The past two weeks we've focused a lot on low performing schools and what can be done to help these schools. We also went to an elementary school that has been deemed low-performing and is one year away from having the state come in and redo everything. My class spent the entire day at the school. It was interesting for me to experience that, as I've only been in an elementary school all day only two or three times. But I've never been in a regular content class for that long. As an ESL teacher, you see multiple students a day, in multiple grade levels. At the school we were at, I was in the Kindergarten class all day with the same students. I felt out of place because I know how an ESL classroom works, but not necessarily how a content class works. I was amazed at how much rotation there was to the different groups. I was also amazed at how well the students did when rotating. The teacher has done an awesome job instilling within them order. The teacher was so chill (almost too chill for a Kindergarten teacher). Sometimes I felt like the teacher was a bit unorganized or didn't really know what to do next... But the students listened and did what they were supposed to. There was only a few times that two or three students had to be scolded or asked to sit a part from the group because they were acting up. Overall, my experience at the school was a good one. I was surprised at how fast the time passed, and I'm grateful for the group I was able to observe (even though I'm pretty sure all the kids were sick :( praying to Jesus I don't get sick!) The teacher and teacher assistants were amazing; you could tell they truly cared about these kids and didn't have time to put up with their nonsense.
In my research, I found a couple of articles discussing proficiency and growth: which one is better? Many articles say that schools and districts and the state should focus on growth and not proficiency. In one of the the articles I read (https://www.the74million.org/article/barnum-the-growth-vs-proficiency-debate-and-why-al-franken-raised-a-boring-but-critical-issue/), it says "about 20 percent or less of the variation in student achievement is explained by differences in schools. That pales in comparison to out-of-school factors, like poverty, that have a significant effect on learning. Schools matter, but they aren’t the sole or even main driver of student outcomes... The school could be doing a great job helping kids improve, but if they start out at a very low level, that might not show up on proficiency measures... Since proficiency scores are highly correlated with poverty, using them to rate schools inevitably means that low-income schools will, by and large, get the worst scores. This may make such schools less desirable places to work, since they face stigma and accountability pressure, potentially driving away good teachers from the schools that need them most.... Proficiency-based measures also may increase the likelihood of school segregation, as affluent families avoid low-income schools, deeming them ineffective based on bad data." The article also mentions that many teachers tend to focus on the students that are in the middle of their achievement, i.e., the students at the top who are doing well and do not need much, if any help, get ignored, as well as the students at the bottom, who are not doing well and will most likely never reach proficiency, get ignored. I hate to see this, but it was so evident. You could see the tiredness in the kids eyes. You could see the frustration and hurt in the teachers eyes when they told certain students they could not go on the field trip because their parents couldn't pay. Even the school itself appeared to be worn down. I was cold the entire time I was in the classroom. And having to go from building to building in order to eat or go to the gym was slightly annoying to me. However, even though this school has its struggles, you can see how much these teachers and staff love their kids.Throughout this entire week and especially at the elementary school, I saw multiple, if not all, of the teacher standards addressed. At the meeting we had on the history of the school, Standard 1 was addressed because it showed their goals and strategies addressed in their School Improvement Plan. Standard 2 was also addressed because the school is constantly Seeking solutions to overcome obstacles that prevent family and community involvement. They've done this by incorporating more day time events instead of night time events so that parents have a better chance at showing up. In the classroom I observed and helped out in, Standard 3 was addressed because the teacher made the material being taught relevant to the students and encouraged personal productivity in order to achieve certain goals in life. Standard 4 was also addressed within the classroom. The teacher incorporated technology in just about every thing that was done in class - students had time to get on the computer to complete activities; they were able to get on iPods and complete activities on that; and they watched videos with important information, like fire safety. As a future teacher, I hope and plan to make my classroom as welcoming and safe as possible and provide warmth and rest and snacks if needed. I will listen to them as they discuss their family situation and I will try my best to help them out through any situation. I will encourage them to keep their head up and that I am there for them at any time. These kids need stability, and I plan on giving that to them.
From observing at this school, it became clear to me that it isn't as important to make sure these kids know how to take a test and ace it. It is more important for these kids to feel loved, accepted, and safe. These kids come from various backgrounds, most of them terrible, and their priorities are not going to be if they can be proficient in something. But it is also obvious that these kids can grow; they just have to have their needs met.
