After reading the article "Yes We Can" I felt both encouraged and discouraged. I feel strongly that it is extremely important to set high expectation levels for our students and that we should force students to work slightly outside their comfort levels so they can learn as much as possible. There were two points in the article that I would like to address, first that districts with a high proportion of minority students fail to recruit teachers that are highly qualified and experienced. This statement is supported by lots of data but I hope that over the next few years some change will occur within this statistic. Take NEAG graduates for example, we were all supposed to have at least one urban placement, hopefully some students enjoyed their urban placement enough to seriously consider teaching in an urban district. If more teacher prep programs had similar requirements I wonder if the number of highly qualified and experienced teachers would increase in urban districts. However before this occurs it may be necessary for higher teacher pay scales and benefit packages to mimic more affluent districts in order to entice more teachers. Second the article brings up the point that all schools should be receiving equal funding for students. I wholeheartedly agree with this point, and in actuality some districts with failing test scores should not have funding stripped but should receive more funds. If you need to increase student performance levels, especially in reading, shouldn't there be more funds to provide resource programs and additional support personal to teach struggling students? I also remember hearing a statistic that said that some urban districts spend a higher percentage of their budgets per pupil than suburban districts. However if you take a look at what these funds are being used for it makes sense. When a school has a higher proportion of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch programs it would make sense money must be spent to feed students. Also when you have a higher percentage of students receiving ESL/ELL support, qualifying for special education services, and more students requiring additional instructional support the extra expenditures are not only needed but expected.
I think that this article was valuable to read, I just wish that more people would understand that the widening achievement gaps begin in elementary school and differences are only compounded throughout time in a school district. I believe that it is important to find ways to support students early in their education to prevent the drastic differences in ability levels seen in high school.
Been a While
14 years ago
4 comments:
I agree with your comments and I think that districts with high needs need to go above and beyond to seek out qualified teachers but instead they just settle for anyone who is willing to take the job on. I also find that in urban schools they are constantly buying into scripted programs so it is hard for teachers to want to be there because programs such as these take away a lot of the creativity and thinking for teachers. While some urban districts do have pay that is around the same are more affluent districts there are still some that lag far behind. Willimantic is one of the lowest paying in the state, but I know Meriden and New Haven pay decent. However, I think that these areas are tough and it takes more than money to get people to want to teach there. After all I don't think teachers who only go there for the money will be dedicated to fixing the problems occuring in these schools. I think that giving new teachers the chance to experience urban systems, as UC does, is a better way to encourage new teachers to teach in those areas. That is what led me to want to teach in an urban school and I hope more people will want to as well.
For what it is worth as a note about pay scales...East Hartford is one of the top paying districts in the state! And as far as I have seen one of the best to work in!
I also was considering the implications of "less qualified" teachers being more likely to work in urban schools than suburban schools. I think the fact that we are all required to work in an urban school is beneficial. I found the experience to be very rewarding, and would seriously consider taking a job in an urban school.
Another thing I was thinking about was the "Teach for America" program. In a relatively short time, anyone, with any undergrad background, can be trained to be a teacher. The stipulation, however, is that you are required to work in an urban district for 2-3 years. I think the idea of this program is well-intentioned, but realistically, "less qualified" teachers are being trained, and then sent into urban districts. Do you think this may be part of the problem as well?
I think that it is a good requirement for us to do a placement in an urban district. Unfortunately for me, the only urban placement I had was out of my concentration, at North Windham Elementary in a first grade class. I feel like I did not get the experience that you did teaching at East Hartford. It is interesting to me that Teach for America is regarded as a great program, yet none of the people working for that seem to be highly qualified. Why would administrators want teachers that are not highly qualified working in their schools? I agree that we as teachers need to broaden our horizons to include applying to urban districts. I have never really thought seriously about it before, and now I am pondering the thought.
Post a Comment