When a strike is called, students are the ones out. Was there no other choice in Chicago?
Striking Chicago teachers were ordered to walk picket lines at their schools this morning. (AP Images)
Schools will be closed today in Chicago where teachers are striking for the first time in 25 years.
Chicago schools, which only opened last week, are operating on half-day schedules, although parents are being urged to keep their kids home. Students will spend time on independent reading or writing as state law doesn’t allow Chicago schools to offer classroom instruction without certified teachers.
There are clearly legitimate issues in Chicago but a strike won’t win the city or the union any friends.
Here is a good Chicago Tribune story on the strife. This is only an excerpt. Please try to read the full piece before commenting:
Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis announced late Sunday night that weekend talks had failed to resolve all the union’s issues. “We have failed to reach an agreement that will prevent a labor strike,” she said. “No CTU members will be inside of our schools Monday.”
After an all-day negotiating session Sunday, school board President David Vitale told reporters the district had changed its proposal 20 times over the course of talks and didn’t have much more to offer. “This is about as much as we can do,” Vitale said. “There is only so much money in the system.”
The district said it offered teachers a 16 percent pay raise over four years and a host of benefit proposals. “This is not a small commitment we’re handing out at a time when our fiscal situation is really challenged,” Vitale said.
Lewis said the two sides are close on teacher compensation but the union has serious concerns about the cost of health benefits, the makeup of the teacher evaluation system and job security.
Contract talks started in November but had accelerated in recent days as Vitale, who brokered teacher contracts in 2003 and 2007, came to the table in an attempt to bridge the divide. CPS submitted new contract offers to the teachers union on Friday and Saturday, but neither was accepted. A teachers strike is fraught with political peril for [Mayor] Emanuel and CTU leadership. Both risk angering thousands of working parents now scrambling to find places for children
A strike is a strong rebuke by teachers of Emanuel’s aggressive approach to school reform, union leaders said. Shortly after Emanuel took office in May 2011 he eliminated a teacher pay hike to close CPS’ hefty budget deficit and pushed to lengthen what had been among one of the shortest public school days in the country.
Emanuel made a longer school day a centerpiece of his reform efforts for CPS and built momentum by offering cash incentives to schools whose teachers defied the union by voting to opt out of their contracts and extend the school day in the 2011-12 year, a year before it would be implemented districtwide. Emanuel’s tough talk on education reform and his willingness to work with national groups whose reform efforts undermined organized labor galvanized the teachers union and its members.
The district negotiated while trying to deal with its own severe financial woes. A $5.73 billion budget for 2012-13 emptied cash reserves to cover a $665 million deficit, and the school board also increased its share of the Cook County property tax by as much as the law allows. A district spokeswoman said each percentage point hike for teacher salaries would cost $20 million.
A strike was authorized by more than 90 percent of the union’s 25,000-plus members in a vote in June. The union easily passed the bar set by a new state law that requires 75 percent of union members to authorize a strike — a standard those behind the legislation thought would effectively eliminate the threat of a teachers strike.
With momentum on their side, teachers demanded higher pay for working the longer day, entering negotiations demanding what amounted to a 30 percent raise over two years. But as contract talks heated up, union leaders made clear they would accept a smaller raise in exchange for less restrictive job evaluations and for establishing a recall procedure for teachers who’d been laid off as a result of school closings, consolidations and turnarounds.
The union’s salary demands were bolstered by an independent fact-finder’s report in July that chastised CPS for extending the school day in a time of financial turmoil and without adequately compensating teachers. The arbitrator said teachers should receive raises between 15 and 20 percent, far above the district’s 2 percent offer. CPS officials warned that substantial pay hikes would force deeper cuts in staffing and programs.
A week after the arbitrator’s report, CPS and the union brokered a deal that appeared to remove the biggest obstacle in the labor fight. In exchange for the longer school day — an additional half-hour in high schools and 75 minutes in elementary schools — CPS agreed to rehire nearly 500 teachers in non-core subjects from a pool of teachers who had been laid off. That kept the hours in the work week the same for full-time teachers.
Both sides hailed the agreement as a “breakthrough” and credited it with refocusing efforts at the bargaining table. Moreover, it seemed to set the stage for the kind of compromise needed to reach agreement on the full teachers contract. It didn’t work out that way. Upset to learn that the new rehire pool would be a one-year fix to address the longer school day and not part of the district’s long-term plans, the union grew increasingly combative in public.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
142 comments Add your comment
long time educator
September 12th, 2012
7:30 am
The striking Chicago teachers make all teachers look bad to the general public. Their working conditions and salaries do not sound “unbearable” to regular taxpayers. Our teacher organizations in Georgia are ineffective, but I would not join a union that strikes. We do need leadership that will stand up for hardworking teachers, but the general public will not support job guarantees and raises that are unavailable in the private sector.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 12th, 2012
7:36 am
Truth in Moderation, stating “the advantages of smaller classes” doesn’t make it a fact. The research stream going back decades shows that smaller classes affect student achievement in the primary grades and in classes for at-risk students, such as sheltered English for nonnative speakers. Changing class size up or down doesn’t cause teachers to change HOW they teach–excellent teachers still get excellent outcomes, mediocre teachers get mediocre ones, and poor teachers get poor ones. Check the research base.
75% of CPS teachers’ evaluations would be based on factors other than student achievement outcomes on standardized testing. Hard to argue that test scores will doom teachers to bad evals.
The non-union teachers of Georgia who pay membership dues to the Georgia Association of Educators are paying to support the National Education Association education employees union. There are no true “teachers’ unions” in the United States.
20/20
September 12th, 2012
8:39 am
APS is definitely like working in hell these days. Thought Beverly Hall was bad! ERROLL DAVIS, STEVE SMITH and KAREN WALDON are a DISASTER!!!
Truth in Moderation
September 12th, 2012
8:49 am
@Dr. Henson
The average class size at Mayor Emanuel’s children’s school ($25,000/year) is 18. They also claim a 1:9 teacher/student ratio. Why doesn’t the school put 40/class and make lots more money?
http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/9737
Truth in Moderation
September 12th, 2012
10:33 am
Car horns blaring in Chicago…..in support of teacher strike!
“Teachers trust their leadership. They don’t trust the mayor — who the union’s feisty president, Karen Lewis, claims told her at a social outing at the ballet shortly after his election “that 25 percent of the students in this city are never going to be anything, never going to amount to anything and he was never going to throw money at them.” The exchange points to a key hinge in the story: Who in the dispute, the teachers’ union or the mayor, most earnestly has the interests of “the children” at heart?”
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=155629
Dr. Monica Henson
September 12th, 2012
11:21 am
Truth in Moderation: Private schools typically boast small class sizes in order to cater to parents’ desire for “more individual attention,” despite the reality that it’s not the class size that is making the difference, unless it’s a therapeutic school for special needs. Simple marketing.
The answer to your question–why don’t private schools boost class sizes?–is because their paying customers don’t want them to.
Just A Teacher
September 12th, 2012
3:23 pm
The major sticking point here is Teacher Evaluations. The teachers are striking over whether their jobs should depend on children’s ability and choice to bubble in the correct answers on standardized tests. We all know these tests are meaningless and are teaching students nothing. Why should teachers evaluations be based on a skill which has no value in the real world? When was the last time your boss told you to bubble in a scantron sheet? I’ve never had a job where that was part of my duties.
N. GA Teacher
September 12th, 2012
8:53 pm
A lot of bloggers her, especially nonteachers, miss the point here: the point of a strike is to use the best leverage against unfair employer demands. The teachers are striking FOR THE MOST PART to get the idiotic evaluation instrument off their backs. It has been soundly proven that “value-added” crap and “measurable student achievement” is largely a result of socioeconomic conditions and not teaching. (although all teachers do agree that some teachers are better than others and that poor teachers need to be weeded out). Administrators and teachers in EVERY building already KNOW who the good and bad teachers are, and why. Second, Chicago is unbelievably expensive. Even what we would consider “working-class” 3 bedroom, one-bathroom 1960s homes often cost over $300,000. Cheaper ones are often in very dangerous neighborhoods. So &76,000 is not a big deal. Keep in mind that accountants, engineers, computer pros, and other college grads make MORE, even when time off in the summer is factored in. Teachers in Chicago are fighting to be treated fairly. They already are underpaid and many have to put up with unruly students. They do not deserve to have a new atrocious evaluation system added to these things.
Truth in Moderation
September 12th, 2012
9:08 pm
As a Baby Boomer, I had 35-40 in my classes from K-12 and ONE teacher/class. That’s one of the reasons I home school. Class size DOES make a difference.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 12th, 2012
10:08 pm
Truth in Moderation: care to cite any evidence?
Just a Teacher, posted “We all know these tests are meaningless and are teaching students nothing.”
We know that 79% of Chicago Public Schools 8th graders are below grade level in reading, and 80% of them are below grade level in math. It’s not the tests that are “teaching students nothing.”
Kunta Kinte
September 13th, 2012
8:57 am
@Dr. Monica Henson,
What kind of doctor are you? Apparently, you are not the kind that works with children in school. If I were you, I would lose the Dr. title because you sound like a complete idiot in all of your postings. Socio-economics does play a role is success and failure of students. Here’s scenario for the dumb doctor:
A: Little Johnny has diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. He has been going to the doctor for years. The doctor gives him a plan to control it, with help from his mom, for course; however, once he leaves the doctor’s office, his mom allows him to eat candy, all of the starchy foods that he wants, and on top of that, his blood sugar level is never checked. In the end, Little Johnny succumbs from the above-mentioned diagnoses. So, who’s at fault? The dumb doctor (Dr. Henson) will blame everything on the doctor.
B: Little Johnny can’t read! In fact, he doesn’t even know his real name, nor does he know how to spell it….and he is now in 1st grade. The teacher provides tutorial and sends homeword and supplemental materials home for Little Johnny to practice. The teacher has made numerous attempts to contact Little Johnny’s mother, but the mother is either too busy or she blames everything on the teacher. Little Johnny doesn’t return any of the homework or supplemental material in to the teacher. In addition to that, Little Johnny says he doesn’t have any books to read at his house.
In this scenario, the dumb doctor would blame the teacher. Look, I am sure that there are several poor teachers out there; like there are many others serving in jobs that they are perhaps not qualified for, but this case, like many others, it is a CLASS ISSUE, and not a teacher issue.
Truth in Moderation
September 13th, 2012
1:27 pm
@Dr. Henson
Home school statistics:
“3. In 1991, a survey of standardized test scores was performed by the Home School Legal Defense Association in cooperation with the Psychological Corporation, which publishes the Stanford Achievement Test. The study involved the administering of the Stanford Achievement Test (8th Edition, Form J) to 5,124 homeschooled students. These students represented all 50 states and their grades ranged from K-12. This testing was administered in Spring 1991 under controlled test conditions in accordance with the test publisher’s standards. All test administers were screened, trained, and approved pursuant to the publisher’s requirements. All tests were machine-scored by the Psychological Corporation.
These 5,124 homeschoolers’ composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.
The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.”
More statistics at:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Prof
September 13th, 2012
2:14 pm
@ Truth in Moderation. I think that Dr. Henson is asking for data to support your contention that smaller classes assure better education and higher test scores for the students. I’m curious too, since “smaller classes” of one student carry with them educational problems of their own that don’t relate to test scores. Also, it would seem that a 1991 educational survey is generally outdated.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 13th, 2012
2:36 pm
Thanks, Prof. You’re exactly right.
Truth in Moderation
September 13th, 2012
2:43 pm
@Prof
If you go to the link, it covers many more statistics, including some from 2009. You must realize, each home school is an independent school, and home schoolers by nature don’t like standardized anything. Therefore, the statistical surveys are taken at nonstandard intervals. There are more recent statistics out there, but someone has to independently put them together…and fund it. Many home schoolers take the ITBS, and the testing service does identify them as home schoolers, but I don’t think they release statistics on them as a separate group. My kids have consistently been in the 85th-95th percentile in all subjects. I know many other home schoolers with similar or better scores, some in the 99th percentile. Home schoolers, by definition, have very small teacher/pupil ratio. Even outside home school classes generally have 10 or less per class. I have taught them before, and I never had over 10.
Truth in Moderation
September 13th, 2012
3:18 pm
See, WAPO agrees with me. Chicago teachers are standing against RTTT CHAINS. Mayor Emanuel has promised to raise the assessment performance/accountability/paycheck percentage from 25 PERCENT TO 40 PERCENT! This gives a total monopoly to politicians and BIG TESTING! Keep up the fight, Chicago!
“The quick adoption was driven by Obama administration policies, with most states pledging to establish new teacher and principal evaluation systems in order to compete for money under President Obama’s $4.3 billion Race to the Top contest. States seeking waivers from the administration for some of the No Child Left Behind law’s requirements also had to adopt education policies that include judging teacher performance based in part on student test scores.
Lawmakers in Illinois, as part of the state’s bid under Race to the Top, passed legislation last year requiring that at least 25 percent of a teacher’s rating be based on student test scores.
In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel drew the ire of the Chicago Teachers Union in part because he wants to increase the weight given to student test scores over five years, with the scores ultimately accounting for 40 percent of a teacher’s job performance rating. Those with consistently poor ratings would lose their jobs.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/issues-at-heart-of-chicago-teachers-strike-playing-out-in-classrooms-nationwide/2012/09/12/1b07e51e-fd0d-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story.html?tid=obinsite
Prof
September 13th, 2012
3:50 pm
@ Truth in Moderation. So there really isn’t any reliable statistical data on homeschooling, is that what you’re saying?
Again, where’s the data to back up your assertion about smaller classes that was requested by Dr. Henson?
“He/she who asserts must prove.”
Ole Guy
September 13th, 2012
4:14 pm
Lets howbout we knock it off with the Jewish Mommas’ guilt game of “…the students are the ones out…” Yes, the kids are the ultimate losers, but whose idea is behind the whole gd mess? Is it the teachers…as some might portend…or is the the gd administration who thinks they can manage these teachers like so many machines. At least these teachers have the professional spheroids to TAKE COMMAND OF THE PROFESSION (sond familiar?) If the powers that be want to do their jobs…that of educating kids…they can start with a little empowerment of the teacher corps.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 13th, 2012
5:18 pm
[Crickets] is what I always get when I ask for research to back up the assertion that smaller class sizes actually produce improved student achievement outcomes in the general education setting in grades 4-12.
Truth in Moderation
September 13th, 2012
10:00 pm
@Prof
The data I gave was statistically reliable for the home schoolers tested at that time. Read the entire report.
It is certainly as reliable as APS’s years of data based on “erased” answers (CHEATING).
The only data I am concerned with is my own kids’ data. Our small home school class has produced excellent test results. I know for a fact that my kids have had a much better education than I had.
Truth in Moderation
September 14th, 2012
9:28 am
“Corporate Media’s War on Public Education”
http://theintelhub.com/2012/09/13/corporate-medias-war-on-public-education/
DeKalb Teacher
September 14th, 2012
11:35 am
@ Dr Henson – Regarding class size and student achievement
Let’s assume that a student:teacher ratio of 1:1 (aka private tutor) produces higher student achievement than a classroom with a 50:1 student-teacher ratio. It is safe to say that student achievement asymptotically approaches 0 as the ratio gets much larger. ie 1000:1, 10000:1, etc.
By filling in the missing points on that curve, we can see that student achievement is indeed lower as class sizes (student-teacher ratios) get larger. That is unless you disagree with my premise that a private tutor produces higher student achievement than a student in a class of 50.
Q.E.D. for all intents and purposes
Prof
September 14th, 2012
11:53 am
@ Truth in Moderation.
This is what you stated at 2:43 pm yesterday: “@Prof. You must realize, each home school is an independent school, and home schoolers by nature don’t like standardized anything. Therefore, the statistical surveys are taken at nonstandard intervals. There are more recent statistics out there, but someone has to independently put them together…and fund it. Many home schoolers take the ITBS, and the testing service does identify them as home schoolers, but I don’t think they release statistics on them as a separate group.”
How is that “statistically reliable”? According to what you say, no-one seems to test home-schooled students as a group at regular intervals, or compare them with students who aren’t home-schooled.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 14th, 2012
12:12 pm
DeKalb Teacher, your premise is indeed faulty. You are comparing two entirely different situations; the mode of individualized instruction cannot be sustained as the number of students rises; moreover, reliance on the individual tutorial mode exclusively is not the optimum way to educate students, as it eliminates several other highly effective modes. Classroom teachers do not use individualized tutorial for each student except in extremely limited circumstances, such as a special education resource room.
Further, the research that has been done for decades on class-size reduction demonstrates that in a general education setting, teachers do not alter their modes of instruction when the class sizes is reduced. That’s why it doesn’t work. In other words, giving a teacher a class of 12 students does not mean that now the teacher will begin using individual tutorial, cooperative group learning, or any other mode of instruction that the teacher wasn’t ALREADY using with a class of 30 students. That’s why it holds true that an excellent teacher will get excellent outcomes whether s/he has 15, 25, or 35 kids, a mediocre teacher will get mediocre outcomes, and a bad teacher will get bad outcomes.
What does happen is that the teacher continues to use the same modes of instruction, but has fewer papers to grade and may have fewer disciplinary issues because some of the disruptive kids are no longer present. The poor classroom management and heavy use of less effective modes of instruction such as lengthy lectures and reliance on kill & drill worksheets doesn’t change in badly taught classrooms.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 14th, 2012
1:13 pm
The premise that an individual tutor automatically produces higher achievement than a teacher in a classroom is equally faulty. It all depends on the skill & experience level of the tutor and the teacher. We’re not talking about widgets.
Finally, the premise that individualized tutoring is the most superior mode of instruction is flawed as well.
DeKalb Teacher
September 14th, 2012
2:08 pm
Whooooooaaaaa …. Dr Henson.
You just threw in a bunch of variables I thought we were holding constant. First of all this whole debate is flawed because I wouldn’t correlate teachers and student achievement much less say that one causes the other.
I agree with you in one aspect. When a teacher gives “a lecture”, the number of recipients of said lecture is irrelevant. Assuming no differentiated instruction, which you do, a student will learn from that lecture the same whether they are in a group of 10 or 1000.
Like you said, the more students a teacher has the less individual instruction there is per student. There is definitely individual instruction occurring in primary education in more settings than special education. I’m not saying individualized tutoring is superior. I am saying that one on one with an instructor to help with a calculus problem will increase student achievement.
Yes … yes … yes … an excellent teacher with 50 students will have more student achievement than a bad teacher with 50 students (thanks Sherlock). BUT … I bet if the excellent teacher takes 5 of those students and teaches them in a class with a 10:1 ratio, their student achievement will be even greater.
In conclusion, the more students you have the less individualized instruction you have per student. The amount of individualized instruction per student approaches zero given large enough student:teacher ratios. Therefore, assuming teachers have anything to do with student achievement, smaller classes produce more student achievement.
Q.E.D.
Prof
September 14th, 2012
2:11 pm
@ Dr. Henson, 1:13 pm. I would think that it also depends upon the educational level of the tutor and teacher. The individualized tutor should have an objectively demonstrated mastery of the subject being taught the student, through educational degrees, or programs or courses of study in higher education.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 14th, 2012
11:34 pm
Dekalb Teacher, I don’t accept that a teacher with smaller classes will (or should) provide increased individualized instruction. I happen to have studied the research base on CSR, so I know that it bears this out–it’s not just a “bet” that I feel. If your premise is correct, that the smaller the class size, the higher the student achievement produced, then I’m sure that you can produce some educational research that is generally accepted by peer review and supports your assertion. I’d very much like to see it.
Tech Prof
September 15th, 2012
7:18 am
Many are quick to criticize these teachers and yell that the students must come first. I hope these same people yell and criticize our insane politicians who chop, chop, chop away at Education funding. Those politicians are not keeping our young people first.
Taylor
September 15th, 2012
9:20 am
Georgia taxpayers hate public sector unions. Why wouldn’t they? It pays to keep employees powerless. School boards are political cowards. When they face budget shortfalls, the first place they go is a cut to teacher pay and benefits. Okay, employees know that in this economic climate, they have to chip in. We are five years down the road and each individual teacher has lost thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars in pay cuts, furlough days, increased benefit costs and diminished future pensions. Teachers are literally paying to keep class sizes down at the same time staff is cut. Meanwhile, property taxes are down as assessments have fallen. At some point, the community is going to have to accept class sizes of 50 students or support a tax increase. You can’t expect to pay less and keep getting the same level of service. It is unacceptable to keep balancing the budget on the backs of the staff. Chicago teachers may want unreasonable pay increases. Georgia teachers would like to be earning what they earned five years ago! I only wish teachers had a union in Georgia.
Mary Elizabeth
September 15th, 2012
9:45 am
Georgia teachers would like to be earning what they earned five years ago! I only wish teachers had a union in Georgia.
————————————————————————-
Georgia has had a history of societal paternalism (including attitudes toward and perception of teachers), which translates to hierarchial thinking related to power. Georgia would be better served embracing a more egalitarian vision, which our founders embraced. Thus, I tend to agree that Georgia might be better served if those in power positions allowed teachers’ unions in this state. For some reason, students in states where there are teacher’s unions score higher on standardized test scores than students in states without teachers unions. There are, no doubt, many reasons for that phenomenon.
Also, in my thirty-five years of teaching experience, I have witnessed that smaller class size does make a difference in the quality of instruction delivered to individual students, especially in grades K – 3rd grade. Moreover, those students who invariably will be behind their peers on the curriculum continuum, in all grade levels, will require more individual attention to succeed. Smaller class size allows for more individual attention from the teacher.
DeKalb Teacher
September 15th, 2012
10:16 am
Dr Henson. – Class Size and Student Achievement
I stand corrected.
I spoke at great length this morning with someone that knows a lot more than me about “these” things than I do. You were right and I was wrong. We also talked about how challenging (sometimes impossible) it is to have this conversation with the general public (like myself). I couldn’t have this conversation with my colleagues.
In conclusion,
For every study that shows that students learn more with a lower student:teacher ratio, there is a study that shows kids learn more with higher student:teacher ratios with a diminished margin of return.
If anybody doesn’t believe me, you’re not going to unless you sit down with an open mind and really talk about it.
long time educator
September 15th, 2012
3:36 pm
In my early years of teaching, I was a fifth grade homeroom teacher. One year I had 22-23 students; the next year I had 27-28. It makes a huge difference. In one practical way, I needed to fit in 5 more desks in an already crowded classroom. In elementary school we often cluster desks into groups, so that is akin to finding room for another 4 desk cluster. We share everything in class, so 5 more students means less computer time per student in the room and doubling up in the computer lab. The year I had 22-23 we did lots of art and project type learning because we had room to spread out. The next year, it was just so much harder to find room and manage the group, so we did less of the fun stuff. I still taught the curriculum both years, but the smaller group had more fun and so did I.
long time educator
September 15th, 2012
3:53 pm
When we went to school years ago with 30-35 in a class, it was a whole different world. Discipline was much better (a phone call home was all it took); there was no inclusion of children with disabilities or behavior issues, which often today means the inclusion of other teachers or parapros that come with them and makes it even more crowded in a room that was not built for multiple adults, technology that takes up alot of room and cooperative learning groups, The classrooms we are using were built back in the 50’s for 30 small desks lined in rows facing the front for lecture type instruction, even in early elementary school.
Pride and Joy
September 15th, 2012
6:18 pm
Just a teacher wrote something very weirf “We all know these tests are meaningless and are teaching students nothing.”
Tests don’t teach. Tests measure what’s taught. These tests are extremely meaningful. One score on ONE test got me full tuition at college, which was worth about $40,000 in 1990s dollars.
One test was worth $40,000 and you say they are meaningless? pfffft.
Kids need to know how to take and how to ace standardized tests.
d
September 15th, 2012
8:42 pm
Actually, tests do not measure what is taught, they measure what is learned – if they are written properly. If a student cannot figure out what is being asked, it doesn’t matter what he or she knows, the student likely cannot answer correctly. If the question is indeed flawed, a student is at the disadvantage, and I, as a teacher who values my certificate, cannot view the questions to make sure they aren’t flawed.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 16th, 2012
2:17 am
DeKalb Teacher, thanks for taking the time to look further. It amazed me once I started looking at the actual facts myself, years ago.
For all of those educators who cite their years of classroom experience and pronounce that “class size does make a difference” and “more individual attention can be paid to each student,” I encourage you actually to read the research stream and stop mouthing platitudes that “feel” like they are correct. The simple fact is that as class sizes become smaller, teachers do NOT begin individualizing instruction more, if at all. They may “feel” like they do, but the student achievement outcomes demonstrate that there is no statistically significant improvement, except in the primary grades and in sheltered environments for high-risk students.
Mary Elizabeth
September 16th, 2012
10:42 am
@Dr. Monica Henson, 2:17 am
(1) “The simple fact is that as class sizes become smaller, teachers do NOT begin individualizing instruction more, if at all.”
(2) “They may ‘feel’ like they do, but the student achievement outcomes demonstrate that there is no statistically significant improvement, except in the primary grades and in sheltered environments for high-risk students.”
———————————————————————————-
Regarding (1) above: You present only an either/or dichotomy. That is too simple a presentation. Although it is true that teachers do not automatically begin individualizing instruction more when pupil/teacher ratio is lowered, the fact remains that, when pupil/teacher ratio is lowered, teachers who do individualize more in their instruction will have more quality time to give to each student. The discussion should alao focus on degree, or the amount of time a teacher will be able to give to each student, not simply upon a “Yea” or “Nay,” regarding lowered pupil/teacher ratio. (Imo, in addition to an emphasis on lowered pupil/teacher ratio, emphasis must also be placed upon increasing teacher training in how to better individualize instruction.)
(2) I fail to see a fundamental difference in your comments in #2 above, and my comments at 9:45 am, Sept. 15, 2012, restated below. I have capitalized words which will highlight the concurrence of our points. (Please notice that I did not mention the word, “feel,” as you describe, but that I used the word “witnessed.” Are you suggesting that 35 years of witnessing the positive effects of lowered pupil/teacher ratio, by an educational leader, does not have validity, especially when students’ pre and post tests scores were continually analyzed by that leader?) :
=====================================
Mary Elizabeth: “(I)n my thirty-five years of teaching experience, I have witnessed that smaller class size does make a difference in the quality of instruction delivered to individual students, ESPECIALLY in GRADE K – 3rd GRADE. MOREOVER, THOSE STUDENTS WHO invariably WILL BE BEHIND THEIR PEERS on the curriculum continuum, in all grade levels, will require more individual attention to succeed.”
Dr. Henson: “. . .student achievement outcomes demonstrate that there is no statistically significant improvement, EXCEPT IN THE PRIMARY GRADES AND in sheltered environments FOR HIGH-RISK STUDENTS.”
==============================================
Dr. Henson, is it not true that Provost Academy, in which you work, does not place emphasis on lowered pupil/teacher ratio, and that classes may become quite large within the virtual instruction delivered at Provost Academy? Also, do you not have a large proportion of “at-risk” students among your student population at Provost Academy?
Truth in Moderation
September 17th, 2012
8:05 am
“there is no statistically significant improvement, EXCEPT IN THE PRIMARY GRADES and in sheltered environments FOR HIGH RISK STUDENTS.”
This says it all! This is why home schoolers (including special ed) excel when other socioeconomic factors are held constant. K through 5th are the most important grades. The foundations of all other learning are being laid: reading, writing and arithmetic. If you mess this up, scores trend DOWNWARD in the higher grades. Home school statistics showed that scores went UP at the high school level.
“These 5,124 homeschoolers’ composite scores on the basic battery of tests in reading, math, and language arts ranked 18 to 28 percentile points above public school averages. For instance, 692 homeschooled 4th graders averaged in the 77th percentile in reading, the 63rd percentile in math, and the 70th percentile in language arts. Sixth-grade homeschoolers, of 505 tested, scored in the 76th percentile in reading, the 65th percentile in math, and the 72nd percentile in language arts.
The homeschooled high schoolers did even better, which goes against the trend in public schools where studies show the longer a child is in the public schools, the lower he scores on standardized tests. One hundred and eighteen tenth-grade homeschool students, as a group, made an average score of the 82nd percentile in reading, the 70th percentile in math, and the 81st percentile in language arts.”
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Statistics don’t lie.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 20th, 2012
11:13 pm
“Although it is true that teachers do not automatically begin individualizing instruction more when pupil/teacher ratio is lowered, the fact remains that, when pupil/teacher ratio is lowered, teachers who do individualize more in their instruction will have more quality time to give to each student.”
Mary Elizabeth’s statement, above, perfectly illustrates my point that teachers do not change the way they teach when their class size goes down (which the research based in fact supports)–caps for emphasis–”teachers WHO DO INDIVIDUALIZE MORE IN THEIR INSTRUCTION will have more quality time to give to each student.”
Excellent teachers will continue to have students who excel, regardless of their class size, because excellent teachers have a repertoire of effective instructional strategies. They also individualize instruction and differentiate effectively, which mediocre and poor teachers do not do. Therefore, it stands to reason that an effective teacher would take advantage of the opportunity to individualize more if that teacher’s class size were reduced. Nevertheless, that same teacher is going to continue to see excellent student outcomes even if the class size is increased–because that teacher will use effective strategies to instruct the kids.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 20th, 2012
11:20 pm
“Are you suggesting that 35 years of witnessing the positive effects of lowered pupil/teacher ratio, by an educational leader, does not have validity, especially when students’ pre and post tests scores were continually analyzed by that leader?)”
Unless I have missed something, you were not an administrator but a classroom teacher (I use the term “educational leader” to characterize a principal or district administrator), so please correct me if I’m wrong. I will answer you in what I believe to be your capacity of a classroom teacher of 35 years.
I have no doubt, Mary Elizabeth, that you were an effective and conscientious teacher. I do not doubt that the students in your classroom fared well regardless of your class sizes, and that when you had smaller class sizes your success rates may have been higher than when you had larger classes–but I’m also willing to wager that we are talking about degrees of excellent success, not wild pendulum swings of success with tiny classes and failure with larger classes.
You are a single teacher, and your experience, valuable as it is, cannot be extrapolated to substantiate a broad assertion that class size reduction improves student achievement. It makes perfect sense to your in your own experience (hence the “feeling” that it is a valid conclusion applicable to all classrooms and all teachers), but it is not the case when the large numbers necessary to reach a statistically valid conclusion are applied. There are decades of research on CSR, across thousands of classrooms.
Dr. Monica Henson
September 20th, 2012
11:35 pm
“Dr. Henson, is it not true that Provost Academy, in which you work, does not place emphasis on lowered pupil/teacher ratio, and that classes may become quite large within the virtual instruction delivered at Provost Academy? Also, do you not have a large proportion of ‘at-risk’ students among your student population at Provost Academy?”
It is absolutely correct that Provost Academy Georgia does not emphasize a lowered teacher-student ratio. In fact, we do not measure “class size” in the traditional sense, because our teachers do not teach in the traditional fashion, where a room of 30 to 35 high schoolers meet at the same time for a defined time period daily for 180 days a year. “Class size” simply does not apply. What we do provide is a far more individualized experience because we have reallocated the resources of time for the 80%+ of students we enroll who at grade level and above. Students are not locked into 180 days of seat time to earn a credit. As a result, 150 students may start studying coordinate algebra in August, with about 1/4 of them finishing by October and November, about 1/2 of them completing by February and March, and the remaining 1/4 by May and June. The math teachers are not preparing daily lesson plans to be executed in one-hour increments, because that forces students into an artificial progression as a cohort that may or may not (actually, probably does not) match their ability to move through the course. Each student is a class of one, with asynchronous instruction providing the base from which the teacher monitors student progress. Tutoring, enrichment, additional resources, etc., are prescribed individually as needed, rather than administered wholesale to everyone at the same time.
For the at-risk population in the larger cities where we are putting Magic Johnson Bridgescape centers, we are structuring approximately 20% of their time in the center with the opportunity for DIRECT instruction in person with our teachers, small-group along with individualized instruction. The key is identifying those students who NEED that kind of instruction, then making it accessible to them.
We do have some kids in our online classrooms who need direct instruction and small-group tutoring–they are able to access that in the virtual environment–but not a large percentage of them do, and most of them are special education students. We provide daily live-link small groups for our kids on IEPs with our special education staff. Eventually, we hope to have enough Bridgescape centers around the state so that our students in the cloud can take advantage of them, too, not just our urban at-risk kids with access to public transportation.