|
One of the mandates of the so-called No Child Left Behind Act is regular testing of all students, regardless of background, and punative consequences for the individual schools and districts whose numbers “don’t add up.” The basis for the testing is the argument of “accountability.” According to politicians, most of whom have not been in a classroom since they themselves were students, repeatedly testing students is the best way to determine which teachers are doing their jobs and which are not.
Most teachers revile the test score approach, because it ignores the numerous factors in a child’s life that can affect test scores far more than the relatively small amount of time he sees his teacher. Has he had breakfast? Is English spoken at home? Does the family read regularly? Does the child actually have a home? Do his parents give a damn about education? Or do they see schools as free daycare? Despite the myriad factors which can undermine all a teacher’s hard work in the classroom, proponents of testing are adamant that “numbers don’t lie,” and that testing is the only way to “hold teachers accountable.” Any teacher who dares to argue against it is dismissed as a mediocre civil servant who fears to lose the gravy train of an easy government job.
Hysterical laughter is my first reaction to the sadly all-too-common belief that teachers are a bunch of slackers who chose the profession because it’s an easy way to make a living. My second reaction is to give such ignoramuses a rude hand gesture and a quote worthy of Tony Soprano: “Yeah, I got yer cushy job right heah.” My third reaction is to say, “Spend a year teaching in a public school classroom and then say that to my face.”
Unfortunately, none of these arguments would work, because none of them address the beloved numbers so adored by the “accountability” set. (I suspect an inappropriate love of money has created in them a fetish for numbers, but that’s just me. It could be that they were frightened by a complex situation as a child and turned to numbers as a concrete source of comfort.) Since these people are so fascinated with test scores and data, here are a few more numbers they might get off on.
The average school year includes 180 student-contact days. Secondary-level teachers see their students for about an hour a day. So assuming there will be no absences, no passes to the bathroom or the nurse’s office, no fire drills, no lock-out drills, no lock-down drills, no earthquake drills, no assemblies, etc., that’s 180 hours per year. A non-leap year of 365 days is 8,760 hours long, so 2% of every year is dedicated to teaching a child a specific subject, such as science or math or history.
Even if one computes using only a child’s waking hours—say 16 out of 24 —the percentage of secondary teacher-influence time per year is still only 3%. By NCLB’s philosophy, the teacher alone is responsible for a child’s success or failure to learn the subject matter in that 3% of contact time per year, regardless of what persons, places, things, or ideas influence said child the other 97% of the year. If test scores condemn students as “underperforming,” then the teacher and the school will be “held accountable,” which can mean anything from individual job loss, to school restructuring, to denial of federal funds.
Of course, the 3% scenario doesn’t take into account class size. A teacher has 3% of a year to influence not just one child, but usually 20–30. In a 60 minute period, that averages out to 2–3 minutes per child per day, which calculates to 360–540 minutes per year. So far from 180 hours of influence per year, suddenly the teacher is down to 6–9 hours of influence per student per year. This means teachers are being “held accountable” based on .10–.15% of student-contact time per year, regardless of who or what influences the children the other 99% of the year.
Now elementary teachers see their students about six hours a day, but the numbers still don’t add up. Even if we don’t divide out per student per day, an elementary teacher is still interacting with his or her students only 19.7% of any given year. That means an “underperforming” elementary teacher stands to be reprimanded or lose her job because she has no control over what the child is doing, hearing, seeing, or saying the 80.3% he or she is not in the classroom.
Given these numbers, my question is: When is that 80% going to step up and agree to be held accountable? Why are teachers shouldering 100% of the responsibility for our nation’s children? In retrospect, the Tony Soprano response actually does seem appropriate.
Hey, America. I got yer accountability right heah.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
