Laurie and Jerry posted the following at Racism vs Probability. And I think it deserves it's own post
Now before I start sounding like an Ed MN drone:
Teachers also burn out when they do not receive the above noted support. Or when they get older and lose some of their youthful hope / exuberance.
That is why it is important that their compensation and job security should be based on job challenge, work responsibility level and performance. And not paid based on degrees earned and years served.
Having a burned out overpaid Teacher in the classroom is not good for anyone. The Teacher would likely be happier elsewhere, the Teacher's lower paid higher energy peers get frustrated and the education of the children suffer.
3 Randomly selected Schools. Pick it to magnify
"As for what can be done, I would look for innovative ways to make interventions in education to raise the achievement levels of populations that are currently failing." Laurie
Hallelujah! My only quibble with this is that I believe our educators already KNOW half a dozen ways to improve results, but refuse to do them on a large enough scale. And why should they, when they get paid the same (or more) whether the kids learn or not?
You had a couple of good suggestions. I would add to that merit pay for you and your fellow teachers, and additional resources like tutors and reading programs. I'm OK with spending more if what we spend on is working. Jerry
Jerry,
You must know Teachers who are VERY different than the ones I do. The Teachers I know are Teachers because they wanted to help children learn and they liked the idea of Summers off, not because they wanted MONEY. Some things I believe they do value:
- Now they do want to be paid more if they work a longer year and/or more hours. (seems rational)
- They do want extra personnel to be able to give the troubled and special needs children extra support so they can focus on the normal kids of the class.
- They do want to ensure the troubled and special needs children get the correct medication, physical and psychological care so they can succeed in the classroom.
- They do want support to get the kids washed up, put in clean clothes, and fed when necessary. ( and yes this not rare in some schools)
- They do want extra security in the Halls to ensure the children are safe when they go to the bathroom or go to classes.
- They want support so the kids who do not speak English can learn English quickly so the kids can participate and learn in class.
- They want translators so they can communicate with the Parents.
The problem they have is that folks like yourself deny that all of this necessary and costs a lot of money...
Now before I start sounding like an Ed MN drone:
Teachers also burn out when they do not receive the above noted support. Or when they get older and lose some of their youthful hope / exuberance.
That is why it is important that their compensation and job security should be based on job challenge, work responsibility level and performance. And not paid based on degrees earned and years served.
Having a burned out overpaid Teacher in the classroom is not good for anyone. The Teacher would likely be happier elsewhere, the Teacher's lower paid higher energy peers get frustrated and the education of the children suffer.
3 Randomly selected Schools. Pick it to magnify
17 comments:
Moved from Racism vs Probability...
I like your list of "wants." But the more critical question is, what are the NEEDS? Many of these things are on both lists, of course, so the question becomes why do they not have what they need? The teachers are not denied these things because they are dregs or burnouts; they are denied these things because the system in which they work doesn't see educating the kids as a priority, or so it seems. I don't know how to explain it other than it is not working, and it seems utterly resistant to change in ways that /would/ work. And I do not mind spending more money if you can guarantee that it WILL produce a substantial return-on-expenditure, but right now I would be hard pressed to understand why the massive amounts already flowing into public ed would not be sufficient. Jerry
By the way, a good merit pay system would weed out the burnt out or the ones not up to the job, and reward those highly motivated teachers that can not only teach larger classes better, but, through career tracking, transmit those skills to the younger teachers. Jerry
Now here is a Golden Oldie where I tried to explain why inner city schools cost so much more... And can still fail...
I added an image to the original post to help folks envision how different the student bodies and challenges are for 3 schools.
I did not find the mobility numbers... But we know that mobility is almost 0 for Wayzata... And the kids in a Minneapolis classroom are like changing every month, if not every week based on the Teachers I have spoken with.
This is old but interesting.
""We have 98% free and reduced lunch at this school," Schuff says, using a common indicator of low-income students. "We have a 40% mobility rate, meaning that in any given year, 40% of our children leave. So we have a very high turnover."
Take this with a grain of salt...
Mpls
Funding/Student: $22,000
English Learners: 27%
Special Education: 25%
Free & Red Lunch: 85%
Homeless: 10%
Wayzata
Funding/Student: $15,000
English Learners: 0%
Special Education: 8%
Free & Red Lunch: 10%
Homeless: 0%
And the charter gets less money than either of the others.
And folks wonder why N Mpls schools struggle...
Here is a news story about the just released reported on Twin Cities schools. As this interest me, even I am likely to read the full report.
Report Card Shows Stagnant Achievement Gap, but Higher Grad Rates in Twin Cities
<a href='http://www.gennextmsp.org/wp-content/uploads/GenerationNext_2016_Report_Final.pdf"> full report</a>
full report
And a link just for Jerry... Headstart Underfunded
Laurie, I would like to take the time to read your [usually thought-provoking at least] links, but the very title (thank you) makes me question the effort. If the achievement gap persists how is it possible that graduation rates can improve? Is it possible this has something to do with the DFL legislature gutting the graduation test requirement because too many were failing it? Not sure that's good news, when already something like 40% of MN HS grads arrive at college needing remedial studies.
John, same applies to yours. How can Head Start be underfunded if it fails to do what it is funded to do? Seems to me like the proper funding level would be zero.
By the way, directly to the topic: Isn't it odd that we claim teachers are NOT "in it for the money" but yet every time we want to "improve education" we simply throw more money at it?
So assuming the Wayzata funding model is about correct for their student body given their great results...
What do you think teaching the Mpls student body should cost given these incredibly challenging demographics? And the fact the class roster is constantly changing due to high mobility?
Can you even imagine trying to teach the basics when 25% of the students don't speak English, and 25% of the students suffer from aspergers, Emotional Behavior Disorder, ADHD, etc, etc, etc.
Mpls
Funding/Student: $22,000
English Learners: 27%
Special Education: 25%
Free & Red Lunch: 85%
Homeless: 10%
Wayzata
Funding/Student: $15,000
English Learners: 0%
Special Education: 8%
Free & Red Lunch: 10%
Homeless: 0%
A List of the Most Common Special Needs
Thank heavens for caring patient people like Laurie !!!
Of course the graduation rate can increase while the gap remains. The economy is worse so the kids choose to not drop out...
Right back at you... "How can Head Start do what it is intended to do if it is underfunded?" This is an interesting loop...
Remember that you support irresponsible, ignorant and immature Baby Makers keeping their kids. It seems you should also support making sure the kids are raised differently. That is unless you want them to turn out irresponsible, ignorant and immature like their Parents. They are going to need help to break the cycle.
I have no idea what an inner city school should cost, given the various pathologies that seem rampant there, and the vastly differing degrees to which they do or should affect academics. What I will say is that I think we make a mistake with Special Ed in that there is no cost-effectiveness consideration. Some kids (like mine), get a year of extra help and off they go to graduate in the upper strata of their class. Others are not going to be fully educated regardless of the amount spent to educate them. And I must admit I have no idea what to do about the "mobility" problem, but it is at this point that I think we need a more holistic solution involving not just education reform, but major reform of the welfare system if we are going to solve the whole problem.
My solution here, and long has been that, with or without welfare reform, public schools need to get state aid based not on some incomprehensible state aid formula, but on some simple average number that everybody gets, plus some amount of equalization aid to local effort (districts with small tax bases with high taxes get more aid than large tax-base districts with lower taxes) and most importantly, a specific request-- a "performance contract"-- to the State DOE for an amount of funding needed to produce X result.
And I think that answers your question about Head Start. Promises were made for Head Start. They took an implicit contract to do a certain amount of education for a certain amount of money. They failed. When you or I take a contract and don't perform, what happens?
What I forgot to mention is that that "incomprehensible state aid formula" supposedly fully accounts for FRL and ESL students, among other things. That it obviously does not says that maybe we are measuring the wrong things and that throwing money at these problems isn't the right solution. That is why I say each school should ask for X dollars to solve Y problem by Z changes, and then be required to deliver. Target the money specifically to the problem and hold the school responsible for delivering at the agreed level.
The School Funding Formula isn't that complex and I don't think anyone believes that it has been fully funded.
Especially in the area of special ed, I have been told that pretty much every district needs to steal from the normal kids to pay for the care of the special kids.
Though as I often say, their are some changes that are needed so the money is used more effectively.
"The School Funding Formula isn't that complex and I don't think anyone believes that it has been fully funded."
OK, then try to figure out, using the formula, how much your District gets per pupil. It's got to be a computerized calculation because it's near impossible on paper. And it is by definition "fully funded" because schools spend every penny allocated by the Legislature. Now if schools want to say how much money they need to raise achievement by X points, maybe they get more funding, on an individual performance contract basis.
Agreed on Special Ed. It is why I would like to see all schools go to program-based budgeting, where every activity-- state requirement, elective class, extracurricular activities of every stripe-- be budgeted by "net cost per active participant." When we did that in our district, we discovered that extracurriculars varied by over 100:1 on this measure. Obviously the most outrageously expensive needed to be cut. Many special ed students would be their own "program" and though required, at least it would be obvious how skewed the spending was.
Post a Comment