FCAT IS NO JOKE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY

[BridgeTroll]

When was the last time ANY of you guys have taken the FCAT?

-Josh

Never...why?

[Tacachale]

I've never taken it either - it wasn't invented yet when I was in high school, and I went to private school, so I wouldn't have had to take it. However, I work in higher ed, and know a lot about how it works.

The SAT (and ACT) are totally different than FCAT. They are college placement tests, intended to gauge students' learning for placement in college. It's chiefly the colleges that look at these scores - and in Florida, you don't need them to go to community college. (These tests are becoming more and more problematic, but that's really a different subject).

On the other hand, the FCAT is administered every year, and rather than being a gauge, it's basically a certification you must pass to ever move on. Additionally, it determines how schools are funded. Better performing schools receive more funding. As such, schools have realigned themselves from a mission of teaching students to "teaching students to pass the FCAT". The tests become even more troublesome as students get older and have the choice to take different classes that suit them, but are still stuck taking the same test.

It's a really homogenized, lowest-common-denominator form of teaching, attached to a regressive form of funding. The intention is good, but the execution is Florida shoddy.

[BridgeTroll]

Just asking questions as I know you work in higher education... When you say...

It's a really homogenized, lowest-common-denominator form of teaching

I don't disagree that it is "homogenized"... but again...isn't that a function of standards and curriculum?  Also... you say "lowest common denominator"... from my perspective this means it should be pretty easy to pass.  If students and schools are having issues with the lowest common denominator... they are in BIG trouble with and average or high denominator.

it's basically a certification you must pass to ever move on.

What is wrong with "certifying" that the student has learned the standards set before being advanced?  This is pretty common practice in life...

schools have realigned themselves from a mission of teaching students to "teaching students to pass the FCAT".

I still do not understand this phrase.  As a teacher... you create a set of learning objectives when creating a lesson plan.  After teaching the students from your plan... you then test them to ensure the objectives were met.  In effect... "teaching to the test".

[Tacachale]

The problem with the FCAT isn't with standardizing expectations, it's with how it's been executed. The test is not supposed to be the goal of teaching. Education is the goal, the test is a test to see how students are faring toward that goal. At this point, however, we've made passing the FCAT the only part of education that the state cares about - and there are serious questions about the viability of what it even measures.

You're right that students who struggle with the FCAT would struggle even more with higher standards, but that's the other part of the problem (the main problem). More funding goes to the schools that are already doing better with the FCAT. Instead of gauging which students need more help, the state just take funding away from their schools and gives it to better performers in other neighborhoods. It's the definition of regressive.

Again, the intention is solid - they're trying to incentivize teachers and schools to get better results. But instead they funnel money away from the students who need the most help. This type of thinking is characteristic of our fine state.

[Fallen Buckeye]

There are definitely flaws with this system. Clearly, the stakes have become too high, and a very rigid framework has been put in place for improvement that obviously does not work. Take all of these low performing high schools for example. When a school earns low school grade and/or does not meet AYP for a certain number of years there is a very specific battery of additional requirements placed on them that may include hiring consultants and restructuring and a whole host of things, but these schools do not seem to be improving (except by changing how the grades are computed apparently). Or take for instance that a student's promotion or retention can be taken out of the hands of families and teachers and placed into the hands of a test. Who has the deepest interest in the success of our children, the government or families? I learned early on in my teacher training that assessments inform our decisions, but it seems our assessments are making them.

Secondly, the curriculum materials are often subpar. I have found that all of the curriculum resources I have been given are poorly aligned to the standards. Let me give you an example. I teach 2nd grade, and the standard tells me that my students should be able to identify the theme of text. However, there is no lesson pertaining to this skill which is difficult for a 2nd grader to master. Because I am an alert teacher, I have made adjustments to make sure the gaps are taught, but sadly not all teachers have the skill set to develop a lesson from scratch. In fact, I'm fairly certain that not all teachers even notice that the our state approved basal reading series has gaps like these.

Which brings me to the next point: maybe we're focused too much on the wrong test. Did you know that if you have a bachelor's degree in any field and pass a test you can become a teacher? Needless to say, a lot of teachers are not really prepared to manage a classroom on their own (especially in their first few years of teaching), and urban schools tend to have higher numbers of these inexperienced, unprepared teachers (because more sage teachers have sense to stay away from difficult schools I guess). We need to rethink teacher training and licensure if we have any hope of improvement. I said on another thread that I think that we need to consider a tiered approach would require new teachers to begin as associate teachers (who are paid less) who are required to co-teach with a more experienced master teacher. That system provides appropriate support and oversight to young and/or struggling teachers, opportunities for advancement for teachers (much better way to motivate than we'll close your school), and provides a little relief for stretched budgets.

And regarding money, I don't think that's our primary problem with education. It's really how it is used that's a problem sometimes. If we invest millions more in curriculums that don't work or teachers and staff that don't have the right skills, we're going to be right back in the same boat. Not to mention that we spend way more money than we need to on the FCAT which could be better allocated in other areas. Show the public that we use the money wisely, and I think people will be more apt to open their pocketbooks when the need arises.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

FB, aside from your theory of a tiered system for teachers (which could be implemented as well because it makes sense), how would you feel if the school system 'spread the wealth' so to speak with their staff.  I'll try to provide an example of what I'm talking about though it may seem that I'm rambling. 

Also, I have zero knowledge of what an 'average' should be, so just go with the numbers as presented.

Facts:  The average at school 'A' is 3.1.  The state average is 2.6.

A teacher, Joe,  has been at school 'A' for 3 years, gradually improving his class FCAT average from a 2.8, 3.4 to 3.9.    Year four, he has a 4.1.  In addition to his base pay + annual raise, Joe gets a bump in pay in years 2,3 & 4 based on a formula, but because not only are his classes scoring higher than the state average, but they're also scoring higher than the school average. 

After year 4, Joe, because his classes have routinely scored above the school average, shouldn't he be moved to a lesser scoring school, much like our magnet students get moved, in order to help bring up the county wide average?  The schools get the same money, spread evenly, the teachers get incentive pay for high scoring classes and by spreading out the smart kids (magnet programs in failing schools) and good teachers (magnet program for teachers) shouldn't we increase our overall scores?

[Tacachale]

Buckeye, I think the last thing you said is one of the smartest things I've heard in a long time. It is about how the money is used, not the amount. The problem is that too often when people see money being spent with weak results, their instinct isn't to say "this money isn't being spent wisely and effectively, let's pull up our sleaves and figure out how to make it work", they say "cut that spending". And now it's even worse, as they funnel what money there is to schools that are already doing better at the expense of the schools that truly need help the most.

[Fallen Buckeye]

Westsider, I think it's wise to move use resources strategically. That's one of the advantages of using the tiered system I talked about. Under that system you could not overload a school with novice teachers because associate teachers would have to be paired with a master teacher. Of course, getting to a master teacher status couldn't be just an automatic thing based on seniority; it would need to be performance based, or it really takes the teeth out of the program.

There would need to be a change in how business is done at the district level though because with the current setup principals really compete with each other to get a better stable of teachers than the others. A principal that knows how to work the system can avoid getting saddled with novice teachers. Every year after school starts they take a count of how many students actually attend each school, and then the budget is adjusted. If a school has lower than expected enrollment teachers often get surplussed (involuntarily transferred) based on seniority. What an experienced principal will do is use surplus to get a poor performing teacher out of that school, but that teacher has to go somewhere within the system. So what an experienced principal will do if she needs to add additional teachers is wait until all surplus ed teachers have been placed before hiring. The placement of teachers really happens more at the school level than the district level though, so it isn't as strategic as it could be.

As far as the pay goes, my understanding is that they are transitioning to a system similar to what you're talking about for all new hires. They're in the process of implementing a new teacher assessment system that has a large component tied to student achievement which will then be tied to teacher pay. The problem is that they are implementing the idea before they have a complete plan. For example, my kids don't take an FCAT, and no one can seem to tell me what assessment will be used to determine half of my evaluation score. I'm not worried because I've scored highly effective on the one half of my evaluation already, but this type of situation really highlights how poorly things are run at both the district level. The state level is even worse. Not surprising that there is so much distrust between all parties in our educational system.

And thanks, Tacachale.

[Fallen Buckeye]

I guess it's a good thing I use a pseudonym on here. My bosses wouldn't be happy hearing all that. lol.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I guess it's a good thing I use a pseudonym on here. My bosses wouldn't be happy hearing all that. lol.

Hahaha. You could always use the backpage of the Folio to express how you really feel.   

Unfortunately, the poor performing teachers need to be let go or at least constantly re-evaluated on a semester by semester basis.  Hopefully they're just not comfortable in the class setting, being in charge of X amoung of kids,  - something that can be corrected, but the one's that just don't know how to teach.....  they're a detriment to the kids and the system in general.   Education, at least to me, isn't one of those field that you can be in 'just to get by'.

And if you used a lower starting pay (tiered as you suggested), but demonstrated a clear path to making better money, in addition to bonuses for strong testing classes, I think you would incentivise the career path enough that even the one's going through the motions would have reason to perk up. 

Now that we're preaching a performance based incentive to teachers, how would the unions react?  I would assume poorly, because unions are notorious for trying to level the playing field for all employees regardless of performance.  So unfortunately, no matter how much sense this makes or how much better it could potentially be, the one's who have to sign off are the union leaders.  And this is the main reason that I find unions (mostly) abhorrent.  They tend to halt progress in favor of equality for all, when they could really benefit everyone by changing their stance.

[Fallen Buckeye]

I'm not union, but I'm sure they'd have a hissy fit about this whole idea. You're right though. That's why we can't afford to give a novice teacher complete autonomy off the bat. A student can't afford a wasted year. I say give new teachers the support they need and a little time to develop, and if they can't perform we need to cut ties. Actually St. John's implemented some of the ideas I'm talking about when we first started having budget cuts. It's all doable.