I took this article from the Redbook magazines website. I believe the movie is sending a biased and incorrect view of how most teaches are and their dedication to their career. If you go to the link, there is an article you can read from the parent's perspective, which shows how effective the movie was in skewing the public's opinion of teachers and their union.
"Every film needs a villain, but this one’s got it wrong."
I recently went to go see Waiting for "Superman" with a friend of mine who’s also a teacher in the New York City public school system. When we walked into the theatre, I was excited to see what all of the buzz and controversy was about. I couldn’t wait for the movie to expose all of the issues that public school teachers have to deal with on a daily basis. Walking out was a different story. I had a hard time pinpointing all the different nerves the film hit, but I knew one thing — by the time the credits rolled, I was scared.
Scared? Well, yeah. For one thing, I was scared that the movie sent the wrong message about people like me who are dedicating our lives to public education. I was also scared that anyone who sees the film will start to look at teachers as the enemies, and stop working with us to help us succeed at improving the system we’ve been dealt. Davis Guggenheim, the film’s creator, made it clear that we have to get rid of bad teachers and I could not agree more. But what about the good ones? How do we help them? This country needs to work hard at attracting and retaining bright, motivated teachers in the classroom — not demonizing them. Trust me on this, in most cases, teachers are not the enemy.
For all of the important muckraking that the documentary provides, Guggenheim left out a glaringly obvious perspective — that of American teacher. He had “experts” talk about reform, he gave parents a voice where they don’t normally have one, and he provided the platform for former teachers like Geoffrey Canada and Michelle Rhee to explain how they can “fix” education. (For the record, suggesting that there’s one resolution to this deep-rooted problem is totally delusional).
Guggenheim blatantly left out the people on the front lines, the teachers, and by doing so, made us out to be the bad guys. I’m normally a big fan of Guggenheim’s work, but come on: How can you make a film about education without talking to the people who are running the classrooms now? The movie only focuses on bad teachers, and leaves out the ones who are doing their best without the support, training, and supplies they need to be successful. It’s time for people to realize that when our country sets teachers up for failure, they also set children up for failure.
The film also failed to show the obstacles public school teachers overcome every day. Many teachers are constantly dealing with uncooperative parents (unlike the dedicated parents in the movie) who do little to nothing to support their child’s academic success at home. Hilary Clinton coined the phrase “it takes a village” in the mid 1990’s, but somehow reformers have forgotten how true that saying is. Teachers are expected to do a village’s job...alone. In addition to working with children who come from difficult circumstances, teachers are often not given the supplies they need, even though local districts and states are somehow spending more money per-pupil than ever before. And finally (I’m running out of breath here), many public school teachers often have to deal with unimaginable working conditions that no child should have to learn in and no adult should have to work in.
So here’s my take: Sure, there are bad teachers. And of course, our country’s education system needs a major overhaul. But let’s not ignore the fact that there are tons (and I mean TONS) of teachers out there trying to provide kids with a solid education — many of whom are doing so with minimal resources in overcrowded classrooms in dilapidated buildings. My favorite line in the movie was “Great schools come from great people.” Let’s work together to keep those great teachers in the classroom instead of ostracizing them.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Don't lambaste teachers -- 'we are on your side' | Local Views | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California
Don't lambaste teachers -- 'we are on your side' | Local Views | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California
I like this article because it compares the private sector to the public sector and debunks many myths related to the teaching profession.
Don't lambaste teachers -- 'we are on your side'
By CHRISTA BIDDLE
I really do try to be open-minded to the "other side" of the teachers union argument. However, as a teacher, I believe firmly that we need someone looking out for our best interests, which is what our teachers union provides.
Michelle Malkin's op-ed is a prime example of why we need our union to continue to represent teachers and help protect teachers' rights ("Unions are after your wallet, not your child's interests," March 4).
There is a lot of misunderstood or misquoted information out there about teachers and the teaching profession. For example, teachers don't get three months of paid vacation.
All our time off, including holiday weeks, is unpaid, although our pay is amortized over 10 or 12 months, so it may seem that we receive paid time off.
We actually can be fired just like employees in the private sector -- with proper documentation and a step-by-step procedure moving from verbal warnings through written documentation and eventual termination. Tenure does not protect teachers forever and keep "bad" teachers in the workplace any more than bad employees in the private sector are protected after their probationary period ends.
The process for removal is basically the same. And, in truth, private sector employers knowingly keep "bad" employees on the job for a variety of reasons just as public employers do.
What tenure does is protect teachers from private-interest groups attacking us or removing us from our jobs due to our religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other issues at odds with what they may believe.
And, contrary to what is being passed on as truth to the public, we do not receive exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, we contribute to our retirement just like private-sector employees. Teachers will not retire rich.
We will struggle to make ends meet as the economic climate changes, just like retiring employees in the private sector.
What the public may not know is that, as a teacher, I cannot quit working with one district and move to another without losing all the years of experience (and corresponding level of pay) I've put in.
The most any district will honor when hiring a teacher is about seven years -- more than that is non-negotiable and less than that is likely.
If a teacher is willing to change districts and take the mandatory pay cut, he then begins at the bottom of the seniority list, thereby losing all protections of tenure or years on the job.
Without unions there to protect teachers, a job in a hostile district would become a life sentence or, at the very least, result in a life-changing move followed by a huge cut in pay (if a teacher could even get a job elsewhere).
In the private sector, it is possible to negotiate starting pay and benefits during the hiring process, and years of experience do count towards the level of pay one can negotiate.
benefits lost
So working in a hostile environment in the private sector could be resolved by getting a job elsewhere without starting over at the bottom once more. Additionally, the public is probably not aware that we lose rights to Social Security benefits we may have earned prior to (or after) entering the teaching profession.
What they may know is that we work more than an eight-hour day, grading home work at night and weekends, spending our summers at conferences, taking classes to better our teaching skills and preparing lessons for the upcoming year.
They probably know that we spend our own money, not only on teaching supplies, but on items that help out our students, including food and clothing.
I hope they know that there are far more dedicated teachers out there spending their own time and money to better the education and lives of their students than there are bad teachers stuck in the system taking advantage of their positions.
I attempt to educate people I come in contact with about what it is really like to be a teacher, both the pros and cons.
But when I come across someone as vicious as Malkin and the searing words she chooses to use to describe educators and the teachers union, it truly disturbs me.
Her vitriolic tirade against teachers is meant only to incite further anger and action against us. Her use of words is meant only to harm, not to educate.
Calling New York State United Teachers President Richard Iannuzzi a "fat-cat union official" and referring to the offices he works in as a "200,000 square-foot palace" are carefully chosen words meant to encourage agitation against those in the teaching profession, something she accuses teachers of doing to the public.
words meant to divide
Saying that "if public school teachers spent more time teaching in classrooms and less time community-organizing in political war rooms" the public wouldn't feel as "ripped off" are words meant to further build the us-versus-them wall that makes teachers appear to be the enemy -- of education, the public, and the country's future -- further dividing us from the rest of the populace.
These days teacher-bashing is at a peak. It rips out the hearts of those of us who dedicate our professional lives to teaching the public's children to read tirades such as Malkin's printed in papers across the country.
Teachers realize the current restraints of the economy and accept that it impacts our pay and benefits.
We are victims of the economic crisis right along with the rest of the public. Teachers in Wisconsin are willing to take the needed pay cuts and changes in benefits.
However, they want to continue to have the protection of the teachers union and collective bargaining, which appears to be direly needed based on what I've seen of their governor's actions and words.
give teachers a chance
We, teachers, are simply asking for a fair shake, which we address through our teachers union.
We are not the enemy. We are one of you. Don't believe what you read without carefully analyzing the bias and prejudice of the author.
Please take Malkin's words as those of a journalist who receives her pay and notoriety for writing from an extreme point of view -- not as the truth, as she would have you believe.
Don't allow her words to encourage agitation by you against those in the teaching profession.
Talk with teachers and listen to their replies. You will find that we are on your side.
Christa Biddle teaches English at Jurupa Middle School.
I like this article because it compares the private sector to the public sector and debunks many myths related to the teaching profession.
Don't lambaste teachers -- 'we are on your side'
By CHRISTA BIDDLE
I really do try to be open-minded to the "other side" of the teachers union argument. However, as a teacher, I believe firmly that we need someone looking out for our best interests, which is what our teachers union provides.
Michelle Malkin's op-ed is a prime example of why we need our union to continue to represent teachers and help protect teachers' rights ("Unions are after your wallet, not your child's interests," March 4).
There is a lot of misunderstood or misquoted information out there about teachers and the teaching profession. For example, teachers don't get three months of paid vacation.
All our time off, including holiday weeks, is unpaid, although our pay is amortized over 10 or 12 months, so it may seem that we receive paid time off.
We actually can be fired just like employees in the private sector -- with proper documentation and a step-by-step procedure moving from verbal warnings through written documentation and eventual termination. Tenure does not protect teachers forever and keep "bad" teachers in the workplace any more than bad employees in the private sector are protected after their probationary period ends.
The process for removal is basically the same. And, in truth, private sector employers knowingly keep "bad" employees on the job for a variety of reasons just as public employers do.
What tenure does is protect teachers from private-interest groups attacking us or removing us from our jobs due to our religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other issues at odds with what they may believe.
And, contrary to what is being passed on as truth to the public, we do not receive exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, we contribute to our retirement just like private-sector employees. Teachers will not retire rich.
We will struggle to make ends meet as the economic climate changes, just like retiring employees in the private sector.
What the public may not know is that, as a teacher, I cannot quit working with one district and move to another without losing all the years of experience (and corresponding level of pay) I've put in.
The most any district will honor when hiring a teacher is about seven years -- more than that is non-negotiable and less than that is likely.
If a teacher is willing to change districts and take the mandatory pay cut, he then begins at the bottom of the seniority list, thereby losing all protections of tenure or years on the job.
Without unions there to protect teachers, a job in a hostile district would become a life sentence or, at the very least, result in a life-changing move followed by a huge cut in pay (if a teacher could even get a job elsewhere).
In the private sector, it is possible to negotiate starting pay and benefits during the hiring process, and years of experience do count towards the level of pay one can negotiate.
benefits lost
So working in a hostile environment in the private sector could be resolved by getting a job elsewhere without starting over at the bottom once more. Additionally, the public is probably not aware that we lose rights to Social Security benefits we may have earned prior to (or after) entering the teaching profession.
What they may know is that we work more than an eight-hour day, grading home work at night and weekends, spending our summers at conferences, taking classes to better our teaching skills and preparing lessons for the upcoming year.
They probably know that we spend our own money, not only on teaching supplies, but on items that help out our students, including food and clothing.
I hope they know that there are far more dedicated teachers out there spending their own time and money to better the education and lives of their students than there are bad teachers stuck in the system taking advantage of their positions.
I attempt to educate people I come in contact with about what it is really like to be a teacher, both the pros and cons.
But when I come across someone as vicious as Malkin and the searing words she chooses to use to describe educators and the teachers union, it truly disturbs me.
Her vitriolic tirade against teachers is meant only to incite further anger and action against us. Her use of words is meant only to harm, not to educate.
Calling New York State United Teachers President Richard Iannuzzi a "fat-cat union official" and referring to the offices he works in as a "200,000 square-foot palace" are carefully chosen words meant to encourage agitation against those in the teaching profession, something she accuses teachers of doing to the public.
words meant to divide
Saying that "if public school teachers spent more time teaching in classrooms and less time community-organizing in political war rooms" the public wouldn't feel as "ripped off" are words meant to further build the us-versus-them wall that makes teachers appear to be the enemy -- of education, the public, and the country's future -- further dividing us from the rest of the populace.
These days teacher-bashing is at a peak. It rips out the hearts of those of us who dedicate our professional lives to teaching the public's children to read tirades such as Malkin's printed in papers across the country.
Teachers realize the current restraints of the economy and accept that it impacts our pay and benefits.
We are victims of the economic crisis right along with the rest of the public. Teachers in Wisconsin are willing to take the needed pay cuts and changes in benefits.
However, they want to continue to have the protection of the teachers union and collective bargaining, which appears to be direly needed based on what I've seen of their governor's actions and words.
give teachers a chance
We, teachers, are simply asking for a fair shake, which we address through our teachers union.
We are not the enemy. We are one of you. Don't believe what you read without carefully analyzing the bias and prejudice of the author.
Please take Malkin's words as those of a journalist who receives her pay and notoriety for writing from an extreme point of view -- not as the truth, as she would have you believe.
Don't allow her words to encourage agitation by you against those in the teaching profession.
Talk with teachers and listen to their replies. You will find that we are on your side.
Christa Biddle teaches English at Jurupa Middle School.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Larger Classes Sizes?!
With the economy bad and districts looking to save money, the first thing they do is suggest larger class sizes. Imagine teaching 40 students in 50 minutes. Do you think you would be an effective teacher?
Large Classes can be a Large Problem
By Anne O'Brien on January 7, 2011
In times of fiscal crisis, which few would dispute most districts are in, we have been hearing a bit about “smart” increases in class size. Some are advocating for states to remove class size mandates all together.
In the past, this blog has supported class size reduction. Certainly, the evidence makes it clear to me that small classes, particularly in the early years and for our most disadvantaged students, can improve academic outcomes.
But the flip side of class size debates is not articulated nearly as frequently as it should be. The debate is not only about the benefits of small classes. It is also about the problems that can come with large classes.
I was reminded of this recently thanks to a Detroit Free Press article on the problems resulting from a teacher shortage in Detroit Public Schools. Among them (and there are a lot) are large class sizes. Teachers at nearly a third of Detroit’s schools – 44 of 140 – report classes over the limits outlined in their contract.
These large classes are overwhelming teachers – having 40 to 50 students in a class makes it hard for them to control students and guide their learning. One 24-year veteran who averages more than 40 students in her five classes said: “I’ve won awards. I am a champion teacher. … This is the first time I’ve felt inadequate.”
These classes also upset students. One high school senior pointed out that class sizes are so large that classrooms do not have enough seats. Some students have to stand or go into the hallway. It makes them feel unimportant.
And the biggest problem is that kids aren’t getting the education they deserve. As classes grow, there is less individualized instruction. Teachers struggle to keep up with basic work. As a teacher who works at one of the most successful high schools in the city points out, grading nearly 200 papers three times a week takes “hours upon hours.” She gets behind. And she doesn’t suggest any alternatives, but one is giving students less rigorous work, (or just less work in general) because it’s easier to grade. But as research is demonstrating the importance of high expectations for students, that really is a non-starter for most educators.
So when we talk about things like getting rid of class size mandates to save money, we have to consider the negative implications. Of course, no one would argue that “smart” class size increases would support 40+ students in a class, particularly at lower grades. But if there are no limits on class sizes, what will stop it from happening? The intentions of changing these policies may be good…but there could be some very bad consequences.
Large Classes can be a Large Problem
By Anne O'Brien on January 7, 2011
In times of fiscal crisis, which few would dispute most districts are in, we have been hearing a bit about “smart” increases in class size. Some are advocating for states to remove class size mandates all together.
In the past, this blog has supported class size reduction. Certainly, the evidence makes it clear to me that small classes, particularly in the early years and for our most disadvantaged students, can improve academic outcomes.
But the flip side of class size debates is not articulated nearly as frequently as it should be. The debate is not only about the benefits of small classes. It is also about the problems that can come with large classes.
I was reminded of this recently thanks to a Detroit Free Press article on the problems resulting from a teacher shortage in Detroit Public Schools. Among them (and there are a lot) are large class sizes. Teachers at nearly a third of Detroit’s schools – 44 of 140 – report classes over the limits outlined in their contract.
These large classes are overwhelming teachers – having 40 to 50 students in a class makes it hard for them to control students and guide their learning. One 24-year veteran who averages more than 40 students in her five classes said: “I’ve won awards. I am a champion teacher. … This is the first time I’ve felt inadequate.”
These classes also upset students. One high school senior pointed out that class sizes are so large that classrooms do not have enough seats. Some students have to stand or go into the hallway. It makes them feel unimportant.
And the biggest problem is that kids aren’t getting the education they deserve. As classes grow, there is less individualized instruction. Teachers struggle to keep up with basic work. As a teacher who works at one of the most successful high schools in the city points out, grading nearly 200 papers three times a week takes “hours upon hours.” She gets behind. And she doesn’t suggest any alternatives, but one is giving students less rigorous work, (or just less work in general) because it’s easier to grade. But as research is demonstrating the importance of high expectations for students, that really is a non-starter for most educators.
So when we talk about things like getting rid of class size mandates to save money, we have to consider the negative implications. Of course, no one would argue that “smart” class size increases would support 40+ students in a class, particularly at lower grades. But if there are no limits on class sizes, what will stop it from happening? The intentions of changing these policies may be good…but there could be some very bad consequences.
A Discussion Over Teacher Tenure
With all the political focus on education and creating "better" teachers, there is a big push to remove tenure. Tenure does not guarantee a job for life, a principal can remove an ineffective teacher, but it does take time. This time allows for the teacher to attempt to improve their teaching strategies. I thought this article presented some interesting view points.
Continuing with the tenure conversation Cheryl Williams began earlier this week, I wanted to discuss a recent New York Times article that outlines current efforts by governors to eliminate tenure in their states.
Connecting poor student performance to teachers is clearly a general emphasis among many critics of public education, and it seems to be an especially potent issue now in politics, as evidenced in part by President Obama’s last two State of the Union address in which he discussed teacher assessments. Jumping on this bandwagon of blaming teachers, governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey (and legislatures in other states) want to focus on removing perceived ineffective teachers through eliminating or imposing drastic reductions in tenure protections.
I imagine few would argue that current tenure systems are less than ideal, and there are legitimate reforms to tenure that would benefit all major actors involved. And as the article points out, both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are in favor of good reform (and the AFT practiced what they preach by endorsing a Colorado law last year that allows for the removal of tenured teachers found consistently ineffective). AFT also helped broker tenure and labor reforms in New Haven, Connecticut, and in Baltimore, Maryland, and the NEA was similarly instrumental in principal and teacher evaluation reforms in Hillsborough County, Florida.
So while there are no doubt thoughtful ways to reform tenure to allow for teacher dismissal based on effectiveness rather than simply seniority, these governors and state legislatures seem focused on quick-and-dirty bills that serve more to score political points than to benefit education.
The article quotes former George W. Bush education official Michael Petrilli as asserting that “these new Republican governors are all trying to outreform [sic] one another.” (Although the issue is not confined to Republicans. Democratic legislatures and outspoken democrat Michelle Rhee—former D.C. school chancellor—have also lobbied against tenure.) Clearly in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s case, his aggressive stances against teachers unions—including in tenure issues—have bolstered his reputation both in his state and nationally, and other politicians seem to be hoping for the same effect.
The article also highlights a specious claim by Republican governor Rick Scott, who recently asserted that “good teachers know they don’t need tenure. There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.” Besides the unlikely idea that all “good” teachers are not in favor of tenure, Scott’s statement is rash to say the least. Tenure serves a legitimate function in protecting teachers from arbitrary dismissal based on reasons not related to their effectiveness. Though often misconstrued as automatically granting teachers jobs for life, tenure laws are actually aimed at fair dismissal policies. The third party mediation that tenure laws require helps to tease out whether dismissal is appropriate, or based on unfair accusations deriving from personal vendettas, unfair stereotypes, opposing political views, and differing parameters of what teaching should encompass. A current issue that illustrates the last two categories (and in some cases all four) is that of teaching topics that are controversial in certain religious or political communities. The Scopes trial went up the court system for a reason: sometimes administrators, local authorities, and teachers allow personal beliefs to interfere with legitimate teaching efforts and so mediation is necessary. Further, there are logical concerns by more experienced teachers that if tenure laws are reformed they will have a target on their backs—regardless of their actual performance—simply because they are at the top of the pay scale.
But in any case, there is an underlying problem with the whole debate over tenure: there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a good or bad teacher, nor clear ways of ascertaining how teachers measure up to these definitions (I think we can all concede test scores are highly imperfect indicators). Very few teachers exhibit obviously problematic behaviors like sleeping during school, hitting kids, or reading magazines while students run wild. The vast majority do what the system asks. So until there is a way of changing system expectations and then pinpointing which teachers cannot work outside of teacher manual bullet points, I don’t imagine tenure reform will have much of an impact on the education system and its outcomes.
Read more comments here...
Continuing with the tenure conversation Cheryl Williams began earlier this week, I wanted to discuss a recent New York Times article that outlines current efforts by governors to eliminate tenure in their states.
Connecting poor student performance to teachers is clearly a general emphasis among many critics of public education, and it seems to be an especially potent issue now in politics, as evidenced in part by President Obama’s last two State of the Union address in which he discussed teacher assessments. Jumping on this bandwagon of blaming teachers, governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey (and legislatures in other states) want to focus on removing perceived ineffective teachers through eliminating or imposing drastic reductions in tenure protections.
I imagine few would argue that current tenure systems are less than ideal, and there are legitimate reforms to tenure that would benefit all major actors involved. And as the article points out, both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are in favor of good reform (and the AFT practiced what they preach by endorsing a Colorado law last year that allows for the removal of tenured teachers found consistently ineffective). AFT also helped broker tenure and labor reforms in New Haven, Connecticut, and in Baltimore, Maryland, and the NEA was similarly instrumental in principal and teacher evaluation reforms in Hillsborough County, Florida.
So while there are no doubt thoughtful ways to reform tenure to allow for teacher dismissal based on effectiveness rather than simply seniority, these governors and state legislatures seem focused on quick-and-dirty bills that serve more to score political points than to benefit education.
The article quotes former George W. Bush education official Michael Petrilli as asserting that “these new Republican governors are all trying to outreform [sic] one another.” (Although the issue is not confined to Republicans. Democratic legislatures and outspoken democrat Michelle Rhee—former D.C. school chancellor—have also lobbied against tenure.) Clearly in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s case, his aggressive stances against teachers unions—including in tenure issues—have bolstered his reputation both in his state and nationally, and other politicians seem to be hoping for the same effect.
The article also highlights a specious claim by Republican governor Rick Scott, who recently asserted that “good teachers know they don’t need tenure. There is no reason to have it except to protect those that don’t perform as they should.” Besides the unlikely idea that all “good” teachers are not in favor of tenure, Scott’s statement is rash to say the least. Tenure serves a legitimate function in protecting teachers from arbitrary dismissal based on reasons not related to their effectiveness. Though often misconstrued as automatically granting teachers jobs for life, tenure laws are actually aimed at fair dismissal policies. The third party mediation that tenure laws require helps to tease out whether dismissal is appropriate, or based on unfair accusations deriving from personal vendettas, unfair stereotypes, opposing political views, and differing parameters of what teaching should encompass. A current issue that illustrates the last two categories (and in some cases all four) is that of teaching topics that are controversial in certain religious or political communities. The Scopes trial went up the court system for a reason: sometimes administrators, local authorities, and teachers allow personal beliefs to interfere with legitimate teaching efforts and so mediation is necessary. Further, there are logical concerns by more experienced teachers that if tenure laws are reformed they will have a target on their backs—regardless of their actual performance—simply because they are at the top of the pay scale.
But in any case, there is an underlying problem with the whole debate over tenure: there is not a clear definition of what constitutes a good or bad teacher, nor clear ways of ascertaining how teachers measure up to these definitions (I think we can all concede test scores are highly imperfect indicators). Very few teachers exhibit obviously problematic behaviors like sleeping during school, hitting kids, or reading magazines while students run wild. The vast majority do what the system asks. So until there is a way of changing system expectations and then pinpointing which teachers cannot work outside of teacher manual bullet points, I don’t imagine tenure reform will have much of an impact on the education system and its outcomes.
Read more comments here...
Value of School Counselors
As of yesterday, our district has decided to remove 12 counseling positions. I agree that counselors are under-appreciated.
As National School Counseling Week draws to a close, it seems fitting to reflect on the state of the profession in our nation.
School counselors are highly trained individuals who help students improve their academic achievement, their personal and social development and their career planning. Their services help students resolve emotional and behavioral issues, often improving the climate of a school. And they help students develop a clearer focus or sense of direction, which can improve student achievement. Research over the past several decades shows the positive impact of school counselors.
But for all the evidence, the work of school counselors can be under-appreciated and is rarely acknowledged in discussions of school improvement. And in times of tough budgets, it is often the school counselor (or other support staff) whose role is cut.
As Valerie Strauss pointed out back in January, school counselors in America are expected to help an extremely large number of students. It is recommended that there be one school counselor for every 250 students. In 2008, nationwide there was one counselor for every 457 students – and that was before school budgets were slashed. In California there were 814 students per counselor. In Arizona, Minnesota and Utah there were more than 700 students per read more
As National School Counseling Week draws to a close, it seems fitting to reflect on the state of the profession in our nation.
School counselors are highly trained individuals who help students improve their academic achievement, their personal and social development and their career planning. Their services help students resolve emotional and behavioral issues, often improving the climate of a school. And they help students develop a clearer focus or sense of direction, which can improve student achievement. Research over the past several decades shows the positive impact of school counselors.
But for all the evidence, the work of school counselors can be under-appreciated and is rarely acknowledged in discussions of school improvement. And in times of tough budgets, it is often the school counselor (or other support staff) whose role is cut.
As Valerie Strauss pointed out back in January, school counselors in America are expected to help an extremely large number of students. It is recommended that there be one school counselor for every 250 students. In 2008, nationwide there was one counselor for every 457 students – and that was before school budgets were slashed. In California there were 814 students per counselor. In Arizona, Minnesota and Utah there were more than 700 students per read more
Monday, February 14, 2011
Various Note Taking Method for Middle & High School
There are so many fun and creative teaching techniques I could share, but I think taking and using notes are just as important in a classroom as a fun lab. Notes are taken in a lot of classroom and most students to do not use their notes to study or prepare for class and tests, especially in middle school. However, I believe good note-taking skills are important and there are creative ways to teach and explain notes to engage students in their own learning process.
I remember taking notes in middle and high school and zoning out. As long as the students were quiet and were writing, the teacher would go on and on with their lecture, and I never understood the importance of taking notes until college. So when I became a teacher, I change up my notes to keep the students engaged.
During the process of going over notes, I make sure to have pictures, video clips, and visual aids to help make science fun and exciting. To this day, I still have students singing a bacteria song from August, I found on You Tube when I was explaining prokaryotic cells to them. Although students know "note days" introduce new concepts that may take the whole period, they always look forward to the fun and various ways I make science interesting and engaging. Sometimes I find T-shirts and songs that go along with what I’m teaching and students always try to figure out how my shirt or song connects with the science concept they are learning. (Having copies of the notes makes it easier for absent or new students to have access to the information. The notes can also be given to my RSP students or any student who struggles with writing to keep).
One way is through interactive notes. I give the notes to the students in advance. Students are to copy the notes in Cornell note style (a school wide system). Throughout the notes, I will ask them simple questions that ask them to reflect back on the notes they are taking. I feel it is important for students to be thinking about the material they are learning, but the questions should not be too difficult since we haven’t reviewed the concepts as a class yet. I feel front loading the students with the notes makes it a lot easier for me to break down and explain the science concepts to the students the following day.
When we go over the notes, I break the notes into short segments, and use power teaching to have students repeat the vital information back to their partner. During power teaching, students are to share the information and use coordinated gestures I have them taught them with their lab partner, and their lab partner, is to repeat back the information in their own words. I call on students randomly to make sure the vital information was learned and shared. If the student is not able to explain the concept back to me or has a weak answer, I will review the material in a different way and then ask for students to explain the concept to their partner again.
Another way I will format my notes is to place the note information into question and answer format. One partner reads the question, the other partner reads the answers in 30 seconds (or whatever time frame I feel is needed for the notes). The next time we read the notes, I have the students switch roles or we start reading at a different section of the notes. I use this technique as a way to start or end class to help review the important concepts we are learning in science.
A third technique I use reviewing notes is using the summary box in Cornell notes, in various ways. I believe it is always useful for students to learn to summarize their notes and what they have learned, but sometimes I feel it is necessary to take their learning a step further to see how well they have mastered the science concepts. For example, in learning about cell organelles, I may ask students to explain what would happen in the cell if we were missing one of the organelles? Sometimes I will ask students to create a Venn Diagram to compare 2 concepts or make predictions based on their current knowledge.
Another technique in using notes is using their lab partners to check their work. Students will read their summaries, or answers to questions, to their partners to make sure their summaries make sense. If their lab partner doesn’t understand their summary, the students are encouraged to discuss the summary, clarify the concepts, and to make sure the sentences are written clearly. Then I call on students randomly, sometimes using playing cards with their names on it, to make sure that I am calling various students of different skills. This way I can determine if the students truly understood the concept I taught in class.
I remember taking notes in middle and high school and zoning out. As long as the students were quiet and were writing, the teacher would go on and on with their lecture, and I never understood the importance of taking notes until college. So when I became a teacher, I change up my notes to keep the students engaged.
During the process of going over notes, I make sure to have pictures, video clips, and visual aids to help make science fun and exciting. To this day, I still have students singing a bacteria song from August, I found on You Tube when I was explaining prokaryotic cells to them. Although students know "note days" introduce new concepts that may take the whole period, they always look forward to the fun and various ways I make science interesting and engaging. Sometimes I find T-shirts and songs that go along with what I’m teaching and students always try to figure out how my shirt or song connects with the science concept they are learning. (Having copies of the notes makes it easier for absent or new students to have access to the information. The notes can also be given to my RSP students or any student who struggles with writing to keep).
One way is through interactive notes. I give the notes to the students in advance. Students are to copy the notes in Cornell note style (a school wide system). Throughout the notes, I will ask them simple questions that ask them to reflect back on the notes they are taking. I feel it is important for students to be thinking about the material they are learning, but the questions should not be too difficult since we haven’t reviewed the concepts as a class yet. I feel front loading the students with the notes makes it a lot easier for me to break down and explain the science concepts to the students the following day.
When we go over the notes, I break the notes into short segments, and use power teaching to have students repeat the vital information back to their partner. During power teaching, students are to share the information and use coordinated gestures I have them taught them with their lab partner, and their lab partner, is to repeat back the information in their own words. I call on students randomly to make sure the vital information was learned and shared. If the student is not able to explain the concept back to me or has a weak answer, I will review the material in a different way and then ask for students to explain the concept to their partner again.
Another way I will format my notes is to place the note information into question and answer format. One partner reads the question, the other partner reads the answers in 30 seconds (or whatever time frame I feel is needed for the notes). The next time we read the notes, I have the students switch roles or we start reading at a different section of the notes. I use this technique as a way to start or end class to help review the important concepts we are learning in science.
A third technique I use reviewing notes is using the summary box in Cornell notes, in various ways. I believe it is always useful for students to learn to summarize their notes and what they have learned, but sometimes I feel it is necessary to take their learning a step further to see how well they have mastered the science concepts. For example, in learning about cell organelles, I may ask students to explain what would happen in the cell if we were missing one of the organelles? Sometimes I will ask students to create a Venn Diagram to compare 2 concepts or make predictions based on their current knowledge.
Another technique in using notes is using their lab partners to check their work. Students will read their summaries, or answers to questions, to their partners to make sure their summaries make sense. If their lab partner doesn’t understand their summary, the students are encouraged to discuss the summary, clarify the concepts, and to make sure the sentences are written clearly. Then I call on students randomly, sometimes using playing cards with their names on it, to make sure that I am calling various students of different skills. This way I can determine if the students truly understood the concept I taught in class.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Cash for Grades?
This article presents several pros and cons to the idea of paying students for good grades.
Cash for Grades?
Privately funded programs try paying students to boost achievement.
By Mary Ellen Flannery
Do you really get what you pay for? At the shoe store, yes. But when it comes to paying kids for grades, probably not – especially if what you’re trying to buy is a life-long love of learning.
Long a tactic of fed-up parents, the idea of paying for good grades has migrated from the family room to the school house. In states ranging from Texas to Massachusetts, a growing number of students are pocketing cold cash for good grades or test scores on Advanced Placement and SAT exams, typically through privately funded programs.
In Houston, a three-month-old, privately funded $1.5 million program will reward fifth-graders – and, notably, their parents – when they master basic math standards. Each family stands to earn $1,050, not a small amount, especially in a community where 80 percent of kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Meanwhile, down the road, more than 10,000 Dallas students have earned up to $400 for taking and passing Advanced Placement tests in a newly expanded $1.5 million program funded by a private foundation.
It makes sense to some. Says Stacey Priestley, a northern Indiana teacher: “My son gets money for grades. We tell him going to school and getting good grades is his job. If he does his job well, he gets paid just like a job in the real world.”
But most Americans, and many educators, still feel uncomfortable with the idea. According to the most recent national Phi Delta Kappa poll, one out of four Americans say students should be paid for their grades. There’s something about the practice that just feels. wrong. Isn’t there greater value in reading a good book than a certificate for cheese pizza? Isn’t education cheapened when its sum value is a remote chance at a limo ride? (Yes, some schools offer limo rides as incentives, as shown below in the video excerpt from the Freakonomics movie.)
Many teachers also say paying students for grades leads to practical problems in their classrooms, including pressure to inflate grades and conflict with students and parents. In Kentucky, where the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship provides up to $500 in state lottery revenues to kids with all A’s, parents “rip teachers” when their kid gets a C, says teacher Chris Spoonamore.
But the bigger question is: Does it even work?
While proponents hope those millions will help close achievement gaps, especially in poor communities where a dollar really makes a difference, research shows that the money might better be spent on the kinds of things we know can help improve student achievement, like teacher training and smaller class sizes.
Rewarding Whom?
Barbara Marinak, an assistant professor of education at Penn State University, says the research on monetary rewards is quite clear: They don’t work. “Any type of ‘extrinsic’ reward, by and large, undermines motivation,” she told National Public Radio last year.
Similarly, Alfie Kohn, the author of Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s and Other Bribes, says the bigger the reward, the bigger the damage done.
Especially when it comes to creative work, research shows that money doesn’t work – in fact, it probably deters achievement in the long run. Moreover, any kind of extrinsic reward can be dangerous. In a well-known Stanford University experiment, more than three decades old, researchers divided preschoolers into two groups: one that would get gold stars for their drawings and one that would not. Both drew enthusiastically, but when asked to draw again – without a reward – the gold-star group cut its drawing time in half. It appeared as if they’d lost enthusiasm for the task when it didn’t come with a reward.
“What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning,” University of Rochester professor Edward Deci told TIME magazine. And, other research, with young students and teenagers, show that they all perform better and work harder when the task is interesting, fun to do, and relevant to their lives.
“There has to be intrinsic motivation,” says Kentucky’s Spoonamore.
More recently, Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Jr., ran a $6.3 million experiment involving 18,000 students in Washington, D.C., New York, Dallas and Chicago. In each city, the incentives looked different – with varying results. In New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn’t budge.
But in D.C., where kids were rewarded for a variety of tasks, including earning good grades, attending class and completing homework, some kids did marginally better on reading comprehension tests. And in Dallas, where kids got $2 for each book they read – more books were read, and reading comprehension scores significantly improved.
The difference? Simply playing kids for good grades or test scores doesn’t actually give them any more skills, Fryer theorized. The system needs to be more complicated – and more specific to the needs of children – to be effective.
Similarly, a growing program of rewarding kids for passing Advanced Placement tests also has a teacher training component. The National Math and Science initiative, which has poured millions of dollars into seven states, rewards both students and teachers up to $100 for each passing score, and it provides professional development for teachers. In Mashpee, Massachusetts, the local union agreed that its members should accept the financial incentive — and that money is collected in an account for teacher supplies and additional training.
A recent study showed that AP enrollment in those places is up, but it’s also increasing in many schools and districts without rewards as well. Said one Mashpee student to The Cape Cod Times, “"I think I'd just try my best anyway.(The class) is kind of a challenge, but it's a fun class because (our teacher) makes it fun.”
Blogger's Note:
Two things: 1. if students should get paid for doing a good "job" in school, then they need to be held responsible for taxes, school supplies, and other expenses. 2. I think we are forgetting that education is a free program; and we are considering paying students to do their "job" in a free program? It seems we have scrapped the bottom of the barrel when we are trying to pay students to do their job.
Cash for Grades?
Privately funded programs try paying students to boost achievement.
By Mary Ellen Flannery
Do you really get what you pay for? At the shoe store, yes. But when it comes to paying kids for grades, probably not – especially if what you’re trying to buy is a life-long love of learning.
Long a tactic of fed-up parents, the idea of paying for good grades has migrated from the family room to the school house. In states ranging from Texas to Massachusetts, a growing number of students are pocketing cold cash for good grades or test scores on Advanced Placement and SAT exams, typically through privately funded programs.
In Houston, a three-month-old, privately funded $1.5 million program will reward fifth-graders – and, notably, their parents – when they master basic math standards. Each family stands to earn $1,050, not a small amount, especially in a community where 80 percent of kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Meanwhile, down the road, more than 10,000 Dallas students have earned up to $400 for taking and passing Advanced Placement tests in a newly expanded $1.5 million program funded by a private foundation.
It makes sense to some. Says Stacey Priestley, a northern Indiana teacher: “My son gets money for grades. We tell him going to school and getting good grades is his job. If he does his job well, he gets paid just like a job in the real world.”
But most Americans, and many educators, still feel uncomfortable with the idea. According to the most recent national Phi Delta Kappa poll, one out of four Americans say students should be paid for their grades. There’s something about the practice that just feels. wrong. Isn’t there greater value in reading a good book than a certificate for cheese pizza? Isn’t education cheapened when its sum value is a remote chance at a limo ride? (Yes, some schools offer limo rides as incentives, as shown below in the video excerpt from the Freakonomics movie.)
Many teachers also say paying students for grades leads to practical problems in their classrooms, including pressure to inflate grades and conflict with students and parents. In Kentucky, where the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship provides up to $500 in state lottery revenues to kids with all A’s, parents “rip teachers” when their kid gets a C, says teacher Chris Spoonamore.
But the bigger question is: Does it even work?
While proponents hope those millions will help close achievement gaps, especially in poor communities where a dollar really makes a difference, research shows that the money might better be spent on the kinds of things we know can help improve student achievement, like teacher training and smaller class sizes.
Rewarding Whom?
Barbara Marinak, an assistant professor of education at Penn State University, says the research on monetary rewards is quite clear: They don’t work. “Any type of ‘extrinsic’ reward, by and large, undermines motivation,” she told National Public Radio last year.
Similarly, Alfie Kohn, the author of Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s and Other Bribes, says the bigger the reward, the bigger the damage done.
Especially when it comes to creative work, research shows that money doesn’t work – in fact, it probably deters achievement in the long run. Moreover, any kind of extrinsic reward can be dangerous. In a well-known Stanford University experiment, more than three decades old, researchers divided preschoolers into two groups: one that would get gold stars for their drawings and one that would not. Both drew enthusiastically, but when asked to draw again – without a reward – the gold-star group cut its drawing time in half. It appeared as if they’d lost enthusiasm for the task when it didn’t come with a reward.
“What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning,” University of Rochester professor Edward Deci told TIME magazine. And, other research, with young students and teenagers, show that they all perform better and work harder when the task is interesting, fun to do, and relevant to their lives.
“There has to be intrinsic motivation,” says Kentucky’s Spoonamore.
More recently, Harvard economist Roland Fryer, Jr., ran a $6.3 million experiment involving 18,000 students in Washington, D.C., New York, Dallas and Chicago. In each city, the incentives looked different – with varying results. In New York, where kids were paid for good test scores, and in Chicago, where they were paid for good grades, achievement didn’t budge.
But in D.C., where kids were rewarded for a variety of tasks, including earning good grades, attending class and completing homework, some kids did marginally better on reading comprehension tests. And in Dallas, where kids got $2 for each book they read – more books were read, and reading comprehension scores significantly improved.
The difference? Simply playing kids for good grades or test scores doesn’t actually give them any more skills, Fryer theorized. The system needs to be more complicated – and more specific to the needs of children – to be effective.
Similarly, a growing program of rewarding kids for passing Advanced Placement tests also has a teacher training component. The National Math and Science initiative, which has poured millions of dollars into seven states, rewards both students and teachers up to $100 for each passing score, and it provides professional development for teachers. In Mashpee, Massachusetts, the local union agreed that its members should accept the financial incentive — and that money is collected in an account for teacher supplies and additional training.
A recent study showed that AP enrollment in those places is up, but it’s also increasing in many schools and districts without rewards as well. Said one Mashpee student to The Cape Cod Times, “"I think I'd just try my best anyway.(The class) is kind of a challenge, but it's a fun class because (our teacher) makes it fun.”
Blogger's Note:
Two things: 1. if students should get paid for doing a good "job" in school, then they need to be held responsible for taxes, school supplies, and other expenses. 2. I think we are forgetting that education is a free program; and we are considering paying students to do their "job" in a free program? It seems we have scrapped the bottom of the barrel when we are trying to pay students to do their job.
Monday, January 17, 2011
I liked this article from Redbook (Sept 2010) because it spoke of the balance needed between both parents to raise a family successfully.
7 Secrets of Low-Stress Families
It was the first experiment of its kind: Thirty-two California families opened their doors (their front doors, bedroom doors, even bathroom doors) to researchers from UCLA who wanted to find out how they manage the demands of work and family life. With a three-person crew, researchers occupied families' homes for four days from morning until bedtime, recording every minute spent folding laundry, every homework panic, every dinner table dispute about the yuckiness of vegetables. The researchers conducted interviews with each of the family members and measured their stress levels throughout the day. The families were studied between 2002 and 2005; each had two working parents, two or more children, and a mortgage — a profile that looks like many American households. "When I observed these families, I felt like I was looking in at my own life," says lead researcher Tami Kremer-Sadlik, Ph.D., director of research at UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. "I'm a working mom with two children, and I could identify with the women we studied who reported feeling pressed for time and who were trying to balance work and family demands." But among those stressful moments, researchers also saw the key instances of warmth and love that make great families. And as Kremer-Sadlik and other female researchers who had their own families found out, getting a glimpse into the lives of other families gives us a unique perspective on how to better take care of our own. Use what they learned to calm stress and create joy in your house.
1. Low-stress couples don't divvy up the chores.
For one part of the project, Kremer-Sadlik and a colleague studied how couples' division of housework was connected to their marital satisfaction. "Surprisingly, it didn't matter how evenly couples split up the chores," Kremer-Sadlik says. "We found that both spouses were happier when both felt like they were working toward the same goal, regardless of who did more" (and women did more across the board). "The women in happy marriages told us that their spouses seemed to have an understanding of what needed to be done. We observed their husbands setting the table while their wife was cooking, or straightening up without being told what to do." Sound too good to be true? Know that just talking about your joint mission for the family can eliminate much of the "keeping score" conflict. "The happy couples often discussed their shared goals for their family," she says. "There was more of a we-ness there — and that spilled over into chores. Their attitude was more, 'We do for our family,' not, 'I do this for you.'" But with two working parents' and children's schedules to coordinate, researcher Darby Saxbe, Ph.D., a 33-year-old mom from Los Angeles, observed many couples communicating only about who needed to do what. "It felt like they were running a business!" Saxbe says. "Squeezing in little moments of fun with your partner — whether you steal a quick kiss or exchange a joke — makes a difference." And researchers noticed that in some homes where the wives expressed more appreciation, the husbands also took on more household tasks.
2. Low-stress families find small moments of togetherness.
Every mom fantasizes about taking the perfect family vacation or spending a blissed-out day with her husband and kids. But real-life bonding time is made up of much smaller events. "I think a lot of us have this idea that we need to create big moments of togetherness, but we saw so many times that families had opportunities to connect throughout the day that they weren't aware of," Kremer-Sadlik says. Those small moments might be the 10 minutes you spend braiding your daughter's hair or your time spent cheering on your son at his Little League game. "I remember one moment when a daughter and mom were folding laundry, and the daughter stuck her foot in a sock and challenged her mom to find her foot among the pile of laundry," she recalls. "It was a loving moment of laughing and playing around in the midst of daily life."
Belinda Campos, Ph.D., whose focus in the study was family relationships, noticed the same thing. "There's this cultural ideal of wanting to carve out quality time," says the 36-year-old from Irvine, CA. "But many families overlooked the daily stuff that keeps you connected." One example was the way families reacted when dads came home from work. "There were two types of behaviors among the families: those where the wives and children greeted the dad with a warm hello, and those where the children never got up from their video games and the wives greeted Dad with logistics like, 'Did you pick up the chicken for dinner?'" Campos says. "But those seconds after Dad walked in the door may have shaped his mood for the night. It's such a small thing; that's the moment to acknowledge that a person is coming into a place where he matters."
3. Low-stress parents are role models — not pals.
Treating your partner with respect is not only good for your marriage — it also actually affects the whole family dynamic. "When spouses showed patience and support, as opposed to being impatient, sarcastic, or critical, their children were more respectful toward them, and the smoother the households ran," Kremer-Sadlik says of her findings from a previous study. "Their mini goals throughout the day, such as getting dinner on the table or finishing homework, ran more smoothly and more pleasantly." The same was true for parents who set the rules for the kids, as opposed to those who let their children help make the decisions. "When parents delegated chores to their children, rather than asking them which chores they wanted to do, there were fewer tantrums and arguments," Campos says. "There was still affection and humor in homes where parents were the bosses, but there was never a question of who was in charge."
4. Low-stress moms make dinner from scratch.
Believe it or not, using processed convenience foods for dinner doesn't actually save you cooking time. That's what really surprised 39-year-old mom and researcher Margaret Beck, whose focus for the study was food preparation. "All the families spent roughly one hour preparing dinner, whether they used processed foods or fresh ingredients," she says. The moms who prepared more convenience foods tended to overcompensate by having more courses — either side dishes or separate meals for the kids — which wasted time. And if you want your children to eat what's on the table: "The kids who assisted in the food preparation always ate what was served," Beck says. "And the mood in the house was lighter and happier when the kids spend cooking time in the kitchen." Talk about a win-win!
5. Low-stress moms take five minutes of me time.
There's a secret to being fully present and enjoying family life after a demanding day at work: "The findings suggested that when women unwound alone for 5 or 10 minutes, it set a positive tone for the rest of the night," says researcher Shu-wen Wang, a 28-year-old mom from Los Angeles who helped review more than 1,540 hours of footage. "Moms reported unwinding by exercising, gardening, or having a candy bar — not that I recommend that last approach! I always felt selfish taking time for me, especially after working all day, but this study proved to me how healthy it is for moms and their families."
6. Low-stress families watch TV together.
If you feel guilty every time your family plops in front a television after a long day rather than doing something more interactive, don't sweat it. "Families who watched TV together showed many bonding behaviors," Campos says. "Bonding can be sharing snacks, high-fiving each other if the Lakers score a basket, or guessing trivia questions together during Jeopardy!" Even sitcoms can bring you closer. "When families laugh together during a TV show, that's a shared moment they have in common, and it creates a memory," she says. So on days where you just can't muster the energy to recruit the kids for crazy 8's or kickball in the yard, know that a little TV time can be good for your family too.
7. Low-stress families embrace daily rituals.
"I used to believe that spontaneity and excitement were what kept couples connected, but it's truly the routine and continuity that set the foundation for making family relationships thrive," Wang says. "Whether it was a couple sitting down at the end of the day with a cup of coffee or parents reading a bedtime story to their children, these little moments are what make family life so comforting and kept couples close." Sometimes, the mad-dash moments seem to define our days, but "it's only when we find moments to slow down that we can fully appreciate those everyday moments that make a family," Saxbe says. "I remember watching a mom kissing her son and tucking him into bed. The son responded, 'I want another kiss, Mommy!' So the mom kissed him again. They repeated this five or six times — it was so sweet! Watching this made me appreciate how lucky I am to have a family I care about and how I how important it is to cherish these little moments of love when they come along."
7 Secrets of Low-Stress Families
It was the first experiment of its kind: Thirty-two California families opened their doors (their front doors, bedroom doors, even bathroom doors) to researchers from UCLA who wanted to find out how they manage the demands of work and family life. With a three-person crew, researchers occupied families' homes for four days from morning until bedtime, recording every minute spent folding laundry, every homework panic, every dinner table dispute about the yuckiness of vegetables. The researchers conducted interviews with each of the family members and measured their stress levels throughout the day. The families were studied between 2002 and 2005; each had two working parents, two or more children, and a mortgage — a profile that looks like many American households. "When I observed these families, I felt like I was looking in at my own life," says lead researcher Tami Kremer-Sadlik, Ph.D., director of research at UCLA's Center on the Everyday Lives of Families. "I'm a working mom with two children, and I could identify with the women we studied who reported feeling pressed for time and who were trying to balance work and family demands." But among those stressful moments, researchers also saw the key instances of warmth and love that make great families. And as Kremer-Sadlik and other female researchers who had their own families found out, getting a glimpse into the lives of other families gives us a unique perspective on how to better take care of our own. Use what they learned to calm stress and create joy in your house.
1. Low-stress couples don't divvy up the chores.
For one part of the project, Kremer-Sadlik and a colleague studied how couples' division of housework was connected to their marital satisfaction. "Surprisingly, it didn't matter how evenly couples split up the chores," Kremer-Sadlik says. "We found that both spouses were happier when both felt like they were working toward the same goal, regardless of who did more" (and women did more across the board). "The women in happy marriages told us that their spouses seemed to have an understanding of what needed to be done. We observed their husbands setting the table while their wife was cooking, or straightening up without being told what to do." Sound too good to be true? Know that just talking about your joint mission for the family can eliminate much of the "keeping score" conflict. "The happy couples often discussed their shared goals for their family," she says. "There was more of a we-ness there — and that spilled over into chores. Their attitude was more, 'We do for our family,' not, 'I do this for you.'" But with two working parents' and children's schedules to coordinate, researcher Darby Saxbe, Ph.D., a 33-year-old mom from Los Angeles, observed many couples communicating only about who needed to do what. "It felt like they were running a business!" Saxbe says. "Squeezing in little moments of fun with your partner — whether you steal a quick kiss or exchange a joke — makes a difference." And researchers noticed that in some homes where the wives expressed more appreciation, the husbands also took on more household tasks.
2. Low-stress families find small moments of togetherness.
Every mom fantasizes about taking the perfect family vacation or spending a blissed-out day with her husband and kids. But real-life bonding time is made up of much smaller events. "I think a lot of us have this idea that we need to create big moments of togetherness, but we saw so many times that families had opportunities to connect throughout the day that they weren't aware of," Kremer-Sadlik says. Those small moments might be the 10 minutes you spend braiding your daughter's hair or your time spent cheering on your son at his Little League game. "I remember one moment when a daughter and mom were folding laundry, and the daughter stuck her foot in a sock and challenged her mom to find her foot among the pile of laundry," she recalls. "It was a loving moment of laughing and playing around in the midst of daily life."
Belinda Campos, Ph.D., whose focus in the study was family relationships, noticed the same thing. "There's this cultural ideal of wanting to carve out quality time," says the 36-year-old from Irvine, CA. "But many families overlooked the daily stuff that keeps you connected." One example was the way families reacted when dads came home from work. "There were two types of behaviors among the families: those where the wives and children greeted the dad with a warm hello, and those where the children never got up from their video games and the wives greeted Dad with logistics like, 'Did you pick up the chicken for dinner?'" Campos says. "But those seconds after Dad walked in the door may have shaped his mood for the night. It's such a small thing; that's the moment to acknowledge that a person is coming into a place where he matters."
3. Low-stress parents are role models — not pals.
Treating your partner with respect is not only good for your marriage — it also actually affects the whole family dynamic. "When spouses showed patience and support, as opposed to being impatient, sarcastic, or critical, their children were more respectful toward them, and the smoother the households ran," Kremer-Sadlik says of her findings from a previous study. "Their mini goals throughout the day, such as getting dinner on the table or finishing homework, ran more smoothly and more pleasantly." The same was true for parents who set the rules for the kids, as opposed to those who let their children help make the decisions. "When parents delegated chores to their children, rather than asking them which chores they wanted to do, there were fewer tantrums and arguments," Campos says. "There was still affection and humor in homes where parents were the bosses, but there was never a question of who was in charge."
4. Low-stress moms make dinner from scratch.
Believe it or not, using processed convenience foods for dinner doesn't actually save you cooking time. That's what really surprised 39-year-old mom and researcher Margaret Beck, whose focus for the study was food preparation. "All the families spent roughly one hour preparing dinner, whether they used processed foods or fresh ingredients," she says. The moms who prepared more convenience foods tended to overcompensate by having more courses — either side dishes or separate meals for the kids — which wasted time. And if you want your children to eat what's on the table: "The kids who assisted in the food preparation always ate what was served," Beck says. "And the mood in the house was lighter and happier when the kids spend cooking time in the kitchen." Talk about a win-win!
5. Low-stress moms take five minutes of me time.
There's a secret to being fully present and enjoying family life after a demanding day at work: "The findings suggested that when women unwound alone for 5 or 10 minutes, it set a positive tone for the rest of the night," says researcher Shu-wen Wang, a 28-year-old mom from Los Angeles who helped review more than 1,540 hours of footage. "Moms reported unwinding by exercising, gardening, or having a candy bar — not that I recommend that last approach! I always felt selfish taking time for me, especially after working all day, but this study proved to me how healthy it is for moms and their families."
6. Low-stress families watch TV together.
If you feel guilty every time your family plops in front a television after a long day rather than doing something more interactive, don't sweat it. "Families who watched TV together showed many bonding behaviors," Campos says. "Bonding can be sharing snacks, high-fiving each other if the Lakers score a basket, or guessing trivia questions together during Jeopardy!" Even sitcoms can bring you closer. "When families laugh together during a TV show, that's a shared moment they have in common, and it creates a memory," she says. So on days where you just can't muster the energy to recruit the kids for crazy 8's or kickball in the yard, know that a little TV time can be good for your family too.
7. Low-stress families embrace daily rituals.
"I used to believe that spontaneity and excitement were what kept couples connected, but it's truly the routine and continuity that set the foundation for making family relationships thrive," Wang says. "Whether it was a couple sitting down at the end of the day with a cup of coffee or parents reading a bedtime story to their children, these little moments are what make family life so comforting and kept couples close." Sometimes, the mad-dash moments seem to define our days, but "it's only when we find moments to slow down that we can fully appreciate those everyday moments that make a family," Saxbe says. "I remember watching a mom kissing her son and tucking him into bed. The son responded, 'I want another kiss, Mommy!' So the mom kissed him again. They repeated this five or six times — it was so sweet! Watching this made me appreciate how lucky I am to have a family I care about and how I how important it is to cherish these little moments of love when they come along."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)