After reading Diane Ravitch's response to the Van Roekel/Kopp op. ed., I had an opportunity to think and consider the situation. I've read many reactions to the piece, such as TeacherKen's, Anthony Cody's, and even my hometown hero Jersey Jazzman's. In replying to another reader's comments, I solidified my ideas and this was my response:
I have my own thoughts about TFA, http://teachermomnj.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-am-sure-you-are-aware-by-now-this.html
But when I read the interview that Van Roekel did with Valerie Strauss http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/has-the-nea-warmed-up-to-teach-for-america/2012/01/03/gIQA2WtdcP_blog.html I started to give him the benefit of the doubt, except on one very important point; testing and data.
His list to improve teacher preparation includes:
*Raising the bar to entry by requiring that every teacher candidate have one full year of residency
*Advancing a new tiered system of achievement for career teachers by providing different compensation and responsibilities for novice, professional, and master teachers.
*Ensuring that teachers take on leadership roles in their schools to take responsibility for helping to improve instruction, curriculum, and school performance. (I agree if they are to call themselves "Master Teachers")
I agree with pretty much all of these ideas, especially the full year internship, though I think they should receive some kind of compensation.
The joint list of Top Three Things include:
*using data to improve teacher preparation (The test scores of the students received by graduates; sounds mathematically impossible like Value-added is proving to be)
* bringing new talent to the teaching profession (agreed)
*giving teachers opportunities for continuous professional development. (Isn't this why we have to do 100 hours?)
In the interview he said the one great thing about TFA is that they actively seek and recruit possible talent for the profession and that's what everybody needs to start doing.
"One of the things I've learned they do well is recruitment," he said. "In the regular teaching profession we don't have a recruitment process. They do. They identify certain students and go after them to get them to apply. Outright antagonism toward Teach for America doesn't make much sense, he suggested. They are not going away. They have too much money backing them. They are around the world now. If there are things we can learn from them, let's take it. ... It's talking to people with whom we don't agree on every issue. This is way too important to only talk to people we totally agree with."
This makes sense to me and I can't fault him for thinking that. What I can fault him for is jumping on the data (i.e. testing) bandwagon.
What I think we all need to work on is actual improvement of teacher preparation programs. Some thoughts provided by Andrew Hartman include the most expansive study of TFA success, he said:
"Professors of education Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Jez, in the most thorough survey of such research yet, found that TFA corps members tend to perform equal to teachers in similar situations —that is, they do as well as new teachers lacking formal training assigned to impoverished schools. Sometimes they do better, particularly in math instruction.
"Yet 'the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well,' Vasquez Heilig and Jin Jez discovered, 'than those of credentialed beginning teachers.' It seems clear that TFA's vaunted thirty-day summer institute—TFA "boot camp"—is no replacement for the preparation given future teachers at traditional colleges of education." Here's a link to the actual study. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teach-for-america
So they are somewhat better than other emergency certified teachers who earn credentials while on the job, but they are NOT better than traditionally certified teachers. Makes sense to me.
My cousin the TFAer HATED the program she was assigned to in the state where she is teaching because it just didn't meet her standards for education to which she is used. (She said the deep south college basically had a 7th grade reading level.)
We need to take a page from Finland on this one and start with requiring an undergraduate, subject area major and an Education Masters. (NJ was starting to head down this road, but then people erroneously voted for Chrsitie who thinks we don't need advanced degrees OR certification.)
These are my ideas for improving Teacher Ed Programs:
*There should be an "exploring teacher" practicum BEFORE people apply to programs. (At my university 50% of the people who do the practicum DIDN'T apply to the program because they find out real quick teaching is not for them.)
*There should be a minimum requirement of practicum/fieldwork prior to student teaching and 1, "1 day a week junior field" IS NOT enough.
*There should also be a balance of theory, ideology, and practical application, as taught by research professors AND working teachers. (What can I say, Rutgers has one of the BEST programs going, I'm not biased)
I was never an advocate for standards based education, but there are areas in this country where there are notoriously low standards in their educational systems (known from my own personal experience, though things may have changed in 20 years, but I doubt it), including teacher preparation. Also, let's address the idea that teachers who are better prepared are better able to deal with the intricacies and stress of everyday teaching, and are more likely to stay passed that 2nd, 3rd or 5th year.
Over the years I've had the opportunity work with colleagues from a number of different programs, and each had its own philosophy and skill set. What I usually see is a deficit in some skill sets from some universities. I do have to wonder if it's because I was better prepared, or if I'm just more proactive in learning new ideas and approaches and honing my craft. There is one thing I can do that they can't, and that's create a curriculum out of thin air, which I had to do while in the inner city.
As a career educator, I am all for improving the teacher ed process. Even Van Roekel said that 5 weeks will never be enough, and I believe that emergemcy certification should be for EMERGENCIES.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Thoughts on TFA
As I am sure you are aware by now, this blog is more a diary where I share my thoughts, feelings, and personal experiences. I usually use anecdotes to get a point across. I do that with my students too. When the information is humanized and personal, they are more likely to make their own connections to it and remember it later. That being said, the TFA program has been on my mind a lot lately, for a multitude of reasons. The main reason is because I feel very conflicted about it.
Just recently I was reading a column written by Andrew Hartman posted in the Washington Post under Valerie Straus about TFA.
"After twenty years of sending academically gifted but untrained college graduates into the nation’s toughest schools, the evidence regarding TFA corps member effectiveness is in, and it is decidedly mixed. Professors of education Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Jez, in the most thorough survey of such research yet, found that TFA corps members tend to perform equal to teachers in similar situations —that is, they do as well as new teachers lacking formal training assigned to impoverished schools. Sometimes they do better, particularly in math instruction.
Yet “the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well,” Vasquez Heilig and Jin Jez discovered, “than those of credentialed beginning teachers.” It seems clear that TFA’s vaunted thirty-day summer institute—TFA “boot camp”—is no replacement for the preparation given future teachers at traditional colleges of education."
I take this to mean that TFA is as effective as any novice teacher entering the classroom as any alternate route candidate. They are NOT better than novice teachers who have studied education, served in the classroom as a teaching intern, and earned a degree. I can believe that. After reading countless blogs, articles, and comments written by TFA corps and former corps members, it has been said time and time again, the training is inadequate and it just puts a band-aide on the larger problem.
One commenter talialynn80 said it best, though sometimes reading comments can be dangerous, "Any profession is debased when temporary workers with on the job training are considered equivalent to those with degrees in the field and long term commitments. Imagine the up roar that would ensue if a similar program were created for nursing or police work. Or better yet, imagine if TFA had a matching program, where for every inner city school, a prestigious private or well functioning suburban school was required to take in an inexperienced TFA trainee who will leave in two years. TFA smacks of a program that is great "for other people's" children."
Yes, I feel that way too. It is a smack in the face to have inexperienced people, good motives, or bad ones (the resume padders) placed in a building when there are now literally hundreds of qualified applicants for the jobs.
I teach in NJ. Here it is very difficult for an alternate route teacher to find employment. I have a friend with a science degree who has been trying for three years now. She wants to work close to home to be accessible to her 2 children, one who is autistic, so working in one of the cities is a no for her. In NJ, I presume it is similar in other states as well, teachers with alternate route degrees will most likely be hired in urban areas, and for positions like math, science, and special education. Those are the hard to fill jobs. Alternate route teachers, like my friend, are usually starting a career change and do the course work upon hire to keep their jobs permanently.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I am an alternate route teacher for special education. There is one big difference though. I had my standard certificate in elementary education and had three years of teaching experience before switching to special education; therefore, I am not considered alternate route credentialed. Now that I have been teaching for 10 years it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think it is a stretch to ask people to be qualified for the job they have or want. Would you go to lawyer in training? or a doctor who may have a medical degree but never did any internships? I know some people don't like the analogies, but why should teaching be any less important?
I can also say that my first year, even with all of the training, fieldwork, and internships, I stunk out loud. Hard to admit that, but hind-sight being 20/20 and all. In 10 years of teaching I can say I know 10 times more than I did that first year. Yes, experienced teachers cost more, but they are definitely worth more. Are there people I wish would be fired? Few and far between, but yes they are there.
Yes, I think ALL children, even those attending private, charter, and parochial schools, should have a certified teacher in their classroom. As of now only public schools require certified teachers. How sad is that? Don't hate me for saying this, but in NJ it is said that if you're teaching in a private or charter school you more than likely didn't pass the praxis or couldn't get hired elsewhere. Yeah, I know that's not true for everyone, or even the majority of people outside the public school system, but it's what people say.
Ok, I don't really believe in the Teach for America Program. After teaching in the inner city for what is now 7 years, I can say wholeheartedly, our poorest students need our BEST teachers. I taught in the suburbs for three years before coming to the city. Frankly, it doesn't take much to teach suburban kids who don't have learning or language difficulties. Little did I know then. Once I came to the city, I realized I never worked so hard in my life. Now I am in a working-class neighborhood in the same city, and even there I don't feel I work half as hard as I did in the "ghetto". If you want to see fundamental change in education give the hard jobs to the "good teachers" in the suburbs instead of rewarding them by sending them to the easy schools. So how can I in good conscience support a program that puts the least prepared instructors, because they aren't teachers just yet, in front of these kids? I can't! I am conflicted because saying that makes me feel disloyal to family.
I may have mentioned this before, but I have a relative who is a TFA teacher in a rural area. She was a psychology major hired to teach middle school science. She went into it thinking, "Hey I want to teach at the college level, so why not teach for real before graduate school." Seemed like a good idea. I looked at the program myself when I was in grad school because of the loan forgiveness, which I should have gotten anyway teaching in the inner city. Missed it by "that" much. Whole other argument there.
For three years now I have been saying, "Yeah, but my cousin is in TFA and she does a great job." She announced she is quitting this year. If there's one thing I hate, it's someone living up to a stereotype. TFA again stands for Teach for a While. I shouldn't hold it against her because she never intended it to be forever. I think that's the biggest problem of all. These corps members never intend for it to be forever. It truly bothers those of us who have dedicated our lives and livelihoods to education to hear these folks receive accolades for "teaching for a while." Also, why do districts have to pay a head-hunters fee when there are 100's of free applicants out there. As a parent, I know I would rather have a certified and experienced teacher leading my child.
My cousin would complain that the other staff members treated them like garbage, second class citizens. I encouraged her to see it from their perspective. She would also tell me how many of the staff members themselves were not certified because the school/county had a very hard time retaining certified staff. To that I say, Pay them more and treat them better for starters. She also commented on how the staff didn't go to very good schools and didn't seem nearly as knowledgeable as say myself or her sister. (She said the state university functioned at about a 7th grade reading level, and hated the idea of doing any kind of graduate work there. I think the negative attitude swung both ways there.)
Anyway, she earned a good reputation and seemed to enjoy her work and seemed successful at it. However, now that I think back on it, there are startling differences between her and myself. She thinks about success in terms of classroom management and higher test scores. She has been made to believe that the all mighty test score is the actual goal of education. I rate success as increased reading levels and joy of watching a child's face light up when a new skill is mastered or concept understood. I HATE what testing has done to education. I teach for understanding and joy, not for regurgitation.
My scores look good, but I don't feel pride in them. In the burbs I was at 95% passing as a first year teacher. I always say they did that despite me, not because of me. The other 5% bug me because those were the kids that walked in as basic skills students and I feel I didn't help them one lick that year. My co-teacher and I were praised last year because we had the best scores in the first grade on the Terra Nova in our building. I accepted my accolades and kept it moving. My reward was a transfer to a building that already has passing scores. Go figure.
Long story short, My cousin is leaving her teaching post and is now being considered for a management post with TFA. If she gets the position she will be overseeing about 30 corps members in her area. Really?!! They think that after 3 years she has enough experience to be a supervisor? I had my first student teacher this year. She was kind of sprung on me the third day of school. I always said I wanted one, but I was unprepared for her. Frankly I never felt ready to oversee another teacher until now. Does my cousin and her company really think that after a mere three years she's ready to oversee 30 new teachers without any kind of teaching experience behind them. Also, if the veterans in their schools are that adverse to having them on staff, who will really mentor them. I keep seeing problems and not many solutions.
So I guess the question is, am I being disloyal, because FAMILY IS EVERYTHING, or should I stop biting my tongue and say what I really think?
Just recently I was reading a column written by Andrew Hartman posted in the Washington Post under Valerie Straus about TFA.
"After twenty years of sending academically gifted but untrained college graduates into the nation’s toughest schools, the evidence regarding TFA corps member effectiveness is in, and it is decidedly mixed. Professors of education Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Jez, in the most thorough survey of such research yet, found that TFA corps members tend to perform equal to teachers in similar situations —that is, they do as well as new teachers lacking formal training assigned to impoverished schools. Sometimes they do better, particularly in math instruction.
Yet “the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well,” Vasquez Heilig and Jin Jez discovered, “than those of credentialed beginning teachers.” It seems clear that TFA’s vaunted thirty-day summer institute—TFA “boot camp”—is no replacement for the preparation given future teachers at traditional colleges of education."
I take this to mean that TFA is as effective as any novice teacher entering the classroom as any alternate route candidate. They are NOT better than novice teachers who have studied education, served in the classroom as a teaching intern, and earned a degree. I can believe that. After reading countless blogs, articles, and comments written by TFA corps and former corps members, it has been said time and time again, the training is inadequate and it just puts a band-aide on the larger problem.
One commenter talialynn80 said it best, though sometimes reading comments can be dangerous, "Any profession is debased when temporary workers with on the job training are considered equivalent to those with degrees in the field and long term commitments. Imagine the up roar that would ensue if a similar program were created for nursing or police work. Or better yet, imagine if TFA had a matching program, where for every inner city school, a prestigious private or well functioning suburban school was required to take in an inexperienced TFA trainee who will leave in two years. TFA smacks of a program that is great "for other people's" children."
Yes, I feel that way too. It is a smack in the face to have inexperienced people, good motives, or bad ones (the resume padders) placed in a building when there are now literally hundreds of qualified applicants for the jobs.
I teach in NJ. Here it is very difficult for an alternate route teacher to find employment. I have a friend with a science degree who has been trying for three years now. She wants to work close to home to be accessible to her 2 children, one who is autistic, so working in one of the cities is a no for her. In NJ, I presume it is similar in other states as well, teachers with alternate route degrees will most likely be hired in urban areas, and for positions like math, science, and special education. Those are the hard to fill jobs. Alternate route teachers, like my friend, are usually starting a career change and do the course work upon hire to keep their jobs permanently.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I am an alternate route teacher for special education. There is one big difference though. I had my standard certificate in elementary education and had three years of teaching experience before switching to special education; therefore, I am not considered alternate route credentialed. Now that I have been teaching for 10 years it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think it is a stretch to ask people to be qualified for the job they have or want. Would you go to lawyer in training? or a doctor who may have a medical degree but never did any internships? I know some people don't like the analogies, but why should teaching be any less important?
I can also say that my first year, even with all of the training, fieldwork, and internships, I stunk out loud. Hard to admit that, but hind-sight being 20/20 and all. In 10 years of teaching I can say I know 10 times more than I did that first year. Yes, experienced teachers cost more, but they are definitely worth more. Are there people I wish would be fired? Few and far between, but yes they are there.
Yes, I think ALL children, even those attending private, charter, and parochial schools, should have a certified teacher in their classroom. As of now only public schools require certified teachers. How sad is that? Don't hate me for saying this, but in NJ it is said that if you're teaching in a private or charter school you more than likely didn't pass the praxis or couldn't get hired elsewhere. Yeah, I know that's not true for everyone, or even the majority of people outside the public school system, but it's what people say.
Ok, I don't really believe in the Teach for America Program. After teaching in the inner city for what is now 7 years, I can say wholeheartedly, our poorest students need our BEST teachers. I taught in the suburbs for three years before coming to the city. Frankly, it doesn't take much to teach suburban kids who don't have learning or language difficulties. Little did I know then. Once I came to the city, I realized I never worked so hard in my life. Now I am in a working-class neighborhood in the same city, and even there I don't feel I work half as hard as I did in the "ghetto". If you want to see fundamental change in education give the hard jobs to the "good teachers" in the suburbs instead of rewarding them by sending them to the easy schools. So how can I in good conscience support a program that puts the least prepared instructors, because they aren't teachers just yet, in front of these kids? I can't! I am conflicted because saying that makes me feel disloyal to family.
I may have mentioned this before, but I have a relative who is a TFA teacher in a rural area. She was a psychology major hired to teach middle school science. She went into it thinking, "Hey I want to teach at the college level, so why not teach for real before graduate school." Seemed like a good idea. I looked at the program myself when I was in grad school because of the loan forgiveness, which I should have gotten anyway teaching in the inner city. Missed it by "that" much. Whole other argument there.
For three years now I have been saying, "Yeah, but my cousin is in TFA and she does a great job." She announced she is quitting this year. If there's one thing I hate, it's someone living up to a stereotype. TFA again stands for Teach for a While. I shouldn't hold it against her because she never intended it to be forever. I think that's the biggest problem of all. These corps members never intend for it to be forever. It truly bothers those of us who have dedicated our lives and livelihoods to education to hear these folks receive accolades for "teaching for a while." Also, why do districts have to pay a head-hunters fee when there are 100's of free applicants out there. As a parent, I know I would rather have a certified and experienced teacher leading my child.
My cousin would complain that the other staff members treated them like garbage, second class citizens. I encouraged her to see it from their perspective. She would also tell me how many of the staff members themselves were not certified because the school/county had a very hard time retaining certified staff. To that I say, Pay them more and treat them better for starters. She also commented on how the staff didn't go to very good schools and didn't seem nearly as knowledgeable as say myself or her sister. (She said the state university functioned at about a 7th grade reading level, and hated the idea of doing any kind of graduate work there. I think the negative attitude swung both ways there.)
Anyway, she earned a good reputation and seemed to enjoy her work and seemed successful at it. However, now that I think back on it, there are startling differences between her and myself. She thinks about success in terms of classroom management and higher test scores. She has been made to believe that the all mighty test score is the actual goal of education. I rate success as increased reading levels and joy of watching a child's face light up when a new skill is mastered or concept understood. I HATE what testing has done to education. I teach for understanding and joy, not for regurgitation.
My scores look good, but I don't feel pride in them. In the burbs I was at 95% passing as a first year teacher. I always say they did that despite me, not because of me. The other 5% bug me because those were the kids that walked in as basic skills students and I feel I didn't help them one lick that year. My co-teacher and I were praised last year because we had the best scores in the first grade on the Terra Nova in our building. I accepted my accolades and kept it moving. My reward was a transfer to a building that already has passing scores. Go figure.
Long story short, My cousin is leaving her teaching post and is now being considered for a management post with TFA. If she gets the position she will be overseeing about 30 corps members in her area. Really?!! They think that after 3 years she has enough experience to be a supervisor? I had my first student teacher this year. She was kind of sprung on me the third day of school. I always said I wanted one, but I was unprepared for her. Frankly I never felt ready to oversee another teacher until now. Does my cousin and her company really think that after a mere three years she's ready to oversee 30 new teachers without any kind of teaching experience behind them. Also, if the veterans in their schools are that adverse to having them on staff, who will really mentor them. I keep seeing problems and not many solutions.
So I guess the question is, am I being disloyal, because FAMILY IS EVERYTHING, or should I stop biting my tongue and say what I really think?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Teacher Guilt Vs. Mommy Guilt
The name I have chosen for myself is TeacherMomNJ because those are the three things that define me as a person. Teacher, Mother, Jersey Girl (not a Jersey Shore type girl or a Jerseylicious type girl, just a real no nonsense woman with kick butt attitude). I am also a wife, daughter, sister, cousin and friend. Sometimes maintaining the balance in my life can be very difficult.
Many times we are asked what is a good teacher. On many teacher blogs and articles you hear how teachers spend an exorbitant amount of their personal time on the job. Those teachers who go in at 6:30 am and stay until 6:30pm. The ones who create and maintain websites for their classes, who spend hours and hours on preparation and assessment, those who create teacher resources for others to use. It's almost as though the self-sacrifice is a badge of honor and that sacrifice has become expected. Those who don't go that extra 10 miles vs. just the extra mile, are sometimes made to feel guilty.
The same problem occurs for moms. What does it take to be a good mommy? Is it the cleanest house? Is it someone with the most exceptional children who get nothing but good grades in school? Are the best moms the ones who are full time homemakers who dedicate their lives to their kids and families? Frankly I think any parent who has non-homicidal children who know how to be responsible and get along with others isn't doing too bad.
I want to be great at both jobs. What person doesn't want to excel at what they have chosen to do? Unfortunately keeping the balance can be hard, and if I spend more time on one job than the other, I get the guilt pushing in on both sides. (I used to be Catholic, and I am very familiar with guilt.) I have recently been dealing with medical issues that sap all of my energy, so the time and energy I can dedicate to anything is at a premium. Therefore, the guilt I feel for NOT being able to dedicate MORE time and energy to my children at home and my children at work is at an all time high. It begs the question WHY should I feel that way at all?
I spend 8 hours a day at work given my students everything I got. I get in early, work through lunch and prep, then stay a little late to set up for the next day. When I get home I have almost nothing left. Due to my exhaustion and lack of energy, I can't give my own children my best, and there is nothing left over for my husband or even myself.
Why do teachers feel compelled to do this? Teaching is just about the only job where you bring your work home. Where you are EXPECTED to work for free all the extra overtime. Well, I'm done. I've already had to quit my second job in direct sales because the sacrifices of time and energy were too much and I was spread too thin. My 8 hours are all I am willing to put in because my job as mom is just as, if not more important. 10 years as a teacher has taught me my own value as a parent. The kids most likely to slip through the cracks are the ones who don't have enough support from their parents. They may have their love and devotion, but quite often it's time that makes the difference. That isn't just for poor kids. Affluent kids who have workaholic or absentee parents face the same issues. When parents ask me what they can do for their kids, I simply tell them to give them your time, not things that can be bought. Go places together, read stories, and just talk to them.
I know I do a good job. It has taken 10 years, but I have developed the efficiency to do my job at my job. I am no longer willing to sacrifice my children or my family. I may give a 9th hour here or there, but after 10 years I know there is nothing that can't wait until tomorrow. My hope is that as I get my medical issues sorted out I will have more energy, but until then, this is all I have to give and I refuse to feel guilty about it.
I guess the moral of the story is, stop giving us more and more work to do. If you couldn't do it in a 7-8 hour day, than I shouldn't be expected to either. I feel that the #1 most important thing I do at work, is the direct instruction of my students. The attention I give directly to THEM! So policy makers, stop giving us more. Compile your own data. My job says to write plans, lead my students, assess and adjust instruction according to those assessments, and to facilitate LEARNING. Anything else you want me to do isn't in my job description. Teachers need to step up and say NO MORE! Stop letting people walk all over you and stop convincing yourself that you are doing it for the kids. Frankly, if you are a good teacher and you try to keep that pace forever, even later when you have a family of your own, you WILL burn out and won't be good to anybody? You need to have a life of your own. You need to keep the balance. Keep your sanity and stay connected to the world so that you can help your students connect to the world.
Many times we are asked what is a good teacher. On many teacher blogs and articles you hear how teachers spend an exorbitant amount of their personal time on the job. Those teachers who go in at 6:30 am and stay until 6:30pm. The ones who create and maintain websites for their classes, who spend hours and hours on preparation and assessment, those who create teacher resources for others to use. It's almost as though the self-sacrifice is a badge of honor and that sacrifice has become expected. Those who don't go that extra 10 miles vs. just the extra mile, are sometimes made to feel guilty.
The same problem occurs for moms. What does it take to be a good mommy? Is it the cleanest house? Is it someone with the most exceptional children who get nothing but good grades in school? Are the best moms the ones who are full time homemakers who dedicate their lives to their kids and families? Frankly I think any parent who has non-homicidal children who know how to be responsible and get along with others isn't doing too bad.
I want to be great at both jobs. What person doesn't want to excel at what they have chosen to do? Unfortunately keeping the balance can be hard, and if I spend more time on one job than the other, I get the guilt pushing in on both sides. (I used to be Catholic, and I am very familiar with guilt.) I have recently been dealing with medical issues that sap all of my energy, so the time and energy I can dedicate to anything is at a premium. Therefore, the guilt I feel for NOT being able to dedicate MORE time and energy to my children at home and my children at work is at an all time high. It begs the question WHY should I feel that way at all?
I spend 8 hours a day at work given my students everything I got. I get in early, work through lunch and prep, then stay a little late to set up for the next day. When I get home I have almost nothing left. Due to my exhaustion and lack of energy, I can't give my own children my best, and there is nothing left over for my husband or even myself.
Why do teachers feel compelled to do this? Teaching is just about the only job where you bring your work home. Where you are EXPECTED to work for free all the extra overtime. Well, I'm done. I've already had to quit my second job in direct sales because the sacrifices of time and energy were too much and I was spread too thin. My 8 hours are all I am willing to put in because my job as mom is just as, if not more important. 10 years as a teacher has taught me my own value as a parent. The kids most likely to slip through the cracks are the ones who don't have enough support from their parents. They may have their love and devotion, but quite often it's time that makes the difference. That isn't just for poor kids. Affluent kids who have workaholic or absentee parents face the same issues. When parents ask me what they can do for their kids, I simply tell them to give them your time, not things that can be bought. Go places together, read stories, and just talk to them.
I know I do a good job. It has taken 10 years, but I have developed the efficiency to do my job at my job. I am no longer willing to sacrifice my children or my family. I may give a 9th hour here or there, but after 10 years I know there is nothing that can't wait until tomorrow. My hope is that as I get my medical issues sorted out I will have more energy, but until then, this is all I have to give and I refuse to feel guilty about it.
I guess the moral of the story is, stop giving us more and more work to do. If you couldn't do it in a 7-8 hour day, than I shouldn't be expected to either. I feel that the #1 most important thing I do at work, is the direct instruction of my students. The attention I give directly to THEM! So policy makers, stop giving us more. Compile your own data. My job says to write plans, lead my students, assess and adjust instruction according to those assessments, and to facilitate LEARNING. Anything else you want me to do isn't in my job description. Teachers need to step up and say NO MORE! Stop letting people walk all over you and stop convincing yourself that you are doing it for the kids. Frankly, if you are a good teacher and you try to keep that pace forever, even later when you have a family of your own, you WILL burn out and won't be good to anybody? You need to have a life of your own. You need to keep the balance. Keep your sanity and stay connected to the world so that you can help your students connect to the world.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Yet another reason why I hate High Stakes Testing!!
Today was not a good day...
Never in my ten years of teaching have I ever seen anything like what I am seeing in my new classroom. When I received news of my new placement, everybody said, "You are so lucky. You're going to a good school. They have some of the best test scores in the district."
Well, I am here to tell you test scores don't mean much when the students in your class ARE COMPLETELY LACKING EVEN RUDIMENTARY BASIC SKILLS!!
The first two weeks of school usually involve doing basic assessments. We check their reading, we check their math, we get a feel for where they are and where we need to go. I was shocked by what I found in my current class of second graders. I've taught in the worst neighborhood for the last six years. Now I'm in a better neighborhood. I erroneously thought that my new students would have better basic skills. I can honestly say that I have NEVER had a class, and yes I mean the entire class, so far behind. I taught first grade last year, so I know what they SHOULD be capable of, and they aren't even close, and too often I am looking at a sea of confusion and blank stares.
WHY?
I keep asking the question. Everyday when I become frustrated trying to teach a new skill, I ask how can it be that these children are so ignorant.
Well, I was told that in an effort to raise scores, the most highly effective teachers were moved to the testing grades. Weaker teachers were moved to the primary grades. In addition, there were a number of long term substitutes, non-certified teachers, also placed in the primary grades.
The Results: Increased test scores in the testing grades, 3, 4, and 8, and primary students with NO BASIC SKILLS. As an example, I only have 5 out of 17 students reading on grade level. 75% of the students could not name all of the months or seasons and most certainly not in order. Few students were able to identify coins let alone give the value of a group of coins. About 1/2 were able to count by 5's, few were able to count by 2's. Writing is very weak and they are making structure and other similar mistakes that one might expect in the beginning of first grade. Many of these skills are learned in K and mastered in grade 1. So because of the over emphasis on test scores as opposed to quality learning, an entire group of children lost their foundation. I see that the second and first grade is stacked this year with amazing teachers, so I think that mistake may be corrected, but I worry that it may be too late. We may need to retain a very large number of children in order to assure their foundational skills are complete, and I predict very low test scores next year if the majority of the students move onto third grade. It also means that I will probably work harder than I ever have since entering the field of teaching.
The situation makes me angry. Someone along the way failed these kids. Wish me luck. We are all going to need it. To all of you, don't be fooled. Just because a school has "good scores" doesn't mean their kids actually know anything.
Never in my ten years of teaching have I ever seen anything like what I am seeing in my new classroom. When I received news of my new placement, everybody said, "You are so lucky. You're going to a good school. They have some of the best test scores in the district."
Well, I am here to tell you test scores don't mean much when the students in your class ARE COMPLETELY LACKING EVEN RUDIMENTARY BASIC SKILLS!!
The first two weeks of school usually involve doing basic assessments. We check their reading, we check their math, we get a feel for where they are and where we need to go. I was shocked by what I found in my current class of second graders. I've taught in the worst neighborhood for the last six years. Now I'm in a better neighborhood. I erroneously thought that my new students would have better basic skills. I can honestly say that I have NEVER had a class, and yes I mean the entire class, so far behind. I taught first grade last year, so I know what they SHOULD be capable of, and they aren't even close, and too often I am looking at a sea of confusion and blank stares.
WHY?
I keep asking the question. Everyday when I become frustrated trying to teach a new skill, I ask how can it be that these children are so ignorant.
Well, I was told that in an effort to raise scores, the most highly effective teachers were moved to the testing grades. Weaker teachers were moved to the primary grades. In addition, there were a number of long term substitutes, non-certified teachers, also placed in the primary grades.
The Results: Increased test scores in the testing grades, 3, 4, and 8, and primary students with NO BASIC SKILLS. As an example, I only have 5 out of 17 students reading on grade level. 75% of the students could not name all of the months or seasons and most certainly not in order. Few students were able to identify coins let alone give the value of a group of coins. About 1/2 were able to count by 5's, few were able to count by 2's. Writing is very weak and they are making structure and other similar mistakes that one might expect in the beginning of first grade. Many of these skills are learned in K and mastered in grade 1. So because of the over emphasis on test scores as opposed to quality learning, an entire group of children lost their foundation. I see that the second and first grade is stacked this year with amazing teachers, so I think that mistake may be corrected, but I worry that it may be too late. We may need to retain a very large number of children in order to assure their foundational skills are complete, and I predict very low test scores next year if the majority of the students move onto third grade. It also means that I will probably work harder than I ever have since entering the field of teaching.
The situation makes me angry. Someone along the way failed these kids. Wish me luck. We are all going to need it. To all of you, don't be fooled. Just because a school has "good scores" doesn't mean their kids actually know anything.
Friday, September 9, 2011
A Whole New World
A new year, a new school, a new curriculum, a new attitude.
For the last 6 years, I have taught in a primary inclusion class in "the worst school" in a large urban district. At the end of last year I was forced to transfer out of the building due to low enrollment. I spent the summer in anguish, crazed over the uncertainty of what would happen in the year to come. I had so many questions: Where would I end up? What grade will I teach? Will the staff accept me? I also had conflicted feelings over leaving my students. I felt as though I was abandoning them. There aren't too many teachers willing to work in that kind of high stress environment and quality teachers are hard to come by. I do have to say that my former co-workers have been nothing but supportive. They said, "you've been given a golden ticket to get out of here." We used to refer to our building as purgatory. I've referred to it as "Hotel California", you can check in, but you can never check out. I don't think anyone EVER has been able to successfully transfer out. So I learned to look at the situation to "get out of Dodge" and seek a place where "the grass may be greener". (Cliches can be fun)
At the close of the first week, what have I learned?
There is a huge dichotomy between the more middle class neighborhood within the district, and the "inner city" or gang infested neighborhood where I previously taught that greatly angers me. The kids in the "bad neighborhood" are given a building that is falling down and rightfully should be shut down for OSHA violations (Leaking roof, flooded basement, mold on the walls, broken stairs, rats, you name it). In fact the building in so dark and gloomy it's hard NOT to feel depressed just walking inside. They are given the worst principal, someone who failed at their last two assignments, and fought the placement. They have teachers with very low morale because they feel they are fighting against the world and losing. They are micromanaged, and stripped of all autonomy. The neediest students, who come from the most harrowing of home lives, are given the worst support and weakest opportunities. It perpetuates a culture of failure.
So what makes the difference? I have discovered the secret ingredient. LEADERSHIP!
There is a school down the road from my old building in the same neighborhood servicing similar families, similar students with similar problems, with equally qualified teachers, and the same curriculum. They may not have passed according to the test scores, but they made considerable improvement. What was the difference? LEADERSHIP and a positive atmosphere.
At my new building I see again, similar teachers, and somewhat similar students (they are no more intelligent but they have the home support that my old students generally didn't have). Again what is the difference? LEADERSHIP, high expectations, and a very positive atmosphere!
My new principal runs a tight ship and expects absolute discipline from the students with high expectations for behavior. Teachers are NOT micromanaged and given the autonomy to do their jobs. Yes, they must meet all district mandates for curriculum, and they are now expected to follow the script of the new "canned" reading program, but they can relax in that nobody will be constantly looking over their shoulder. The adults are treated like adults and professionals capable to their work. I used a copy machine for the fist time in 6 years, and it was disconcerting how something so simple could make me so happy. For the first time in a long time I feel like I am being allowed to TEACH. Also, the leadership of the building has created a positive atmosphere where the staff are friendly, helpful, and supportive of each other. I in fact found their friendliness almost disconcerting the first few days. (In my old building there were a few teams that worked well, but in general, misery loved company)
Now when I say leadership, it doesn't necessarily mean only at the building level. Leadership includes the superintendent who assigned a poor leader to a needy building and allocates resources to less needy buildings. It includes a state Education commissioner making bad decisions and politicians, without any education training or understanding, making even worse decisions.
So here's my idea for improving our inner city schools. First, we have to stop treating kids from the "ghetto" like "bastard red-headed step children" as my grandmother would say. Our neediest students need the most support. They need a beautiful building where they can come everyday and feel joy and safe. They need discipline and high expectations. They need the BEST principals and great teachers. They need teachers who feel empowered to make a difference and who have the autonomy to do whatever it takes to make those kids successful as opposed to being micromanaged by someone else's idea of what is best for the kids (especially by those who haven't been in a classroom in a great many years). They need good early childhood education to make up for those deficiencies before they even enter school. They may need extra tutoring and support. They don't need vouchers or charter schools, or crazy evaluation systems or merit pay for the staff. They just someone to honestly and truly care about what is best for them, all of them. They need good leaders!
For the last 6 years, I have taught in a primary inclusion class in "the worst school" in a large urban district. At the end of last year I was forced to transfer out of the building due to low enrollment. I spent the summer in anguish, crazed over the uncertainty of what would happen in the year to come. I had so many questions: Where would I end up? What grade will I teach? Will the staff accept me? I also had conflicted feelings over leaving my students. I felt as though I was abandoning them. There aren't too many teachers willing to work in that kind of high stress environment and quality teachers are hard to come by. I do have to say that my former co-workers have been nothing but supportive. They said, "you've been given a golden ticket to get out of here." We used to refer to our building as purgatory. I've referred to it as "Hotel California", you can check in, but you can never check out. I don't think anyone EVER has been able to successfully transfer out. So I learned to look at the situation to "get out of Dodge" and seek a place where "the grass may be greener". (Cliches can be fun)
At the close of the first week, what have I learned?
There is a huge dichotomy between the more middle class neighborhood within the district, and the "inner city" or gang infested neighborhood where I previously taught that greatly angers me. The kids in the "bad neighborhood" are given a building that is falling down and rightfully should be shut down for OSHA violations (Leaking roof, flooded basement, mold on the walls, broken stairs, rats, you name it). In fact the building in so dark and gloomy it's hard NOT to feel depressed just walking inside. They are given the worst principal, someone who failed at their last two assignments, and fought the placement. They have teachers with very low morale because they feel they are fighting against the world and losing. They are micromanaged, and stripped of all autonomy. The neediest students, who come from the most harrowing of home lives, are given the worst support and weakest opportunities. It perpetuates a culture of failure.
So what makes the difference? I have discovered the secret ingredient. LEADERSHIP!
There is a school down the road from my old building in the same neighborhood servicing similar families, similar students with similar problems, with equally qualified teachers, and the same curriculum. They may not have passed according to the test scores, but they made considerable improvement. What was the difference? LEADERSHIP and a positive atmosphere.
At my new building I see again, similar teachers, and somewhat similar students (they are no more intelligent but they have the home support that my old students generally didn't have). Again what is the difference? LEADERSHIP, high expectations, and a very positive atmosphere!
My new principal runs a tight ship and expects absolute discipline from the students with high expectations for behavior. Teachers are NOT micromanaged and given the autonomy to do their jobs. Yes, they must meet all district mandates for curriculum, and they are now expected to follow the script of the new "canned" reading program, but they can relax in that nobody will be constantly looking over their shoulder. The adults are treated like adults and professionals capable to their work. I used a copy machine for the fist time in 6 years, and it was disconcerting how something so simple could make me so happy. For the first time in a long time I feel like I am being allowed to TEACH. Also, the leadership of the building has created a positive atmosphere where the staff are friendly, helpful, and supportive of each other. I in fact found their friendliness almost disconcerting the first few days. (In my old building there were a few teams that worked well, but in general, misery loved company)
Now when I say leadership, it doesn't necessarily mean only at the building level. Leadership includes the superintendent who assigned a poor leader to a needy building and allocates resources to less needy buildings. It includes a state Education commissioner making bad decisions and politicians, without any education training or understanding, making even worse decisions.
So here's my idea for improving our inner city schools. First, we have to stop treating kids from the "ghetto" like "bastard red-headed step children" as my grandmother would say. Our neediest students need the most support. They need a beautiful building where they can come everyday and feel joy and safe. They need discipline and high expectations. They need the BEST principals and great teachers. They need teachers who feel empowered to make a difference and who have the autonomy to do whatever it takes to make those kids successful as opposed to being micromanaged by someone else's idea of what is best for the kids (especially by those who haven't been in a classroom in a great many years). They need good early childhood education to make up for those deficiencies before they even enter school. They may need extra tutoring and support. They don't need vouchers or charter schools, or crazy evaluation systems or merit pay for the staff. They just someone to honestly and truly care about what is best for them, all of them. They need good leaders!
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Save Our Schools!! Prevent Poverty.
Dr. Ravitch has us fired up and she makes a lot of sense! Here is a link to her speech. One thing that she said that truly resonated with me was, "The problem is not our schools. The problem is poverty." The example is that all of our American schools that have 25% or less students categorized as impoverished, are as well if not better then EVERY other country ranked according to international test scores. There is a divide in this country that can no longer be denied between those with money and those without it. Money can't buy you happiness, but it does afford you choices. Parents with the means to do so can decide where to live and what schools they want for their children, or if they want to pay for private schooling. Parents without means have no choices. They must live where they can afford to live, and are usually relegated to the neighborhood school. THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. My argument is that the suburban school and the inner city school should have access to the same resources and be of a similar quality.
Poverty is a far bigger problem then the union or teacher quality as the corporate reformers would have you believe. I've taught in suburban schools and in inner city schools, and they are separated by a whole lot more than geography.
Life in a suburban school:
1. Parents who introduce themselves, who ask "how can I help", who make sure homework gets done, and who attend meetings and accept phone calls.
2. Principals who spent more years in the classroom than as administrators, who support you professionally and could offer advice and constructive criticism when needed, who respected you as a professional.
3. Students who come to school ready to learn, who have the pre-requisite skills needed to perform in the classroom, who have the supplies needed to do their work, who show ALL school staff the respect they deserve, and who have been taught to value their own work.
4. Supplies are distributed as needed, teachers have access to photo copies, a laminator, and maybe even an Ellison machine, they are given new books and materials on a regular basis but are not pigeon wholed into using ONLY those materials given.
5. Instruction IS NOT DICTATED!! We are encouraged to meet the needs of our students as individuals using whatever means and materials necessary to get the job done. (Unfortunately as more and more suburban schools fail to reach NCLB benchmarks, this one is changing. More suburban teachers ARE being dictated to with enforced pacing Guides and scripted programs making curricula "teacher proof")
Life in an inner city school:
1. Parents come in 2 categories: The "poor excuse for a parent" who you've NEVER met, who never answers a call, letter or request for meeting, and who NEVER sign a report card. Also, there are parents who are involved in drugs, gangs, or are incarcerated. They show up at the school high or drunk, they curse you out in front of their child and have TAUGHT their child to disrespect all authority and to hate everything about school. The parents who abuse, neglect and ignore their child or leave their child to raise themselves. Luckily these parents are a minority. Most parents DO want the best for the child; however, they don't have the money to buy basic supplies on minimum wage salaries, they don't have the time to make sure homework is done because they are working 2 or three jobs to keep a roof over their child's head and food in their belly. Perhaps they can't help with homework because they don't speak English or they never finished school themselves and don't understand the work. These are the parents who do the very best to make time for their children and will cry on your shoulder when you do meet with them.
2. Students who arrive in Kindergarten already 2 years behind their counterparts. That's right folks, the "Achievement gap" is measurable at the age of 3. These students and their teachers are constantly playing a game of "catch up" where even the top third grader may be 1-2 years behind same age counterparts. Students who are abused, neglected, homeless, unhealthy, under-developed, second language learners, who are raising their younger siblings, taking care of an array of adult responsibilities (Where is there time for homework and studying), who are disabled due to prenatal drug/alcoholic use, malnutrition, poor prenatal care, etc. Students who are behaviorally challenged (who wouldn't be with that kind of stress in their lives?). The ones who constantly start fights, abuse the other students, curse out teachers and other school staff, the ones who throw desks and other furniture, who bring weapons to school, who already have lost hope and have no value for education. (When my children's teachers complain, I invite them to spend a day in my school. Did I mention I teach grades 1-2?)
3. Principals who may have only spent 3-7 years in a classroom. Principals who are more concerned about what they look like on paper than the actual education of the children. Principals who REFUSE to discipline any child for poor behavior (bullying, leaving the classroom, refusal to do ANY work, disrespect, swearing, talking back, fighting, PHYSICAL ASSAULT ON STAFF!) Principals who REFUSE to leave their offices yet insist on micromanaging every aspect of the day.
4. Supplies include 30+ year-old science books, 10-year-old language arts programs (so old the company no longer makes consumable practice books for it), out-dated, out-modded math programs that do nothing to teach basic skills. No access to photo copies or laminators. No access to regular office supplies (Don't run out of anything because you will not be given more and you will not be given what you ask for)
5. INSTRUCTION: Scripted programs (do not deviate or you will be reprimanded and written up. Free-thinkers do get fired regardless of tenure if administrators hammer at it long enough and make them look as bad on paper as possible) Enforced pacing guides (NO SKIPPING OR JUMPING AROUND), everyone must be teaching the same lesson, on the same day, in the same way. NO supplementing the programs with "none approved materials". Only district approved materials are allowed. (We are forced to be sneaky and break "rules" so that we as classroom teachers can ensure that our children are actually learning. They say "Differentiate and use Response to Intervention techniques," but they force us to teach a one-size fits all curriculum and reprimand you if you deviate.
I see a lot of differences within my own district because even big cities have "nice" areas. A school uptown has brand new facilities, new materials, advanced technology and are given more money. Schools in the "ghetto" are left to molder and crumble (Our roof leaks, the basement floods, stairs are broken, mold is on our cafeteria walls), we are denied supplies, requests for help are denied. Sure under NCLB our students could transfer to one of the "nice" schools uptown or one of local charters, but they won't take our kids, and if they do, they kick them out before Thanksgiving.
So YES, poverty is a problem, but our attitude toward the impoverished is even worse. The lack of equity between the truly poor and others becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "ghetto" kids do need more money, only because the just need more. They do need longer days filled with rich curriculum that can show them not only the basics of reading and math, but the world in which they live. They need good nutrition to keep their brains working. They need less stress in their young lives so that they CAN focus on their work. They need basic supplies and rich materials. They need access to technology. They need a fair chance to succeed and have equally bright futures, but most of all, they need HOPE, that a future is even possible.
Poverty is a far bigger problem then the union or teacher quality as the corporate reformers would have you believe. I've taught in suburban schools and in inner city schools, and they are separated by a whole lot more than geography.
Life in a suburban school:
1. Parents who introduce themselves, who ask "how can I help", who make sure homework gets done, and who attend meetings and accept phone calls.
2. Principals who spent more years in the classroom than as administrators, who support you professionally and could offer advice and constructive criticism when needed, who respected you as a professional.
3. Students who come to school ready to learn, who have the pre-requisite skills needed to perform in the classroom, who have the supplies needed to do their work, who show ALL school staff the respect they deserve, and who have been taught to value their own work.
4. Supplies are distributed as needed, teachers have access to photo copies, a laminator, and maybe even an Ellison machine, they are given new books and materials on a regular basis but are not pigeon wholed into using ONLY those materials given.
5. Instruction IS NOT DICTATED!! We are encouraged to meet the needs of our students as individuals using whatever means and materials necessary to get the job done. (Unfortunately as more and more suburban schools fail to reach NCLB benchmarks, this one is changing. More suburban teachers ARE being dictated to with enforced pacing Guides and scripted programs making curricula "teacher proof")
Life in an inner city school:
1. Parents come in 2 categories: The "poor excuse for a parent" who you've NEVER met, who never answers a call, letter or request for meeting, and who NEVER sign a report card. Also, there are parents who are involved in drugs, gangs, or are incarcerated. They show up at the school high or drunk, they curse you out in front of their child and have TAUGHT their child to disrespect all authority and to hate everything about school. The parents who abuse, neglect and ignore their child or leave their child to raise themselves. Luckily these parents are a minority. Most parents DO want the best for the child; however, they don't have the money to buy basic supplies on minimum wage salaries, they don't have the time to make sure homework is done because they are working 2 or three jobs to keep a roof over their child's head and food in their belly. Perhaps they can't help with homework because they don't speak English or they never finished school themselves and don't understand the work. These are the parents who do the very best to make time for their children and will cry on your shoulder when you do meet with them.
2. Students who arrive in Kindergarten already 2 years behind their counterparts. That's right folks, the "Achievement gap" is measurable at the age of 3. These students and their teachers are constantly playing a game of "catch up" where even the top third grader may be 1-2 years behind same age counterparts. Students who are abused, neglected, homeless, unhealthy, under-developed, second language learners, who are raising their younger siblings, taking care of an array of adult responsibilities (Where is there time for homework and studying), who are disabled due to prenatal drug/alcoholic use, malnutrition, poor prenatal care, etc. Students who are behaviorally challenged (who wouldn't be with that kind of stress in their lives?). The ones who constantly start fights, abuse the other students, curse out teachers and other school staff, the ones who throw desks and other furniture, who bring weapons to school, who already have lost hope and have no value for education. (When my children's teachers complain, I invite them to spend a day in my school. Did I mention I teach grades 1-2?)
3. Principals who may have only spent 3-7 years in a classroom. Principals who are more concerned about what they look like on paper than the actual education of the children. Principals who REFUSE to discipline any child for poor behavior (bullying, leaving the classroom, refusal to do ANY work, disrespect, swearing, talking back, fighting, PHYSICAL ASSAULT ON STAFF!) Principals who REFUSE to leave their offices yet insist on micromanaging every aspect of the day.
4. Supplies include 30+ year-old science books, 10-year-old language arts programs (so old the company no longer makes consumable practice books for it), out-dated, out-modded math programs that do nothing to teach basic skills. No access to photo copies or laminators. No access to regular office supplies (Don't run out of anything because you will not be given more and you will not be given what you ask for)
5. INSTRUCTION: Scripted programs (do not deviate or you will be reprimanded and written up. Free-thinkers do get fired regardless of tenure if administrators hammer at it long enough and make them look as bad on paper as possible) Enforced pacing guides (NO SKIPPING OR JUMPING AROUND), everyone must be teaching the same lesson, on the same day, in the same way. NO supplementing the programs with "none approved materials". Only district approved materials are allowed. (We are forced to be sneaky and break "rules" so that we as classroom teachers can ensure that our children are actually learning. They say "Differentiate and use Response to Intervention techniques," but they force us to teach a one-size fits all curriculum and reprimand you if you deviate.
I see a lot of differences within my own district because even big cities have "nice" areas. A school uptown has brand new facilities, new materials, advanced technology and are given more money. Schools in the "ghetto" are left to molder and crumble (Our roof leaks, the basement floods, stairs are broken, mold is on our cafeteria walls), we are denied supplies, requests for help are denied. Sure under NCLB our students could transfer to one of the "nice" schools uptown or one of local charters, but they won't take our kids, and if they do, they kick them out before Thanksgiving.
So YES, poverty is a problem, but our attitude toward the impoverished is even worse. The lack of equity between the truly poor and others becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "ghetto" kids do need more money, only because the just need more. They do need longer days filled with rich curriculum that can show them not only the basics of reading and math, but the world in which they live. They need good nutrition to keep their brains working. They need less stress in their young lives so that they CAN focus on their work. They need basic supplies and rich materials. They need access to technology. They need a fair chance to succeed and have equally bright futures, but most of all, they need HOPE, that a future is even possible.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Some thoughts on Pensions and Benefits
I'm sure by now just about everyone has heard about the "landmark pension and benefits bill passed with bi-partisan support in New Jersey." I've had a few days to mourn the loss, assess the situation, while maintaining some anger over the injustice of it all. As a special education teacher, I have been taught, "What is equal is not what is just." They say this to us to remind us to treat every student as an individual with their own set of expectations. Everyone lives within their own set of circumstances, and we need to work in, with and around them.
The new debate has opened as chasm between private and public. Here were some comments I recently read after an article on the how these new bills will effect the workers and economy of the state
Some responses were excellent:
So, if you're saying that, "Employees that are paid by the taxpayers are no different than employees of the private sector and should not be treated differently," then let's do it! Let's write some laws that say private sector workers will now permanently watch their take home pay get lower lower and lower, because we're going to write laws that restrict their raises to very small % increases, while we also increase their health care payments and retirement fund payments to a much larger %. And while we're at it, they can no longer have 401Ks matched by their employers. They will have pensions, and the government can either choose to contribute to it, choose not to contribute to it, or simply gamble their retirement money away as they please. When their raises get smaller and smaller, permanently NOT accounting for the increases in cost of living, while the money that is taken from their pay checks gets bigger and bigger, that's when it will be fair. So, let's do it! Let's write these laws so that private and public workers won't be treated differently, just as you have suggested! I'm all for it!
Another response I liked was by RememberHistory:
The new debate has opened as chasm between private and public. Here were some comments I recently read after an article on the how these new bills will effect the workers and economy of the state
Licorice2258 says:
Employees that are paid by the taxpayers are no different than employees of the private sector and should not be treated differently. No one seems to get upset when companies decide they want a bigger bottom line and decide to outsource jobs to other states or countries which leaves many unemployed. Or when revenue is down and raises are ignored for a couple years while the cost of benefits rise. While this is going on upper management is living like there isn't a problem at all.
Sorry to have sympathy for employees of the state while they are crying like babies who need a diaper change. You all are probably the only people who can afford to live in this state along side our politicians. And the ones who live out of state - you are ripping us off since you don't spend your money here.
NJDMS says:"Employees that are paid by the taxpayers are no different than employees of the private sector and should not be treated differently."
You are 100% right! And that is public sector employees' opinion as well.
You also say that no one seems to get upset when private sector "revenue is down and raises are ignored for a couple years while the cost of benefits rise."
The key word there is that raises are ignored for a COUPLE of years while the cost of benefits rise. That is also public employees' point as well. Nobody has written any laws that say bankers' will no longer get raises ever again just because times are currently tough. Laws have been written now that will restrict raises for public employees FOREVER. Public employees will now watch the cost of their pension and health benefits rise permanently, while their raises are now permanently capped in the ballpark of 2%....which is lower than cost of living increase.
The point is, a lot of teachers and public workers in general wouldn't mind making short term sacrifices like what private sector workers make. Perhaps Christie could have required all teachers to take a pay freeze in their next 3-year contract (not permanently), but then drop or re-evaluate the cuts for the following 3-year contract based on the economy at that time. Or maybe if there was an exit clause, such as raises will increase when stocks rise a certain amount or unemployment drops a certain amount, or make SOME KIND of benchmark that will end these cuts at SOME POINT. But no. These changes were made to be permanent. At least if you're a banker...yeah...you might not get a raise for a few years because times are tough. But, guess what. When the company starts doing well again, raises and perks come back. That is now NOT the case with teachers and other public workers. There is no way out and up for them now....regardless of what happens with the economy.
So, if you're saying that, "Employees that are paid by the taxpayers are no different than employees of the private sector and should not be treated differently," then let's do it! Let's write some laws that say private sector workers will now permanently watch their take home pay get lower lower and lower, because we're going to write laws that restrict their raises to very small % increases, while we also increase their health care payments and retirement fund payments to a much larger %. And while we're at it, they can no longer have 401Ks matched by their employers. They will have pensions, and the government can either choose to contribute to it, choose not to contribute to it, or simply gamble their retirement money away as they please. When their raises get smaller and smaller, permanently NOT accounting for the increases in cost of living, while the money that is taken from their pay checks gets bigger and bigger, that's when it will be fair. So, let's do it! Let's write these laws so that private and public workers won't be treated differently, just as you have suggested! I'm all for it!
Another response I liked was by RememberHistory:
OK..let's counterpoint, one by one...
1. Public employees have a pension because they bargained for one; private sector employees don't because they allowed management take it away. Twenty years ago, most corporations did indeed offer a pension; in fact many still do, a dirty little secret that doesn't seem to get publicized much. Now, here's the problem: let's say the Governor wants to end pensions forever and instead set up 401K's like private firms. Unfortunately, that can't be done because he, like his predecessors, refused to make the necessary and contractually obligated payments that would have kept it healthy and fully funded. Not only that, past Governors TOOK money out of it (imagine your employer taking money out of your 401K without asking), making the situation worse.
2. I agree with your assessment - 1.5 is not enough; the current legislation corrects that and brings the contribution more into line over a four year period. Why so long? Because the private sector had a ten year phase in period where contributions began at 5% and steadily grew to the current level, all done while the economy was a bit more robust.
3. Public sector employees can indeed get healthcare coverage AFTER 25 years of service...again, that was contractually bargained for, in some cases years ago, in lieu of salary increases. The private sector used to offer the same thing; my father received health benefits from his employer after retiring until the were cancelled with little or no notice. One other note: public employees receive full health benefits after 25 years of service until they are eligible for Medicare...then they go on that.
4. Your statement is correct; public employee salaries and benefits are indeed derived from taxes. Does this mean they and the work they perform are any less important or meaningful? Does that mean they should automatically make less because the source of revenue is tax based? Remember, in the alleged "real world" out there, compensation is dictated by supply and demand...what kind of employees do you hope to attract with a lower, less attractive salary? The best? The brightest? Or merely the adequate? Does your firm deliberately hire lesser qualified personnel for positions merely to save dollars, or do they attempt to meet market demands based on experience, qualifications, and education. How do they retain good people and keep them from leaving? Again, market forces at work. Do you honestly think good teachers are going to stay in the educational field watching their real compensation diminish year after year? Would you?
5. You make an excellent point about the 99% who aren't Wall Street bankers...so why not acknowledge that much of the rhetoric being thrown around here focuses on the small minority of boat checks, double dippers, and 100K police officers. Do you really believe that represents the VAST majority of public sector workers? If so, then I think you're all Wall Street bankers.
I think these comments show the kinds of statements being made on both sides. Here's my two cents. If you want to treat me like a private sector worker, then pay me like a private sector worker. Professionals in the private sector with equivalent education and experience are making considerably more a year than their public sector counterparts, especially teachers. See here for details.
"U.S. census data shows that annual pay for teachers has fallen drastically over the past 60 years when compared to the annual pay of other workers with college degrees. According to a recent study by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the average national starting salary for a teacher is around $30,377. But the study showed that other college graduates entering professions that require similar training and responsibilities start at much higher salaries. For example, public accountants start at $44,668; computer programmers start at an average of $43,635; and registered nurses start at about $45,570. The average earnings of workers with at least four years of college are now more than 50% higher than the average earnings of a teacher. And in addition to starting salaries being lower, inflation has grown faster than the increases in teachers’ salaries each year. Over the past year, inflation increased 3.1%, while teachers’ salaries increased by only 2.3%."
Here's a little anecdote for you, and it is 100% true. One of my cousin's and I graduated the same year. I with my masters in education, her with a BA in Marketing. I started at $43,500 a year. She started at $52, 000 a year. After working in my field for 9 years and earning an additional certificate, I now make $51,000 a year and she, after earning her MBA last year, is making $85,000, with full family benefits a matched 401K, and 3 weeks vacation. (so the benefits are matched fairly well). She has had ups and downs in her career. She's been laid off by big business twice in her career. My job has been more stable and I have some security with tenure.
I've never begrudged her her success. I guess society just values marketing and people who MAKE money more than someone like myself. Though like Taylor Mali says, I know I make a difference. Like so many teachers I say to myself, "I have the summer 'off' and I have excellent benefits. The top of the pay scale is somewhere out there off in the distance. I may not have it now, but I have a future, so it all comes out in the wash. I am content with my lot in life. 'It's not a lot, but it's my life'".
First let me explain a little something about the top of the pay scale. You don't get there until after 15-20 years of service. You also don't get that "golden fleece" pension with post-retirement benefits until after 25 years (30 under the new law) and you basically can't collect at all until after 10 years, and then it's only a small % of your last 3 year's salary with NO BENEFITS. (Unlike those in "Public service", those pesky politicians, who get full pension AND benefits after 1 TERM!!!) My kids will be in college by then. Why is it so far away? It's set up like that on purpose. " Nearly 50% of all new teachers leave the profession within five years." Therefore, they keep the bottom of the pay scale low, and those who hang in there and become the best of the best, will eventually be rewarded. Why pay somebody a high wage if they aren't going to stick it out and stay? Teachers have never been motivated by money, and those who are don't stick around long. (Which is why merit pay will never work, but that's a whole other conversation.)
Here is where I stand. Pension deductions are currently $147 per pay check for a total of about $3000 a year. Now, will be over $3800 a year or $200 per check ($50 not a big deal really). Now benefits were just over $800 a year. Now they are estimated at $3200 a year or $160 per pay check after full phase in. Total loss is $210 per check or $420 per month. It's a 8.2% annual pay cut. Can you afford that? Here's the problem. What is 8.2% for me can be over 10% for someone on the lower end of the pay scale because they are being asked to pay the same amount into their benefits. $3200 for someone making $40,000 is 8% just for benefits and another 2% for pension, so their pay cut will actually be about 10%. So the poor get more poor.
Now here's the problem, our pay increases are capped at 2% a year (Not that I've ever gotten more than that in 9 years of service or while folks I know were getting 6% raises in the good times. "I'm not bitter," the bitter woman said) Yes people are suffering. Yes times are hard for everybody. No, I do not have a problem paying a little more. Times will get better, but while other industries will change or improve so that one day people can once again receive their 6% raises, my hopes and dreams (home ownership, sending my kids to college so they don't have $75,000 in loans to pay back) have been legislated away. There is no more hope at the end of the tunnel where the top of the pay scale looms in the distance. Inflation goes up an average of 3% a year. My pay will be cut the next four years at 6% (I'll still get my 2% raises), I will stand behind the 8 ball forever it seems. If the politicians have a say, my retirement will be gone too. Like so many other of my colleagues, as soon as I am no longer able to support my family, around the time we are in danger of loosing our rented home, I will leave the teaching profession.
Here is where I stand. Pension deductions are currently $147 per pay check for a total of about $3000 a year. Now, will be over $3800 a year or $200 per check ($50 not a big deal really). Now benefits were just over $800 a year. Now they are estimated at $3200 a year or $160 per pay check after full phase in. Total loss is $210 per check or $420 per month. It's a 8.2% annual pay cut. Can you afford that? Here's the problem. What is 8.2% for me can be over 10% for someone on the lower end of the pay scale because they are being asked to pay the same amount into their benefits. $3200 for someone making $40,000 is 8% just for benefits and another 2% for pension, so their pay cut will actually be about 10%. So the poor get more poor.
Now here's the problem, our pay increases are capped at 2% a year (Not that I've ever gotten more than that in 9 years of service or while folks I know were getting 6% raises in the good times. "I'm not bitter," the bitter woman said) Yes people are suffering. Yes times are hard for everybody. No, I do not have a problem paying a little more. Times will get better, but while other industries will change or improve so that one day people can once again receive their 6% raises, my hopes and dreams (home ownership, sending my kids to college so they don't have $75,000 in loans to pay back) have been legislated away. There is no more hope at the end of the tunnel where the top of the pay scale looms in the distance. Inflation goes up an average of 3% a year. My pay will be cut the next four years at 6% (I'll still get my 2% raises), I will stand behind the 8 ball forever it seems. If the politicians have a say, my retirement will be gone too. Like so many other of my colleagues, as soon as I am no longer able to support my family, around the time we are in danger of loosing our rented home, I will leave the teaching profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)