Hello, all!!
I have been receiving newsletters from NIEER, (www.nieer.org) and it has some valuable information! For this week, however, I found an outside link that caught my attention pretty quickly. The city of Manhattan is considering killing Pre K classes to accommodate waistlined kindergartners. (http://www.dnainfo.com/20120329/manhattan/city-may-kill-pre-k-classes-accommodate-waitlisted-kindergartners)
The city is facing the problem of space for kindergartners, but should pre k be eliminated just because there is not enough space for all kindergarten students? I am shocked that the Department of Education in this state is considering getting rid of one program to make room for yet another program! Maybe this would be a time to consider more schools? Below is the link to this full article:
http://www.dnainfo.com/20120329/manhattan/city-may-kill-pre-k-classes-accommodate-waitlisted-kindergartners#.T3-ZKq7TSnw.gmail
I would love thoughts on this.......I know it is difficult to obtain adequate funding for building new schools; however, there are many grants and other funding options out there. I believe ALL children deserves an education, starting at the preschool level. I believe it is crucial for children to come to preschool; the social/emotional development is of the utmost importance! Thoughts?? How does this show equity to all children? There are several parents within this article that believes preschool should be eliminated just so their children can attend kindergarten. How is that fair? It seems to me that somehow, funding should be made available to, one, build new schools, or two, find buildings that can be renovated and used as schools.
I believe, since I am an early childhood educator, that all children need to attend formal schooling. I have witnessed the benefits of preschool. Having the social/emotional development is crucial for children to be successful. We are in a world where everything is a team playing position, and we must be able to work as a team, or with a partner. Without that social/emotional development, one will not be successful. I have seen children become better problem solvers, and not always run to me and say, "But I don't know how to do this! or, I can't do this, Mrs. Franklin! It is too hard!" They are now experienced problem solvers, and I will observe them actually solving something on their own without help.
How, then, by removing a preschool program offer any type of equity, or excellence for that matter? If preschool is removed from this state to offer more room for kindergarten, I do not see the fairness in this. As I previously stated, all children should be entitled to an education that offers excellence and fairness.
Please, I welcome any comments you may have! I am truly appalled at this! I truly feel as if the Department of Education could do more for this state, as I have read about the lottery (supposedly) going to the education fund. One person who commented on this article stated it was a "scam." I will definitely follow this story and see where this goes.
There are MANY, MANY resources available on this site. I actually went to another outside source, and there is a blog from the Huffington Post discussing teachers are rarely asked about teaching. I think you will find it interesting. I will copy it below:
From the Huffington Post, by Linda Darling Hammond
American teachers deal with a lot: low pay, growing class sizes and escalating teacher-bashing from politicians and pundits. Federal testing and accountability mandates under No Child Left Behind and, more recently, Race to the Top, have added layers of bureaucracy while eliminating much of the creativity and authentic learning that makes teaching enjoyable. Tack on the recession's massive teacher layoffs and other school cuts, plus the challenges of trying to compensate for increasing child poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity, and you get a trifecta of disincentives to become, or remain, a teacher.
Indeed, this year's MetLife teacher satisfaction survey, the 28th such assessment of teacher, parent, and student perspectives on how school life is going, shows the impact of these conditions. Teacher job satisfaction has dropped 15 points since 2009, from 59 percent who were very satisfied to 44 percent, the lowest level in over 20 years. The percentage of teachers who say they are likely to leave the profession has increased by 12 points -- from 17 percent to 29 percent -- now nearing a third of all teachers.
Much has changed in those two years; in 2009, the impacts of recession-based cuts had yet to fully hit schools. Larger classes; laid-off colleagues; cuts to libraries, physical education, foreign languages, arts and music; and reductions in supports like health care, counseling, and afterschool programs that help low-income students overcome impediments to effective learning -- all factor into teachers' decisions about whether to stay on the job. Teachers, parents and students surveyed all reported rising levels of economic insecurity, hunger, poor health, homelessness and anxiety over lack of sufficient resources to pay for household basics. In my own region of Northern California, child homelessness has increased by more than 30 percent in the last two years, with some districts seeing more than 1 in 10 of their students without homes.
At the same time, public discussion and policy increasingly place the full weight of these problems on teachers alone. Despite repeated warnings from leading scholars that test-based "value-added" ratings cannot be reliably used to evaluate individual teachers because they reflect home and other school factors as much as the teacher him or herself, more states are urging that they be used to fire and reward teachers. This is particularly problematic given evidence that teachers' ratings decline when they teach the neediest students -- especially new English learners and students with disabilities.
Indeed, New York State's new policy effectively makes continuing to teach contingent on such test-based ratings, and New York City recently insisted on publishing teachers' names alongside their ratings. This created a furor as it became clear that the scores are wildly unstable from year to year and across subjects, are often based on inaccurate data, and appear unrelated to the known successes of good teachers or the failings of poor ones. This is prompting many great teachers to make plans to leave a profession they loveand children who need them.
Bill Gates noted in a recent op-ed in the New York Times that "using employee evaluations to embarrass people," is something a smart firm like Microsoft would never even contemplate, "much less publish in a newspaper." Even if it is legal, he points out, "as a harbinger of education policy in the United States, it is a big mistake," because "the surest way to weaken [systematic teacher development] is to twist it into a capricious exercise in public shaming."
The problem is not only that the ratings are poor measures of actual effectiveness, but that such policies fundamentally misunderstand what drives teachers to improve and to stay in tough jobs. In his recent best-seller Drive, Daniel Pink draws on years of research to confirm that the personal satisfaction of getting the job done right -- in this case, teaching students well -- is at the core of our drive. That's why bonuses handed out to teachers based largely on test scores turn out not to improve achievement and are often resisted by teachers who want support to succeed, not bribes that undermine intrinsic motivation and collaboration.
We have never heard more policy rhetoric about the importance of developing, recruiting, and retaining strong teachers, especially in our most troubled schools. Ironically, our policies have also never done more to ensure that good teachers will have little incentive to serve and stay in those schools. We need to get the incentives right. According to the Met Life survey, that means enacting a Broader Bolder Approach: treating teachers as professionals, providing them with opportunities to learn with one another and improve their practice, ensuring that schools offer decent teaching and learning conditions, and supporting children with the services that enable them to be ready to learn each day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-darlinghammond/teacher-satisfaction_b_1367251.html?ref=education
Blessings!
Susan
References:
www. nieer.org
http://www.dnainfo.com/20120329/manhattan/city-may-kill-pre-k-classes-accommodate-waitlisted-kindergartners#.T3-ZKq7TSnw.gmail
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-darlinghammond/teacher-satisfaction_b_1367251.html?ref=education
Throughout this course, I did not have any type of information on poverty, equity, or excellence in education outside of the United States. However, through my work in this course, I feel as if I am educated, as well as humbled. Just because children and families overseas are living in poverty does not mean there is not a desire for schooling. This also applies within the United States. As I have learned, many families are living in poverty within my own community, but that certainly does not mean they do not want their children to attend schooling. Meridas Yora enabled this for many families as he built a shelter/school that would aid in the education of children. 