Monthly Archives: February 2013

Becoming A Teacher

I am a teacher.

How did this happen?  As I look back, I don’t remember ever aspiring to be a teacher.  I wanted to be a princess, a mermaid, then a writer, a poet, an artist, a doctor, a wife, a mother… I wanted most of all to be a leader; to make a difference.

In college, I toyed with the idea of several different careers.  I intended to go into the medical field because that was a great choice for a young woman seeking validation in a career.  I entered my first year of pre-requisites with gusto.  However, besides that fact that the smell of hospitals made me nauseous, the medical field just didn’t feel right. I loved the classes I took in drawing, design and art history.  I considered a career in commercial art but it seemed risky. Did I want to be a psychologist? How about a social worker? As I wandered and wondered, I encountered an array of individuals; some who were also searching and some who had found their passion.  Reflecting, I realized that the most influential people in my life, besides my parents, had been teachers.  Thus I found my passion too.  It was to lead and to make a difference in the world around me, one child at a time.

Through all the frustrations of working in a system that is clogged, clouded, and often inefficient, I have experienced great joy and satisfaction.  I have had the privilege of loving hundreds of children.  I have inspired smiles, knowledge, and confidence.  I have received hugs, notes of appreciation, and adoration.  I have listened to, taught and encouraged parents.  I have learned from my colleagues, shared with other teachers, and inspired innovation. I have made life-long friendships.  I have made a difference.

“The future of the world is in my classroom today, a future with the potential for good or bad… Several future presidents are learning from me today; so are the great writers of the next decades, and so are all the so-called ordinary people who will make the decisions in a democracy. I must never forget these same young people could be the thieves and murderers of the future. Only a teacher? Thank God I have a calling to the greatest profession of all! I must be vigilant every day, lest I lose one fragile opportunity to improve tomorrow.”
–Ivan Welton Fitzwater

Quote found at http://www.nea.org/grants/17417.htm

The Dinosaur of Title 1 Programming

As a classroom teacher, I did everything I could to keep my at risk students out of title 1 services.  All reflective teachers are action researchers.  My experiences supported the belief that providing the students in my classroom with good instruction, was preferable to sending them to a paraprofessional with a “canned” program.  In addition, the constant interruptions of students coming and going reduced the effectiveness of the classroom experience that I had so carefully designed for all students.  Then, I was asked to manage the very program that I questioned.  What better way to gain perspective?

My first year as a literacy teacher in charge of a school’s Title 1 program was an enlightening experience.  My job was to organize the schedule, assign students to paraprofessionals, and deliver small group instruction.  I determined the neediest students and assigned them to the most qualified instructional specialist.  As a result, I worked with several groups from grade 1 and a group of grade 5 students.  I loved teaching all my students.  However, I began to wonder why my grade 5 students still qualified for  Title 1 services.  Were these students new to the school?  Did they fall through the cracks and just become identified? What I found when reviewing their records was disturbing.   Most of these students had been in Title 1 since grade 1.  Something wasn’t working.

Since the 1960’s most Title 1 programs in the US have been organized through small group remediation similar to the one that I described. In a study titled “Effective Programs for Struggling Readers: A Best-Evidence Synthesis”  (Robert E. Slavin, Johns Hopkins University -and- University of York, Cynthia Lake, Johns Hopkins University, Susan Davis, Success for All Foundation, Nancy A. Madden, Johns Hopkins University -and- University of York published June, 2009) the conclusion included the following statement:

“these findings suggest is that it is critical to focus first on core classroom instructional strategies, using methods for the whole class that improve reading performance for all, but particularly for low achievers.”

In a report to congressional committees published July, 2011  by the United States Government Accountability Office titled “DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS: School Districts Have Used Title I Funds Primarily to Support Instruction” the following was stated:

“While Education has issued guidance on Title I, it has not prescribed specific uses of Title I funds. According to Education officials, the agency is reluctant to endorse spending on any particular good or service, as Education wants to allow schools to spend the money to meet their unique needs and to be free to spend the money creatively.”

So why are most title 1 schools investing in small group remediation when there is a body of evidence to support strong classroom instruction as the most effective way to support at risk learners?  Financial resources and governmental restrictions are two reasons.  The same report by the United States Governmental Accountability Office outlines the types of programs available to title 1 schools.

“Schools may run two types of Title I programs—targeted and schoolwide. Schools where more than 40 percent of students are from low-income families may operate schoolwide programs, enabling them to serve all children at the school with Title I funds. In targeted-assistance schools, Title I funds may only be used to benefit children who are determined to be eligible by being identified as failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the state’s student academic achievement standards. Schoolwide programs offer schools more flexibility than targeted programs in using Title I funds because they may use these funds to support all students, regardless of students’ Title I eligibility, and to fund a comprehensive school plan to upgrade all the instruction in a school.1”

In addition to the increased effectiveness of strong teachers and programming in the classroom, there  is a great deal of research to support the effectiveness of reduced class sizes to improve student achievement.  Imagine these two approaches combined!  Where is the funding for this type of initiative?  My school had 30% low-income families.  That 10% difference restricted all students in the school from receiving better educational opportunities.

Something is not working… We just keep feeding the dried up bones of the dinosaur of Public Education.  I say we need to put the dinosaur where it belongs, in a museum, and begin to innovate and re-create the way we fund and educate all of our students!

RT