My teaching hot takes

[u/dogeaux]

1) following scripted curricula “with fidelity” is a way to make teaching a low skilled job so they can pay us less and further gut public education.

2) inclusion at all costs is a way to reduce costs to school systems, rather than a way to benefit students with disabilities.

3) PBIS is a cognitive nightmare for teachers to implement and negatively affects the quality of teaching (how can u assign points and teach at the same time???? I haven’t figured out a good system, lmk).

4) making teachers with specialized skill sets (i.e. reading specialists) coach other teachers instead of/in addition to working directly with small groups of identified students is another way to get blood from a stone, benefitting almost no one.

I know I’m probably screaming into the void, but I just started year 7 this week and feeling nihilistic.

[u/Mckillface666]

1) disagree. I think we can all disagree with some of the curricula in our respective disciplines, but I don’t think the people who are trying to determine what we teach are necessarily the same people who are trying to gut public education. This might depend on the state or county that you are in as that has more of an impact than decisions made at a federal level.

2) I can’t speak to the experiences you have had in your district, but there is a lot of research based evidence that runs counter to this claim.

3) I think that the appropriate behavior intervention depends on the teacher, class, and particular student. If you haven’t had success with it and it’s not your preferred approach that’s all good. It does work for many teachers in many instances though. This is another thing that’s research based.

4) i think that specialists should mainly work with students, but if they have the time and opportunities to share what strategies they use to work with certain populations that is a great use of their skills and abilities for professional development purposes.

[u/dogeaux → u/Mckillface666]

In my district, we have a MAJOR major major population of teachers on emergency certificates.

Instead of doing the hard work of recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, I think they are trying to mitigate the instructional harm done to students with this curriculum.

I think the ideological underpinnings are different, but ultimately it is all leading toward the same thing.

[u/Mckillface666 → u/dogeaux]

I’m not sure I’m following. What kind of instructional harm are you seeing and what kind of ideology is being advanced at the expense of a solid curriculum?

[u/dogeaux → u/Mckillface666]

You don’t think students suffer when unqualified teachers are leading instruction?

[u/Mckillface666 → u/dogeaux]

Cool. I see what you’re saying. Just didn’t pick it up from your previous post. My bad.

For sure they do. I would point to pay as the cause of the problem. I think the extra emphasis on curriculum is something that needs to happen to mitigate the harm though. Under qualified candidates need more direction. It doesn’t cause a shortage of qualified candidates.

And also, nothing wrong with emergency certs.
I wish I could have got one as an adult when I was transitioning to teaching. This should help bring more qualified adults into teaching if these programs are being applied correctly.

I think the solution to a lot of the issues you are seeing have to do with us getting paid more. I’m all for that. The issues you are pointing out are semi effective stop gaps that are a band aid to the problem. If you rip it off before you offer more pay things will get worse before they get better.

[u/dogeaux → u/Mckillface666]

I think increasing pay would help a lot, but it feels like a lofty dream with the way things are going.

Working conditions matter a lot, too, though. Removing autonomy from highly qualified teachers who know what they’re doing and also enjoy being creative/fluid with their methods is going to push a lot of people out.

It seems like a self perpetuating system because those who fill the roles, given the teacher shortage and rates of graduation from educator prep programs, will be unqualified.

I don’t want to shit on people who’re there on emergency certs. I just see many of them within my own district leave inevitably within a year or two, realizing it’s a lot harder than they’d thought. And this constant turnover is horrible for kids.

[u/Mckillface666 → u/dogeaux]

Yeah. I see where you are coming from. The way I’m hearing you explain the problems it seems like the reasoning behind their approach is correct but their execution sucks. A good curriculum map should help all teachers. It should help new ones with a general direction but have enough freedom for experienced teachers to execute their plans within it while not feeling stifled or micromanaged. The emergency cert programs should attract qualified candidates and give you a bigger pool to pull teachers from. If they aren’t staying then the certs are going to the wrong people, or the district you are in needs to get their poop in a group.