The Mistreated Teacher: A National Study, Research Paper Example

NCLB

When No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001, educators were placed under great pressure to ensure that students were being taught at high quality. As a result, schools were demanded to include special needs students into the general education classroom. Involving inclusion meant that their must be collaboration between the general education and special education teachers. An organization can only be as successful as it collaboration skils. Success within a educational community occurs when the members of the community are successful (Hallinger, 2006). Fullan (2001), adds that collaboration is an important aspect of any professional learning community. When collaboration occurs, a relatioship begins between principals and teachers and breaks the barriers of boss and employee. Since the implementation of NCLB, several studies have been conducted to determine if this Act has realistic goals. According to Hill, & Barth, 2004:

“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (2001) has had far-reaching and  sometimes devastating implications for many schools and districts. Fullan ( 2005) states: NCLB requires all states to have an achievement driven system in which “annual yearly progress” in student achievement is documented and reported publicly for every school in each state, with a sequence of escalating consequences for those schools not improving. There is little investment in capacity building and it places people in a high-alert dependency mode, jumping from one solution to another in a desperate attempt to comply. Any minor gains are bound to be out-weighed by a system that guarantees superficiality, temporary solutions, and cynicism in the face of impossible goals” (Hill & Barth, 2004).

In 2012, a review of NCLB after a 10 year run indicates that NCLB has failed at reaching its goals. Results show that NCLB has neither increased academic or reduced achievement gaps across America. Because NCLB functions on a one size fit all frame work, it has obviously missed gains that some schools have made because it did not test in those areas. The data was collected from schools across the United States. The study concluded with the need for alternative strategies that would improve school performance in areas with needy students. While Schul (2011) adds how NCLB standards prevent literacy teachers from being innovative and original because the guidelines are too strict. NCLB provides elementary school teachers with prompted guidelines as to what they should say and how they should respond to students when teaching reading. Schul believes that this does not allow for genuinely learning to take place. Strategic teaching must be implemented by using the best pedagogical practices for the type of students the teacher is teaching.  These findings are reported by many veteran teachers and their experiences in the classroom using the NCLB mandates. Finally, NCLB attempts to remove certain cultures from the classroom because of the way the prompts do not acknowledge certain cultural differences. For example, “The idea that all children in the United States have the right to a publicly supported education regardless of race, social class or religious beliefs is an American value. Not only access to a public education, but the expectations of a common educational experience, is part of the American culture. This common school idea is based on the view that education should be an equitable, assimilative, and inclusive institution designed to prepare students to be future productive citizens” (Meyer, 2006).

Plan 2020

In order to meet the requirements and expectations of Plan 2020, school reform is a must. In order to reform school restructuring must occur in order to change the culture of the school to ensure that it is conducive to learning. A great part of this restructuring was the inclusion of special needs students in to the regular education classrooms. Over the years, the role of teacher has drastically changed because the perception of teachers has changed. Consequently, teacher leaders are developed and carry out many leadership roles effectively within the school setting. The general education teacher has become a special education teacher and the special education teacher has become a general education teacher. Thus, the collaboration between  teachers is imperative. Likewise, researchers argue that allowing teacher leadership has helped many schools reach their school improvement goals because the organizational culture improved (Durrant & Holden, 2006). Teacher leadership is a positive way for schools to improve student learning by promoting a cultural environment that is pleasing to students, teachers, and administrators.

School Improvement

School improvement cannot be defined merely as increased standardized scores in order to meet annual yearly progress. Yet, some researchers have defined school improvement as enhancing teaching processing to increase student achievement (Durrant & Holden, 2006   ). School improvement is so much more than student achievement. Obviously, school improvement encompasses structural changes, management, planning, placing as much emphasis on learning as teaching, and implementing strategic planning (Durrant & Holden, 2006).  The importance of school reform or improvement has been studied for years by using standardized testing and accountability systems to help determine if improvement has been achieved. For example:

“Society should communicate its expectations for what students should know and be able to do in the form of standards; both for what should be taught and for what students should be able to demonstrate about their learning. School administrators and policy makers, at the state, district, and school level, should regularly evaluate whether teachers are teaching what they are expected to teach and whether students can demonstrate what they are expected to learn. The fundamental unit of accountability should be the school, because that is the organizational unit where teaching and learning actually occurs” (Elmore, 2000).

Again, it should be reminded that to measure school improvement achievement, tools other than test scores must be used. As a result, schools that are implementing and using teacher leadership are taking a more holistic approach to the problem. With the holistic approach, the main objective is to implement a joy of learning from both teachers and students. Learning must involve various strategies, such as cooperative learning groups, differentiated instruction, and leaner centered delivery (Blasé, Blasé, & Du, 2008    ).

Teachers Role

Teachers play a dominant role in student learning. As a result, teachers should be involved in decision making choices that directly affect student outcomes. Teachers really didn’t have a say in whether or not special needs students were to be included into the general education classroom. Likewise, teachers must be interested and motivated to improve student learning, so when they become overwhelmed with the many needs of resource students, all students suffer.  Nonetheless, the role of the teacher directly depends upon the leadership style of the principal. Principals that want to see improvement ensure this by allowing teachers to take on leadership of producing favorable learning outcomes. When teachers are allowed to do this, they are able to link their own learning and development to student learning. Teachers who have a vested interest in student learning are more likely to be successful and produce great gains in student achievement. These teachers view student low achievement as a direct reflection of their teaching ability (Durrant & Holden, 2006   ). Consequently, they strive to ensure maximum student achievement. Teachers help to build the culture and school climate within their schools. The school culture and climate is driven by passionate teachers who display a joy of teaching and excitement about student learning. Accordingly, school culture can be either positive or negative on the school reform process (Blasé, Blasé & Du, 2008   ). For years, researchers have been trying to figure out how achievement can be raised and what are the best ways to go about doing that. Finally, the realization that teachers are instrumental in the process has finally occurred to researchers and policy makers. There is an abundance of evidence that that indicates that teachers are the critical link in school reform. Muijis & Harris said, “Schools badly need the leadership of teachers if they are to improve” (2006). Likewise, research has proved that teacher leadership has an astounding affect on students, teachers, principals, and other stake holders (Elmore, 2000). Also, research has shown that teacher networks, or those groups of teachers who collaborate in order to maximize student learning, are more successful at accomplishing that goal than teachers who do not (Elmore, 2000).  Also, low levels of professionalism, ineffective school culture, and utilizing appropriate assessment methods have been noted as contributors to school failure.

Teacher Leadership

What is a teacher leader? The definition has proven to be quite elusive. Muijs & Harris (2006) researched what others see as teacher leadership. They determined that there were five dimensions of teacher leadership:

1. Shared decision-making where teachers are given responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the school on important developmental work.
2. Collaboration in which they operate collegially for the prime purpose of securing certain outcomes linked to improving teaching and learning.
3. Active participation where teachers understand teacher leadership in terms of being actively involved in core developmental tasks and being participants in theprocess of school improvement.
4. Professional learning in which teachers are learning individually and with colleagues.
5. Leadership as activism where teachers engage with issues on behalf of the school in order to directly affect change and development (964-965).

According to them, these qualities are needed to successfully implement inclusion in the classroom. However, one cannot expect to find all five dimensions in all schools that are labeled successful; yet stake holders should try to implement as many of the five steps as possible in order to form a collaborative relationship between teachers and principals. Many teachers today are encouraged to adapt and adopt new practices that acknowledge that all students do not learn in the same manner. The most important role of the teacher is to get to know each teacher as an individual in order to comprehend his or her unique needs, teaching styles, social and cultural background, and interests, all of which affect each child’s learning experience.

Disadvantages For Special Needs Students

Many educators feel that inclusion is doing more harm than good. They believe that it is unrealistic to believe that all students will learn at the same pace and not get distracted when the teacher has to spend more time with students who are unable to grasp the concept. Educators believe that policy makers are trying to place every child under the label of regular education. A great deal of literature has proven that inclusion can prove to be detrimental to both general and special education students.  One major disadvantages of inclusion is the fact that students are placed in inclusion classes for socialization purposes, while their education is placed on the back burner.  Jain, Sachin, Kioh, Kim, & Stephens, Derk,(2010) examined the use of group counseling techniques in the school setting to teach social skills to children and adolescents with special needs. According to the authors, counseling is a very effective way of addressing a variety of social skills problems that can be displayed by very differing populations within the school setting. Children with special needs experience difficulty in a wide variety of areas, all of which can influence their ability to learn and to use social skills. Some of these problems can include; hyperactivity, distractibility, impulsivity, anxiety, low self-esteem, aggressive behaviors, difficulty recognizing the emotions of others, and other socially unacceptable behaviors. Emotional difficulties and interpersonal difficulties affect others perceptions of them, as well as the child’s own self -perception. Often, the difficulties they have, and the expectations of themselves and others, act as a spiral and increase the likelihood that a child will experience social failures. The authors explored how group counseling could be effective in teaching social skills to children in a school setting. They also discussed cautions and considerations to take when using group counseling methods with children. The benefits of using groups are numerous. According to them, groups give individuals the opportunity to learn from one another, and a chance to generate solutions together. Groups also provide a safe place for emotional release. In a group setting, children can learn that others face similar problems, and this can help to lessen anxiety or fears that they may have, especially in social situations. Groups are also a great place to practice social building skills in an environment that approximates genuine social settings, and a place where children can develop a social network. However, implications that some cautions should be taken are present. Group practice with children and adolescents is different in many respects from group work with adults. The authors assert that groups with children need to be structured homogeneously for gender. They argue that girls and boys in the same group tend not to self-disclose easily and find it difficult to share trust, and become cohesive. They also believe that groups for elementary aged children should be kept small, and recommend a group size of four to six children. Children are often objective to the idea of being singled out for groups, especially special needs children who already feel stigmatized by their peers.

Students who have major disabilities really need one-on-one help from special education teachers. It is merely impossible for them to get this help in the general education classroom (Education Integration, 1998). The policy of inclusion seems to be most concerned with social inclusion. While the special needs student is in the general education classroom, he/she is missing out on those special skills that could be taught in a special education classroom. According to Wood, “Within the special education classroom the classroom size is limited, distractions are limited, and the student is able to benefit from one-on-one help from the teacher”( 1993  ). Within the special education classroom, the teacher is able to strictly follow the student’s IEP which focuses directly on what is most important to the student’s success. Another disadvantage of mainstreaming special needs students into the general education classroom is that they are often bullied and teased by general education students. Many special education students have said that once they were placed into the general education classroom they felt isolate and frustrated (Salend, 2001). In the regular education classroom, special education students were reluctant to participate out of fear of being ridiculed are called “dumb”. This feeling of inferiority caused special education students to feel inadequate as compared to their general education counter-parts (Salend, 2001). In one article covered in the Education Intergration, a parent commented on how she felt about how Down Syndrome. She said:

“If she was in an inclusive classroom, I don’t think she would have the self-esteem she has, she really thinks she’s wonderful, she’s very confident with herself and she’s very happy in what she does accomplish. I think if she was in a regular class, she would really realize what she cannot do” (1998)

Most educators agree that being in a general education class causes resource students to compare themselves to general education students. As a result, they are unable to take pride and celebrate the accomplishments they make. Often general education students target special education students with name calling and harassment because they are unable to accept their differences.

Disadvantages for General Education Students

Regular education students face disadvantages of having inclusion students in their classrooms. A classroom that has special education students is often more active than a general education classroom. There may be outbursts, trips to the restroom, and even equipment needed for special needs students. These may prove to be distractions for general education students. Having more than one teacher in the classroom can also become a distraction for general education students because they may have gotten used to having only one teacher assist them. Some special education students make involuntary vocalizations that are directly linked to their disability. Many general education students are unable to block out these distractions. Consequently, many educators feel that jeopardizing the entire class academic progress for the sake of one or two special needs students is a great atrocity (Forest & Pearpoint, 2004).

Resentment is another disadvantage that general education students suffer. The regular education students notice the accommodations and extra one-on-one attention that special education students get from the teachers. This leads them to wonder why they are not receiving the same special attention. Likewise, general education students become jealous when they receive an “A” with unassisted work and the special needs students receives an “A” with assistance. According to Croll, Paul & Moses,

“The students in an inclusion classroom come with a variety of abilities, from special needs to regular educational needs to gifted achievers. Students with special needs should have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) detailing their specific learning requirements, and it is the job of the teacher(s) in the room to provide those accommodations. The students in an inclusion classroom should not know which of their peers do or do not have IEPs; the teachers should help all students equally in order to avoid such distinctions” (2007).

This concept is very unrealistic because the general education students are aware which students are receiving special attention. There are several aspects of the educational system that must be changed in order ensure that students are prepared for the 21^st Century. Teachers want to teach, they must be allowed to do that. Teachers want to prepare for the real world, not just students who can pass standardized testing. Teachers need support, especially novice teachers.  Great principals retain great teachers. All students learn differently and therefore must be taught differently. Teachers are capable of this strategy.  Educators face many challenges every day when trying to reach the varied needs of all of their children. School communities need to work on solving the problem of declining student academics, rather than bandwagoning every new concept that researchers present. This confuses students and educators alike. Some strategies that worked should have never been changed. Cooperative groups are great for some classes and some students, but are more than impossible for other students to achieve.  For example, “Change produces tension. We tend to become comfortable with the known and anxious with the unfamiliar” (Hill & Barth, 2004).  In other words teachers should be given the option to use what works for their students, not just forced to use a strategy because statistics say it works.

References

Croll, Paul & Moses, Diana. (2007). Pragmatism, Ideology, and Educational Change: The Case of Special Educational Needs. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(1). p. 11-25.

Blasé, J., Blasé, J., & Du, F. (2008). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263-301.

Brunswick-Cole, K. (2008). Between a rock and a hard place: Parent’s attitudes to the inclusion contexts for supporting communication and increasing access to inclusion” Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 32(4), p263-278.

Downer, J. T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). How Do Classroom Conditions and Children’s Risk for School Problems Contribute to Children’s Behavioral Engagement in Learning? School Psychology Review, 36(3), 413-432.

Durrant, J. & Holden, G. (2006). Teachers leading change: Doing research for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Albert Shanker Institute. Available: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: The Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581–584.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110.

Hill, D. M., & Barth, M. (2004). NCLB and teacher retention: Who will turn out the lights? Education and the Law, 16(2-3)

Idol, L. (2006). Toward Inclusion of Special Education Students in General Education. Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), p. 77-94. Journal of Special Education 35(3). 173-180.

Jain, Sachin; Kioh, Kim;  Stephens, Derk. (2010). Group Counseling: Techniques For Teaching Social Skills To Students With Special Needs. Education Journal, 130, 509-512.

Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning in school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 521-538.

Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 961-972.

Murphy, Donna M (2006). Implications of Inclusion for General and Special Education. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), p 470-493.

Myers, Chloe (2007) “ Please listen, it’s my turn”: Instructional approaches, curricula and of children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools. British

Schul, J., E. (2011). Unintended consequences:  fundamental flaws that plague the no child left behind affiliation: Ohio Northern University. (1) 2-2.

Albert Shanker Institute. Available: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning in school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 521-538.