$65 a month?

What can I do with 65.00 a month?

I can put it in savings for those months when my husband, who is self-employed, doesn't work as much. It can accrue, and we can make bills.

It will buy me two tanks of gas for my car. Or a tank for my husband's truck. 

My family and I can go out to dinner...someplace nicer like a steak place. Maybe my husband can have a beer.

$65 will pay for my medicines for a month. That would be nice.

We can put it toward retirement. Someday we'll retire, and it would be nice to be able to live above the poverty line.

New clothes would be nice, depending on where I go. I can also update my child's wardrobe as he's always in need of new clothes.

We need a new furnace; I can put it aside so in 77 months, we can afford one.

$65 can be put into a college fund for our child. By the time he graduates from high school, we'll have 3900.00 for college! Or we can put it aside for a nice trip...some day.

Or instead, I can put $65 a month toward my union dues to help my union protect me, bargain for me, defend me. I can easily waste $65; we all can. And yet, our union works for us, trying to make sure we have reasonable class sizes, a 30-minute duty-free lunch, decent compensation and benefits, and are treated as professionals, all for $65 a month. My union protects my future as an educator; in fact, my union protects the futures of both union members and non-union members alike. Without my union, what will happen to my salary? my class sizes? my 30-minute duty-free lunch? Who will protect me if I'm falsely accused of something? For all my union does, $65 a month is a reasonable amount to pay.

And the "I can't afford it" reason? My thought is this: you can't NOT afford it. 

My Master's degree isn't worth it?

Our 'esteemed' school board president and our superintendent of schools have decided to not reward high school teachers for their master's degrees in education. What? Apparently, they want teachers with master's degrees in their content areas instead because, according to their beliefs, those degrees make the most difference in student achievement. So the two and a half years I studied brain development, learning styles, and the best methods to reach those learning styles is 'useless'? I could have saved myself $11,000?

I am an educator, and my job is to educate. Yes, I teach English, and when I graduated with my Bachelor's degree in English, and 67 English credits, there were varying opportunities for me. I chose to teach, which meant I had to take--and pass--the required education classes. However, as an educator, I need to know how to reach various learners and recognize their learning styles or else they won't be successful in my classroom. I could have a Master's in English, but I'm a teacher first and my subject is English.

When I explored post-secondary options, graduate school, I wanted a program that would help me become a better teacher. See, teaching isn't simply about content; it's about the whole student. The whole student includes:what is happening at home; what is happening at school; how the student learns best; what struggles the student has; and the inner conflicts of each student. A Master's in English helps me know more material, but it doesn't help me know my students. My graduate program through Regis University helped me learn about brain development, learners and their learning styles, and how to improve my classroom to work better with more students. That's, in my mind, true achievement.

No graduate program is easy, including the one at Regis, and my summers, school nights, and weekends were devoted to this program, which paid off when I earned a 4.0 at its end. That's right; straight As. Since my employer does not pay for Master's degrees, I spent the next 10 years paying off my loan. Was the entire experience worth it? Definitely. My teaching ability changed for the better, and with the skills I learned at Regis, it continues to evolve. I am considered "highly effective" and my students have tremendous academic success in college.

So now this degree isn't 'worth it'? I'm curious as to how a Master's in English would have made a difference in my job--teaching. A struggling student does not care about master's degrees; a struggling student wants a teacher who can reach her and help her learn. Students are not 'products;' they are human beings, and we need to know how to help them. This fallacious thinking from our Board president and superintendent (who has a Master's in education!) harms students more than helps them. Teachers take classes in their contents; I've regularly taken classes to help me know more content for my subject matter. I know a great deal about literature and writing. but my Master's in Education makes me a better teacher.

I find it a slap in my face that I'm not considered 'worthy' of compensatory pay based on my level of education. But I also believe this is yet another way our district "leaders" are trying to make experienced and well-educated teachers like myself leave the district. I was once a novice teacher, but I had master teachers help me grow into my profession. My Master of Arts Education: Learning and Teaching from Regis University furthered developed my abilities. What happens when only novice teachers are in the classroom? What happens when, after five years, these same teachers reach the 'top' of their salary scale? Will most leave? Definitely. What happens to our children when there are no experienced teachers working with them?

Do those in power and making these decisions care about our children? Our future?

Teachermusings: No Union? No CBA? What is the worst that can happe...

Teachermusings: No Union? No CBA? What is the worst that can happe...: My first, full-time teaching job was at a middle school in Amarillo, Texas. I taught eighth grade honors English and creative publications-t...

No Union? No CBA? What is the worst that can happen?

My first, full-time teaching job was at a middle school in Amarillo, Texas. I taught eighth grade honors English and creative publications-the yearbook and newspaper class. I was fresh out of college and sure I could bond with every student and make my life in Texas. After two years, I was finished. I couldn't take the parents' harassment or the students' harassment. I was reported to the principal 12 times during my second year, and one of those times, other teachers reported student threats against me--and I was the one who was yelled at by parents.

When I came back to Colorado, I was still certain I wanted to be a teacher, but this time, I wanted high school only. I felt lucky when I landed a job at a prestigious and private high school, teaching 11th and 12th grades. It was an incredibly tough job; the department head threw away all teaching manuals, so I had to research (in the days before wide-access to computers and Google) each text I was teaching; we were required to assign a 2-3 page paper every week and have it graded quickly; we were to teach 20 words of vocabulary every two weeks; and finally, we were to teach grammar each day, including diagramming. Additionally, we were required to attend after school events and sponsor something. Plus we were expected to volunteer at school functions. I spent one fall volunteering at football games, taking tickets. Finally, the school decided to raise funds for construction by selling bricks, and we teachers were required to donate 100.00 for a brick per teacher. I made $19,000.00 a year.

I worked six to seven days a week, three to four hours per night. I couldn't afford to live on my own, pay bills, and buy groceries each week, so I learned to buy pastas, limit my driving, and live in the cheapest, most rundown apartment I could find. As for the brick, I had to ask my parents for the money because I couldn't afford it. But I was willing to do this because I knew I was teaching in a prestigious, private high school. Granted, I was barely living above the poverty line, and my grandmother would slip me $20 each week, which went for gas, but I was resolved to make this school work. Yes, I had to work summers to make ends meet because $19,000 wasn't enough to support myself.

The school also had a policy that we were not 'vested' in our retirement accounts until we had attained five years employment with school, but we were required to deposit a portion of our paycheck each month into "our" retirement account. During my first year, the scheduler 'forgot' to assign me a lunch period, but I was told I could use my planning period to eat lunch. However, there were no substitutes for this prestigious, private high school, so we teachers were asked to give up our planning periods to substitute-for no additional pay-for those teachers who were absent. Because I was one of the only people off during sixth period, I often subbed for absent teachers. But wait! I didn't get a lunch because they forgot to assign one. So I often ate after school.

During my first year, my seniors hazed me. They were rude, belligerent, made fun of me, refused to do their work, and blamed me for losing their assignments. They made rude noises in class and then denied doing so. It didn't help that I was a 'traveling' teacher-I had no classroom, so I had to use other teachers' classrooms. I also had colleagues who wouldn't leave their classrooms and let me teach; instead, they watched me, critiqued me in front of classes, corrected me in front of classes, and even when they were wrong, they would not admit to being wrong to my classes. I thought my second year would be better, but we lost a student in a tragic accident, and the school completely mishandled the situation, causing all of us more grief than necessary. I anticipated my third year as my best year yet, but even with that, I was sorely mistaken.

After Christmas vacation during my third year, I was approached by a student who asked me to change a grade. He insisted his college of choice changed admission requirements on him, and that my class was preventing him from attending that school. He offered to do an extra research paper assignment for me, but I told him no. I felt he had fairly earned his high B, and I wasn't going to allow him to do any further work for the previous semester. The next day, my voicemail was filled with long, obscenity-filled messages from his mother because of my refusal. Within the week, the head of our school board was in my room, threatening me with my job if I didn't change the student's grade. I refused him as well. By the end of the first three weeks of school, at age 27, I had high blood pressure, which I have today, and which could cause kidney failure as I age.

This student and his friend began to harass me. I went to the principal to ask for help, and he shut his office door in my face. The harassment continued; they were disruptive in class; they ditched and accused me of falsely marking them absent; they threw a rock through my classroom window, narrowly missing a student with the rock and sending glass fragments all over my room. My colleagues refused to speak to me; in fact, I was no longer allowed to sit at the faculty table during lunch. Eventually, I stopped eating in the lunchroom. I went home in tears each night. When I resigned at the end of the school year, the principal screamed obscenities at me over the phone and called me ungrateful. Then he hung up on me.

When I moved to public school, I knew I would get a raise; in fact, I had a 6500.00 raise in my first year. I knew what each teacher's salary was because we had steps and levels; there was no secrecy like at my previous school where an unqualified male teacher, one who didn't hold a teaching license, made more money that I did. I had good benefits. I had a union that protected me from harassment like I'd experienced at my previous school. I had decent hours, reasonable and doable expectations, and teachers' manuals! I had the necessities to do my job well. I had incentive to further my education because my pay would increase. And finally, when I left my prestigious high school, I forfeited all my retirement money, money I had earned, because I wasn't vested. I lost three years of retirement pay. Now I have PERA and a plan for retirement.

Teaching is an endangered career. We have corporations trying to take over, put us on pay 'bands,' reduce our benefits, and politicians bent on eliminating our retirement plan. Our master's degrees are considered 'useless,' and we are disrespected by our district and our board of education. We are losing our protections, and I fear, we are turning into private schools. Working in a private school taught me about the need for a Collective Bargaining Agreement and union protection. I would never return to working in a private school again. Without a union, without a Collective Bargaining Agreement, school districts and school boards can do whatever they want to teachers. And this is why, 23 years after walking into my first full-time position, I willing to do what I need to do so I never again have to teach in such conditions as my prestigious, private high school. Private schools may have changed over the past 20 years, but one fact remains: without a union, without support and protection, schools can require whatever they want from their teachers. Teachers have no protections in schools without CBAs, in schools without unions.

At this point in my career, I will fight to win against the corporate takeover of my school district.

Powder Keg

Being a teacher in the US right now is like being in the middle of a powder keg, awaiting its explosion. Why? Because there are groups of people, average citizens to politicians, trying to destroy public education as we know it. What puzzles me is why.

Teaching is a profession requiring years of education and post graduate education. Moreover, teachers are expected to stay current with educational trends, integrate technology into their classrooms, and focus on 21st century skills our students will eventually need. No one has adequately identified these 21st century skills for me, but as a teacher, I'm supposed to KNOW.

On one side of this powder keg issue are administrators, building and district level. The pressure is on them to produce results at their individual schools and in their districts. Pressure comes from communities, boards of education, and the state and federal governments. I cannot imagine the level of stress our administrators cope with daily. Because of federally mandated testing, I'm sure their frustration levels are running high. Our principals are 'at-will' employees, meaning, regardless of their education and abilities, they can be fired at any time. They have no protection from lawsuits or from our school district. Because of the pressure they are under, they must pass that pressure onto us. I understand that. But just as this type of stress is hurting them-as effective leaders-it also strains the professional working relationship we should have, making it difficult for teachers to want to go to school.

On the other side of the powder keg is those trying to destroy public education. I'm not paranoid; I've been reading and researching public education 'reform,' and I honestly believe the root of the problem lies within political groups (both Democratic and Republican) destroying a foundational element of our country: public education. It appears in groups with harmless sounding names such as Bloomberg, Independence Institute, Leadership Program, Great Schools, APlus... Politicians bandy about buzz words like: "21st century skills," "data-based,""school-choice," "charter," and "student engagement." They talk about how teachers are failing our students, how schools are failing. Chances are good most of the reformers haven't stepped foot in a public school in years, if ever. Reformers want to eliminate collective bargaining between teachers and their districts and issue 'contracts' that will allow school boards to choose any type of payroll scheme. Remember, teaching is a profession and requires years of education. A veteran teacher, like myself, with a master's degree can make as little as $38,000 a year, depending on his contract.

Because a powder keg is round, there is of course another issue: compensation. Americans value their children, but they simply don't want to pay for them. For example, daycare costs are astronomical. Yet daycare employees make a pittance for all the work they do. Teachers are paid a nominal salary and yet are made to feel guilty for wanting more--enough to make a decent living and pay all their bills. Again, teaching is a profession, requiring a great deal of education. Moreover, those who work with children-from newborns through high school-emotionally invest in their students. They become second parents, or in some cases, parents to those children with whom they work. Teachers spend money on their 'kids,' making sure they have food, Kleenex, school supplies, clothes so those kids can be successful. Yet, when teachers ask for more pay, they are vilified for this request. However, an actor wants a million dollars an episode for their sitcom, no one bats an eye.

One last thought about our powder keg; run all the veteran teachers off, bring in inexperienced teachers with little training (Teach for America?), and what will happen? How will our schools turn around and be able to compete on a global scale? I'm certainly not the teacher I was when I first walked into a classroom. I'm better. I'm exemplary. I think I can reach more students because I have grown and matured. I've practiced. When, not if, our little educational powder keg explodes, what will come? Will we move to private education? Who will educate everyone? What are the consequences of destroying our public schools?

Fallacies of Standardized Testing

The first round of standardized testing season is almost upon us, which I know because our lead SAC (school assessment coordinator) has made her rounds to let seniors know what they're going to be taking this year. I feel sorry for her; although she was an English teacher by training, and she's a darned good administrator, she has the stress-filled job of mining data and understand state assessments. Here, in my humble opinion, are the fallacies of standardized testing:

1. Our schools are failing. Standardized testing shows what students can and cannot do.
Let me say right now, I don't think ALL public schools are failing. Are there some? Sure. But standardized testing does not help those schools, except by identifying their struggles. Poverty? English language learners? Large class sizes? Lack of parent involvement? Violence? Societal ills? Sure, those contribute to failing schools, but the greater issue is societal. A standardized test doesn't measure whether a child had breakfast or not before coming to school. Nor does it measure an argument with a parent, a night sleeping at a relative's house, or an inability to complete homework. Our schools are merely reflective of a larger picture, society, and that is failing.
2. Everyone will read and write at grade level by _____(fill in the year). Not everyone is doing this in our schools. Why? Well, it's not because teachers are lazy and aren't doing their jobs. How about the student who arrives at a school, unable to read, speak or write in English, and then is expected to perform at grade level? How about a student who comes to first grade and doesn't know numbers, letters, colors, or have other basic skills? What about primary classrooms that are so full, a teacher cannot reach each student and provide individualization?
3. Comparing one year's test scores to the next year's test scores. Interesting tactic. Let's see, one year I have a class that thinks, speaks, writes at or above grade level, and the next year, I have a group of students barely able to concentrate work. It makes no sense to compare one year to another. It makes greater sense to follow those students from year to year to see how they improve or why they don't. However, our current system of standardized testing does not allow us to truly track those kids. Sure, we have programs like SOARS, a program that keeps the data in one place for our perusal, but when we sit in our meetings and discuss our performance as a school, no one is focusing on the individual student; instead, the focus is on one year to the next. To wit: last year our juniors performed extraordinarily well on the ACT. This year, the district has set our performance goal at or above our score from last year. Never mind we aren't working with the same group of students.
4. Standardized tests provide data for college readiness. No they don't, here's why: many of our students refuse to comply with the standardized test in front of them. I've watched them finish a test that's supposed to take sixty minutes in 15 minutes. I've seen answer sheets where students took a tremendous amount of time and effort to bubble a pattern of obscenities. Even the ACT in Colorado is required by the test, therefore our ACT scores are usually lower than the national average. Not every student wants to go to college nor should go to college. Plus, unless college has changed since I was an undergrad and a graduate student, not many colleges ask me to bubble my answer. Few standardized tests require critical thinking. Fewer standardized test require difficult reading material or complex writing skills. If I recall, those were the skills I needed in college, not how to bubble an oval/square/rectangle accurately.
5. Releasing tests to teachers will result in more teaching to the test. Well, duh. If our jobs are on the line, and we are expected to produce amazing results within our maelstrom of humanity, then we will use those tests as guides for our curriculum. I teach Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes, and we have assessments at the end of our courses. However, those groups actually and shockingly release tests to teachers. Do I teach to a test? Sort of. I have an idea of the test's structure, but I have the freedom to chose how to approach a variety of material and skills to prepare my students for those tests. I don't spend exorbitant time strictly prepping for a test; instead, we write, discuss, and work on critical thinking and analysis.
6. Putting standardized test scores on student transcripts will encourage them to try harder. This makes me laugh. Most high school students know which tests are necessary for college admission and which are not. They will try only on those that are important to them. The PARCC test is not important to them, nor is it important to colleges and universities. It is only important to the Department of Education and school districts.

Here are some realities about standardized testing:
Since we began standardized testing, I've noticed those held accountable for scores are teachers. Students grow stressed as pressure is placed on them by teachers and administrators to do well on these. Our jobs are tied to student performance, and for many teachers, so is our pay.Students are not held accountable for doing poorly; they are passed from one grade to another, and the only ones who are lectured, demeaned, told they aren't working hard enough are teachers. Administrators' pay is also tied to how students perform on these tests. No growth, no bonus, at least in my district. I hear parents and community leaders gripe about how young people don't know how to problem solve, write, think for themselves. And while I'm not silly enough to believe standardized testing is solely responsible for these problems, I do believe it is part of the problem. Standardized testing is expensive and cuts time from classrooms. How many billions of dollars have been wasted with state testing? How many billions of dollars could have been spent elsewhere rather than on tests?

Most concernedly, there is talk about tying graduation to student performance on standardized tests. I am concerned about drop out rates. If a student can pass classes but doesn't test well, how fair is it to refuse graduation? Will dropping out become preferable to trying to pass a state assessment?

We Americans have fooled ourselves for the past 14 years of No Child Left Behind and standardized testing. Our students aren't better; they are simply better test takers.

Underestimating teens

I know a lot about teenagers. They are often self-centered, but that's because of their brain's development. They want to be treated as adults unless they feel unfairly treated, and then they prefer their parents intervene. They want good grades but don't want to work too hard. Their social lives rule them. However, they truly hate when an adult bullshits them.

One of the saddest parts of this entire school board debacle is to see students, people who feel invincible, struggle to convey their message to the board. Instead of getting attention, they are dismissed, called "pawns," and told they don't understand what is going on. No one likes being treated with condescension, but it is particularly difficult for teens. As the board continues to treat them dismissively, our teens are increasingly riled by this behavior.

Today, for example, the board president visited our school to answer student questions. However when my students came to class, they were more frustrated than before the meeting. Out of all students who attended this meeting, only four questions were asked, and they felt as though their questions were not answered. One student was irate by the seemingly inattentiveness of the board president, while others were unhappy with the circuitous and meaningless answers both board members gave them. Why bother to attend these meetings if the true idea is the importance of our 'pawns.' Adults who don't work with teens seemingly don't understand they hate bullshit. Those same adults underestimate teens' capacity to grasp complex problems and critically think about them. However, if our district continues to move toward limiting subject matter and testing more, soon no one will have to worry about grasping complex problems or thinking critically.

Our board president stated that he doesn't think teens are tested enough, and he advocates MORE standardized testing rather than less. This is the problem with politics in education; more testing does nothing for students and though politicians of his ilk seem to believe teachers will magically have more time for teaching with more standardized tests, any educator knows this isn't true.

The sheer stupidity and condescension exhibited by our board of education and our superintendent make me angry. Even more, our students are angry, and they too pay taxes. Soon, they too will be able to vote. And with any luck, they will research backgrounds of politicians and understand the ramifications of amendments and bills, and be smart voters.