot more freedom and he could get the kids excited about learning, but over the years everything has become more standardized and that has taken all the joy from teaching and learning.  There are a lot of good teachers who are not able to teach. After all, isn't that why a lot of us homeschool-the freedom to teach our kids as we see fit.

Every year a lot of money is spent on "the thing that will fix everything" - which, of course, doesn't and so "the thing" is replaced by "another thing".  Giving that money to teachers would be helpful.

If I'm very philosophical about it: the system will never be fixed. Also, I will never teach my kids perfectly. That doesn't mean I give up, but I'm not surprised or discouraged and I try to never look at anything (except Christ's redeeming work) as the perfect solution. I just think we should have that mind set going into a conversation about fixing the ps system.

[Not_a_Number]

4 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

Math is everything Liping Ma warned of, what, 30 years ago? 

Oh, gosh, has it been that long?? That's depressing. We've gone though all sorts of "bandaid" reforms since then, but we still haven't done anything to make sure that teachers are able to teach. And I agree with you: that's ultimately the root of the problem

 

4 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

Because our district seems to rely more and more on teacher-created-resources, I'd love to see educational-concentration classes focused on getting into the weeds and learning how to break down standards into steps, and how to look at different methods to teach the same material to bring in multi-sensory approaches or illustrate a solution. 

Yes. Please. And also, I'd love to have elementary school teachers who actually understand math. Right now, mathematics education is a constant game of broken telephone -- teachers can't communicate mathematics, because they do NOT understand it. 

 

Quote

I'd like to see more of a goal-oriented focus, as in, "we're teaching this, but why and what is the follow on step so I know what to focus on for this one?"

Agreed. I feel like I get so much out of having the whole sequence for math internalized -- it really helps me teach effectively. 

 

Quote

I'd also like to see schools redesigned entirely, but that might be a more unattainable goal. 😄

. Do tell 🙂 . What would you like to change? 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[HomeAgain]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

. Do tell 🙂 . What would you like to change? 

Oh, goodness, what wouldn't I?
For the structure itself: I LOVED the way my elementary school was set up, and it was actually named after the architect who designed it.  Many years later I had the opportunity to read more about him and his design elements.  He was very into making sure it was holistic: whole person and whole community connection was the point of making the school in a circle, with "backyards" for each classroom and a center meeting ground in the middle.  Every classroom faced each other, with end points being community-areas.  The little backyard areas opened to the larger playgrounds, but teachers had a defined space to use for nature-based lessons or just moving the kids to a sunnier location.

I also want "quiet" classrooms, in which they are not so overstimulating that it wires the brain.  I want to walk into a classroom and not feel assaulted by primary colors, quotes all over the walls, things hanging out.  I want orderly, clean, calming, where the mind can focus on tasks at hand.

I want something similar in a structure, but also with the addition of a small room between every 2 for observation through windows.  Something quiet, where student teachers or administrators could peek in to another room and see how things are being handled.  Cameras in each classroom could do the job, but that also brings in a more sobering aspect, CCTV would allow to quickly assess active shooter situations and know where the threat is and how much of a threat it is.

For actual content, I want different.  I want small group, flexible lessons, no grades but age ranges.  I'm talking 5 students max.  The ratio of student to teacher should be kept down extremely low and students should move to learning areas rather than stay in one classroom.  The smaller groups would target instruction better and students could move and shift between groups.  I'd like to see each day start almost Montessori-style, where the student comes in and picks something to work with independently, and as they get older, the independent time gets longer and more in depth.  I want a return of LOTS of recess. When I was a kid we had 2 recesses and lunch, and graduated end times (K got out at 11, 1st at 1:15, 2nd at 1:45, 3rd at 2, and 4th & 5th at 2:45). We still played a lot.
I want there to be more socratic discussion and actual skill work in the classroom at appropriate levels.

[LauraClark]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Right now, mathematics education is a constant game of broken telephone -- teachers can't communicate mathematics, because they do NOT understand it. 

That is very true. Dh has had to go to younger grade teachers and ask them to please not teach such-and-such a method because it may work for the numbers they are using, but once the student gets into higher math with different numbers it will no longer work.   However, I still think that the majority of the problem is that teachers are not left to just teach. They have all this paperwork to keep up on (and classes in college [or continuing ed classes] that could have been devoted to how to teach math have to be devoted to how to fill in the paperwork). Plus, some admin decides that the best way to teach is to set up these rotated small groups with each group doing something different (for example) rather than letting the teacher decide the best way to teach their students. And then there's the few students in every class that disrupt and also have terrible home lives. What do you do with them? Well, if you send them to the principal they will likely receive a sucker and be told how wonderful it is for them to show up to class and then be sent back to disrupt (true stories...). So, it's all good to say that teachers need more education, but that makes zero sense in the real world-change has to start in other areas first.

[SDMomof3]

One thing that needs to change is how we incentivize teachers. In one of the school districts in my area, teachers and principals are given raises and bonuses, base on how test scores improve year to year. Which seem good on it’s face, but when you look closer, it fails most students. For an example, at one of the middle schools in my area. The principal will ask the teachers to pick 10 students in their class, these students test scores will be the metric that the teacher’s raise/bonus is base on. As a result, the teacher will tailor their lessons to just those kids. As long as the target kids have X% improvement on the state testing, they get a raise or bonus. My friend quit teaching in this district because she was tired of ignoring the needs of most of her students. 

[LauraClark]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

actual content, I want different.  I want small group, flexible lessons, no grades but age ranges.  I'm talking 5 students max.  The ratio of student to teacher should be kept down extremely low and students should move to learning areas rather than stay in one classroom.  The smaller groups would target instruction better and students could move and shift between groups.  I'd like to see each day start almost Montessori-style, where the student comes in and picks something to work with independently, and as they get older, the independent time gets longer and more in depth

Love the idea of small groups-I think that would make a world of difference! However, the independent working time seems a bit idealistic-even with my "well-mannered, obedient" kids (relatively) if I'm not in the room chances are they are off task. What do you do with the disruptive kids? 

[LauraClark]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

 

I also want "quiet" classrooms, in which they are not so overstimulating that it wires the brain.  I want to walk into a classroom and not feel assaulted by primary colors, quotes all over the walls, things hanging out.  I want orderly, clean, calming, where the mind can focus on tasks at hand

Yes! But, also, not feel like a prison. No cinder block walls. Something easy to clean and not junky. And, the quotes!  How will the kids ever know that they should be kind if they don't have a poster in their face?! (Sarcasm-ha!)

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, LauraClark said:

However, I still think that the majority of the problem is that teachers are not left to just teach.

I think "teaching being left to teach" doesn't work when we have the kinds of teachers that Liping Ma describes. It couldn't. I'm sure it works great when the teachers are excellent, though. 

I think that would be great within a broad framework of deep knowledge and good teacher education. Right now, neither regulation nor lack of regulation will fix the basic problem 😞 . 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[LauraClark]

5 minutes ago, SDMomof3 said:

One thing that needs to change is how we incentivize teachers. In one of the school districts in my area, teachers and principals are given raises and bonuses, base on how test scores improve year to year. Which seem good on it’s face, but when you look closer, it fails most students. For an example, at one of the middle schools in my area. The principal will ask the teachers to pick 10 students in their class, these students test scores will be the metric that the teacher’s raise/bonus is base on. As a result, the teacher will tailor their lessons to just those kids. As long as the target kids have X% improvement on the state testing, they get a raise or bonus. My friend quit teaching in this district because she was tired of ignoring the needs of most of her students. 

Not to mention that most of the time teachers don't get to pick their students. As the only male classroom teacher in the building dh is often given the most difficult kids. Guess how well they do on the test? 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, LauraClark said:

Love the idea of small groups-I think that would make a world of difference! However, the independent working time seems a bit idealistic-even with my "well-mannered, obedient" kids (relatively) if I'm not in the room chances are they are off task. What do you do with the disruptive kids? 

I've found that you can train kids to work more independently to an extent. And I actually think the structured school environment is much better for that than being home -- I say this as someone who has taught both in school settings and at home 🙂 . I love homeschooling for the individualized attention but the lack of structure does make SOME things harder. 

[LMD]

Is this where I post a John Taylor Gatto quote and start another bun fight? 😄

I'll just say, human beings aren't standardised; institutions can't replace relationships; the school system couldn't care less about what homeschoolers think.

I'm also in Aus. Our national curriculum has been changed at least twice just since I've been teaching. How each state/territory actually follows it is debatable. It's written in education-eze word salad.  And that's before I even start with criticizing the content... I would agree on the phonics if I hadn't seen such abhorrent implementation (lots of apps)

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, LMD said:

I'll just say, human beings aren't standardised; institutions can't replace relationships; the school system couldn't care less about what homeschoolers think.

Institutions can't replace relationships, but kids have relationships within institutions. Kids have relationships with their teachers. 

As for the school system, I can't imagine it cares about what I think, but so what? It's still interesting to discuss. 

[LMD]

Kids have confined & standardized relationships with almost strangers. In the other thread there was plenty of discussion about stable families/communities being one of the biggest predictors of educational success.

It's interesting to discuss, but it is wasted energy. Tilting at windmills.

[Not_a_Number]

18 minutes ago, LMD said:

Kids have confined & standardized relationships with almost strangers.

They are strangers when they start out, but certainly by the end of the year, they are not strangers. They are highly regimented relationships but certainly relationships. 

 

Quote

In the other thread there was plenty of discussion about stable families/communities being one of the biggest predictors of educational success.

And in that thread, there's a counterexample, too. It doesn't have to be either/or.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[daijobu]

13 hours ago, bookbard said:

 

So what could happen to 'fix' the 'broken' public school system?

 

Teacher training should be focused on making them subject experts.  If they are teaching elementary science, they should be highly educated in that topic.  They should be tested on that topic before they are allowed to teach it.  

If you explore the curriculum for elementary teachers who are trained by Stanford, you will see very little teaching of content.  Instead you will see classes like "Equity and Schooling" and "Building Classroom Communities". 

There is a class called "Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematics," but if you dig down into the syllabus, you'll see the required textbook.  The TOC of this book covers something called a "Math Conference" "Eliciting and Interpreting" and "Nudging."  These do not sounds like mathematical topics.  

Returning to the "math" syllabus, we see just a little over 6 hours of instruction, every single one is about "Giving and Receiving Feedback."  

This is Stanford, people.  

[Porridge]

24 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Teacher training should be focused on making them subject experts.  If they are teaching elementary science, they should be highly educated in that topic.  They should be tested on that topic before they are allowed to teach it.  

If you explore the curriculum for elementary teachers who are trained by Stanford, you will see very little teaching of content.  Instead you will see classes like "Equity and Schooling" and "Building Classroom Communities". 

There is a class called "Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematics," but if you dig down into the syllabus, you'll see the required textbook.  The TOC of this book covers something called a "Math Conference" "Eliciting and Interpreting" and "Nudging."  These do not sounds like mathematical topics.  

Returning to the "math" syllabus, we see just a little over 6 hours of instruction, every single one is about "Giving and Receiving Feedback."  

This is Stanford, people.  

This reminds me of Richard Mitchell’s Graves of Academe and his scathing criticism of teacher training programs... I thought he was being hyperbolic but maybe not.

[daijobu]

19 minutes ago, WTM said:

This reminds me of Richard Mitchell’s Graves of Academe and his scathing criticism of teacher training programs... I thought he was being hyperbolic but maybe not.

Do you have a link to this?  

[Not_a_Number]

49 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Teacher training should be focused on making them subject experts.  If they are teaching elementary science, they should be highly educated in that topic.  They should be tested on that topic before they are allowed to teach it.  

If you explore the curriculum for elementary teachers who are trained by Stanford, you will see very little teaching of content.  Instead you will see classes like "Equity and Schooling" and "Building Classroom Communities". 

There is a class called "Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematics," but if you dig down into the syllabus, you'll see the required textbook.  The TOC of this book covers something called a "Math Conference" "Eliciting and Interpreting" and "Nudging."  These do not sounds like mathematical topics.  

Returning to the "math" syllabus, we see just a little over 6 hours of instruction, every single one is about "Giving and Receiving Feedback."  

This is Stanford, people.  

So they are teaching people to teach math, but not teaching people the math they ought to be teaching.

That’s amazingly absurd.

[Porridge]

22 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Do you have a link to this?  

https://smile.amazon.com/Graves-Academe-Richard-Mitchell/dp/1888173920/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=graves+of+academe&qid=1618339457&sprefix=graves+of+academe&sr=8-1

[Porridge]

1 hour ago, daijobu said:

Do you have a link to this?  

Oh wait, it might be in a different book that he wrote, Less Than Words Can Say - I don’t remember which one off they top of my head.  They are both very entertaining reads. You can get a taste for his style here:

https://sourcetext.com/writing-against-your-life/

Tagging @Not_a_Numberbecause I think you might find his writings interesting food for thought.

[lewelma]

Given the mainstreaming movement, Teacher Aids have become very important here. And they have just won a lawsuit based on gender pay equity to raise their wages by 30%. They compared the required skills and knowledge of the female dominated teacher-aid to the male-dominated customs worker.  So now their pay packages align -- equal pay for equal value. I have a male teacher aid friend who is SO pleased to have his hard work finally recognized in pay. When you pay people more, you often get better staff. I have a primary school teacher friend who says that teacher aids are critical to keeping control in a classroom with up to 20% mainstreamed kids. 

[lewelma]

Massive failure here on bullying. I got this of the Ministry of Education website.

“Unfortunately, the PISA study highlights a persistent challenge for New Zealand, which is our high rates of bullying. Fifteen percent of 15-year-olds report being frequently bullied – double the OECD average.

[lewelma]

5 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

 we still haven't done anything to make sure that teachers are able to teach. And I agree with you: that's ultimately the root of the problem

I got my high school teaching certificate in 1991 in NC in general science.  I was required to take a class in how to recognize and remediate reading in high school students.  ALL teachers in NC had to have taken this class.  Could we not do something similar for math?  

[HomeAgain]

3 hours ago, LauraClark said:

Love the idea of small groups-I think that would make a world of difference! However, the independent working time seems a bit idealistic-even with my "well-mannered, obedient" kids (relatively) if I'm not in the room chances are they are off task. What do you do with the disruptive kids? 

Honestly, in my vision it's a little blurry. :) I mean, ideally I want a set up where students are all on IEPs.  In the morning, when they get there, there would be some sort of opening task on their work space, something different for everyone, relating to practice at their specific level. That's the time of day when they also take attendance and 3 teachers are in the room with 12-15 kids.  It's a time maybe with a little bit of chatter and saying hello. Then, the children move into groups and focus on their lesson for the day.  As they finish, they put away their materials and walk to the next subject room.  The children there would not be finished, but the incoming children have cards at the door that tell them what their independent material is.  Ideally, they would be able to get it, work until their group was ready, and then get their group lesson for the day.  Two periods like this, and then recess, followed by another two periods and then lunch, p.e., art,/music/handcrafts.

I want a place where there is flexibility for the students who need it, but I admit I haven't given much thought to disruptive students in this utopia. :)

[lewelma]

For primary school math, a very clear-cut solution would be to have one math specialist teacher for every 8 classes of kids in a primary school. That teacher takes each class each day for 45 minutes, while the main teacher acts as support. The main problem you would have would be attracting competent math folk into these jobs.  You would have to have some serious perks or pay or something. Maybe make it like ROTC, where you pay for their education with them being bound to the job for 5 to 10 years. Cheaper than many alternative solutions, and cheaper than having a workforce with no math skill in the technological era. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, lewelma said:

For primary school math, a very clear-cut solution would be to have one math specialist teacher for every 8 classes of kids in a primary school. That teacher takes each class each day for 45 minutes, while the main teacher acts as support. The main problem you would have would be attracting competent math folk into these jobs.  You would have to have some serious perks or pay or something. Maybe make it like ROTC, where you pay for their education with them being bound to the job for 5 to 10 years. Cheaper than many alternative solutions, and cheaper than having a workforce with no math skill in the technological era. 

I'd do it with a decent salary. I really would. I actually LIKE teaching.

[lewelma]

7 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

I mean, ideally I want a set up where students are all on IEPs.  In the morning, when they get there, there would be some sort of opening task on their work space, something different for everyone, relating to practice at their specific level. 

I've tutored a high school math student where the class ran like this.  It did not work because the teacher could not teach in that style but was told she had to by the principal.  One of the big problems with education is inertia in teaching practice. Most teacher teach in the way they were taught.  It is very hard to change their approach.

[jrichstad]

I completely agree that teachers should be subject matter experts, but just as an amusing counterpoint: when I was writing my teaching statement in grad school--not education; a humanities PhD--I talked about scaffolding assignments. My dissertation advisor, a brilliant faculty member and wonderful mentor who had been teaching undergraduates and graduate students for twenty years, had NEVER heard the term and seemed to be astonished by the idea. 

I mean, R1s are notorious for not actually teaching their grads how to teach, but my point is that there is probably room for both 😄.   

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, jrichstad said:

I completely agree that teachers should be subject matter experts, but just as an amusing counterpoint: when I was writing my teaching statement in grad school--not education; a humanities PhD--I talked about scaffolding assignments. My dissertation advisor, a brilliant faculty member and wonderful mentor who had been teaching undergraduates and graduate students for twenty years, had NEVER heard the term and seemed to be astonished by the idea. 

I mean, R1s are notorious for not actually teaching their grads how to teach, but my point is that there is probably room for both 😄.   

Oh, you absolutely need both teaching expertise and subject expertise. 

I often run into issues with AoPS that come from cluelessness about how kids learn. And that definitely comes from hiring people who are NOT teachers as the online instructors. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, lewelma said:

I've tutored a high school math student where the class ran like this.  It did not work because the teacher could not teach in that style but was told she had to by the principal.  One of the big problems with education is inertia in teaching practice. Most teacher teach in the way they were taught.  It is very hard to change their approach.

Whereas I do run things like that 😄 . I give kids different stuff depending on level. 

[lewelma]

6 hours ago, LauraClark said:

not feel like a prison. No cinder block walls. 

I went to middle school in VA in the early 1980s. My school had 2000 students in a one-story square-block building with no windows even in the outer rooms. There were 5 halls N/S and 5 halls E/W with 4 classrooms in the middle of each intersection, with 30 students each room and sliding fabric walls separating them (so 120 kids per inner classroom square).  The halls were color coded so that you did not get lost in the middle.  We were not allowed outside for lunch.  There was a 1000 person cafeteria in the basement in one large room.  Half of the school stayed in classes, while the other half was in the cafeteria or was wondering the halls that were open. You could only go outside for PE.

Three years of my life. And I've looked and the school still exists.

Edited April 13, 2021 by lewelma

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Warning! Long post alert!

In no particular order, and with reference to the English system:

First of all, I'd like to say there's an article from earlier this week (unfortunately I've lost the link) that says that some British schools have reported much improved discipline and learning from concentrating on the additional requirements due to staying safe in the pandemic imposed by government (social distancing, no shouting/loud noises in class, masks for non-exempt people above primary age, assigned areas at playtime so year groups can't mix and staggered lunch breaks). None of them are suggesting any specific one of these measures, or even the content of all of them together, is the cause. However, there is a suspicion that having a few clear rules, that are concrete, largely agreed, that are reliably enforced goes a lot further towards helping students have the discipline needed to learn than lots of half-enforced ones that have room for interpretation by everyone involved.

Wherever possible, have students either keep their gadgets home, or a judgement-free handing in of them into reception for safekeeping at the start of the day on the understanding that they can collect them at the end of the day without consequence. (There are several situations where that's not feasible and alternatives will be needed. However, at the moment, the majority of schools report students tend to have mobile phones/tablets in use for non-educational purposes during class despite not being authorised. Attention divided is attention lost).

Teach teachers how to gain - and deserve in the eyes of their students - respect. Nothing in all the masses of education writing seems to have anything useful to say about this, and without respect, students don't learn what the teacher intends.

Don't create favourites, scapegoats or victims. (This handily encompasses getting rid of overt or secret -isms as well).

Stop putting the least experienced teachers in the worst schools. (Parts of the UK system do this by design. It works about as well as you'd expect).

Make it so that when bullying is reported, it is acted upon in a way that helps its victims and helps bullies learn not to bully others.

Have an answer, as often as possible, to the question, "When will I ever use this knowledge?" Even if the honest answer is "On the exam you're only doing because the law requires us to put you in it." Students are more likely to (minimally) study things that won't help them if that's admitted, and unlike homeschools, there isn't always the option of simply skipping it...

Teaching places need to teach how to teach effectively, not just how to do the paperwork or what theories people have had over the years about classroom management. I was quite shocked to discover my basic 120-hour TESOL (Teaching English as a Secondary or Other Language) course covers about the same material as a final-year English university module, and that if specialising in teaching English, there would probably only be one other module on teaching content (if choosing English one's specialist teaching subject, my alma mater requires a module on "realistic English" - in other words, the difference between English as it is used and academic English - as well as an option in how children acquire English as a first language, how people acquire second/other languages (that has the same content as the TESOL course I did), phonology (note: not phonics) or teaching creative fiction as theatre.

There is also a subject enhancement course option for all major subjects, for teachers who but typically teachers either do none or one (so teachers are unlikely to do both Maths and English enhancement, unless they did one as their degree and took an enhancement in the other). Incidentally, the UK system requires people to specialise in Maths or English to teach those subjects, either by degree or subject enhancement... ...but only in secondary school. Teachers of under-11s are expected to be generalists.

Decent PE/physical education and enough opportunities for students to move. It's surprising how many secondary schools think students can sit attentively for 6-8 hours a day if only they get 3 hours of intentional movement a week. Especially given how little intensity there often is in those 3 hours, and how inappropriate a lot of it is to the students in front of them (either because the teacher is teaching only to the best athlete in the class, or only to the worst).

Give teachers enough paid time to do their paperwork, keep their teaching hours low enough that it's possible for them to complete it, and give them somewhere suitable in school to do it. (Maybe then there'd be less enthusiasm for giving children useless homework, thus giving children more energy to do the smaller-but-entirely-meaningful homework better).

Make sure teachers get enough uninterrupted time in the middle of the day to eat lunch without rushing. Low blood sugar has made for many a miserable afternoon for teachers and their pupils alike.

Stop insisting that 5-year-olds (the age of starting compulsory education in the UK) must do homework (beyond reading, and even that only if they are far enough into their reading tuition that they won't be guessing every other word). At least let small children learn how to handle a class workload before adding homework (however meaningful) to the mix...

Teach all teachers (possibly excepting those specialising in the equivalent of high schoolers) how to teach phonics. Even assuming the best at phonics go to primary school and get all primary school children reading well (something far from happening today), immigration means that some secondary students learning English as a second language will need phonics English education as well (not all points of origin teach English, and some that do don't teach the same version of English, to the point where not all phonics rules in all contexts can be assumed).

Less useless regulation. A requirement that doesn't help teachers teach in some way (be that directly, or something indirect like recording their class plans in a way that allows a substitute to take over if necessary) is not one they should have to field.

Fund schools properly for whatever mandate they actually have (which is often wider than the official mandate - for example, many schools in poorer areas are effectively feeding and clothing a section of their classes due to severe poverty otherwise preventing those students from being able to learn). If there are going to be any red-tape excercises or "nice to haves", always ensure schools are funded to do them. If society would prefer someone else do part of schools' actual mandate, make sure that part of society is funded to do it and check it works before withdrawing it from the school.

Easy access to methods of giving students additional support - be that the minor types every student occasionally needs, or more extensive varieties for disabled/gifted/2e children. Also, improve access to diagnostic, ongoing and transitional support for disabled/2e/at-risk-of-academic-failure children.

More consistently good careers and college guidance for everybody (including teachers and support staff who have this as part of their remit).

Schools should do pilots of school-wide schemes in part of the school before rolling them out school-wide, where this is feasible. This can save expensive and/or anti-learning surprises later.

@daijabou, I think the Stanford set text is about how to talk to children about maths. This is very helpful... ...to those who know something about maths. This is of course why WTM places rhetoric (expressing subjects) after grammar and logic (the elements of subjects and how they link together, respectively). Stanford appears to be trying to do it the other way round, which does not seem like a promising course of action.

[Not_a_Number]

26 minutes ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

However, there is a suspicion that having a few clear rules, that are concrete, largely agreed, that are reliably enforced goes a lot further towards helping students have the discipline needed to learn than lots of half-enforced ones that have room for interpretation by everyone involved.

I've definitely found this with my kids. It's best when rules are clear and consistently enforced.

Frankly, I've kind of failed at doing this in my homeschool, since I had a half-baked idea of having our learning be completely delight-driven and voluntary. That didn't go very well for me with my very stubborn children 😛. I don't know why I thought that observations I've made from the rest of our life didn't apply, but... lesson learned.  

[LauraClark]

2 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

Honestly, in my vision it's a little blurry. 🙂 I mean, ideally I want a set up where students are all on IEPs.  In the morning, when they get there, there would be some sort of opening task on their work space, something different for everyone, relating to practice at their specific level. That's the time of day when they also take attendance and 3 teachers are in the room with 12-15 kids.  It's a time maybe with a little bit of chatter and saying hello. Then, the children move into groups and focus on their lesson for the day.  As they finish, they put away their materials and walk to the next subject room.  The children there would not be finished, but the incoming children have cards at the door that tell them what their independent material is.  Ideally, they would be able to get it, work until their group was ready, and then get their group lesson for the day.  Two periods like this, and then recess, followed by another two periods and then lunch, p.e., art,/music/handcrafts.

I want a place where there is flexibility for the students who need it, but I admit I haven't given much thought to disruptive students in this utopia. 🙂

Ha-I think I'm just too pessimistic about it.  Your utopia does sound wonderful, though 😉

[LauraClark]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've definitely found this with my kids. It's best when rules are clear and consistently enforced.

Frankly, I've kind of failed at doing this in my homeschool, since I had a half-baked idea of having our learning be completely delight-driven and voluntary. That didn't go very well for me with my very stubborn children 😛. I don't know why I thought that observations I've made from the rest of our life didn't apply, but... lesson learned.  

I think we've all been there (at least all the other moms irl I've talked to). And it seems to go in cycles-I'm clear about the rules, everyone starts to follow the rules, I relax on the rules (or start to not be clear), there's behavior problems, I'm frustrated, I finally figured out that I stopped being clear on the rules again... REPEAT!

I think that makes sense in a ps setting too. Maybe the cycles are just way longer than the 2ish month cycle at my house-maybe we'll go back to clear rules eventually (in society and ps).

[EKS]

6 hours ago, daijobu said:

This is Stanford, people. 

Jo Boaler--the queen of warm and fuzzy math--is at Stanford.  

[idnib]

20 hours ago, bookbard said:

They do probability one day out of five - why??

I know this is a serious discussion, but this pun brought a smile to my face.

[Not_a_Number]

18 minutes ago, EKS said:

Jo Boaler--the queen of warm and fuzzy math--is at Stanford.  

Oooh, I really really really dislike her. I mean, not personally, but her whole thing. 

[Dmmetler]

Oh, dear....do you want a book? (Mind you, I’m speaking as someone who has taught prospective teachers)
 

1) phonics based reading. This is probably the single thing I want to see most, and when I did classes to renew my license, it still wasn’t the default, only something that should be considered as part of intervention. Yes, there are kids who intuit it-mine is one of them (early reader, natural speller). But let’s do what is statistically likely to work for the largest number FIRST

 

2) Reteach teachers math from the ground up. This is actually something that I LOVE at the local CC-there is a two semester math sequence, taught in the math department, that basically reteaches math through pre-algebra, using manipulatives and hands on approaches, and working towards conceptual development. The goal is to teach how to break down and teach the skills, but for many students, it also means they actually learn how and why it works for the first time. It’s actually also a really good course for kids who have struggled in math, for the same reason.

 

3) provide good, solid materials and stop reinventing the wheel.  Don’t change the complete system every 5 years and buy all new materials. Replace as needed so stuff doesn’t look too old and that books aren’t dated,  but one you have everyone trained in OG phonics and Liping Ma and Singapore style math, stick with it as the primary method-and adapt, as needed, for individual students. I have Been in schools with rooms filled with math Manipulatives, literature books, science materials etc from past adoptions that teachers are no longer allowed to use. It’s insane. 

4) in elementary school, recognize that science and history are exposure subjects. Make theM experiential, and hands on, and recognize that they are a chance to use reading and math. I love GEMS, AIMS, and similar programs. Use good historical fiction for read alouds and discussion, and have lots of living history opportunities and field trips. 

I would also like to see multi-age grouping, and flexible grouping, but I recognize that is hard to implement well in a large school setting.

 

 

 

 

 

[City Mouse]

More emphasis on school choice- These threads always show me why we need more options for different types of schools. No one system works for every child.

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, City Mouse said:

More emphasis on school choice- These threads always show me why we need more options for different types of schools. No one system works for every child.

Of course, some systems don't work for practically ANY children... 

[Arcadia]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Of course, some systems don't work for practically ANY children... 

However when your assigned public school is based on residential address, you sometimes end up with many kids going to private school or parents who are renting deciding to rent elsewhere once their oldest is school age. 
 

Previously for a school in California that is failing for years based on the API derived from the school’s standardized scores, parents can request for their kids to go to another school in the district. Then the state education dept stop the API and so this program of allowing kids to transfer from a failing school also terminated. 
 

For middle and high school teachers, it would be nice if they major in the subjects they like to teach and then do their masters in education. I have had high school physics teachers (SE Asia) who have worked as engineers for years and then did a postgraduate diploma in education to teach high school. 

[daijobu]

3 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

2) Reteach teachers math from the ground up. This is actually something that I LOVE at the local CC-there is a two semester math sequence, taught in the math department, that basically reteaches math through pre-algebra, using manipulatives and hands on approaches, and working towards conceptual development. The goal is to teach how to break down and teach the skills, but for many students, it also means they actually learn how and why it works for the first time. It’s actually also a really good course for kids who have struggled in math, for the same reason.

This is terrific to hear, and hopefully it will spread to other areas.  There is also a Math Teacher Circle movement that's gaining some momentum.  More math and less pedagogy!

3 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

3) provide good, solid materials and stop reinventing the wheel.  Don’t change the complete system every 5 years and buy all new materials. Replace as needed so stuff doesn’t look too old and that books aren’t dated,  but one you have everyone trained in OG phonics and Liping Ma and Singapore style math, stick with it as the primary method-and adapt, as needed, for individual students. I have Been in schools with rooms filled with math Manipulatives, literature books, science materials etc from past adoptions that teachers are no longer allowed to use. It’s insane. 

We may have powerful textbook publishers to blame here.  I know in California, textbooks must be replaced every 7 years.  I thought Singapore Math was among those that were approved but I don't see it on this list.  

[daijobu]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oooh, I really really really dislike her. I mean, not personally, but her whole thing. 

You've mentioned this before but now I've forgotten.  What is your criticism of her?  

[Dmmetler]

Now that I have more time, here is my dream plan for revising teacher education programs. 

 

1) Teacher education is a dual degree BS/BA and MAT program. It will take 5-6 years to complete if students come in completely college ready. This is a track that requires a separate application and completion of a high school exit exam level test with a minimum percentile level at the 75%. (All accommodations are in place as appropriate for the student).

 

2) Students major in their primary academic area. Early Childhood and Special ed majors major in child/adolescent development. Courses specific to teaching are woven in as part of general studies requirements. For example, if your licensure area is ECED, ELED, or Special Ed, you would have courses children's literature and media as part of your general education requirements, and math courses focused on early conceptual development. If you are majoring in English and plan to teach high school, you will have courses in adolescent psychology and behavior as part of your humanities development. ALL students will take multiple classes focused on awareness of stratification and the effects on the population, including race, class, disability, and gender issues. ALL students will take neurodiversity as part of their core curriculum. Students will take classes specific to writing for specific age and ability levels, professional communications in talking to parents, and curriculum development. 

 

3) Starting in Year 2, every student will do a paid internship at an after school program, child care center, YMCA, or other similar facility. Students will design and teach a small group course or club related to their major for students who are interested in it AND tutor/support students who are NOT interested in it and are struggling. So, the strong math student might work at an elementary after school program and teach a math club that participates in MOEMS, but would also be tutoring students who struggle with math. Someone planning to teach high school English might lead students in developing a school level 'Zine and tutor writing.  These positions rotate through different populations and age groups for four semesters. 

 

4) In Year 4 and 5 students spend two days a week in a public school classroom as a teaching assistant. Students majoring in special ed are assigned as special ed paraprofessionals. This is a paid position, so students have to apply and be accepted. They spend the other half of the time developing materials and debriefing, supporting each other, and discussing what they see. Students complete written reports, sit in on IEP meetings, and get experience.  Students who have decided not to teach, or who are unable to secure an internship position graduate with their BA/BS in their core area once they have completed coursework, usually at the end of year 4.  In Year 5, students take teaching licensure exams. 

5) In Year 6, Students work full time for a school system as a teaching intern. This is a paid position. Students have all the responsibilities of a teacher, but also have the support of the university system, evaluators coming in and a mentor teacher.  Students who complete this satisfactorily are certified to teach by the state and earn their MAT degree. Students who have discovered they also interested in research may choose to extend their graduate study and move on to a PhD. 

6)All college faculty teaching education courses split their time between a K-12 position and a college one.  Doctoral student stipends are paid and work is done in the K-12 system, not the college one. 

 

In large urban areas, I think this would be relatively easy to implement, AND to fund. In rural areas/smaller communities that happen to have a big teacher's college, it might be tougher, simply because you might end up with more student interns and assistants than you have kids in a group. It might be necessary to do the coursework component of years 4/5/6 online to allow college students to apply for a larger range of jobs.  

 

The benefits of this approach is that no one will get to the last semester and discover, while student teaching, that they hate it, but can't really do anything else with their degree.  The college students will get the opportunity to work in a lot of settings and with different people. The K-12 students will benefit from additional adults who are then able to individualize the material for the student, which will also provide support for classroom teachers. And if faculty and researchers are teaching in K-12 as well as at the college level, that will dramatically reduce, if not eliminate, the ivory tower effect, where what is taught in a college classroom bears no resemblance to reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roadrunner]

Private schools hire non credentialed individuals with just subject degrees and do just fine. I think opening up a hiring pool is what we need, not more useless credentials. 

[Dmmetler]

I know my objection (as an ed professor) is that Boeler (and Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, and Vanderbilt, and basically every other high tier school that has a research, not teaching, focused Ed school) is so divorced from the real world of public education that the materials they turn out are simply not applicable. If the only actual real-world students you ever work with who aren't doctoral students are Stanford OHS, CTY, and SAVVY, you really don't have a good idea of what public education looks like, and to write the papers and articles and textbooks that push a top down view that is only appropriate for a small percentage of students, most of whom not only test extremely well, but are extremely privileged in that they have highly educated parents and are from a more affluent background (and those who are not are those who have parents who know the system well enough to seek out programs and apply for scholarships), you end up with reading schemes that do a good job of teaching those who already can read, math schemes that teach students who already have conceptualized arithmetic by playing with legos, and science that flies over the head of anyone who doesn't spend the weekend at science centers and reading science books. 

 

Education is very subject to the televangelist effect. One voice becomes loud and takes center stage whether or not that is really borne out. For example, when I was in grad school, one of the big voices in reading education was Marie Clay, of Reading Recovery fame. And some of her techniques, especially in assessment on the fly, are great. But the fact is that most kids who test as needing reading recovery really, really need a phonics first program-and if they have it in the classroom, may not need the intensive 1-1 tutoring. So, by pushing Marie Clay's work at the same time as whole language, the message was sent to a whole generation of teachers that by reading books and having kids write before they even know how to make letters, and having a more intensive version (which actually does teach looking at letter sounds and decoding, but not systematically, you'll teach kids to read without the drudgery of phonetic based materials. Except that it didn't.  ANY elementary school teacher who had been teaching for a long period of time could tell you that this wasn't going to work.  My ESL mentor teacher commented that the problem  with whole language was that most kids didn't come in with a whole language to start with. But a 1st grade ESL teacher in an urban school in Texas does not have the reach that Marie Clay or Regie Routman did. 

[Dmmetler]

8 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Private schools hire non credentialed individuals with just subject degrees and do just fine. I think opening up a hiring pool is what we need, not more useless credentials. 

I would argue against this approach for public education. And the reason is that a GOOD credential is NOT useless. There is a world of difference between teaching in a private school where the student population is selected and teaching in a public school. Realistically, the reason why school nurses can largely be replaced by secretaries who hand out bandaids and ice packs, take temperatures, help with blood sugar testing, and can set up nebulizers is because the elementary school population is mostly healthy and has fairly predictable, minor needs. But, you could not replace an ER nurse with someone with basic first aid training. A lot of public school teaching situations are far more comparable to a crowded ER than an elementary school clinic where the most common problem is skinned knees.  Furthermore, many private school teachers are supplemented at home, either by educated parents who afterschool or paid tutors. That is not the case in lower income public schools. Those teachers need to be able to teach, and teach effectively, because they're all the kids have. 

A good credential will provide a lot of instruction in understanding where students are developmentally and HOW to teach different students where they are, which is important. Especially for elementary ages, understanding where the child is developmentally is FAR more important than content-because if you don't know elementary level content cold, you should never have been admitted to college in the first place, let alone hired to teach. 

 

Now, I will agree that many B.Ed degrees are not terribly useful. But there is a real need for teaching to be MORE professional and have a higher level of training, not a lower one.