Unhappy with the District?
In addition to the perennial issues of the district - Special Education, Advanced Learning, ELL, building conditions, the debt on JSCEE and, of course, funding - we have more that have risen up. To wit:
- staffing cuts at more than 25 schools this year
- bell times
- City's pre-K and their ever-increasing desire for space in the district
- capacity issues
- facilities' issues
- curriculum choices/use
- increased spending at district administration
(Please, add to the list.)
The clamor is ever louder. The frustration is growing - for teachers, parents, students, principals. I'm sure district staff is frustrated but senior management is large and in charge and really, most of it is on them. They HAVE to find better and more transparent ways to communicate.
It really is the communications that is killing them. They refuse to treat parents as adults and give them full explanations of current situations. They obfuscate, they deflect, they tell half the story and it is hurting this district.
But what to do? I would say - as I frequently do when senior staff don't appear to be listening - the district needs a shock to the system. But maybe a gradual build-up might just do the trick.
That, parents, is up to you. Real change needs real - and long-term - action.
- staffing cuts at more than 25 schools this year
- bell times
- City's pre-K and their ever-increasing desire for space in the district
- capacity issues
- facilities' issues
- curriculum choices/use
- increased spending at district administration
(Please, add to the list.)
The clamor is ever louder. The frustration is growing - for teachers, parents, students, principals. I'm sure district staff is frustrated but senior management is large and in charge and really, most of it is on them. They HAVE to find better and more transparent ways to communicate.
It really is the communications that is killing them. They refuse to treat parents as adults and give them full explanations of current situations. They obfuscate, they deflect, they tell half the story and it is hurting this district.
But what to do? I would say - as I frequently do when senior staff don't appear to be listening - the district needs a shock to the system. But maybe a gradual build-up might just do the trick.
- as has been previously suggested, start opting your child out of any non-required testing, starting with Amplify. If you are asked, tell your teacher and your principal that this is your stand against how the district is being managed. Politely state that yes, you know the blah, blah on how taking the test helps your kid but that you feel that, overall, the direction of the district and the treatment of parents in the district is being hurt much more and that you want the district to listen to parents.
- the Board WILL have three new members in just about two months (new members generally are installed in early December). Maybe four new members. I'm sure that some of the senior staff are already trying to figure out how to "manage" these new members (as I'm sure the Mayor and Tim Burgess are as well). Those new members will need to find a way to become a team with the remaining members but also, to review the issues and find a new way.
- on the November ballot there are two large levies - one for the City and one for the County. If both pass, that's about $1.3B. And then along will come the district's two renewing (but at higher amounts) levies in Feb. 2016. The district - more than ever - will need parents to work for these levies. In particular, as was pointed out at the Eckstein forum, the district will need parents to push other voters - family, friends, co-workers - to vote for them. Grumpy parents do not make good public spokespeople. Grumpy parents do not feel inclined to work phone banks and put out signs.
That, parents, is up to you. Real change needs real - and long-term - action.
Comments
Have to admit that I've talked to several friends with kids in SPS over the last few years and I'm fairly sure we could do a better job of communications than any of the District's communications people have. I am half-tempted to offer...
Bring back organization charts and add job descriptions
Bring back old method of searching video archives of board meetings etc.
Dead Horse
If you really want to change the system, present another way and let parents vote with their feet. - Seattle Parent
Ask: Does this program benefit kids K to 12, this year;
Ask: Does this help a teacher in a school;
Ask: Does this help a student, today, this week, this month, this year;
If the answer is no to any of these, then cut it.
There is too much hiding behind five year plans.
In this district, you do have some choice and some pretty good ones at that. I know that is also true in Tacoma.
Until education is fully-funded, for several years, in this state, I do not believe it worth it to fund alternative education.
Also right, Joe.
-[very] tired parent
Joseph Rockne nails it with
completely tear up the John Standford Center.
To do that cease the highly ineffective top-down management.
The are now a profusion of excellent tools to allow schools to really do building based decision-making, especially in regard to academic decision-making at the school level.
Teachers used to be treated a lot more like professionals and given control over the educational process. Now we see programs like "professional learning communities" which are code for "Top-down delivery of what teachers need to believe and do."
The District needs to restructure around School-Based bottom up decision-making and leadership.
Several of the candidates running for the Board are very aware of this.
Find a leader that will completely tear up the John Standford Center. Hopefully informed folks like Joseph Rockne can organize to make it happen.
-- Dan Dempsey
Thank you for your consideration.
A final item is a review of transportation. The transportation system is an unholy mess that is costing the District huge amounts of money. It's also bad PR, since it gets thrown back in the District's face every time they ask for money from the state. I'm talking things like 5-10 buses from schools to a dance program. That's not necessarily bad, but it raises a lot of questions. Who pays for that? Is it a grant, parent, district, whatever? What are the administrative costs of these specials? This is especially true of buses that are not M-F at the same time.
-sleeper
"KING 5 reached out to all the districts in King County. Only Kent School District reported having to make adjustments and made them after the Labor Day weekend."
Sure, every district is required to report final enrollment numbers to the state shortly after October 1, but there's no requirement that adjustments be made post-Oct 1. The district should have a pretty good idea of enrollment numbers a few days before the school year starts, and should make any needed adjustments then, not a month into the school year!
-- SPS Dad
reader47
SPE Parent
-Long gone
Why doesn't the district -both in the name of transparency AND to aid parent understanding (which could gain support) - tell us ALL of this?
My belief is that the district doesn't want to be transparent because to show where ALL the money IS and where it all GOES is not in their game plan.
But that's what you would do if you wanted the most understanding/sympathy from parents and public.
It's what you would do if you wanted the most support for your visions and your initiatives.
-Do it
include all please
And to be clear, that was one example. There were dozens like it.
Mom of 4
Our children are being shortchanged. Have you spent any time in our elementary schools? Do you know how large the classes are? How we are stigmatizing children with low test scores for not achieving when the schools do nothing but throw roadblocks (large classes) and obstacles (Bureaucratic inefficiencies, crumbling facilities, no time for lunch, no time for recess, crowding) in the way?
I would really like to see some concrete cost-cutting at the District level to reduce the impact to the students. If our children need to cram into a smaller classroom, lose their teacher after just starting school, and exist in the demoralized environment of a failing school where everyone is trying so hard to improve and then gets hit with another gut punch (sorry, you lose your teacher and your room, and get crammed in with some other kids as an afterthought), then I hope we can see a comprehensive and TRANSPARENT list of cuts to district salaries, travel, FTE and management wastage.
Every time you send me “The Source” glossy email, I want to scream. Let go of the PR people who send me that useless email and send me a teacher!! Send me a school that’s not begging me for paper and pencils so kids can learn!! Send me a school where my daughter doesn’t have to go down 3 flights of stairs to a bathroom!!! Send me a school that has enough room for her to eat lunch!!
A school district that snatches teachers away from failing schools and the children who need them is failing on every level. If there is no creative management thinking that can save money at the district level, then I respectfully suggest that everyone at JSCEE resign.
Because any efforts toward transparency exist only in name.
How much was spent to make the district website less transparent?
District motto .... Opaque R Us.
Inquiring Mind
reader47
And by the way, isn't it ridiculous that parents have to provide paper and pencils and other school supplies mid year because the school has run out? What kind of banana-republic system is this when the district can't provide BASIC supplies and teachers have to send begging letters home to parents?? It's a joke that senior staff have their car allowances, and PreK conference travel and what have you and meanwhile schools don't even have enough pencils. It really is a Marie Antoinette administration (" let them eat cake" turns into "let them cram 30 in a 1st grade class and who needs pencils anyway"). The people running the show are so detached from the reality of the classroom that they just don't get it. They don't get that it all happens (learning the basics, opening minds to the world and their potential, closing achievement gaps, becoming prepared for college, workforce, and life) -In the classroom, in the hands of teachers, not in their ivory tower with their plans and taskforces and press releases etc. And therefore this is where our education money needs to go - funding and staffing the classrooms (and para-educational stuff) and providing good curricula, not supporting the JSCEE royalty.
Well it didn't end so well for Marie A. so I say....
Time for revolution
Elementary Teacher
SPS has an advantage -we lack the funds and professional staff that SPS has to manage the story (though, perhaps there are some PR/communications professionals who are SPS parents who can counter the district spin?). We need to ask questions of the district and demand answers. We need to get the media to ask questions of the district. One question I'm particularly interested in is where the full day K funds are spent. At > $2000 and 28 kids per class, and 4 or 5 K classes as was the case when both my kids were in K that is quite a lot of money, more than enough to pay a teacher salary or 2 at that particular school. Think about this replicated at schools all over town. What is the district spending this income on when it should be to maintain a full day K program - ie more K teachers and smaller K classes?
This is a public taxpayer funded entity - they report to us and its about time they did so openly (without the PR spin) both to the public and to our representatives - the board (and its about time some of these current board members remembered who they answer to as well).
Public knowledge
According to the 2015/16 Budget Book, (page 49) fees for all-day K go into the pot labeled "Other Revenues"
Other Revenue funding provides $43.8million or 5.8% of budgeted resources. Sources of this funding include rental and lease income from Districtproperties, investment earnings, food service fees, gifts and donations, fees for all day kindergarten,and the City Families and Education Levy.
reader47
reader47
The DanceChance Screening team visits partner schools in the fall and identifies third-grade students with the unique physical aptitude and focus required to pursue a career in dance. Selected students participate in a 9-week introductory fall session. Students are invited to continue on to the subsequent spring session and the fourth grade class based on their progress, potential and interest. Upon graduation from the two year program, some students are invited to integrate into PNBS Level III classes.
STUDENTS WITH THE PHYSICAL APTITUDE, COORDINATION, MUSICALITY AND FOCUS ARE PROVIDED WITH:
Full scholarships for classical ballet training twice a week
Dancewear and shoes
Transportation to and from PNB from their elementary school
Tickets to Pacific Northwest Ballet performances
In addition students receive a well-rounded dance education, including: fieldtrips to PNB’s Costume Shop, a chance to meet professional dances, and guest teachers in Modern, Hip Hop, Afro-Brazilian and Jazz.
All classes are taught by Pacific Northwest Ballet Schools’ renowned faculty of educators with live musical accompaniment.
DANCECHANCE AND ACADEMIC EDUCATION
DanceChance aims to enrich the lives of students through classical ballet training, developing beneficial skills regardless of their future career paths. Research shows that arts education teaches children life skills such as developing an informed perception, articulating a vision, learning to solve problems and make decisions, building self-confidence, and self-discipline (Americans for the Arts, 2002).
(I think there's plenty of waste in Transportation, this just doesn't look like a good example of it!)
- every student, really
The Board did vote in favor of the resolution on the moratorium for out of school suspensions for elementary school students and the staff did a good job of presenting data. Now if we could resurrect the Seattle Public Schools Data Profile Document that was discontinued in 2012 and pay attention to Cris Jackins' testimonies and recommendations and revisit and implement the Disproportionality Task Forces recommendations, we would be far ahead in closing the opportunity gap.
Also, the naming of the Robert Eaglestaff school has been accomplished. Yes, there is much work to be done, but this is a beginning for many underserved students.
reader47
your topic has come up at every special education ptsa meeting and also at the twice exceptional meeting the other night. the next meeting of the special education ptsa is next Tuesday October 20th at West Seattle High School (library? lunchroom?) 7-9pm. i think this group is highly motivated to get the shortfalls you describe addressed.
another reader
I had a discussion with Joe Paperman in the budget office about Pay-for-K a couple of years ago. The calculation at that time looked like this:
$ 98,000 salary and benefits
$ 2,300 supplies
$100,300 cost of a full time classroom
$ 50,150 cost of a half time classroom
$ 1,750 3.5% for indirect costs
$ 51,900 total cost
$ 2,160 cost per child (24 per class)
$ 815 subsidy
$ 2,975 total fee
The state pays the full cost of kindergarten for schools with the highest percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals (FARM.) There has been a list on OSPI's website of every school in the state that offers kindergarten, sorted by FARM rate. As funding for K in the state budget has been increased they've been working their way down that list. The district has been funding Kindergarten for the next few schools on that list. At the remaining schools, families are charged a fee - except for those who qualify for free and reduced-price meals. Their cost isn't covered with funds from the operations levy or with city contributions, it's covered by fee-paying families. (That is the $815 subsidy.)
Dear Friends,
The Board did vote in favor of the resolution on the moratorium for out of school suspensions for elementary school students and the staff did a good job of presenting data. Now if we could resurrect the Seattle Public Schools Data Profile Document that was discontinued in 2012 and pay attention to Cris Jackins' testimonies and recommendations and revisit and implement the Disproportionality Task Forces recommendations, we would be far ahead in closing the opportunity gap.
----------------------------
Sadly at the end of September the "Reducing Opportunity Gaps" work session the staff did not present data about the "Opportunity Gaps". (Typical misdirection)
The "Opportunity Gaps" are a rename from "Achievement Gaps" and the district rarely references any progress over time in reducing these gaps ..... (because there is very little progress if any).. Perhaps the greatest progress occurred when Mercer MS began using Saxon math without Central Staff approval.
Recently from JSCEE a revised "Scope and Sequence" for Math in Focus emerged.
If opportunity gaps are to be reduced there need to be major changes in academic delivery. A change away from JSCEE dictates and PLC top-down direction would be a large step in the correct direction.
It is way past time to find out what is happening in the "Readers and Writers" workshops in regard to Gap Reduction. What has been happening in Math over the last decade in Gap Reduction?
.... data Bueller data .. Where is it?
When teachers are allowed to form true "Professional Learning Communities" and determine needed Professional Development and be given the latitude to develop improvements to delivering instruction, the "Opportunity Gaps" will be reduced. Until these changes occur the Strategic Plan's big focus on opportunity gaps is just bogus verbiage.
-- Dan Dempsey
Staff has acknowledged defeat in closing the gap in elementary school. Now they're certain if we just turn over our classrooms and our teachers to the city for preschool, the gap will be magically closed before the children show up to kindergarten. At that point, the lousy curriculum won't matter - because as staff tell us, We believe that closing opportunity gaps for each and every student is THE most important work of our time.. What happened to Every Child, in Every Classroom, Every Day? Isn't graduating students who are literate and mathematically capable the work of the school district?
Adding to your list . . . How about the fact that the District is now using SBAC to determine AL eligibility with absolutely no advance notice (though I was guessing it would happen), when the test was so highly criticized last year and this was the first year of implementation. Moreover, the District has pulled the appeal process from the website and will probably come out with a new policy that will provide minimal appeal rights (no private testing), again with no advance notice and after folks have paid for private testing on the assumption the District wouldn't change the rules mid-stream.
-gripes
This is what this city needs - not the never-ending roundabout of work sessions, consultants, new (renamed) initiatives - it's like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. We need less of this talk and more action- and by action I mean action in the schools not the JSCEE. And for that we need more money and personnel in the schools and less money spent/fewer personnel downtown. The one thing that would benefit all students, the one thing that can improve outcomes for the most vulnerable is more resources (both human and financial) and right now the district routinely starves our schools of resources from schools - and right now is trying to cut staff at many. And they have the temerity to talk about closing gaps.
PS - great list Meg. I would add these:
history of ignoring very strong community feedback, including that from taskforces charged with analysing and making recommendations on the specific issues, when it comes to capacity management, building closures, school locations etc. I can think of several cases in which we would be in a much better position now (or avoided some crisis) if only the district powers-that-be had listened.
the disparate and somewhat manipulative 'community engagement' practices -whereby some issues get months or years of meetings and analysis and nothing can be done because "community engagement' is important and yet at other times the district will just barge ahead and make some far reaching changes without any prior community notification at all. There is a sense that when the district WANTS to do something - it will just do it (they don't want to hear from parents who in fact won't even know until its a done deal) but if they DON'T WANT to do something (that perhaps the community supports or wants) they will community engage the issue to death and then announce it can't be done because feedback says x, y, z.
Mind the gap
reader47
So, the first step is that the district has to realize that information managment just isn't going to work with Seattle parents. Then, there's the second step of recognizing that we are supposed to want the same goal. This raises another question, though, which is when the district thinks they are trying to reach a goal that they believe parents (especially when they think it's not all parents, but just a vocal set of affluent north end parents) oppose but that the district thinks is in the best interests of all the children. Issues about testing, advanced learning, allocating resources can fall into this category. How do they speak to us on these issues? Right now, sometimes it seems like they simply obfuscate and mislead, in the hopes that changes can be made to fast for anyone to object. But, could they engage? would people listen?
For example, although I do believe that testing has been over done and is consuming education, I do also believe that testing uncovered some of the iniquities in our system, forced us to realize that some children weren't being provided with an adequate education.
I have dreams of dialog between trusted partners. Is it really impossible?
zb
I think the issue you've nailed is the keyword "trusted" At present NONE of the players trust the others, 99% of the time. Until you can reduce that percentage, then yes, true meaningful dialog is while not impossible, at the very least, improbable.
reader47
I actually think we DO know many of the things that we need to do to close the achievement gap. But they either seem expensive or too easy/obvious/not sexy for the powers that be.
ZB, it's always about communications and right now I'd give the district a C-. And it seems to be getting worse.
I see a bunch of strange things. I expect that it would take quite a bit of analysis and work to put it together and see what it adds to.
- Nyland's letter about teacher cuts indicates that teachers are being cut because while enrollment grew, growth was about 675 students less than SPS projections, leaving them about $4.2M short. I find it really, really strange that over 20% of the schools in the district are having major faculty disruptions (which lead very directly to disruptions in student learning) for a shortfall that is just barely over half a percent of the budget, and an enrollment miss of 1.3%.
- also weird: the total budget for 2015-16 saw substantial growth, in the neighborhood of $60M (from $689.4M to $753M). The budget book does list some of the reasons (class size reduction money, for instance), but overall budget growth is comfortably ahead of enrollment growth... and yet, a really large number of schools are having teachers pulled out
- frustrating and strange: Central Administration budget growth has been HEFTY. In 2013-14 the Central Administration budget (not actuals) was $31.9M. In 2014-15 it was $37.4M and for 2015-16 it is $43.6M. So since 2013-14, Central Administration budgets have been increased by $11.7M. That's ALOT. Enough, as I've said earlier, for every single school in the district to get an additional teacher. If schools are being asked to make difficult, disruptive cuts during the school year, why, why, why does the central administration budget continue to have year over year growth?
- adding salt to the wound: the 20 most highly compensated administrators in SPS (not necessarily the same people or positions - just the 20 most highly paid in each year) saw their comp increase by $500K from 2012-13 to 2014-15. Top 100 SPS administrators saw comp jump by over $1M.
- unsettling email from Brent Kroon that makes it look uncomfortably as if enrollment services very intentionally tries to withhold enrollment data about a public school district because, essentially, they find public input and questions to be a major hassle. During a capacity crisis. Which... weird that the public would have lots of questions about a public district during a capacity crisis. Oh, wait, no. The only weird part (and maybe not legal?) is that school district officials are intentionally withholding public data because they don't like what the public has to say about it.
- weird pay for K issue in which many kindergartens sound quite overcrowded, and fees do not appear to keep additional faculty pulls from happening in those buildings, nor to reduce K class size.
- ongoing capacity crisis, w/ the district making decisions that... well, seem to be at least very much in line with the district's traditional way of making decisions. The public, largely deprived - as usual - of any way to influence those decisions, has to scream and cry to get just SOME of the (public) data those decisions are being made with.
There's more, but those are some of the things I find really concerning, and seem to have at least some relation.
Lets see - admin is up about $11+M but a bad enrollment projection puts the district down $4.2M Logic would suggest, since you are after all running a SCHOOL district (you know, with classrooms and kids and stuff) that the cuts/rearrangments/shifting or whatever the "word du jour" is for the October scramble, might come from ADMIN so that the SCHOOL part would be unharmed..
Nah - that would be too easy. Too logical. Too, well, ethical. Sighhh...
reader47
For the entire time that I have been a public school activist Seattle Public Schools has claimed that their primary goal and top priority has been to close the academic achievement gap. Yet, for all of that time, they have never once made a plan for achieving that goal. And it's not like they don't like to make plans.
What kind of an organization makes no plan to achieve their top goal?
If you were to ask them now they would say, again, that closing the gap is their top goal. And, if you were to ask them for their plan for reaching that goal they would say, after a period of awkward silence, that MTSS is their path to that end. But when you go further and ask them about progress implementing MTSS you would learn of how they have been working on that for years. They have been in the second year of a four-year plan to implement MTSS for three years now.
Of course, you may be dismayed to learn about MTSS and how they interpret it. Step one, for them, is to get every classroom in every school teaching the same curriculum. This is a really odd idea. It's a really odd idea for three reasons. First, there is no real benefit to such an effort. Education is not a one-size-fits-all enterprise. Second, they utterly lack the ability to implement such a thing. They don't even know what is being taught in the schools let alone control it. It wasn't until the district went to implement a new elementary math curriculum that they learned that about twenty schools weren't using the adopted one. And third, they have absolutely no ability to enforce any edict they issue.
The central problem with the school district's management is that it is completely disconnected from anything that happens in the schools - and not only do the schools like it that way, but the JSCEE likes it that way too.
Thinking
Sadface and reader47, when teachers are budgeted they are line-itemed at high rates even though the particular teachers may not be making that paycheck yet. The District uses a standard number inclusive of all teachers. Some schools have a lot of veteran teachers at the top end of the wage scale while other school have a lot of new teachers. To cover the top end, the bottom-end schools on paper show higher wages than are actually earned. This is fair. Otherwise, all schools would be constantly trying to rid themselves of veteran teachers. And the budgeted line items include insurance and other benefit costs. I'm not sure anymore what those are but $68,000 may not do it. And $4m sounds like a lot but it isn't really if spread across a lot of positions.
Lynn, thanks, you laid it out perfectly. A lot of expenses included in pay-for-K.
@mind the gap: Right on target! Thank you.
@Dan: man, I hate the jargon changes. I esp. dislike "opportunity" gap. Achievement gap is honest. Let's put money back into smaller class sizes at at-risk schools and fix it.
MTSS is not a solution. It is a reworking of all the plans that have existed in the past. It is paper. It is a map of traffic stops for kids who just need more individual teaching. Add teachers and you can throw all the paper away. MTSS provides a paycheck for the people who created it. That's all. I miss you, Charlie!
EXACTLY! Instead of all of the drama, SPS should just hire more teachers to either reduce class size or provide for more individual teachers to work with kids individually.
Simple
Most school administrators are failed teachers. They tried it, found they couldn't do it, and quickly got out. The occupy positions where they sit around, making up rules and thinking up (or borrowing) new programs that take a way from teaching. Some seem to delight in be-deviling good teachers. They only care about maintaining their positions, and their benefits.
The above comment from the comments section on a story on Rafe Esquith here https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/16/world-famous-teacher-files-1-billion-lawsuit-against-los-angeles-schools-to-end-teacher-jail/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_answer
Answer Sheet
World-famous teacher files $1 billion lawsuit against Los Angeles schools to end ‘teacher jail’
Teacher
Actually, I've always considered myself a pretty strong teacher who uses time well. But I'm finally out of ideas. So, let me know how you do it please. I would like ideas - but not just more worksheets. More demanding worksheets means more teaching.
Another reason that MTSS cannot be implemented is that the District administration - even at the executive director level - has no idea what is happening in the schools. Again, I remind you of the elementary math curriculum adoption. The executive directors of schools had to send emails to the principals to ask them what math materials they were using BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS DIDN'T KNOW. The response was that about two dozen schools were using materials other than the adopted materials - all of it a surprise to the District.
If you consider the history of Seattle Public Schools you will notice that the District staff makes plans but they cannot implement anything. They can't implement anything because they are completely disconnected from the schools. The JSCEE and the buildings exist in two separate universes. I'm not surprised that every single school wants to fly under the District's radar, but I am surprised that every single school is doing it. The District has no radar.
Differentiation is also a lie. It, too, requires a heroic effort from teachers. Again, while individual teachers make heroic efforts all the time, a system design that requires heroic effort is not a reliable system. There are a number of solutions that can provide differentiated instruction. Some say that parallel curricula is the way, some say Project Based Learning, but the method that has worked best for the greatest number of students and is easiest to implement is tracking. Tracking, like anything else, can be done well or done poorly. I find it very odd that people who oppose tracking don't have a problem with some students being in the 3rd grade while others are in the 1st grade or the 5th grade. How is that not tracking?
Teacher
Reading: I meet and read individually with each kid weekly so I can work on whatever skills they need for the level they are reading. Reading levels in my class usually span two or three grade levels. I meet with kids weekly in phonics leveled groups so I can teach them the level phonics they need for the books they are reading or to match their spelling inventory level. However I also teach basic phonics whole group. I think some higher level kids often miss some of the basic building blocks. As the year goes on, I also do leveled reading comprehension groups.
Writing: Pretty easy to differentiate. I teach whole group lesson and then meet individually with kids. I like different kids to have their own goals for writing based on their abilities.
Math: This is my hardest one. We don't walk to math. Some years I would teach a whole group lesson and then do math groups. This year with the new scope and sequence, I'm just trying to figure out how to put together a curriculum. The scope and sequence doesn't match MIF, so I'm developing my own curriculum which is very time-consuming. Another reason why I wish they would let us teach MIF. I could spend my time figuring out how to better teach the curriculum as opposed to having to develop one on my own.
Science/social studies: I don't do too much with this. When kids write in their science journals I work with more advanced kids to express themselves more completely and think through their thoughts better.
What do you do?
To anyone else who is reading this, I just want to say that I know that this is not perfect differentiation. I'm just trying to do the best I can. It's hard work.
Teacher
HP
Teacher
I think we have it sort of easy. Primary kids may be academically bright but they are socially and emotionally still immature. As smart as they are, they can only handle so much. Once you get into intermediate grades and a classroom full of students who have come from great teachers, good teachers, and poor teachers, your hands are full trying to meet all their needs. Throw in sped, 504s, reluctant learners, demanding parents and a lack of time to thoroughly work with all students, it becomes unmanageable. My one guiding force, I try to teach to the highest. I really think the lowest get more from that than all the remediation there is. They stay engaged. Of course, I try to meet their needs best I can - individual decoding/word study lessons - but I still think they learn from engaging in higher level discussions and tasks.
My complaint: we try to teach too much. I'm going to quit asking for a longer day and suggest instead that we pare down the curriculum for our elementary students. Give us time to do fewer things well and provide more time for individual contact.
Also, I totally agree about differentiating with the younger and older grades. As the kids get older, the gaps get wider and wider. Differentiating becomes much harder due to the gaps and to the complexity of academic expectations.
Lynn, I think you can provide that enrichment in a lower tracked class. The challenge in a lower tracked class is that you have kids who are really low and kids who are average to a little above average. Some of the kids who are really low take a lot more time to teach. They either take longer to learn something or they require a different way of teaching to understand. As a teacher you are trying to meet their needs at the same time you are trying to teach the kids on level. In a higher tracked class, kids generally are fast learners. You can move through a lot of material more quickly, which leaves more time for enrichment. I still think you can do it in a lower tracked class, but it is a little more challenging.
Teacher
"more enrichment" What is that? Is it something that isn't included in the Learning Standards? Is that the definition of "enrichment"? Is it a field trip? Is it access to the following school year's learning standards? What is enrichment in this context?
In 2001, when I learned that my daughter was eligible for Spectrum, I asked around about what Spectrum was. I asked a lot of people but didn't get a coherent answer from the first dozen I asked. I finally got a clear answer from Mr. Ferris, the 4th grade Spectrum teacher at Lafayette. He told me that Spectrum provided instruction beyond grade level in three dimensions: deeper, broader, and further. I later got this confirmed by district officials in charge of the program at the time and I have never heard anyone in authority contradict this description of Spectrum. The problem with deeper, broader, and further is that deeper, the most important of the three, is the hardest to measure and that further, the least important of the three, is the easiest to measure. It is the ease of measuring advancement that gave us the HORRIBLE abbreviated description of the program as "one year ahead" which, to everyone's dismay, became the complete description of the program.
So what is enrichment? Is it deeper, broader, or further? Or is it something else? And what else is taking precedence over deeper, broader, and further? If it IS deeper, broader or further, then I don't have a problem with it. If it's field trips, then get back to school.
: to improve the quality of (something) : to make (something) better
: to improve the usefulness or quality of (something) by adding something to it
I started to answer but it became much, much too long and was mostly examples anyway. It was all additive for me.
I didn't bring up the issue of enrichment, but to me it means something that adds to the curriculum. Deeper, broader, or further would cover it. I think it means something that is fun to do that is connected to the curriculum or following up on a class-generated project that is connected to learning. I'm not talking about fluff. I'm talking about doing activities/projects connected to learning.
Teacher
Also, my kids did not go outside and use a wind flag and then return with "no wind, some wind, ..." They used the Beaufort Scale that is included in the science teacher's book and learned to identify wind force on a scale of one-15 or something like that by observing evidence outside. (of course, we never had gale-force winds or hurricanes!) A leader would be in charge and conduct the discussion citing evidence then have a vote on wind force. And there's lots of math in the weather unit. Also, they learned Celsius. I altered the thermometers that came from the district with only Fahrenheit and added Celsius so they had both. I think the district now sends out appropriate ones but I'm not sure.
You might not think those things are important but they were engaged. To me, engagement is crucial. It is primary in good teaching.
I hope the above examples show what a teacher can do with just a little extra time in the day. Of course, every academic area offers similar wonderful opportunities.