Professional Development Day

***Disclaimer:  Some of the opinions expressed in the following post may have some of you disagreeing with my ramblings.  That's okay with me.  And still, others of you may agree with what I'm saying or may be facing similar circumstances. If you are, I feel for you. Regardless of who you are, please read on and feel free to leave a comment if you are so inclined.  With that said, have at it!***

Today was a teacher inservice, or professional development, as my district sometimes calls it. While my husband and children were outside enjoying the 70-plus degree weather, I was inside going over 1) DATA to help create reading skills groups and how the new DIBELS-NEXT program has impacted reading levels, 2) training on Senteo, 3) an introduction to Skills Tutor, and 4) learning that our district is adopting not only an entire reading program, but new state testing guidelines for AYP. 

1) DATA.  As I've stated before, I don't like DATA.  Not that I don't think data can be helpful, but sometimes it's just overkill.  My district is big on data-driven instruction, but sometimes that same data can be a hindrance to the very children it is supposed to benefit.  Think about it.  Our teachers back in the day had data on us via classwork, quizzes, tests, etc.  Do you think they had to keep track of data points to be reviewed every six weeks? Or multiple checklists for every student for every math lesson and skill?  Or behavior tracking logs for every student? It's crazy! I spend more time recording data for this, that, and the other in order to "tell me how to teach" my students. 

Case in point: Today we were talking about reading skills groups.  My district follows the RTII model for reading skills groups.  The reading specialists use the (now) DIBELS-NEXT scores and Guided Reading packet scores to determine what child goes into which skills group.  We were given a crate of folders with each student's name in order to keep track of the reading progress made in skills group (along with other behavior or learning concerns in general).  The idea is that all of the data can be available in one place if there is ever a question for special education or gifted referrals.  The data is also supposed to be reviewed every six weeks to determine if a particular skills group is working for a particular student.  If not, then adjustments can be made.

My argument is this: Before we began using (what was then RTI), we did our guided reading/skills groups in our own rooms, with our own students.  Now we switch among the grade level according to what level we've been assigned to teach.  So instead of having three or four students below grade level to teach and catch up, I now have a room of 15 or so.  I understand the thinking behind the idea.  However, 15 in a group, while they may all be on the same reading level, are not going to benefit as much as those three or four working directly with me in a smaller group. 

Thing is, our data is showing this.  Since we took the guided reading/skills groups out of our own rooms three years ago, our reading scores have fallen each year.  The kids did better with the smaller groups, the teachers could address the needs and move children between groups if needed (without having to wait six weeks to do so), and the children showed growth.  Our incoming second graders are showing the impact of this change.  Out of 100+ second graders about one-third of the grade is below benchmark! The number gets slightly larger every year. (And it's not anything that first grade is doing in their teaching; they work their butts off!)  Yet, when we asked if we could go back to the old method as a grade level because the data is showing this decline (and has shown this decline for the past few years), we were told we couldn't because the directive came from the top.  Although, we were told we could have a meeting with some of those folks if we chose.  
My other gripe is AYP benchmarks.  If you are a member of a public school system, I'm sure you have heard of AYP in relation to your state educational testing guidelines.  You know, the one tied into good old No Child Left Behind.  Right.  My district (or state?) has decided to increase the benchmark levels beginning with this coming spring's testing.  And the benchmarks are to increase incrementally for the next few years.  I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but one figure stands out like a neon light in the black of night.  Yup, you guessed it: 100%.  100%! My district/state wants us to meet a 100% benchmark in reading and math in the next few years.  WHAT?  WHAT?  ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?! I don't know how this is possible, considering: lack of funding, lack of programs, loss of resources, DATA, and the simple fact that it's a near impossibility unless you spend your entire day drilling your students on skills.  How in the world are we as educators supposed to get all of our students to reach the 100% benchmark when those in charge keep giving us things to do without the resources to do those very things?  Whatever happened to letting the teacher teach?

I forgot.  We can do everything.  We're teachers, parents, nurses, confidantes, writers, readers, mathematicians, scientists, organizers, peacemakers, and artists.  Why not add "miracle workers" to the list too?

And speaking of miracle workers, I mentioned that our district is buying a new reading program, something called "Journeys."  I checked it out online and I think it will be a good resource for the students.  I am not looking forward to changing everything for LFS.  In case your are unaware of what LFS is, it stands for the Learning Focused Schools model, which is a combination of best practices.  Lesson planning and gathering the accompanying materials takes so long because you are doing materials for each subject.  Every lesson is to have an essential question (objective question), whole group activity, partner or small group work, and a distributed summarization (closing activity; my principal prefers one in writing for tracking purposes.).  Each lesson also needs to contain some sort of graphic organizer for the information.  To supplement the lessons, a student learning map should be available, along with vocabulary picture cards and a focus wall for display in the room.  It's a lot of work on the front end, which is why we phased it in over the past few years.  This will be my school's third year of the LFS model.  Of all the subjects, language arts takes the longest because of the units, stories, vocab skills, etc.  We just got all the materials together and the district is changing the program for some of the grades. So now those grades have to start all over. Ugh. 

I think we all need a miracle.