It was less than 10 years ago that the United States was projecting teacher shortages in the areas of math, science and English as a Second Language (ESL). Speed it up to 2009 and now find teacher shortages in almost all areas of the curriculum.
For example, for the academic year 2008-09 North Dakota defined 20 teacher shortage areas, yes 20: (1) Agriculture education (2) art (3) business and office technology/business education (4) career clusters (5) computer education (6) driver and traffic safety education (7) English as a second language (8) English language arts/English as a second language (9) family and consumer sciences (10) health careers (11) information technology (12) languages/Native American languages (13) marketing education (14) mathematics (15) music (16) science (17) social studies (18) special education programming (19) technology education - industrial arts and (20) trade and industrial education. South Dakota and Vermont as well list 13 teacher shortage areas in varied academic disciplines.
The question is why are states continuing to expand their list of academic shortage areas. The answer is quite simple; fewer students see themselves as career educators. The reality is that those considering teaching as a profession and career face the following issues: 1) high cost of college education, 2) licensure requirements, 3) higher starting salaries in other occupations, 4) classroom management challenges related to least restrictive rules, and 5) a myriad of other issues facing education.
The hard facts are these, teachers are asked to be prepared to handle quite a large number of education and non-education related issues. Teachers attend 4-year universities, walk away with loans, and maintain licensures to be called professionals. The only thing that isn’t professional is the pay.
Still, some research indicates teacher turnover can be attributed to reasons other than money: 1) lack of planning time, 2) heavy workload, 3) problematic student behavior, and 4) lack of influence over school policy. However, in my opinion, teachers salaries are not adequate: 1) to retain people in positions, 2) to attract new people to the profession, 3) to pay back loans and debt from college, 4) for the amount of dedication required of a good teacher, and 5) to supplant the abuse from students, parents and the school boards who continue to underpay.
States must wise up to the fact that teaching is a profession and it deserves equal pay and consideration to other professionals with like education. Sorry to say, Federal and State Loan forgiveness programs are not enough. Without legislatures providing more funding and school boards increasing salaries, we will continue to see a revolving door; even worse, a door that isn’t even being opened at all. What can be done to reduce teacher shortage areas? Is it all about the money?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Physical Education - Where?
Physical Education Programs are on a steadily decline and in many schools nearly non-existent. This is happening at a time when obesity has reached its highest percentage in the history of the United States. Many believe that there is a direct correlation between the obesity in our nation and the continued decline of Physical Education (PE) programs in our school systems; where today only the states of Illinois and Massachusetts require PE for grades K-12.
While many agree that obesity is nearing a crisis in the United States, little is being done to curb or change it. Unfortunately, education related legislation and funding might be part of the problem i.e. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It is not unexpected that schools would prioritize their program offerings in an attempt to align with NCLB standards. That means more time and money poured into Math and Science in order to meet the standardized testing demands levied by NCLB, to ensure your school isn’t labeled a “failing school.” Understandably, schools, like any institution, have to make these decisions knowing that offering more math and science classes equals less program opportunities in other subject areas, and NCLB directs most schools to meet standards related to core subjects and addresses little in the way of electives i.e. art, music and physical education.
Beyond the funding and course offering decisions, many large schools are fighting space problems related to physical education opportunities. Student enrollments at large schools only allow for perhaps one period of physical education per week (40 minutes), well below the suggested time of 150 to 225 minutes as per the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. In fact, recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures indicate that less than: 1) 4% of elementary students, 2) 8% of middle school students, and 3) 2% of high school students, are getting the required daily physical activity throughout the school year i.e. 30 to 45 minutes per day.
While experts may disagree as to the exact number of physical education minutes needed per day or week for students to remain healthy, you cannot argue the ongoing crisis of obesity in this country. Currently, around 20% of all U.S. Children are defined as obese. In 1970, this number was around 5%. Studies indicate that childhood obesity leads not only to adult obesity, but hypertension, Type-2 diabetes, depression, as well as many other disorders.
Most of us understand that today’s students have increasingly sedentary lifestyles driven by interests in video games, television and computers. We also find more and more students turning to fast food and fatty school cafeteria meals. Couple these things with the continuing decline in physical education programs, and one cannot help but predict an increase in obesity and related illnesses, both at a young age and leading into adulthood. Respective of these facts, should schools focus more resources on Physical Education Programs? Is NCLB responsible for the decline in Physical Education Programs? What needs to change to reduce obesity?
While many agree that obesity is nearing a crisis in the United States, little is being done to curb or change it. Unfortunately, education related legislation and funding might be part of the problem i.e. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It is not unexpected that schools would prioritize their program offerings in an attempt to align with NCLB standards. That means more time and money poured into Math and Science in order to meet the standardized testing demands levied by NCLB, to ensure your school isn’t labeled a “failing school.” Understandably, schools, like any institution, have to make these decisions knowing that offering more math and science classes equals less program opportunities in other subject areas, and NCLB directs most schools to meet standards related to core subjects and addresses little in the way of electives i.e. art, music and physical education.
Beyond the funding and course offering decisions, many large schools are fighting space problems related to physical education opportunities. Student enrollments at large schools only allow for perhaps one period of physical education per week (40 minutes), well below the suggested time of 150 to 225 minutes as per the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. In fact, recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) figures indicate that less than: 1) 4% of elementary students, 2) 8% of middle school students, and 3) 2% of high school students, are getting the required daily physical activity throughout the school year i.e. 30 to 45 minutes per day.
While experts may disagree as to the exact number of physical education minutes needed per day or week for students to remain healthy, you cannot argue the ongoing crisis of obesity in this country. Currently, around 20% of all U.S. Children are defined as obese. In 1970, this number was around 5%. Studies indicate that childhood obesity leads not only to adult obesity, but hypertension, Type-2 diabetes, depression, as well as many other disorders.
Most of us understand that today’s students have increasingly sedentary lifestyles driven by interests in video games, television and computers. We also find more and more students turning to fast food and fatty school cafeteria meals. Couple these things with the continuing decline in physical education programs, and one cannot help but predict an increase in obesity and related illnesses, both at a young age and leading into adulthood. Respective of these facts, should schools focus more resources on Physical Education Programs? Is NCLB responsible for the decline in Physical Education Programs? What needs to change to reduce obesity?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Professional Learning Communities
Only recently have I been made aware of the educational reform that is Professional Learning Communities (PLC). The PLC educational model aspires to improve schools by using collective inquiry from teams of educators. PLC have successfully increased student achievement by teachers focusing on learning rather than teaching. Teams of teachers work together to collaborate on educational issues within their school system. These teams focus on three specific areas: 1) student learning, 2) collaboration, and 3) results.
It would seem schools and administrators would be jumping aboard such a model, especially since PLC are showing promising results. This “new” way of helping students learn focuses time on the continuing education of teachers. I believe, teachers who continue to learn, and learn together (versus isolation), are more likely to find value in new educational practices that reach learners. Still, as we educators are well aware, one of the largest obstacles to overcome is “change.” To get PLC off the ground, administrators and teachers must agree that a “change” is necessary to improve student achievement. Administrators must make “time” available for educators to collaborate and begin to review their department or grade level, in order to begin to establish desired student outcomes.
Once teams have agreed upon student outcomes, they should follow the SMART goal setting method. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. The SMART Model for goal setting asks three important questions: 1) What are you going to do, 2) Why is this important to do at this time, and 3) How are you going to do it. Respective of these questions the teams agree to what they want their students to learn, then determine how and when to measure if students have learned it.
As with anything new, getting these teams started, focused and working efficiently can be difficult. From the research I have read, it seems important to use a PLC book review to get the PLC Model and collaborative teams off the ground. Assign, read and discuss the book each week during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. Remember, teams should have in place a protocol to follow prior to team collaborative sessions to ensure all members agree to “how” meetings will be conducted. This will ensure the appropriate sharing of ideas and allow for more collaboration.
The reality of PLC is that the professional development of teachers is taking place from within rather than from the outside; and through collaboration of these educators more students are achieving at a higher level. Who is using PLC and what results can you share?
It would seem schools and administrators would be jumping aboard such a model, especially since PLC are showing promising results. This “new” way of helping students learn focuses time on the continuing education of teachers. I believe, teachers who continue to learn, and learn together (versus isolation), are more likely to find value in new educational practices that reach learners. Still, as we educators are well aware, one of the largest obstacles to overcome is “change.” To get PLC off the ground, administrators and teachers must agree that a “change” is necessary to improve student achievement. Administrators must make “time” available for educators to collaborate and begin to review their department or grade level, in order to begin to establish desired student outcomes.
Once teams have agreed upon student outcomes, they should follow the SMART goal setting method. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. The SMART Model for goal setting asks three important questions: 1) What are you going to do, 2) Why is this important to do at this time, and 3) How are you going to do it. Respective of these questions the teams agree to what they want their students to learn, then determine how and when to measure if students have learned it.
As with anything new, getting these teams started, focused and working efficiently can be difficult. From the research I have read, it seems important to use a PLC book review to get the PLC Model and collaborative teams off the ground. Assign, read and discuss the book each week during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. Remember, teams should have in place a protocol to follow prior to team collaborative sessions to ensure all members agree to “how” meetings will be conducted. This will ensure the appropriate sharing of ideas and allow for more collaboration.
The reality of PLC is that the professional development of teachers is taking place from within rather than from the outside; and through collaboration of these educators more students are achieving at a higher level. Who is using PLC and what results can you share?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
