The Great Schools in Wake Coalition is using the gains on test results to praise Wake County's teachers and lobby for restoring the diversity policy.
In a press release today, GSIW says the test results "show commendable gains" with credit going to "hardworking teachers." GSIW Chairwoman Yevonne Brannon says the results show that "teachers matter a great deal."
"It is imperative that the Board of Education works to create an environment where teachers want to teach and collaborate with other teachers, and have the support of a system that encourages their success.” Brannon says in the press release.
GSIW then goes on to point to studies showing the correlation between academic achievement and teacher quality. The group notes how high poverty schools have "great difficulty attracting and retaining experienced teachers and principals."
"Largely socio-economically balanced, Wake County’s schools have a reputation for attracting excellent teachers," according to the press release.
Comments
"Did I not measure the
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 20:29 — jeffrey1"Did I not measure the teacher work week from the moment they arrived at school to the moment they left in my earlier examples?"
Must...resist...temptation...to...SCREAM $#&*($#&*($@#*@. (If anyone lives in SW Cary, please come visit to pry me away from this conversation. :-))
ARE YOU GUYS IDIOTS?
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 20:12 — true_freedomThis isn't about the board, this is about teachers, kids, and test scores. Oh wait, I forgot, you guys don't care about the schools at all, only political agenda and money.
Brannon continues to be
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 18:21 — red_balloonBrannon continues to be afflicted by a desire for publicity. While I am glad she is taking a break from watching films, she should be spending time identifying which schools showed the greatest improvement and researching the reasons. This will give her stock of diversity-is-the-panacea-for-WCPSS press releases some credibility.
Bob you are so right about
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 17:45 — aquaman4life68Bob you are so right about that.
I am a huge supporter of teachers, mainly due to my connection of having several family members being teachers at various levels. I was talking with a cousin about this earlier...and she said, "I just wish the news didn't make it like it was such a GREAT JUMP in achievement". I asked her why??? She then said, granted she and the rest of her school and teachers work hard to make all gains, but she says once again they are not making the best comparison with last year's scores with the rest. Of course as the articles say, the retests were used in the factor of the school achievement, which was never used before. Students did retake the tests, however the scores did not count in the school achievement...only the first take was used.
Of course Brannon and her group is up celebrating, I am too...I know that the teachers have worked hard and made a difference in their lives. But just don't use scores (as everyone does) to "support" and "promote" your agenda.
Rare but we agree.
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 17:56 — Dove314It's a time to be happy for the achievement but no group should try to take credit. Time to take a moment and thank a teacher for their hard work.
Pfft...
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 17:13 — Bob_SconceIf the scores were down, they would have blamed the board majority. Heads I win, tails you lose.
PFFT...
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 17:58 — danofncInstead of telling us what "would have" happened, why not explain how a failed system managed to improve its test scores?
Personally, if scores next year aren't improved (or at least equal), I will look at the board's decision to take away PLT's as a big reason why.
The last minute, fit them in when (and if) you can method that they decided to go with once they heard how effective PLT's had been this year quite simply aren't likely to have the same impact as this year's model.
An innovative idea that produced measurable improvement thrown aside, by the very bunch of people (and their supporters) who claim to want innovative methods of improving achievement.
Oh, that's easy.
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 18:56 — Bob_Sconce(1) Del Burns left and (2) parents became energized, knowing that the school board was on their side. As a result, they started working more with their kids.
In reality, it's a small change that could just as easily be attributed to chance as to any of these claimed reasons. We have no real way of knowing what, if anything, caused this small improvement. My original point still stands -- had the numbers come out the other way, the opposition would have been all over the new board.
"had the numbers come out
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 13:16 — xmarkspot62"had the numbers come out the other way, the opposition would have been all over the new board."
That's quite a stretch. How could you credit or blame a group who has only been in power since December for last school year's success?
Amazing
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 20:19 — Solon77(1) Del Burns left and (2) parents became energized, knowing that the school board was on their side. As a result, they started working more with their kids.
I still find this amazing that parents purposely withhold support of their kids school because of their view of the school board. What kind of parents are these ?
With regards to improvements in test scores - it is won in the trenches. The positive outcomes of the PLTs, the Wake Forest math initiative (started in 2008), and the individual efforts of our teachers and al those involved. The fact is there are a lot of positive actions going on in the schools. Personally I am anxious to see how other districts have fared.
Had the test scores been flat or down, Malone, Tedesco and others would be quick to point out that it is further evidence of failed policies.
I still find this amazing
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 20:43 — jeffrey1I still find this amazing that parents purposely withhold support of their kids school because of their view of the school board. What kind of parents are these?
I think the comment was tongue-in-cheek.
Thanks -
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:54 — Solon77Thanks, not a good read on my part.
Saint Paul public schools released their test scores and overall up 3% pts. Short of their 10% goal but a positive result nonetheless. John A Johnson Achievement Elementary - one of JT's poster schools was down 10% pts in math and 1% pt in reading. 3,5,6 grades showed double digit declines in math with only 39% proficient. Third year in a row for declining test scores. Just goes to show education has many challenges with no silver bullets. I hope they are able to find a way back to positive gains.
John A Johnson
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:20 — jeffrey1This link (http://ww3.startribune.com/projects/no_child/?) shows ST Paul scores were up 3% in reading, but flat in math:
And this link (http://www.greatschools.org/modperl/achievement/mn/3111#mca) shows that scores at John A Johnson are subject to big swings, often gaining or losing up to 20 percentage points each year. Over a 4 year period, the scores are higher in all grades. I suspect that with only 300 kids in grades K-6, scores will be subject to big swings from year to year.
Nevertheless, some disappointing news for John A Johnson.
Only 300 kids?
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 09:01 — reasonablevoiceI know nothing of any other school Tedesco mentioned as being a "model" for Wake, but I find it perplexing that a school with 7 grades and 300 students cannot a: get consistent performance from grade level to grade level (huge swings in performance by grade) and b: cannot get consistent performance in such a small learning environment, regardless of the challenges. I'd love to know what their per pupil spending is, and what is expected of their teachers, over and above the normal school day. All in all, it doesn't sound like a great model to reference.
So...
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:58 — Bob_SconceThat raises a good question -- how did other schools in NC do? If they all went down while Wake's scores went up, it would say a lot more about Wake. But, if they all went up, then the test could have just been easier.
Unknown. ABC results for the
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:31 — KeungHui (author)Unknown. ABC results for the rest of the state aren't coming out until Aug. 5. You'll probably see some school districts release their test results next Wednesday, July 21, to try to spin less than stellar No Child Left Behind results. For now, Wake appears to have been the first one to release preliminary results. It's a departure from Wake usually not releasing anything before the ABC results come out.
exactly
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 19:22 — red_balloonWe have no real way of knowing what, if anything, caused this small improvement.
I would be interested to know how GSIW and WCPSS identified the reasons for the performance improvement.
So you are saying that since
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 18:10 — aquaman4life68So you are saying that since the school system doesn't have a "set aside" time like they had this year...that PLT's will not be as effective?? If PLT's is REALLY an effective concept...they should work NO MATTER when they are conducted.
Well I for one, know that teachers will do their best in their PLT's, no matter when they have to do it.
However, I will NEVER say that PLT's helped improve the scores this year. It's just another good PR thing that Burns brought in and threw on the teachers to "make it work" and then sold it as this "wonderful saving the schools" and "bridging the gap" kinda thing.
What I'm saying is that
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 18:28 — danofncWhat I'm saying is that having a set aside time is better than trying to scrounge around and fit them in whenever you can.
I have talked to enough teachers (and principals) to know for a fact that PLT's played a big role in this year's improvement. I will take their word over yours every single day of the week. I sat at a BAC meeting a month or two ago and listened to basically every principal in my district talk about the benefits of PLT's, and now the test scores have backed up their statements.
Your description of PLT's as something "thrown on the teachers" shows just how little you understand them. PLT's, as implemented in WCPSS, was something done to show teachers a little respect by acknowledging that their time is important, too.
We've argued this to death
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 21:05 — jeffrey1We've argued this to death before, but I can't let this go by without noting that we are talking about 1 hour per week. There's a lot of options for teachers to meet, without having to send students home 1 hour early. Why not before school?
Start Bell
Teacher in Classroom
PLT
9:05
8:35
7:30 - 8:30
8:20
7:50
6:45 - 7:45
8:05
7:35
6:30 - 7:30
7:30
7:00
6:00 - 7:00
It might be a little early for high schools, but no earlier than some students getting on the bus, and if they are so effective, teachers should be willing to come in early one day a week. Plus, I would think PLTs were most effective at elementary schools, where coming in early one day a week is a "no brainer."
Finally, claiming that PLTs can't work as well unless students are dismissed early, is kind of telling your boss:
I wouldn't be so fat and unhealthy, if you would just let me leave work early one day a week to go to the gym and workout.
The problem with meeting in
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:19 — virginiadareThe problem with meeting in the morning is that it is limited to one hour. When the teachers met after school, they often stayed much longer in order to continue discussions and get much more done. The gains would not be as great if it were limited to one hour before school.
When the teachers met after
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:39 — jeffrey1When the teachers met after school, they often stayed much longer in order to continue discussions and get much more done. The gains would not be as great if it were limited to one hour before school.
You just won't give teachers
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:19 — virginiadareYou just won't give teachers or professional educators credit for anything! They give more of their free time staying late to try to help students improve, and all you can do is be sarcastic and criticize. No wonder morale is down so low since the new board majority took power. I guarantee nothing they do will improve WCPSS! They are just intent, like you, on demeaning public education and professional educators.
"No wonder morale is down so
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 21:26 — woodstock"No wonder morale is down so low since the new board majority took power. I guarantee nothing they do will improve WCPSS! They are just intent, like you, on demeaning public education and professional educators".
That's just moronic. You cannot possibly believe that crap. You will never be a legitimate part of the discussion spewing that kind of nonsense.
You just won't give teachers
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:58 — jeffrey1You just won't give teachers or professional educators credit for anything!
On the contrary, I think teachers are the true heroes in WCPSS. They are underpaid. I only wish that our administrators would given them the power that they need to exceed in the classroom. But I will never agree with any teacher that says that PLTs are the most innovative, and most effective device that we have to improve student achievement, but the only way for teachers to collaborate with one another is during what is normally instructional time, then go on to say that any effort to collaborate outside of instructional time will not and cannot be as effective.
and all you can do is be sarcastic and criticize
I don't believe I have been sarcastic, and the only thing I have been critical about is the claim that PLTs must be held during instructional time in order to be effective. I admire teachers and their dedication, but that admiration does not mean that I should blindly agree with everything that they say.
LOL
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:30 — Duhhuh666So if we had Wacky Wednesdays that incorporated a teacher slumber party the test scores would have been even greater!!!!
Actually, the comparison
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:03 — danofncActually, the comparison would be if your boss demanded that you work out for an hour, but didn't take away any other responsibilities. From the examples you gave before, your wife would have to find a 25th hour in one day per week, because she already doesn't have time to eat or sleep.
If the solution to finding time was as simple as you make it sound, then I doubt very seriously that the district would have implemented Wake Wednesdays in the first place. After the five test schools (I think there were five) showed significant progress in test scores after implementing PLT's, the district decided that they should be rolled out through the entire system.
I don't understand how asking all involved parties to sacrifice a little is the wrong choice. Why should teachers have to bear the entire burden? Your comment about what teachers should be able to handle works just as well if you apply it to parents being able to handle one early release day a week.
Actually, the comparison
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 22:42 — jeffrey1Actually, the comparison would be if your boss demanded that you work out for an hour, but didn't take away any other responsibilities
So everyone time your boss asks you to do something, you ask "What responsibility can I pass on to someone else." Good luck with that!
I will ask you for the last time to please stop twisting my words! The point I made then and the point that I am making now is that in the corporate world, everything doesn't work on a set schedule. If your client is in Australia, and calls you at 2:00am, you take the call! Maybe you catch a nap sometime later in the day. If it's lunch time, and a call comes in, it means you put lunch off until after the call! Why do you have to be so obtuse???
I see nothing wrong with asking teachers to be able to adapt their schedule without having to impose on their clients - i.e. the students.
If the solution to finding time was as simple as you make it sound, then I doubt very seriously that the district would have implemented Wake Wednesdays in the first place.
Then please point out why my proposal of coming into work early one day each week is so complicated. Really, what is so complicated about asking an elementary teacher to come into work at 7:30 instead of 8:30?
Why should teachers have to bear the entire burden?
You're asking why teachers should have to bear the entire burden of teaching??? Are you serious? Because it is their job! Does your lawn service company ask you to bear some of the burden of cutting your lawn? Does your hair stylist ask you to cut some of your own hair? Does your doctor ask you to take your own blood pressure? Why don't we just make the whole world one big cooperative (sic).
Finally, you do realize that by sending kids home early for PLTs, they added an additional 15 minutes to the other school days. So the teachers would not be sacrificing any additional time by holding the PLT before school, because the length of the other school days would not have to be increased.
reality of the classroom
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:39 — stepbystepFrom your comments, Jeffrey, it seems that you do not understand the realities of a teacher's work day and all that it entails in addition to the instructional day. And that work day looks different at the 3 levels--elementary, middle and high. Finding dedicated time when there are not other conflicts that pull one or more members of a PLT team out is a lot harder than you might think. The Wake Wednesday time was a HUGE benefit at our school and staff routinely worked their longest days on Wednesdays because of their dedication. Though our teachers held PLTs prior to 2009-10, the time was often compromised, and ironically, before 2009-10, the quality of instruction for students while a PLT attempted to meet declined because the focus became trying to "cover" the classes rather than high quality instruction. I will miss Wake Wednesdays, and I KNOW staff at our school will, too. PLTs will continue in some form at most schools, but it's another example of teachers being asked to do more with less. A very short-sighted and arrogant move by the BOE majority to eliminate Wake Wednesdays without careful examination. Of all their votes since taking office, that one may slow achievement gains the most. Interesting they keep talking about RAISING achievement?????
Finding dedicated time when
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:36 — jeffrey1Finding dedicated time when there are not other conflicts that pull one or more members of a PLT team out is a lot harder than you might think.
Say it with me: Classroom
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 00:26 — jeffrey1Say it with me: Classroom Time + PLT time is the same, whether PLTs are conducted on Wacky Wednesdays or some other time outside of the normal school day.
Finding dedicated time when there are not other conflicts that pull one or more members of a PLT team out is a lot harder than you might think
Because one hour is not
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:24 — virginiadareBecause one hour is not enough!!!!
Then meet two mornings a
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:34 — jeffrey1Then meet two mornings a week. Still the same time commitment as meeting for two hours on Wednesday afternoon.
Still just two hours a week,
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 09:01 — virginiadareStill just two hours a week, when on Wednesdays they could meet six or eight or however many extra hours they wanted. There aren't enough mornings in the week to cover that kind of dedication! Also, benefits are much greater when the time isn't divided up, conversations and ideas don't have to be stopped and momentum lost.
"...when on Wednesdays they
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 17:57 — woodstock"...when on Wednesdays they could meet six or eight or however many extra hours they wanted. "
Stop already with the lies. NO ONE believes that.
Evidence please for the PLTs
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 09:10 — jeffrey1Evidence please for the PLTs that are meeting for 6 or 8 hours. And if they are meeting for 6 or 8 hours, how much less dedicated and effective will they be if they dismissed kids at the normal time, and met for 5 or 7 hours instead.
Bet you didn't see than one coming!
Jeffery....Dan twisting your
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:21 — aquaman4life68Jeffery....Dan twisting your words? I'm shocked!! Dan is gifted in that department.
Shocked
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:35 — Duhhuh666Dan putting words in someone elses mouth isn't shocking, its business as usual.
Dan speaks truth
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:46 — stepbystepI didn't interpret Dan's posts as putting words in anyone's mouth. He just has a much better understanding of the need for PLTs as part of the school day and how PLTs affect achievement than others on this blog that like to complain about our schools without fully appreciating all the good that goes on.
You can have that opinion of
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:49 — Duhhuh666You can have that opinion of dan, I will stick to mine and disagree with yours.
What words did I put in your
Wed, 07/14/2010 - 23:58 — danofncWhat words did I put in your mouth?
You're against magnets because they offer programs your kids can't take because they aren't magnets. You think it's unfair for one school to have so much more to offer than another.
Yet, at the same time, you're OK with an assignment model that will create high poverty schools, even though that school will be subpar without (and probably even with) loads of extra resources. Extra resources that your magnet stance shows you don't think are fair.
I am not someone who will allow people to talk out of both sides of their mouth without pointing out that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
As for jeffrey....a few weeks ago he used his wife's 24 hour availability as a reason that teachers should "just deal" with PLT's. A 2am call from Australia morphed into a lady who worked so much that she barely ate and never slept.
A 2am call from Australia
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 01:23 — jeffrey1A 2am call from Australia morphed into a lady who worked so much that she barely ate and never slept.
I am not going to ask you again to please stop talking about my wife. In case you can't tell, you are making me extremely angry. You have twisted my words beyond recognition.
For those that want the synopsis, Dan thinks that it is asking too much to have teachers conduct PLT outside of school time. I asked Dan to compare a teachers demands to employees in the private sector, and noted that many of those employees work through lunch and dinner and after hours. I used the example of my wife, who is a software support specialist, and is the first to be called when a client has a problem. Many of those clients are in India, Australia, and Europe, and she is expected to answer calls at all hours of the day and night. Additionally many of those calls come in while we are eating lunch and/or dinner, and she has on more than one occasion had to put the meal on hold, while she worked with a client for several hours. She is also required to occasionally carry a pager on weekends and holidays.
I don't think her experience is different than thousands of other employees in the private sector. But apparently Dan had such a hard time believing that not everyone works from 8 to 5, that he had to twist the description of my wife's responsibilities into something no one would believe, i.e. a woman who never sleeps and never eats.
I'm making you angry? They
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:13 — danofncI'm making you angry? They just fired Edward Norton from The Avengers, so they are looking for someone to play the Incredible Hulk now. If you get the job, I want 10%.
Oddly enough, my wife is a software developer. I'm well aware of "the pager" for on-call situations. She just has a BlackBerry now, though. I'm also well aware that your wife (like mine) is probably able to work from home sometimes, probably doesn't have to be at the office exactly at 8 every day, and probably doesn't stay exactly until 5 every day. Do teachers have any of those perks? Is there a teacher in WCPSS making what your wife makes?
The 2am phone calls suck. But, there are other perks that make up for that hardship, right?
They just fired Edward
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 08:44 — jeffrey1They just fired Edward Norton from The Avengers, so they are looking for someone to play the Incredible Hulk now. If you get the job, I want 10%.
But, there are other perks that make up for that hardship, right?
This discussion was and still is about whether or not professional employees (including teachers) should be expected to work outside of normal business hours. I think I have shown that the answer is yes. And how much money you make, or whether or not you can work from home, or what kind of perks are associated with each position should not have any bearing on that answer.
Mel Gibson may very well be
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 09:55 — danofncMel Gibson may very well be in prison...he's no competition for you.
"This discussion was and still is about whether or not professional employees (including teachers) should be expected to work outside of normal business hours. I think I have shown that the answer is yes. And how much money you make, or whether or not you can work from home, or what kind of perks are associated with each position should not have any bearing on that answer."
Money should have no bearing on the answer? Are you kidding me?
Perks should have no bearing on the answer? Good grief.
Perks are the exact things that make places like SAS end up on "Best Places To Work" lists year after year.
If you have a job making $50,000 and get a new one making $80,000, you are very likely a little more willing to grab that pager on a few Friday afternoons. If you also get to work in a t-shirt on the couch two days a week, you're much more likely to enjoy your job.
Perks matter.
Money matters.
"Normal business hours" are not the same for everyone. If you have a pager, then you're on call. That is part of normal operating procedure and not really something that should be considered outside of normal business hours.
Then answer these
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 10:55 — jeffrey1Then answer these questions:
At what income levels should a professional employee (i.e. one that is not paid by the hour) be expected to work outside of normal work hours? Give me a specific number (and be careful because I am setting another trap).
How significant is the perk of working 36 weeks a year, and having 16 weeks off? Would you be willing to work outside normal working hours to get 16 weeks off per year?
Please name some professional employers that will never ask an employee to work outside of normal business hours.
36 * 5 = 180. Teachers show
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 11:33 — danofnc36 * 5 = 180.
Teachers show up on the first day of school? They don't work at all after the last day?
In a year-round school, teachers are "off" 12 weeks. You can go count the white blocks on the schedule if you want. I would be shocked to discover that they don't work at all during their track out time to finish up something from the last track-in or prepare for the next one.
The other questions are hypotheticals, and the answers would depend in large part of the agreement you had with your employer when you were hired. Teachers already had regular meeting for various reasons. The district determined that those meetings needed to continue, and that the time for PLT's should be worked into the schedule instead of just adding another thing onto teachers' shoulders.
There is a limit to how effective your classroom-as-corporate office analogy is going to be. There are huge, significant differences that matter. When your wife is dealing with a client in Australia, she isn't responsible for making sure they eat lunch. When my wife is working with a user, she doesn't have to teach them anything, she just has to write a program that produces the report that the user needs.
Look, we'll never agree on this, and it doesn't matter. Your people have changed the schedule, so we're arguing over nothing. I personally feel like parental convenience should not be the #1 priority of the schools.
I'm not going to jump into
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 11:24 — magnetParentI'm not going to jump into your trap, but you do realize that those teachers are not getting 16 weeks of paid time off?
Then you would have to agree
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 11:54 — jeffrey1Then you would have to agree that they are paid very well for the time that they do work. A teacher with 5 years experience currently makes between $38,720 - $47,905. If they are not paid for those 16 weeks, then that would result in an equivalent salary of $53,777 - $66,534 for 50 weeks (assuming two week vacation).
Now I personally believe that since they are professionals, they are paid a yearly salary, and that their services are not generally required when school is not in session. I also believe that teachers are underpaid.
And I know many teachers who teach on the traditional schedule, and supplement their income with additional employment during the summer. Many of these teachers were not happy when MYR was implemented.
No, I don't agree.
Thu, 07/15/2010 - 12:22 — magnetParentNo, I don't agree. $53K-$66K is a mediocre salary for a professional with many years experience. They also work a lot of hours at home that is not part of the equation. Their hours are not flexible and deserve a lot more than they get. (BTW - I think the number of weeks off is more like 13 - they have teacher workdays the week before school to prepare and the week after to wrap thing up. They also have teacher workdays throughout the school year where they have to work while the children are at home. (I think 15 total). And most other professions get 3-4 weeks vacation. So that brings the equivalent to $59K max)