There in no teacher shortage...

As myself many of colleagues approach retirement (thus meaning old), I worry about the profession.  I worry about teachers, students and the overall trend.  We continually hear about there not being enough teachers.  Today I read an interesting article "There Is No Teacher Shortage" and if you take the time to read it - I agree with it.

1) It is simply supply and demand - what schools want: great people at rock bottom prices is not achievable.  Especially when the teaching profession has gone from highly respected to... well... what it is today.  And it used to be a job where you would put in a career and your retirement was there - it was not great but it was consistent.  And that too - it least in Wisconsin is gone.

2) So states lower standards so more people can be teachers - and eventually that will have an effect.   In my opinion it will start in urban and rural areas because they have less resources - teacher cuts, teachers will move to the suburban schools... And the spiral will begin.

So the question becomes what now - will we react prior to the bottom or not.  And it really comes down to one thing:  Those brave people who become teachers should be able to have a middle class living after a short period of time and right now that is not the case.

Eventually this gap between job requirements and pay can only result in one thing - the standards equaling the pay.  Meaning if it is not treated importantly, financially, it will become a second class job and our students will reap that prize.

If students are number one - the teaching career should be paid like it.

Wanting to become a teacher - Planning Time (Part 2 of ?)

So I knew I wanted to be a teacher.  I knew that there were two things to get done, one, find a route to becoming a licensed teacher,  my Mechanical Engineering degree was not going to do it.  And two, plan our family's finances so we could survive the first few years of teaching which were going to be extremely lean pay.  (This comes back to the question of who do we, John Q. Public, really want to teach, the low pay keeps great people away - period.)

I knew that my Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering would not allow me to teach, but I hoped to be just a few courses short - like 36 credits short.  But the first couple of places I check wanted me to finish a Bachelors in Education, well over 75 credits plus a math major degree (another 24).  Darn hard to work and go to school for....  -- well forever.

Then I found St. Mary's second career education program in Minneapolis, Minnesota, it gave credit for my BSME and was a masters program - I simply had to take 36 credits and complete my math minor (5 courses).  It gave some credit for my real life experiences as a manager and had the simple goal to put good people, who would do the work, into the classroom.  The best part is it had night and weekend courses, so I could work and do school.

But to do this the family and I had to live in the Twin Cities.  So I begin to unwind my emotional attachment to the company I was working for, because while I could not see anyway out of their impending bankruptcy, my heart pushed me to hang on.  (The question about I would have ever become a teacher is fair at this point, I think yes - but my kids would not have been toddlers.)  But I started searching for employment in the Minneapolis area with the thought that it had to be perfect,  it had to be win for the employer and myself, that was spring of 2003.

As things became worst at my job, my desire to teach increased and in the summer of 2003 I found a company searching for job shop manager where my engineering background had value.  The plan was to take about 7 years for me to complete the course work and save upto 40% of our salary, we (my wife and I) figured that would make a nest egg so we would be okay the first 5 years of teaching. 

My wife and I then downsized everything.  Any cost was cut, every dollar we saved. We knew we would need for her to be back to work (at this point my 3 children were 5,3, and 2 years old).  We knew we had to not "keep up with the Jones," we bought a cheap house, removed car payments, made vacations no thrills (little kids don't need thrills anyway), etc.  We just made ourselves live on 40% of my salary, period.


 And I signed up for one night course - a Foundations of Education course, the first course of what I thought would be long process.  I attended the first night and was so excited about the passion of the instructors that I immediately marched down and signed up for enough classes to cut my college time from about 7 years to about 3 years.

So instead of two days per week, I went to four -- that is where we will pick up in the next post, working and taking 9 credits per semester.

Wanting to become a teacher - How I changed careers (Part 1 of a few?)

So I have been asked about becoming a teacher from another career (Engineering to math/science), what it takes, why I did it, am I happy, etc.  So this is the first post of a multi-part post in how I moved.  First, if you are moving for the number one joke -- "The 3 best reasons to teach - June, July & August"; DON'T do it.  Teaching takes a desire, it is hard work from September to June, and you spend plenty of time in July and August working on curriculum etc.  My hours per year are most likely surprising.

I worked less total hours in my 12 month, 50 hour per week engineer/manager job then the 9.5 months of teaching and summer curriculum.  But also don't let hours stop you from moving, changing to a teacher has been the single best career move of mine in the 20 years I have worked.  I am more than happy (though like every job there are hard moments).

And if you think you can just get in front of class and do it, and a lot of people think that, you are most likely sorely mistaken.  (I am sure someone can, but I know most cannot).  Though I am not sure education programs really get you 100% ready either -- depends on the program.  It is really a journey you must want to do -- a desire to be beyond mediocrity, when I came into teaching as a second career simply being a teacher for me was not enough.  I wanted to be excellent at the craft.

A little history, I was a young man who believed the cliche "Those that can do, those that can't teach."   So as I went to college at 17  and selected the the most well paid career in my fields of interest, math & science -- Mechanical Engineering.  I liked math and science and thought teaching was interesting but its salary was about 18K starting where engineering was about 42K starting.

So I took the money path, graduated and took a job in engineering within a manufacturing environment.  I liked the problem solving but every time the "new-ness" wore out I found myself looking for another challenge/opportunity.  I move thru 5 engineering/managing jobs in about a decade with 3 different companies -- I always moved up but I was always moving.  The reality of my life for me occurred after 9/11, as the small business I worked for struggled with lagging sales and eventually went into bankruptcy.  I worked my ass off trying to keep the business afloat, but after laying off over 100 people, having an ulcer and really soul searching I knew I wanted a change.

At this point, at about 33 years of age, I sat back and said what do I really want to do....  At any point in my career I felt I had been successful, I am a problem solver by training (and nature).  But when I thought about my accomplishments they were all general.  I knew that in any given year, month or day I was part of a team that fixed this widget or that widget. But when I tried to remember the actual widget - rarely could I describe it with any detail.  I was missing the human touch.  I was missing the feeling of having a truly lasting impact on the world.

So once I admitted that money was only as important as the need to be "comfortable" - I saw myself working with young adults.  But a family of five with three kids under 5 cannot live on a starting teacher's salary...  Anywhere...  So there would need to be planning.  So how do I get there from here. 

I had to get my teaching certificate in Wisconsin which required college courses, plan on how to student teach, and all the while support my family during the college portion but also save for the truly lean years of pay during the first few years of teaching.

My next post will weave how I looked at colleges, and what my thoughts were on student teaching.  It will be on my first steps of action.

Real world consequences? Responsibility? Our job is skills.

If you teach you have heard this from some teacher, "XYZ student does not do his/her work, if they don't do anything what can I do?  And if I do something special, is that fair? Am I really preparing him/her for the real world?  What about responsibility?"

Responsibility? Real world consequences?  Interesting thought, interesting title; let me be clear that High School is not the real world, it is a student world.  And while performance in HS is important, the "direct relationship" between HS performance and job performance is not a guarantee.   I fired a lot of "smart" people who played school well in my previous career.  We shouldn't teach responsibility at the HS level as a pass/fail; we must make sure they have skills, responsibility is second.  (And ever time I hear an employer whine about responsibility - I simply think of supply and demand - pay little, get little.  Interview poorly, get poor hires.) 

We need to try to make sure that responsibility is there, that students understand the difference between HS and the world. But my number one job is make sure my students have enough math to move on outside my walls - I cannot let a student's irresponsibility be an excuse.  That includes the kids who won't play school and do not want to do their work.

I completely believe with students who don't care about their grade that they need more assistance, the world requires them to have a diploma.  When, we teachers, let them fail we are creating a problem and not doing our job.  (Now a disclaimer or point of order, even when we do our job they may fail because the other edge of this sword is not lowering standards.)  We need to make sure, work towards, all students getting the learning done.  Thus the C word, consequences; preferably like the real-world would give.  Cause an F does not motivate them, a zero doesn't, those are not consequences for someone not playing school.

And while HS is their job now, it is not real-world  job.  We can talk about expectations but we cannot treat students who won't play school that school is like a real job.  Cause it simply isn't. 

And why would we want HS to be real-world!  In the world decisions are made more often about money and productivity, not about people - the world will make relationships but only with employees who have made a commitment to the business (and in corporate America that really does not happen).  In school every day can be new with students, chances can be plentiful.  And that is great -- firing and laying people off is overrated and  NO FUN!

So when a student does not work, I work with them.  I don't make it about grades, I make about a skill - about their future.  I also tell them that my job is not to just let them fail - I am suppose to make failing harder than passing!  I make the skill so important that I will pull them from lunch, before school, after school -- from study hall, you name it - I will do it.  And not surprisingly if they get success once and know you care, they start at least doing the minimum.


And if you think that is easy, you are not a teacher.

Can we teach students who refuse to learn? Are we really asking that question?

Recently read a post on loafers, where a math teacher let it be known that he felt it was sad that 382  people voted "yes" that we can teach students who do not want to be taught (out of 734 votes).  Yep, I am one of them. 

The question was "If a student does not want to be taught, can we teach him/her successfully?"  Now 352 said no, and I think we all agree that you simply can refuse and you don't have to do anything (student and teacher alike). But what myself and 381 other people believe is that our job is to reach out and help find a way - and there are ways.  Though those ways are tough and not part of the "normal" school but can be effective.  The question itself is flawed.

The post also stated indirectly that if we are helping these students we must be lowering our standards. I think it is self-centered on the part of the asker to believe that we (or me) are enabling, or just passing students  - which I don't do.   I find ways for students to learn, I assess and progress.

I feel the idea that I have to lower to standards to teach "loafers" allows the asker to feel okay about giving up on a loafer student.  I think the question that was asked turns into a question about responsibility, and it cuts both ways.  There is teacher responsibility and student responsibility -- but are they really equal?  Is it a 50/50 deal?  Are a teacher and a obstinate student equal?  Should we allow a 15 year old to make a life altering decision without a ton of pressure from teachers to push them down a course of graduation?

When I hear teachers take a line of questioning such as the above question, I immediately think they are looking for a way to say they cannot reach all.  But we should accept the challenge and try- especially in math where so many students decided whether they can or cannot before stepping into the room.  It is our job to find ways.

If a student does not want to be taught, can we teach him/her successfully?

Found this poll question in a Linkedin group that I am a member of:   

If a student does not want to be taught, can we teach him/her successfully? 

My answer to the poll was yes and I comment the following: 

"Absolutely YES, usually our problem with students "who do not want to be taught" is that they really just don't want to fit into our system. Our system of education is rigid and really inflexible. It may take different ways and way more time but it is always possible. Whether it can be done practically is another story, but yes we can." 

 

The thing I started reflecting on beyond why ask the question at all is what was the author visualizing or wanting to know.  Obviously if someone dedicated themselves to not doing something they typically succeed.  But who knows a properly cared for 6 year old who won't try somewhat for a teacher?

I think it is the previous sentence most people taking the poll did not picture.  I think most people picture an older student not doing work, refusing, being a classroom management issue.  Now the question - what happened from when they were six?  Why won't they try?

Because they have been there, done that.  They have been placed in a system that sorts and throws away.  Where staff - even the ones who believe they should reach all students, routinely lose some.  Because our system does not guide and nuture the student who does not fit or really struggles but outcasts and ostracizes them.

And if you have tried in the past and have had no success, feel no teacher believed in you or took the time to go outside the system, then why try now (it makes complete sense from an emotional perspective).  They believe school does not work for them the way it was designed (and their belief is what is most important for their ability to learn).   So once you get to that point as a teacher you need to start from scratch and found a way (ton of work, very slow return!).

Because our job is not opportunity to learn (like college), it is to prepared them for life -- and not getting the education you need to succeed should not be an option.

And when the student refuses to learn from me, and it happens - it is a failure on me.

Turn-over today feels different. Has teaching lost respectability?

So another staff member is on the move again.  Small schools are accustom to it.  In a small district you find yourself with more preps and less pay.  It is simply more work for less money.  Thus there is a lot of turnover.

Those that work in a small school do it for a variety of reasons: young staff gaining experience so they can move on to more money, local people who live in the area (that can be hit/miss on quality - really lucky at my school), or the truly power hungry (like me - I love teaching it all and making the final decision on how to deliver curriculum, 9th - 12th).  Fortunately in the past we were respected and appreciated by the super-majority of people which is a fringe that made teaching worth it, that though is slowly back-sliding to a simple majority.

And without a super-majority the fringe value disappears, I end up dealing with people that think you teach because you are inferior at your trade, or that anybody can teach, and those moments are some of the most infuriating/depressing moments of my year (a super-majority suppresses these people).  Without the super-majority the year after year raises that kept pay stable (based on real buying power) are gone; raises when they are not frozen are less than cost of living.  That drives people to make decisions on finances, because bad pay and bad public perception is a horrible combination.  And though we say we want the best in education, we pay for mediocrity.  And as we backslide more, the number of people who will work for less and feel like "getting their ass kicked by public perception" keeps decreasing (and professionalism will disappear too, people act as expected).

And I feel it is that backslide from a super-majority supporting education to a simple majority that contributes to the number of staff moving on to non-teaching positions -- the percentage of staff leaving education as a whole seems to be quickly growing.  When I started 8 years ago staff left for one of two reasons -- a new teaching job or retirement.  But that seems to be changing, now a small district cannot be called a statistical significant experiment, but this year 50% of the staff that resigned has left the teaching profession.  And this is not because of our local district or board, but a nationally undermining of education.

More decisions about what is important, how we teach and how we test are happening further and further from our district.  More of my dealings are with 'people' (or departments, state agencies, etc) that want to hold me accountable but limit my tools.  People in my area, Board members, parents, school supporters want to give me the tools, but the funding occurs way above them.   And the further away you get from our district the less the minority thinks about education, and all it takes is a simple minority to rule education through misinformation, when there is no super-majority supporting education it starts to lose.  Everywhere I hear education as a whole is broken, but my kid's school is good -- that is the minority selling snake-oil; schools need to be more responsive and work harder on continuous improvement but that is a detail, not a reason to rail against public education (or to simply starve it which is what I think is happening).    Soon what the minority screams about education will be correct because we will have starved it of its good people.

It is the perception that the minority is selling that all education is broken that is breaking all schools.

New books, old books - they sure look the same

Lately I have looked at a lot of 6-12 textbooks and websites.  And one thought keeps crossing my mind -- these are nearly the same as before.  The only difference is the order of some things.  So the CCSS has theoretically changed textbooks and teaching (or will) but in reality the books are the same.  They are so utterly close to the previous books that I am having a hard time justifying buying new books at $90 per pop and I am probably going to buy one edition back, used texts for $10 each.  Cause the books are not different enough to help a teacher who is unsure of himself/herself with math and the CCSS.

And isn't that the real statement - a book cannot lead a weak teacher; I don't care what book I have, I typically use 2-3 in each of my courses.  I teach conceptually using a combo of large projects, daily practice and non-negotiable skills -- the book is not my math bible, it is a nice guide.   But for teachers that use a textbook as a bible, the current selection will not change their teaching and won't make the CCSS anymore achieveable than the last edition.  I am not sure any textbook can.

As an ending comment lets just say publishers have not found the holy grail for the CCSS based on the books I have reviewed.

Struggling is hard, one of the reasons the best don't teach

In my old job (Engineering) my family lived within our means.  We were careful with money but because of our style of not living extravangent we never had to worry about money.  My wife did not work and we easily got by.  Then I became a teacher.

Eight years ago we realized the struggle financially and planned for it.  But I also believed in 2006 that in 5 years we would get back to even (so long as we bought a cheap house, and had no car payments) and now I am in 2013 still struggling to make ends meet.  (Teaching pay has not kept up with inflation coupled with 2 pay freezes and an 6% pay cut)   I have a house payment of about $700 (as cheap as a family of 6 can own or rent), no car payment, my wife now works (because our kids are older) and yet it is nip and tuck every month.  I pick up work during the summer and do whatever I can to get some extra income.

But think about the whole statement above and it is no wonder that the best don't teach.  I am really driven, I really love teaching, yet every May and June I have to sit down and figure out how to balance our families books.  I know there are a group that think - yeah, tough, what about me?  And I understand that point of view but the focus in this post is about getting the best people to teach and stay teaching, and not very often do the best struggle as hard financially as teaching currently requires.

Students first or testing first?

So where is the line between data and over-testing?  Rigor and rote-drones?  Accountability and test craziness?

The new WKCE cut scores literally took schools in Wisconsin from approximately 75% passing to 45% passing.  In my district our 'math mission' is to have all my 12th grade graduates ready for "College & Career" readiness in math.  Meaning that if they go to college they can start with a college credit course.  Then the scores change and we went from feeling like we were accomplishing our mission to the feeling that the goal had changed and we are left wondering does the new test prove anything?

When you have really small class sizes word of mouth will get you the results you search for, I always ask my students after graduation for their math placement and results.  Nearly all reply about their placements; and while there is an epidemic with remedial college math, pushing 40% of students, we have been less than 10% the past 3 years.  Isn't  that the goal?  And the students who go to technical colleges are passing their placement test nearly 100% of the time (compass test). 

So as with most things we need to ask ourselves does the current high stakes testing lead to our desired results.  Are the standards and core creating the students we need to be successful in the world?  The Common core is 200+ standards, how many of those are really needed?  Does Cramer's rule really create a better student, or is the only place to show that is an Advanced math course (not Algebra II or lower)? 

Would just a little money in post high school surveying be more useful - I am not really sure but lets face it - teachers work for the students, we're customer service.  But we do NOT work for the current 16 year old, but the 27 year old student.  (I joke that the student's future self called and begged me to be tougher so they could become better problem solvers and get better jobs, thus more money.)  And the new standards and testing does seem to be making a better 27 year old.

Do we really want the best teachers?

As a country we talk about wanting the best people to be teachers, because if we put students first a great teacher makes a huge difference.  Society says that's what we want, the culture says that's what we want. But I just received my contract for teaching next year. And there's a disconnect between what we say we want and what we do.

In my former job in the private sector, you would never think to sign a contract with blank spaces. Yet my teaching contract for next year had a blank spot for salary. And that blank spots' meaning cannot be lost on us and what it implies.  (Also I don't blame the school where I work for the contract I received. They are slave to state funding, they have little choice but to give a contract that the state dictates by their budget.)

It implies that while we say we want the best teachers; we truly are unwilling to do the things that brings and keeps the best people in education.   Unfortunately we really don't want the best teachers, we want smart charitable people. The best typically will go where the rewards are.

In my case I cannot even be rewarded with a guarantee of what my next year salary will be, if I want a job I need to sign it.  Due to how the state does school financing my school cannot even write in the amount that I made this year. How do we expect to attract the smartest and the brightest people to make a real difference?

I was successful in my former job, I was good at my former job. I wanted to teach but it shouldn't have to be charitable. We should want the brightest for education and should be willing to go get them.
 
I hear and read that teachers make the most difference in a student's progress, yet they're the ones we abuse. We do not make teaching a desirable position, and overall we don't respect the position much either.  I find myself more respected than other teachers. People will say "Oh, you're a teacher."  and I reply"Yes, I teach math," and they go"Oh I couldn't do that."  That implies they could teach anything else but math, not everyone can teach.  And to be good at it, and to keep the good people in it, the public sector must treat its best employees like the private sector.

The interesting part is people talk of what 'has to happen in education.' But there really isn't any drive to fix it. It takes great teachers in education to make a difference, and we are not going to attract great teachers.  Overall you get what you pay for, and with salaries and benefits going in free-fall compared to inflation simply means we will get mediocre teachers. (And the occasional few who was simply want to teach no matter what the financial reward.)

I love teaching. But every year, at about this time,  I have to consider the pay and what I could make in engineering, my former career. If the pay for teaching was simply a little more, so I was not constantly struggling, and if the respect a little more, I'm sure I wouldn't make that consideration.  But those things are not there in education presently so every year I think about leaving teaching.

I'm at a loss for how to change the culture and dedication to education of the United States; how we change how we treat teachers. I'm also at a loss for how to put students first, meaning how to get great teachers. If you put students first, and I usually do, they need great teachers. That means compensation for the best, and a contract with a blank spot for pay doesn't make the best want to stay.

Teacher Evaluation

Right now there is talk about how to evaluate teachers, about creating systems because "bad" teachers are a theoretical problem.  So we need a system - that is ok, prior to teaching I was judged by performance and I don't have a problem with it -- except our real product is not seen for about 5 years following HS!  But let me reiterate I have no problem with being evaluated and no problem using student results.

In business it was simply profit, did I do my job so we made money.  The problem I have with our educational system is we use age to determine whether a student it meeting expectations (a sophomore should "blank"')  - every student is different and thus every goal should be different.  I have sophomores who find the testing a joke because it is so easy and others who are taking Pre-Algebra and are not ready for the tests.  Then to top it off the students have no reason to perform well, a student can just answer whatever and there is no recourse (take it from me -- I have seen students just answer B the whole way on the entire test...).

But we need to evaluate!  We need to measure and we need to make continuous improvement!  So we need to work hard at data and expectations.  How do we know we are getting good data is a tough one!  And as a math teacher how do I know that the person evaluating me even understands what I am teaching?  These are the type of things running through my head after listening to a presentation about the new teacher evaluation system being implemented here in Wisconsin.  I believe in pre and post testing every year, I think we need to make sure that students move forward every single day.  And the research about poor teachers does require us to make sure they are not a permanent fixture in the school.  But is this rating system really going to get rid of the poor teachers, should it be the evaluation system's "'job."

The thing about "bad" teachers is we already know who they are -- the real problem is administration.  Prior to teaching I worked union and non-union shops --- and when I had a "bad" employee the only difference was I needed to do "special" forms in the union setting to get rid of "bad" employees.  I formed a plan and the "bad" employee either improved or was gone.  In either setting, union or non-union they got "canned."   In education administrators are typically pussies (excuse the language, but it is true).  They complain about the union but really they just don't want to do their job and be the bad guy.  They don't do the observations, don't write the plans and don't do the firing.  And with the standard 2 year probation period that teachers have about 3/4 of "bad" teacher problems should not happen, but again the typical administrator just gives too many chances.  They need to "student-up" and do their job....

So I do not fear for myself or my school.  I feel I will do well and our school's scores are "good."  But I also realize that  government will pick the rules and they do not know or understand the needs of schools; there will be a ton of forms, tests, etc and that will take away from resources for students.  And the worst part is it will most likely not solve the problem, it will make educators feel prosecuted and really that keeps young people from becoming teachers.  So the best and brightest won't teach. (It also puts small districts in a real bind because of the bureaucracy.)

So it comes down to this in my opinion, pre/post test, make administrators jobs dependent on results too that will force them to be the "bad" guy when they must be.  And stop screaming about "bad"' teachers, overall they are small group, just make the "bosses" handle them.  And finally respect educators - so the best/brightest see it as a respected career choice, right now we are making an environment where teaching is not well respected.  And that keeps the best/brightest away, and in 10 years that problem will really show.....

Trickle down Training?

"As principal of one of the highest poverty schools in the area, Sherlene McDonald knows the value of professional development training for teachers.
School leaders and district leaders, such as principals and superintendents, also benefit from training as that trickles down to the classrooms, she says."     http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/professional_development_a_mus.html   October 9, 2012

Really trickle down training?  Coming from industry to teaching I believe in train the trainer, leadership training, and other professional growth things, but come on - trickle down training may be the worst phrase I have every heard.  It sounds like it comes from someone who has a really high opinion about what a curriculum leader, a principal, a director or whatever title you want to use can really accomplish in changing teaching.   In fairness I included the phrase about it being important for teachers to get training but talk is talk - the average school does very little to nothing to protect professional development time and administration is usually the worst offender for chasing big changes.  What we (schools) need is incremental change - we need a 2% continuous improvement attitude!

We really need to step back and realize that to affect student learning we must train the teacher -- relying on trickle down means money spent and little changed.  It is the lessons that the teachers need to work on; so have the principal cover a class, correct a test and make that time for the teacher to make a good lesson. Hold that teacher accountable but give the teacher the tools and time and expectations.

But as a teacher I am unwilling to let a phrase that training an administrator really works.  It most likely means a shift in the pendulum (chasing the next big thing), time wasted chasing a big dream and no real measurable improvement.   We need to stop the idea that we can change overnight and just continually change for the long term.

Continual Improvement is the best for the students today and tomorrow....

Path of least resistance

The path of least resistance is not only for power but it is also for the typical math student.  The typical student, the one that wants to pass and get their diploma follow the path of least resistance.  I am not talking about the rare student who cares only for the learning which is a very low percentage.  But everyone else including the "A" grade driven students, who sometimes are the worst offenders  -- memorizing procedures for tests versus making connections, etc.  

My first round of assessments this year has reminded me of the least resistance fact.  The fact is the typical student will do the bare minimum to get the passing grade and has little concern if they learn the math.  It seems funny that most teachers forget how minimalist we were too when we were students often just driven far enough to get to a magical level of learning called A or B or C or D (remember D for degree!).

Thus I take it upon myself to make sure that concepts are learned and that learning the concepts is the path of least resistance in my classroom.  I try to not worry about letter grades but make sure students are conceptually strong (ready for career or secondary). 

So as I comment on the assessments and reflect on student's current level of conceptual knowledge I quickly remind myself to make sure my path requires understanding.  We must remember that the teachers who push, are tough, are typically remembered more and thanked more....

So watch out Mr. A's students 80% isn't enough - you need to demonstrate understanding....  And I always remember I am in customer service - I work for the student, not today's 16 year old but the same student when he/she is 25 in the work place and wants the skills needed to succeed.

Funny thing is -- the future student always seems to want me to push their current self....

National Board Certifiacation - Is it worth it?

Recently I have been reading and deciding whether to do National Board Certification for Teachers (NBCT).  I really want to be the best educator I can be but is it possible in a small school with 8 preps to accomplish the work for the NBCT?  (and not have your family regret it...)

Is this a goal that is worth chasing -- I am not sure anyone in my little area cares whether I have NBCT, I think I would like to do it for myself though.  There is a financial reward - a 10 yr grant $2500 per year, and the cost is $2500 and there may be or may not be scholarships to help with that initial cost.  But the money really does not motivate me on this question of whether to pursue NCBT. It is the idea that this will make me a better educator and will give my students more opportunity.

I think the question I want to know is - Does it really make me a better teacher?  Can I really accomplish it with so many preps? and Can I accomplish it using the ancient materials we have at my school in math?  All my materials are over 10 years old (but as I posted before I don't think after seeing new books that something "better" is around).

This is a big question for me that I need to really think about.  If there was a local network of teachers working on it I may be more willing, but the thought of doing this NBCT work with on-line support and no local support is really an unappealing thought.

This is not a question I will answer today or tomorrow but I will decide prior to month's end -- I either give it my all or nothin at all.....