Guest Series: Irvin PeDro Cohen

[BridgeTroll]

Studies also show that retaining students often has little benefit for most children. There may be a short term positive effect, but over time children who are retained in an earlier grade fall behind again. So for example if they repeat 3rd grade they may do better in 3rd grade the second time through, but come 4th and 5th grade the learning deficits return. And while it does little to help, being retained makes it somewhere between 5-11 times more likely that a child will drop out of school. Yet, many students face mandatory retention for failing state tests. That's a decision that needs to be carefully weighed out by parents and teachers. on an individual basis. So my question is how does some paper pusher in Tallahasee or DC know what's better for our children than parents or teachers?

Fallen... much respect for you and your profession.  I have to ask about the paragraph above...  You say holding students back is a failure because when are finally advanced they ultimately fail again.  Why would advancing them on schedule not have the same result?  The main reason testing to state and federal standards was begun was because we were graduating students who were not proficient in the basics of reading, science, and math.  We were awarding diplomas for substandard outcomes.  Testing at least measures progress across the board.  I certainly agree that testing alone solves nothing if proper remediation is not provided for substandard performers...

[Fallen Buckeye]

Don't get me wrong BridgeTroll, I'm not saying that just promoting them is a solution either, but that whether to promote a students is a decision that needs to made between a family and school. I actually think that some standardized testing is beneficial, but it's what is being done with the test that is the problem. I say that the test should serve as a tool that informs the decisions of families and teachers not a tool that makes the decisions for them.

I agree with you on the remediation as well. Just imagine if instead of we had focused a couple hundred million dollars on putting in better supports for struggling students and better training teachers. I think that would have arguably been a more effective way to improve our education. We've had these high stakes in place for some time now, and we're still not seeing the results we need to be seeing.

[BridgeTroll]

but that whether to promote a students is a decision that needs to made between a family and school.

I agree... bit I think abuse of that system brought us to where we are now.  How would the system ensure that the student gets the proper remediation if allowed to advance?  What happens if once advanced the student is still not up grade level?  If the family is adamant about "little johnny" being promoted while the school thinks it is best he stay back... who decides or mediates?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I would like to try an understand what is being said here.  The article, as published, is railing against the standardized testing that is implemented in the schools.  Didn't we all go to school to prepare for the ultimate 'Standardized Test' - the SAT?  That one score, after 4 years of high-school (3 if you took it early) ultimately determined what college we would be allowed to attend which would determine what career path we would be able to persue, which ultimately shaped the rest of our adult lives. 

I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.  Sure, the teachers are teaching a test.  Does that mean that the kids aren't learning to read and rite and do rithmatic?  No.  The major issue I see is that the educators are being forced to teach to the lowest common denominator - which works for the marginal kids, but holds back the ones that are truly gifted. 

The magnet programs allow some of these 'gifted' children to learn in an environment more suitable to thier abilities, even though they have to take the same test as the rest of the school.  Isn't this the reason that we have magnet programs at the borderline, failing schools, to raise the overall test average?

[Fallen Buckeye]

but that whether to promote a students is a decision that needs to made between a family and school.

I agree... bit I think abuse of that system brought us to where we are now.  How would the system ensure that the student gets the proper remediation if allowed to advance?  What happens if once advanced the student is still not up grade level?  If the family is adamant about "little johnny" being promoted while the school thinks it is best he stay back... who decides or mediates?

The family should definitely have the final say on promotion and retention. As I said earlier, I should be most accountable to those who care for their children the most: their families. I think the system as is set up in a way that actually encourages abuses because the stakes for these tests are so high. I know for a fact that there is cheating happening on some of these state mandated tests. The system is also set up so that kids who tend to move (often the ones who need the most help) actually can be basically brushed aside because they don't count towards the school's grade. We teachers are being told that we have to be strategic in who gets help because some kids count more than others. And like someone said, those students who above average students in an inner-city school like mine often don't get what they need to really flourish. In its attempt to improve equity, it has actually become a system that promotes inequity.

The best way to promote a great educational system and promote equity is to build better teachers who have the skill set to differentiate instruction to meet a child where they are at and raise them to where they need to be. Our system is not great at getting the best teachers to the areas of critical need. I'm a lead math teacher for my school, and honestly a lot of teachers do not have the training and support they need to be effective especially a lot of the teachers who come from other professions. The No Child Behind mandates really do not adequately address this area and put too much emphasis on the wrong things.

[Garden guy]

After the attack on the public system by the republicans how is any school going to survive. At every chance and at every level polititians are raping our schools of cash and just handing it over to corporate bullshit and whatever their little minds can conjure up to keep the bleeding going all the while profits are galore for corporations...and soo so many out there blameeverything on the teachers..well its not the teachers..it also little spoiled brats whose parents should never have become parents.

[BridgeTroll]

Are you a parent GG?

[Tacachale]

I would like to try an understand what is being said here.  The article, as published, is railing against the standardized testing that is implemented in the schools.  Didn't we all go to school to prepare for the ultimate 'Standardized Test' - the SAT?  That one score, after 4 years of high-school (3 if you took it early) ultimately determined what college we would be allowed to attend which would determine what career path we would be able to persue, which ultimately shaped the rest of our adult lives. 

I don't understand what all the hubbub is about.  Sure, the teachers are teaching a test.  Does that mean that the kids aren't learning to read and rite and do rithmatic?  No.  The major issue I see is that the educators are being forced to teach to the lowest common denominator - which works for the marginal kids, but holds back the ones that are truly gifted. 

The magnet programs allow some of these 'gifted' children to learn in an environment more suitable to thier abilities, even though they have to take the same test as the rest of the school.  Isn't this the reason that we have magnet programs at the borderline, failing schools, to raise the overall test average?

The FCAT is different than the SAT (or ACT). SAT and ACT are college placement tests; they're meant to be a gauge on a student's overall learning in primary and secondary education for placement in higher ed. On the other hand, the FCAT is administered every single year, and is a requirement for students to pass any grade. It also influences how schools are funded.

As such schools have the incentive to teach to the test - and schools that are already better performing get more funding.

The problem is that tests are supposed to be, well, tests, assessments, gauges. Standardized tests are just meant to give some measure of standardization across these assessments. However, we are treating them like certifications or licenses, obstacles to be passed. And by standardizing them for all students of a particular grade, we're teaching to a common denominator, regardless of individual students' skills or even what classes they're taking.

[Garden guy]

Are you a parent GG?

No thank you. There is enough breeders out there. They dont need my help.

[Purplebike]

(some very simplified thoughts inspired by the article, er, the title of the article, actually...)

The title of this very article is potentially troubling. "My truth"? Before I assume what the writer meant by "my truth", I will ask for clarification (as food for thought only):

What does the writer mean by "truth" here?
And then, by "my truth"?
Does he mean to suggest that truth is relative to the individual?
If yes, all truth, or some?

For example, take the statement "There is a pen on my table". In reference to my table, right now, that statement is either true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. The truth of the statement in this sense does *not* depend on the individual. It would be silly to say in reference to the statement that it is "my truth".

If my own experience in the classroom is any indicator, I would argue that the ever growing pervasiveness of the "My truth" mindset that is a significant factor in the undermining of critical thinking in our society. 

A carefully thought out argument in support of Relativism as a moral position is one thing. Knee jerk relativism is another. Oh, good Goddess Athena (goddess of wisdom), knee jerk Relativism is the bane of my teaching existence.

...*Is* ethics relative to each individual? *Should* ethics be up to each individual?

If yes on that latter question, especially, then what are the implications? Mother Teresa and Hitler would be considered moral equals, for starters. Also, there would be no such thing as moral reform. There would be no reason to applaud MLK, in other words. Also: How would laws be possible?

...*Are* facts and evidence relative to each individual? *Should* they be considered as such? If yes...then...what are the implications for bridge building? For car building? For building or doing anything?

Anyway, I recommend brushing up on the distinction between "is" and "ought" before considering final answers to these questions. Seriously...the fact that something *is* the case does not necessarily mean something *should be* the case... (an entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)

Oh, as usual: I offer these questions as food for thought only. I apologize in advance to anyone who wants me to engage in "debate" over the answers to these questions. I don't debate. Investigate, ask question, yes. Debate, no. If you're truly interested in learning (as opposed to winning!) about the nature of ethics, truth, knowledge, etc., there are tons of very well-constructed philosophy classes at JU, UNF, and FSCJ.

There's another one of my plugs for Philosophy. Why do I plug philosophy in darn near every post I submit? Because I tentatively think the world might be a better place if everyone had a solid grounding in the critical thinking skills it teaches. Ask my students. Consistently, they report that the difference in their critical thinking abilities, from the beginning of the semester, compared to the end, blows their minds. Ah, they make me and the goddess Athena so proud!

But anyway, so, yeah. "My truth" vs. "The truth". There's a HUGE difference between them. Oy.

[iluvolives]

I think one of the issues with public schools is that it is one of the few industries in this country that has changed/progressed very little of the last 150 years, most schools still use the traditional model of 1 teacher/ 30 kids. I think this podcast
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/21/how-is-a-bad-radio-station-like-our-public-school-system-a-freakonomics-radio-podcast-encore/#
addresses it well and non profits like Khan Academy are helping to address some of the issues (which gained alot of additional funding when Bill Gates mentioned that he used to to help his kids with school work)

60 minutes recently did a story on Khan Academy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7401696n

[Fallen Buckeye]

Actually, I think that a co-teach situation can work pretty well if you get the right combination of educators. I actually like what St. John's county has done. New teachers are hired as associate teachers, and veteran teachers are called master teachers I think. Associate teachers have lower pay and must coteach under a master teacher. It solves a lot of problems with teaching today.

I know from experience that many new teachers are really thrown in the deep end too soon. My first year teaching I was given a class that was larger than what it was supposed to be under the class size amendment and my classroom was in a completely different building from other teachers on my grade level. I was not even given all of the curriculum materials needed to teach the lessons. I know a lot of teachers will tell you that college did not adequately prepare them to run a classroom. I am a highly effective teacher now, but for those kids it was really a lost year. Now consider the fact that most of our really tough urban schools tend to have more novice teachers than suburban schools. The St. John's model gives novice teachers the support they need become effective teachers, and we have a lot less children having a lost year.

Having multiple tiers of teachers also provides opportunities for advancement that teachers really do not have today. It's a built in motivation for teachers to improve their craft (besides the altruistic motivation of wanting to best help students, of course). It is also more cost-effective which is why St. Johns County implemented it in the first place. It would also ease the administrative burden because paperwork could be split between 2 people.