It began on a Monday with an all-day meeting euphemistically called an inservice. Topic? Analyzing test data. Purpose of record? Learn to use the data to become more effective teachers. Real purpose? In my n-t-b-h opinion, to use the data to target specific students to bring them up to a higher level so that their scores can help the school look more effective.
Tuesday: Minimum day for students. Purpose? So teachers can meet in their grade-level groups and -- you guessed it -- analyze more data. Oh, and collaborate so that each classroom is more like the others in the grade level. Heaven forbid any of us think or perform outside the "box."
Wednesday: Morning begins with each kindergarten teacher having to hastily tell a substitute what to do for two hours while we are pulled out of our classrooms to attend yet another meeting. (We had not been informed that our meeting was to take place first thing in the morning.) Purpose? To plan a lesson to be delivered in a style extremely contrived and script-like, and not at all comfortable to me.
Wednesday afternoon: Another impromptu meeting was called for the kindergarten teachers, thankfully after our students left. Purpose: essentially to say, "Never mind!" to the lesson plan we spent two hours away from our students planning.
The burning question I have is this: How do all these meetings help my students learn more? It makes absolutely no sense to me to take me out of my classroom to teach me a new way of teaching which, by the way, is not new at all. It is the same as that which I learned in my credential courses 25 years ago -- only the names have been changed. No one has been able to satisfactorily answer my question of why I must learn a different way to deliver my lessons when I have proven over the years that the majority of children under my tutelage leave to first grade well-prepared to continue their road to being readers. As it has been said numerous times: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
A lot of this nonsense is directly because of No Child Left Behind. The bureaucratic &$#@* hangs on us like a two-ton weight. Instead of helping our students truly learn and be happy, it has made schools become nothing more than data-driven institutions. We are not teaching young people anymore. We're producing data that hopefully will make public education look good.
----------------------------------------------------------
In my last blog I was lamenting about the lack of music education in our schools. To go with that, I would like to tell this true story: there is a young woman who is an aide at my school. She is nearing completion of her college requirements for a teaching credential. However, in order to do her student teaching, she needs to pass a state teacher's test -- the CSET, I believe. She has passed all the sections of the test except a section on Art History, PE, and Music. This young woman graduated from a California high school in 2002. California schools have not had art and music as anything more than an elective for about fifteen years. How, I ask you, can this young women be expected to pass this section of the test when she never elected to take music or art? Moreover, why does her student teaching rest on her success at the test when, unless big things change in public education in the very near future, she will not ever be able to teach either art or music?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
A Little Music, Please
Since my last blog entry (Was it really only yesterday?!) I conducted a little online research and found an abstract of an article entitled "The Effect of Early Music Training on Child Cognitive Development." from the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 20 Issue 4, December 1999. Pages 615-636. The last sentence in the abstract says the following: "This study suggests a significant correspondence between early music instruction and spatial-temporal reasoning abilities." The age range of the children included in the study was four to six years; kindergartners fall right in the middle of that age range.
For the past several years, the term, "research-based," has become almost like a mantra in the educational community. The idea seems to be that teaching using strategies that are not research-based wastes precious educational time. Therefore, we must only use curricula that were published using research-based criteria. That is a very noble and understandable stance. Sadly, however, if I were to use time in my instructional day to directly teach music, and even if I provided proof of the research-based validity of such an endeavor, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I must not "waste" the time on music since that time needs to be spent only on language arts and math. Sigh!
I think back to my own elementary education. While dodging dinosaur legs and avoiding pterodactyl claws on my way to school, I eagerly looked forward to the songs our music teacher would teach us that day. I loved going to school for that fact alone. What an incredible value it was to me! I learned history when we learned folk songs. I learned simple fractions when we were being taught how to read music. I learned how to play what was then called a tonette, which was a simple recorder. And that was just elementary school!
Music kept me attending high school. I cannot imagine how boring and un-motivating school would have been for me had I not had music. In fact, when my academic grades were mediocre, my parents spoke to my academic counselor asking her to take me out of my music class. Thankfully, the counselor discouraged my parents from doing that by telling them that if they took music away from me it would leave nothing for which I would keep attending school.
Music and the arts have been essentially gone from the public school setting for too long. And they wonder why the high school drop-out rate is so high?
For the past several years, the term, "research-based," has become almost like a mantra in the educational community. The idea seems to be that teaching using strategies that are not research-based wastes precious educational time. Therefore, we must only use curricula that were published using research-based criteria. That is a very noble and understandable stance. Sadly, however, if I were to use time in my instructional day to directly teach music, and even if I provided proof of the research-based validity of such an endeavor, I would be told in no uncertain terms that I must not "waste" the time on music since that time needs to be spent only on language arts and math. Sigh!
I think back to my own elementary education. While dodging dinosaur legs and avoiding pterodactyl claws on my way to school, I eagerly looked forward to the songs our music teacher would teach us that day. I loved going to school for that fact alone. What an incredible value it was to me! I learned history when we learned folk songs. I learned simple fractions when we were being taught how to read music. I learned how to play what was then called a tonette, which was a simple recorder. And that was just elementary school!
Music kept me attending high school. I cannot imagine how boring and un-motivating school would have been for me had I not had music. In fact, when my academic grades were mediocre, my parents spoke to my academic counselor asking her to take me out of my music class. Thankfully, the counselor discouraged my parents from doing that by telling them that if they took music away from me it would leave nothing for which I would keep attending school.
Music and the arts have been essentially gone from the public school setting for too long. And they wonder why the high school drop-out rate is so high?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Ok, Here We Go!
Since I enjoy writing, it seems only natural that I would try blogging. (Where did that term come from, anyway?) Actually, my daughter is responsible for my trying this, since she just posted her first blog a few days ago.
I think I should say that the title of my blog should be credited to Dr. Laura, for whom I have tremendous respect. She frequently uses the phrase, "in my never-to-be-humble opinion ...." Since I tend to be stubborn and opinionated (just ask my two grown kids), it makes sense to use it as my title.
I am a public school kindergarten teacher in an area of the US where roughly 70 % of my students and their parents speak Spanish. I have been teaching long enough that the socio-political framework of the public school has changed so much that I am eagerly looking forward to retirement.
When I first started teaching, teachers were trusted to be able to use their professional judgment to determine what the needs of their students were. We were provided a framework of expectations and curriculum within which to work. Not only that, but we were allowed to use art and music to enhance the curriculum. Teaching is not fun anymore -- for the teachers or the students!
I have so much more to say on the topic of elementary education, but I will save it for future blog entries.
I think I should say that the title of my blog should be credited to Dr. Laura, for whom I have tremendous respect. She frequently uses the phrase, "in my never-to-be-humble opinion ...." Since I tend to be stubborn and opinionated (just ask my two grown kids), it makes sense to use it as my title.
I am a public school kindergarten teacher in an area of the US where roughly 70 % of my students and their parents speak Spanish. I have been teaching long enough that the socio-political framework of the public school has changed so much that I am eagerly looking forward to retirement.
When I first started teaching, teachers were trusted to be able to use their professional judgment to determine what the needs of their students were. We were provided a framework of expectations and curriculum within which to work. Not only that, but we were allowed to use art and music to enhance the curriculum. Teaching is not fun anymore -- for the teachers or the students!
I have so much more to say on the topic of elementary education, but I will save it for future blog entries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
