Those who know me know how much I love to read. I've always been a bibliophile. In fact, when I was in fourth grade I read the 1948 World Book Encyclodpaedia, cover to cover (it was Christmas Break and I was bored...). As a voracious reader, I don't limit myself and this has lead me to some great things intellectually.
There are 3 books I strongly urge all teachers and prospective teachers to read:
1) The Quality School by Dr. William Glasser,
2) Focus, by Dr. Mike Schmoker, and
3) Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
The first two I consider essential works in the cannon, and I will write more on these in future posts. But what about the third title, Brave New World? Surely, you say, that's as antique a work of science fiction as can be, saving Verne and Welles. What could possibly be of use to a teacher, there? It's a warning of what a society dedicated to uniformity can be.
The world that Huxley imagined is completely stratified and directed. There are no 'rough edges' anywhere. Your position in life is determined in utero (no natural pregnancies here-babies are gestated in factories from genetic stock in inventory). The world is one vast factory complex, everyone knows the things needed for their position and nothing else. Enter John Savage. I'll let you find out what happens.
The point here is that we are already well on our way to this kind of world. When we decided that every student must know the same things at the same age levels we started on that journey to the Abyss. Huxley's world demands clear cut limits and definitions, and a rigidly controlled and defined system of education. The state determines what is to be known, how it is to be known and when. Look at the "progress" we've made in the last 20 years.
We're 2/3 of the way to our Brave New World.
Kids are not widgets, teachers are not line workers, and schools are not assembly lines
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Arguments Against the Industrialization of Education Pt. III: Complexity and Too Many Chiefs
Consider the following scene:
You wake up in the middle of the night with severe chest pains and abdominal cramps. Your spouse/SO either takes you to the Emergency Room, or calls an ambulance, and a team of doctors and Emergency Specialists sees to you. You're already upset and worried, and, through this fog, a flurry of professional acronyms and vocabulary flys over and around you. How does this make you feel? Like a person, or like an object?
We all appreciate the need for efficiency and have developed vocabularies within our various professions to make communications more effective among pros in the field. Indeed, there are some places like the Emergency Room where that kind of communication could mean the difference between life and death. But is such shorthand needed for all professions?
Now think back to your last staff meeting. Were you familiar with all the acronyms and buzzwords/terms being used? If you weren't, how did it make you feel? Did you feel connected, part of the team, a professional?
Now translate that feeling to your students.
Complexity is a matter of reality, for certain. The Universe around us is so complex and there are so many interwoven connections that nobody, not even Steven Hawking, let alone Einstein, can keep things straight. We as humans, while a little simpler, but still a complex mingling of Biology and Energy (read: "mind"). Misunderstandings among us have lead to catastrophes throughout history. Simplifying communication, and teaching broader vocabulary, goes a long way to promoting understanding. And it used to be that in Education communication was plain, straightforward, and understandable. Let's see an example between then and now.
(Staff meeting ca. 1990)
"Good afternoon, folks. All new teachers should meet with your 1st year coach after the meeting to see how things are going this week for you, and there's an orientation session for you tomorrow. I understand that the 6th grade teachers have been working together to connect their lessons and designing activities for National Poetry Week. Let's all remember our goal is the top levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, and that frequent checks for understanding will help you spot problems early, before unit tests. The assistant principal will give a short talk on consistency in the behavior section of the student handbook. It's important for all to understand."
(Staff meeting ca. 2012)
"'Afternoon, all. All provisionals need to meet with mentors asap to correlate PDP with current situations, and there's onboarding with HR tomorrow. The PLC6 group has been collaborating on PBL for NPW and coordinating LPs and unpacking for maximum outcomes. We need to be mindful of rigor, aiming for the D Zone, and keep your FAs in line with CC so that your CAs are on target for SI goals. The AP for Discipline will give a report on implementing PBIS. We all need to buy into this."
If you were new to the profession, or a visiting parent, which would you understand better?
This complexity of language is not only accepted, now, it's expected. When we don't 'get' what's being said to us, or spoken around us, it decreases our connection and increases our anxiety. We get the message that we don't belong, that our input is too uninformed, and that we're not part of the 'in crowd' so our views are discounted. Yet we speak like this in meetings with parents and students. I ask: how has the adoption and continued expansion of 'Eduspeak' helped decrease anxiety and apathy? How has adopting these acronyms, words and terms promoted anything but increasing uniformity and decreasing diversity?
It's not just the language that's getting complex. If your state has archived data compare the standards for your subject area from the earliest available record to the new Common Core standards. Which set is most understandable, has room for student creativity, and promotes scaffolding? (I know-I just used a buzzword, there, but it's one that actually makes sense-the building of concept upon concept.) Compare the more usable one to the overly complex one in terms of language, organization, wordiness, page count, and any other effective writing standard. How has loading more precise objectives really helped? Are students best served with the disorganized, overblown gumbo of inharmonious concepts that 'experts' have decreed as well done and essential? Did anyone ask you prior to publication?
Complexity has worked its way into the structure as well. (Curmudgeon Alert!)
When I was a kid I attended a suburban school system in a typical industrial midwest area. As I recall, the organization chart was very simple: Board-Superintendent-Accounting/Personnel/Physical Plant-Principals-Teachers/Counsellors It worked because it followed the KISS principle, and all recognized their roles on the overall team. Those who put themselves before the mission didn't last long.
Today an organization chart might look like this: Board-Superintendent-Deputy Superintendents for Curriculum/Grade Level/School Improvement/Public Relations/Business/Physical Plant/HR/Compliance-Principal-Asst. Principals for Grade Level/Discipline/Academics-Curriculum Officer-Counsellors-Teachers. See the difference? Are there more opportunities to abdicate responsibility? More slots in the organization to practice self-serving behaviors? In fact, doesn't this remind you more of a corporation's structure? How do we serve our kids well by dedicating so much of the budget to the upper tiers?
Is it any wonder that our kids and teachers become apathetic?
Kids are not widgets, teachers are not line workers, and schools are not assembly lines
You wake up in the middle of the night with severe chest pains and abdominal cramps. Your spouse/SO either takes you to the Emergency Room, or calls an ambulance, and a team of doctors and Emergency Specialists sees to you. You're already upset and worried, and, through this fog, a flurry of professional acronyms and vocabulary flys over and around you. How does this make you feel? Like a person, or like an object?
We all appreciate the need for efficiency and have developed vocabularies within our various professions to make communications more effective among pros in the field. Indeed, there are some places like the Emergency Room where that kind of communication could mean the difference between life and death. But is such shorthand needed for all professions?
Now think back to your last staff meeting. Were you familiar with all the acronyms and buzzwords/terms being used? If you weren't, how did it make you feel? Did you feel connected, part of the team, a professional?
Now translate that feeling to your students.
Complexity is a matter of reality, for certain. The Universe around us is so complex and there are so many interwoven connections that nobody, not even Steven Hawking, let alone Einstein, can keep things straight. We as humans, while a little simpler, but still a complex mingling of Biology and Energy (read: "mind"). Misunderstandings among us have lead to catastrophes throughout history. Simplifying communication, and teaching broader vocabulary, goes a long way to promoting understanding. And it used to be that in Education communication was plain, straightforward, and understandable. Let's see an example between then and now.
(Staff meeting ca. 1990)
"Good afternoon, folks. All new teachers should meet with your 1st year coach after the meeting to see how things are going this week for you, and there's an orientation session for you tomorrow. I understand that the 6th grade teachers have been working together to connect their lessons and designing activities for National Poetry Week. Let's all remember our goal is the top levels of Bloom's Taxonomy, and that frequent checks for understanding will help you spot problems early, before unit tests. The assistant principal will give a short talk on consistency in the behavior section of the student handbook. It's important for all to understand."
(Staff meeting ca. 2012)
"'Afternoon, all. All provisionals need to meet with mentors asap to correlate PDP with current situations, and there's onboarding with HR tomorrow. The PLC6 group has been collaborating on PBL for NPW and coordinating LPs and unpacking for maximum outcomes. We need to be mindful of rigor, aiming for the D Zone, and keep your FAs in line with CC so that your CAs are on target for SI goals. The AP for Discipline will give a report on implementing PBIS. We all need to buy into this."
If you were new to the profession, or a visiting parent, which would you understand better?
This complexity of language is not only accepted, now, it's expected. When we don't 'get' what's being said to us, or spoken around us, it decreases our connection and increases our anxiety. We get the message that we don't belong, that our input is too uninformed, and that we're not part of the 'in crowd' so our views are discounted. Yet we speak like this in meetings with parents and students. I ask: how has the adoption and continued expansion of 'Eduspeak' helped decrease anxiety and apathy? How has adopting these acronyms, words and terms promoted anything but increasing uniformity and decreasing diversity?
It's not just the language that's getting complex. If your state has archived data compare the standards for your subject area from the earliest available record to the new Common Core standards. Which set is most understandable, has room for student creativity, and promotes scaffolding? (I know-I just used a buzzword, there, but it's one that actually makes sense-the building of concept upon concept.) Compare the more usable one to the overly complex one in terms of language, organization, wordiness, page count, and any other effective writing standard. How has loading more precise objectives really helped? Are students best served with the disorganized, overblown gumbo of inharmonious concepts that 'experts' have decreed as well done and essential? Did anyone ask you prior to publication?
Complexity has worked its way into the structure as well. (Curmudgeon Alert!)
When I was a kid I attended a suburban school system in a typical industrial midwest area. As I recall, the organization chart was very simple: Board-Superintendent-Accounting/Personnel/Physical Plant-Principals-Teachers/Counsellors It worked because it followed the KISS principle, and all recognized their roles on the overall team. Those who put themselves before the mission didn't last long.
Today an organization chart might look like this: Board-Superintendent-Deputy Superintendents for Curriculum/Grade Level/School Improvement/Public Relations/Business/Physical Plant/HR/Compliance-Principal-Asst. Principals for Grade Level/Discipline/Academics-Curriculum Officer-Counsellors-Teachers. See the difference? Are there more opportunities to abdicate responsibility? More slots in the organization to practice self-serving behaviors? In fact, doesn't this remind you more of a corporation's structure? How do we serve our kids well by dedicating so much of the budget to the upper tiers?
Is it any wonder that our kids and teachers become apathetic?
Kids are not widgets, teachers are not line workers, and schools are not assembly lines
Monday, February 4, 2013
Arguments Against the Industrialization of Education Pt II
I feel I owe a bit of an apology to my readers concerning my last entry. I am, by nature, usually a very quiet man, but the topic is something I feel passionately about. Consider the heat and emotion of my remarks in this respect. I can be very curmudgeonly at times... .
The thrust of the previous post was Test Anxiety. My feeling, borne out through observation, is that TA has contributed heavily to the current situation in American classrooms. By the constant stress of 'must pass' testing, and the cycle of constant failure in some of our students, we have grown an atmosphere of apathy. Apathy is a coping mechanism; if you don't care about something, then it can't hurt you. What follows is that if the test doesn't matter, then neither does the class. But many students do care, and the internal conflict that arises can also lead to disruptive situations and, eventually, to apathy.
I know that's a quick thumbnail sketch, and I don't have a lot of data from the academic literature to back this up. What I do have is long experience, hundreds of hours of discussion, and something that is being overlooked today-instinct. This brings me fully to Part II.
I like to watch a program on TV that highlights the adventures and process of a team of mechanical restoration specialists. They're a good crew, work together well, and perform the miraculous with seeming ease. Can I do what they do? No, I can't. I'm the kind of guy who can do simple home stuff, but if you ask me for a left handed spanner, I'll look for one. I suppose I could go to a series of classes to learn how to do complex machining, or electrical work, and it could be fun. Does that mean I could make a living at it? Not likely. I don't have the instinct of a mechanic or carpenter. What those restoration guys do is, to me, magic (defined as a technology I don't understand). Now look at the modern classroom.
For the last decade we've been trying to standardize curriculum nationwide. In many respects this is admirable, but it is flawed from the start. The expression 'too many cooks in the kitchen' is the closest I can come to what happens. Every stakeholder wants a place at the table in designing the standards, but whose ideas do we use? We go with a consensus most of the time, but within a committee, whose word gets the most weight? Personal and local politics creep in, or storm in, dominance games prevail, and consensus becomes less about agreement and more about bullying. And this doesn't happen in just one place.
The result of all this is what we have today-a mishmash of objectives, language that's either too vague or too precise, and an atmosphere that destroys creativity and promotes uniformity. "That's great," some may say, "since we're all on the same page." But, I ask, is everybody able to be on that page? One of the things that made us great was our diversity in skill and knowledge. Look back at our history carefully. Now look at societies that have passed on. One of the things that will doom a civilization is uniformity within the culture. Rome prospered as long as it adopted Greek learning and Egyptian engineering. When homogeneity was achieved, Rome got into trouble. Don't even get me started with the last 150 years in Germany. My point is that in every case, the society in question became too organized for it's own good, and wasn't able to meet the challenges that faced them. The most successful economy in the world today is China. They began to succeed only when they stepped away from Mao and embraced Wall Street and learned to accept individuality.
So here's my pondering for the day: how can we, as a nation, hope to prosper when we're using our schools as factories to produce people who all have the same knowledge, the same philosophies, and the same skills? Don't think this is happening? Read the new Common Core Standards. Then read Huxley's Brave New World.
I repeat: kids are not widgets and schools are not assembly lines.
The thrust of the previous post was Test Anxiety. My feeling, borne out through observation, is that TA has contributed heavily to the current situation in American classrooms. By the constant stress of 'must pass' testing, and the cycle of constant failure in some of our students, we have grown an atmosphere of apathy. Apathy is a coping mechanism; if you don't care about something, then it can't hurt you. What follows is that if the test doesn't matter, then neither does the class. But many students do care, and the internal conflict that arises can also lead to disruptive situations and, eventually, to apathy.
I know that's a quick thumbnail sketch, and I don't have a lot of data from the academic literature to back this up. What I do have is long experience, hundreds of hours of discussion, and something that is being overlooked today-instinct. This brings me fully to Part II.
I like to watch a program on TV that highlights the adventures and process of a team of mechanical restoration specialists. They're a good crew, work together well, and perform the miraculous with seeming ease. Can I do what they do? No, I can't. I'm the kind of guy who can do simple home stuff, but if you ask me for a left handed spanner, I'll look for one. I suppose I could go to a series of classes to learn how to do complex machining, or electrical work, and it could be fun. Does that mean I could make a living at it? Not likely. I don't have the instinct of a mechanic or carpenter. What those restoration guys do is, to me, magic (defined as a technology I don't understand). Now look at the modern classroom.
For the last decade we've been trying to standardize curriculum nationwide. In many respects this is admirable, but it is flawed from the start. The expression 'too many cooks in the kitchen' is the closest I can come to what happens. Every stakeholder wants a place at the table in designing the standards, but whose ideas do we use? We go with a consensus most of the time, but within a committee, whose word gets the most weight? Personal and local politics creep in, or storm in, dominance games prevail, and consensus becomes less about agreement and more about bullying. And this doesn't happen in just one place.
The result of all this is what we have today-a mishmash of objectives, language that's either too vague or too precise, and an atmosphere that destroys creativity and promotes uniformity. "That's great," some may say, "since we're all on the same page." But, I ask, is everybody able to be on that page? One of the things that made us great was our diversity in skill and knowledge. Look back at our history carefully. Now look at societies that have passed on. One of the things that will doom a civilization is uniformity within the culture. Rome prospered as long as it adopted Greek learning and Egyptian engineering. When homogeneity was achieved, Rome got into trouble. Don't even get me started with the last 150 years in Germany. My point is that in every case, the society in question became too organized for it's own good, and wasn't able to meet the challenges that faced them. The most successful economy in the world today is China. They began to succeed only when they stepped away from Mao and embraced Wall Street and learned to accept individuality.
So here's my pondering for the day: how can we, as a nation, hope to prosper when we're using our schools as factories to produce people who all have the same knowledge, the same philosophies, and the same skills? Don't think this is happening? Read the new Common Core Standards. Then read Huxley's Brave New World.
I repeat: kids are not widgets and schools are not assembly lines.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Arguments Against the Industrialization of American Education Pt. I
Well! There's a tale or two I could tell at this point, but I'm not.
Back in August, I was all fired up about a new teaching position. I'm no longer at that school. I'm on job search now. In between doing bits and pieces on "the hunt", though, I have time to keep up with my professional reading, mostly through LinkedIn groups, and looking to stir up some interest in a favorite topic of mine: Test Anxiety (TA, for short).
I believe that most of us experience at least a small amount of TA in our lives. It will likely manifest itself in small annoying ways; getting jittery before a meeting or interview (arguably a test of sorts), maybe some physical reactions (sweating, "butterflies" in the stomach, sluggishness or hyperactivity), or even combinations of these. You know how you feel at those times. Now think about some of the kids we teach.
Imagine yourself in their spot. You know you have challenges, and your teachers are doing all they can to help. Some days are better than others, and you know what you need to do. But always looming in the distance like a gathering thunderstorm is the inescapable ordeal of the end of year tests. You know you have to pass them to move on with your friends, but will you know enough?
Thinking on this, I begin to understand how some of the issues we face in the classroom develop. If we were faced with this kind of continual pressure to perform at the highest level we can conceive with little tangible reward how would we react? I believe that many of our kids have given up.
We are currently well into the first generation of students who have known little but the testing regime since kindergarten. We have constantly put before them the requirement of passing a major test at the end of the school year (or earlier, which presents its own set of issues), then, thanks to the wisdom of The State, have been increasingly herded into the ever narrowing box of mandatory content and style. The published curriculum guides now include timelines and mandatory objectives within those lines. From what I've seen and experienced first hand, these documents are poorly written and the sequencing so scattered that the very idea of scaffolding is gone, along with the ability to teach to a student's individual strengths.
Faced with the certain knowledge that so many of our students have learning issues, and that the system is, for all practical purposes, set against them is it any wonder that they give up? Is it really all that mysterious an event that they would prefer the bread and circuses approach to avoiding reality? Games are instant reward and make you feel powerful. The music, popular culture, constant celebrity "news", the cult status of professional athletes all contribute to a climate of "this feels better than learning, it's everywhere I look, so it must be what's really important in life" thinking. So, if you're not getting a concept in class, why not create your own commercial and break out in song and dance? The movies your folks like to watch say that the only way to settle something is to fight to the death, so when that kid over there looks at you, it's OK to take him out. Learning? Who needs it when you already know it doesn't matter and you're going to fail anyway, and that surrender leads to a release from the anxiety.
It all starts with the fear we instill in our kids at an early age.
I'll be expanding on this topic next week. Until then, the office door is wide open.....
Back in August, I was all fired up about a new teaching position. I'm no longer at that school. I'm on job search now. In between doing bits and pieces on "the hunt", though, I have time to keep up with my professional reading, mostly through LinkedIn groups, and looking to stir up some interest in a favorite topic of mine: Test Anxiety (TA, for short).
I believe that most of us experience at least a small amount of TA in our lives. It will likely manifest itself in small annoying ways; getting jittery before a meeting or interview (arguably a test of sorts), maybe some physical reactions (sweating, "butterflies" in the stomach, sluggishness or hyperactivity), or even combinations of these. You know how you feel at those times. Now think about some of the kids we teach.
Imagine yourself in their spot. You know you have challenges, and your teachers are doing all they can to help. Some days are better than others, and you know what you need to do. But always looming in the distance like a gathering thunderstorm is the inescapable ordeal of the end of year tests. You know you have to pass them to move on with your friends, but will you know enough?
Thinking on this, I begin to understand how some of the issues we face in the classroom develop. If we were faced with this kind of continual pressure to perform at the highest level we can conceive with little tangible reward how would we react? I believe that many of our kids have given up.
We are currently well into the first generation of students who have known little but the testing regime since kindergarten. We have constantly put before them the requirement of passing a major test at the end of the school year (or earlier, which presents its own set of issues), then, thanks to the wisdom of The State, have been increasingly herded into the ever narrowing box of mandatory content and style. The published curriculum guides now include timelines and mandatory objectives within those lines. From what I've seen and experienced first hand, these documents are poorly written and the sequencing so scattered that the very idea of scaffolding is gone, along with the ability to teach to a student's individual strengths.
Faced with the certain knowledge that so many of our students have learning issues, and that the system is, for all practical purposes, set against them is it any wonder that they give up? Is it really all that mysterious an event that they would prefer the bread and circuses approach to avoiding reality? Games are instant reward and make you feel powerful. The music, popular culture, constant celebrity "news", the cult status of professional athletes all contribute to a climate of "this feels better than learning, it's everywhere I look, so it must be what's really important in life" thinking. So, if you're not getting a concept in class, why not create your own commercial and break out in song and dance? The movies your folks like to watch say that the only way to settle something is to fight to the death, so when that kid over there looks at you, it's OK to take him out. Learning? Who needs it when you already know it doesn't matter and you're going to fail anyway, and that surrender leads to a release from the anxiety.
It all starts with the fear we instill in our kids at an early age.
I'll be expanding on this topic next week. Until then, the office door is wide open.....
Friday, November 9, 2012
The "At-Your-Own-Pace" ?
A Disclaimer: blogs are, by and large, op-ed pieces written from the perspective of the blogger. Many are well researched, some are not. This posting is an opinion based on a decade personal experience, and if have a difference in oppinion, well, let's agree to disagree. I'll always listen and debate rationally, joke with you in a heartbeat, and we'll part friends, 'K? That being said, hear me out... .
Twenty-five years ago I worked in a factory in Ohio. The owner of the corporation was very concerned with the literacy/numeracy of his employees and not completely for altruistic reasons. Digital machine controls were beginning to proliferate and were showing increased productivity wherever they were used. He wanted to digitize his machine operations in all the plants he owned, but worried that his workers would not be able to understand, let alone use, the new tech. His solution was to establish after-work schools in trailers at all his sites to teach reading and math skills to the workers. Each trailer was equipped with ten or twelve pcs, a variety of user friendly software, and a full time teacher. I was fortunate enough to be involved in this innovation and saw for myself the progress my coworkers made, and the pride in the accomplishment that boosted morale and productivity. A few months after this began, I moved south and began my teaching career in earnest, but I always though back to the minischools and their effect.
Ten years later, I came back to Ohio. I didn't have a postition waiting, but within two weeks, I saw an ad for a charter that was opening schools in my area, so I applied and got an interview time. When I arrived at the interview site, to my surprise, the interviewer was one of the personnel ombudsmen that I had known a decade earlier at the factory. The charter academy was the evolutionary product of the literacy/numeracy project that the plant owner had started. She remembered me, and for the next six years I was involved in the charter movement from the inside as a teacher.
From the outset, though, several of us noticed a problem. The programs our students, all at-risk 16-22 year olds, were using were not only overly simple, being designed as suppliments for elementary and middle grade learners, but had no checks for understanding/speedbumps embedded within the program. Almost all the students were dashing through the instructional content and hitting the assessment segments, with the result that:
1) they were spending large amounts of time clicking answers at random and hoping for the best,
2) even at the third or fourth attempt, they weren't looking at content,
3) with mounting failure to "master", there was increased frustration and hopelessness
4) there was little or no understanding of content, only very temporary "knowledge" of a particular question asked in a particular way.
We teachers were spending much time checking attempts to see who was taking more than 2 trys at each lesson, and, when help and personallized instruction was attempted it was rejected outright with some variation on "just gimme the right answer to this question and get out of my ears with the lesson. All I need to do is answer the question right so I can move on."
I don't need to tell you our standardized scores, do I?
You would think eduware authors would learn, but ten years later, in another, competing charter where I was working, the same thing was occurring. Sure, the programs were more sophisticated and at a higher abliblity level, far more rigorous than the programs of even five years earlier, but the problems were exactly the same. You would observe a student diligently writing, filling whole notebooks, but a more carefull look revealed that what was being written was the "right answer" to a question. What followed was a blowthrough of the content, bypassing interactive example work, and another attempt at a 5 question assessment (the idea being that if they got these 5 low order questions right they "knew" the concept). See items numbered 1-4, above, for the result.
Let's delineate the pros of self-directed work:
1) small groups allow for personallized attention as needed,
2) mastery is not a group movement, but as the student can learn,
3) school days can be shortened to an essential 4-5 hours, allowing students to have jobs or take care of family needs, and
4) the use of current technologies allows for enrichment activities.
All this is very well intended, but the realities that I've observed are:
1) the climate of high-stakes testing that many of our students have grown up within has put primacy with the "right answer" rather than learning/thinking/metacognitional skills-rote is right, just memorize the correct response to a set question and you've "learned".
2) "At-Your-Own-Pace" means "Speed is All"-there is tremendous pressure to graduate students so the faster they complete the better. The students not only want to get through quickly, but they sense the desire to move through as fast as possible. Understanding is important, but more time is spent coaching on question types than on content.
3) The speed issue means that enrichment is very far off the students' radars. While it is possible to set up breakout sessions, few students will participate since they're more interested in completing credits/hours.
Ok-enough with the negative, whiney, hand-wringing nonsense. Sometimes you just gotta get it out of your system.... .
What's the solution to this problem? Obviously, there is a place for charters in the world of education. How do we make the concept more effective?
First and foremost, we need to abandon the "At-Your-Own-Pace" hook. We can remain true to the very positive and successful individualized education concepts without turning kids who don't know how to learn loose on the latest fad in digital learning no matter how well crafted and intentioned. Let's use the learning technologies as a foundation and support for small group learning communities in structured settings using blended learning techniques. Lip service don't count. It has to be done and made such an integral part of the curriculum that the assessments that count toward mastery are not soley digital, and that from the very beginning.
Second, no student should be let loose on the technology until they have demonstrated that they know how to learn. Before any courseware/groupings are assigned there has to be a rigorous, concentrated learning skills course taught, and any assignments to be based on a battery of mastery tests and personalized interviews. No more "well, you passed Pre-Algebra, so we're putting you in Algebra I". True mastery must be demonstrated.
Third, while we need to maintain the recovery programs, there needs to be a concerted effort to head off future problems by a rigorous, relevant middle grades program, again based on mastery, not grade level or seat hours. No student should be advanced to high school level courses without actually mastering previous concepts. This could mean that a student is still working on "6th grade" math, but is also doing "8th grade" language arts. So be it. Blended learning, far from being a panacea, becomes the ultimate in differentiation, proven to be a successful model. Learning communities, not grade level blocks, are the key.
Here's how I envision it working:
A student comes into school and checks in at the attendance desk, which frees the classroom teachers from admin duties. She proceeds to her homeroom where she logs in. She had difficulty with the math lesson the previous evening, so she registers for a breakout session for tutoring. She also checks her school mailbox for announcements and class messages. Her science teacher found a cool article to reinforce a concept they worked on last week, and her working group for language arts has a collaboration submission for review and consideration in class. The homeroom supervisor provides her with the study skill of the day via messaging software and she uses the remainder of the session working on that. She proceeds through her schedule, attending courses assigned by mastery level, all having two co teachers in the classroom using flip, direct instruction, or learning community where appropriate. There are mixed classes-some students are a year older or younger, but all are at a similar mastery level. Every lesson is accompanied with a technology application/project integral to mastery. Paper is kept to a minimum-she has a school assigned laptop and much is done through collaboration software or publishing programs. Her classes are no larger than 15 students, and learning problems are quickly addressed through direct questions and/or chat messages. There is a lunch/free period of one hour. Behavior and discipline issues exist, but are dealt with in a non-coercive/quality image viewpoint. The counselling staff, freed from administrative tasks of assigning classes, actually works with students to help them through any challenges they face. Severe issues are handled quickly through strategic time-outs and extra help to solve problems rather than reacting. Every member of the faculty and staff has de escallation and conflict resolution training.
Sounds utopian? Not really; everything mentioned above actually exists now, but are rarely brought together in one package. Is this a costly way of doing things? Sure, but if we're ok with paying big bucks for the latest in designer cloths, fancy cars, and cool gagets, shouldn't we be cool with spending money to ensure our kids' futures? What cost our kids' images of love, power, freedom, and community? Would recovery/rescue education programs still be needed if we got away from the student-as-interchangable-widget model to real education and entrepaneural development? Instead of pushing kids through, how about educating them?
Just sayin'... .
Twenty-five years ago I worked in a factory in Ohio. The owner of the corporation was very concerned with the literacy/numeracy of his employees and not completely for altruistic reasons. Digital machine controls were beginning to proliferate and were showing increased productivity wherever they were used. He wanted to digitize his machine operations in all the plants he owned, but worried that his workers would not be able to understand, let alone use, the new tech. His solution was to establish after-work schools in trailers at all his sites to teach reading and math skills to the workers. Each trailer was equipped with ten or twelve pcs, a variety of user friendly software, and a full time teacher. I was fortunate enough to be involved in this innovation and saw for myself the progress my coworkers made, and the pride in the accomplishment that boosted morale and productivity. A few months after this began, I moved south and began my teaching career in earnest, but I always though back to the minischools and their effect.
Ten years later, I came back to Ohio. I didn't have a postition waiting, but within two weeks, I saw an ad for a charter that was opening schools in my area, so I applied and got an interview time. When I arrived at the interview site, to my surprise, the interviewer was one of the personnel ombudsmen that I had known a decade earlier at the factory. The charter academy was the evolutionary product of the literacy/numeracy project that the plant owner had started. She remembered me, and for the next six years I was involved in the charter movement from the inside as a teacher.
From the outset, though, several of us noticed a problem. The programs our students, all at-risk 16-22 year olds, were using were not only overly simple, being designed as suppliments for elementary and middle grade learners, but had no checks for understanding/speedbumps embedded within the program. Almost all the students were dashing through the instructional content and hitting the assessment segments, with the result that:
1) they were spending large amounts of time clicking answers at random and hoping for the best,
2) even at the third or fourth attempt, they weren't looking at content,
3) with mounting failure to "master", there was increased frustration and hopelessness
4) there was little or no understanding of content, only very temporary "knowledge" of a particular question asked in a particular way.
We teachers were spending much time checking attempts to see who was taking more than 2 trys at each lesson, and, when help and personallized instruction was attempted it was rejected outright with some variation on "just gimme the right answer to this question and get out of my ears with the lesson. All I need to do is answer the question right so I can move on."
I don't need to tell you our standardized scores, do I?
You would think eduware authors would learn, but ten years later, in another, competing charter where I was working, the same thing was occurring. Sure, the programs were more sophisticated and at a higher abliblity level, far more rigorous than the programs of even five years earlier, but the problems were exactly the same. You would observe a student diligently writing, filling whole notebooks, but a more carefull look revealed that what was being written was the "right answer" to a question. What followed was a blowthrough of the content, bypassing interactive example work, and another attempt at a 5 question assessment (the idea being that if they got these 5 low order questions right they "knew" the concept). See items numbered 1-4, above, for the result.
Let's delineate the pros of self-directed work:
1) small groups allow for personallized attention as needed,
2) mastery is not a group movement, but as the student can learn,
3) school days can be shortened to an essential 4-5 hours, allowing students to have jobs or take care of family needs, and
4) the use of current technologies allows for enrichment activities.
All this is very well intended, but the realities that I've observed are:
1) the climate of high-stakes testing that many of our students have grown up within has put primacy with the "right answer" rather than learning/thinking/metacognitional skills-rote is right, just memorize the correct response to a set question and you've "learned".
2) "At-Your-Own-Pace" means "Speed is All"-there is tremendous pressure to graduate students so the faster they complete the better. The students not only want to get through quickly, but they sense the desire to move through as fast as possible. Understanding is important, but more time is spent coaching on question types than on content.
3) The speed issue means that enrichment is very far off the students' radars. While it is possible to set up breakout sessions, few students will participate since they're more interested in completing credits/hours.
Ok-enough with the negative, whiney, hand-wringing nonsense. Sometimes you just gotta get it out of your system.... .
What's the solution to this problem? Obviously, there is a place for charters in the world of education. How do we make the concept more effective?
First and foremost, we need to abandon the "At-Your-Own-Pace" hook. We can remain true to the very positive and successful individualized education concepts without turning kids who don't know how to learn loose on the latest fad in digital learning no matter how well crafted and intentioned. Let's use the learning technologies as a foundation and support for small group learning communities in structured settings using blended learning techniques. Lip service don't count. It has to be done and made such an integral part of the curriculum that the assessments that count toward mastery are not soley digital, and that from the very beginning.
Second, no student should be let loose on the technology until they have demonstrated that they know how to learn. Before any courseware/groupings are assigned there has to be a rigorous, concentrated learning skills course taught, and any assignments to be based on a battery of mastery tests and personalized interviews. No more "well, you passed Pre-Algebra, so we're putting you in Algebra I". True mastery must be demonstrated.
Third, while we need to maintain the recovery programs, there needs to be a concerted effort to head off future problems by a rigorous, relevant middle grades program, again based on mastery, not grade level or seat hours. No student should be advanced to high school level courses without actually mastering previous concepts. This could mean that a student is still working on "6th grade" math, but is also doing "8th grade" language arts. So be it. Blended learning, far from being a panacea, becomes the ultimate in differentiation, proven to be a successful model. Learning communities, not grade level blocks, are the key.
Here's how I envision it working:
A student comes into school and checks in at the attendance desk, which frees the classroom teachers from admin duties. She proceeds to her homeroom where she logs in. She had difficulty with the math lesson the previous evening, so she registers for a breakout session for tutoring. She also checks her school mailbox for announcements and class messages. Her science teacher found a cool article to reinforce a concept they worked on last week, and her working group for language arts has a collaboration submission for review and consideration in class. The homeroom supervisor provides her with the study skill of the day via messaging software and she uses the remainder of the session working on that. She proceeds through her schedule, attending courses assigned by mastery level, all having two co teachers in the classroom using flip, direct instruction, or learning community where appropriate. There are mixed classes-some students are a year older or younger, but all are at a similar mastery level. Every lesson is accompanied with a technology application/project integral to mastery. Paper is kept to a minimum-she has a school assigned laptop and much is done through collaboration software or publishing programs. Her classes are no larger than 15 students, and learning problems are quickly addressed through direct questions and/or chat messages. There is a lunch/free period of one hour. Behavior and discipline issues exist, but are dealt with in a non-coercive/quality image viewpoint. The counselling staff, freed from administrative tasks of assigning classes, actually works with students to help them through any challenges they face. Severe issues are handled quickly through strategic time-outs and extra help to solve problems rather than reacting. Every member of the faculty and staff has de escallation and conflict resolution training.
Sounds utopian? Not really; everything mentioned above actually exists now, but are rarely brought together in one package. Is this a costly way of doing things? Sure, but if we're ok with paying big bucks for the latest in designer cloths, fancy cars, and cool gagets, shouldn't we be cool with spending money to ensure our kids' futures? What cost our kids' images of love, power, freedom, and community? Would recovery/rescue education programs still be needed if we got away from the student-as-interchangable-widget model to real education and entrepaneural development? Instead of pushing kids through, how about educating them?
Just sayin'... .
Friday, October 12, 2012
Stress.
It can be a killer, literally, but what can we do?
There are as many stressbusters as there are people, and what you do to relieve it is up to you, just keep it positive. The thing is, what do we do to help our kids to get over the stress of school/home/atheltics/clubs/etc? The best solution is to be there for them, establish good working relationships and treat every moment as a teachable one. We often forget that our kids are under even more pressures than we are, especially at this critical age. Consider what they're going through:
1) A very different environment than what they've seen before.
Most of our kids are used to self-contained classrooms with one teacher and one group of peers. for many, others outside this group are 'strangers' unless they happen to live nearby. Most are only seen on a bus or in the halls. Now, though, all are thrown together and new relationships are developing. It can be rough, and there are going to be conflicts. Keep encouraging working groups and shuffle the mix so that there are as many combinations as possible so that all get to know one another. Too, the shuffle in the halls from class-to-class can be an issue. Teach them how to do it quickly and in good order with established locker times, enforce timing,and keep your own cool. Modling this behavior will teach them more than coersion could. At my school we spent time each day with this, and there has been a great payoff.
2) Choices are being offered.
For the first time for many, the choices of good behavior vs. poor behavior, what clubs to join, whom to sit with at lunch, and how to spend class time are offered. They're used to more structure, so provide it for them. Spend a minute each day to reinforce your policies, reward the good stuff, and teach them how to make better choices.
3) They're growing up.
There are all kinds of psychological and biological things happening just now. All this can lead to what a friend refers to as "the screaming troop of monkeys in the brain". Teaching kids how to filter out the noise and focus on the important stuff (I find that "there's a time for everything" adage works), and don't forget to keep in touch with your guidance people. They can provide help, advice, etc. Model efficiency, organization, and focus, then help them to these ends.
We're moving on in time, and, undoubtedly, curriculum issues, committees, and other things are piling up, but if we model how to handle our stress, the kids will learn from us how to deal with theirs.
Off to the classroom!
It can be a killer, literally, but what can we do?
There are as many stressbusters as there are people, and what you do to relieve it is up to you, just keep it positive. The thing is, what do we do to help our kids to get over the stress of school/home/atheltics/clubs/etc? The best solution is to be there for them, establish good working relationships and treat every moment as a teachable one. We often forget that our kids are under even more pressures than we are, especially at this critical age. Consider what they're going through:
1) A very different environment than what they've seen before.
Most of our kids are used to self-contained classrooms with one teacher and one group of peers. for many, others outside this group are 'strangers' unless they happen to live nearby. Most are only seen on a bus or in the halls. Now, though, all are thrown together and new relationships are developing. It can be rough, and there are going to be conflicts. Keep encouraging working groups and shuffle the mix so that there are as many combinations as possible so that all get to know one another. Too, the shuffle in the halls from class-to-class can be an issue. Teach them how to do it quickly and in good order with established locker times, enforce timing,and keep your own cool. Modling this behavior will teach them more than coersion could. At my school we spent time each day with this, and there has been a great payoff.
2) Choices are being offered.
For the first time for many, the choices of good behavior vs. poor behavior, what clubs to join, whom to sit with at lunch, and how to spend class time are offered. They're used to more structure, so provide it for them. Spend a minute each day to reinforce your policies, reward the good stuff, and teach them how to make better choices.
3) They're growing up.
There are all kinds of psychological and biological things happening just now. All this can lead to what a friend refers to as "the screaming troop of monkeys in the brain". Teaching kids how to filter out the noise and focus on the important stuff (I find that "there's a time for everything" adage works), and don't forget to keep in touch with your guidance people. They can provide help, advice, etc. Model efficiency, organization, and focus, then help them to these ends.
We're moving on in time, and, undoubtedly, curriculum issues, committees, and other things are piling up, but if we model how to handle our stress, the kids will learn from us how to deal with theirs.
Off to the classroom!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Welcoming the Kids and Other Thoughts
For many of us, the school year begins tomorrow, though I understand that others of us have been in for a week already. What matters right now isn't so much the thoughts of 'am I ready?', or 'OMG!! forgot to copy (insert handout name here)!' What matters is a direct collary of the old adages 'put your best foot forward' and 'first impressions are the ones that last': how you make your kids feel on day one will effect the whole year that lies ahead.
Did I always get this? No, I did not, and after a couple years of following the advice of 'never smile before Thanksgiving', I chucked the whole unhelpful lot into the bin and started over. You see, I was working exactly counter to my personality when I tried to project the image of hard-but-just-and-don't-mess-with-me. I was looking for a way to be myself and be effective at the same time. That's when my headmaster introduced me to the works of people like Dr. William Glasser, and others.
I'm not going into detail what these philosphers/researchers have discovered about how we deal with our kids-you can read and discover for yourself. What I learned was that a classroom environment that is welcoming, open, and friendly works better than one that is not. (I can hear the facepalms and 'well, duhhh!' ) It makes sense, though, doesn't it? It really boils down to treating our kids as we would want to be treated ourselves. Think about a job that you really hated. What was it about that job that made it the worst? Was it the nature of the work, or the hours you put in? Think about it: what would have made that job more bearable? I'm willing to bet that the majority of your thoughts revolve around how you perceived the environment, how you were treated, and/or if you felt appriciated. All these work together to make up our quality world, and when something is out of line we don't do as well as we could.
Are our kids any different?
Most of what I'm about to say has already been said in many places, media, and modes, but it bears reapeating. Be welcoming. Be at the door of your classroom, or arrival duty place, each day, every day. This goes beyond the physical location. It is more than a matter of projecting the image. It means to live that moment and your philosophy fully. Our kids, especially at this level, can spot a fake in the next county. Shake everyone's hand as they come in and be sure you left any emotional baggage in your car or whatever vehicle you use to get to school because the kids will pick up on it. Greet them in a completely friendly, open way. You may be the first person in their day who is glad they're around. Have a wake-up exercise ready for them to do as they come in. In my case I use a review question as an 'entry ticket'.
How is your room arranged? Is it in neat rows and columns of desks? Is it in clusters? If the former, that's great for efficiency, but gives the impression that your kids are industrial units with specific points to occupy and nowwhere else. Do you have fun or inspirational/character affirming posters? I have a few, here and there, but the most important stuff on my walls and boards comes from the kids themselves. It's not my classroom, but our classroom.
How about your expectations. When you go into a place what makes you feel wanted/appriciated/respected (and therefore less likely to break a rule)? I have seen classrooms where The Rules are posted and written in such a way that, were I a ten-year old, I would feel guilty just for breathing and would look for ways to get out. The student handbook is read out in a way that would make Moses returning from the mountain look like an amateur, along with dire pronouncements of what the kids can expect to have done to them if they blink without permission.
Really, folks. Some of you are saying that you were brought up this way, that it taught you respect for the law, etc., and that you turned out great/look at what's happened since we became lax.... .
I submit that there are other factors involved, here, and I'm not going into them just now. In my classroom we design expectations to coincide with school policy, and focus on the do's rather than the don'ts. It's as simple as that. I don't read out my rules, I discuss them and work with the kids to understand, then model and teach those expectations. I let them know how I feel, and, most imortantly, listen and respond to them.
Enough for now-there's food for thought for a bit. There's work to do for both of us and the day's getting on.
As always, my door is open (that means you can comment if you want to). :)
Did I always get this? No, I did not, and after a couple years of following the advice of 'never smile before Thanksgiving', I chucked the whole unhelpful lot into the bin and started over. You see, I was working exactly counter to my personality when I tried to project the image of hard-but-just-and-don't-mess-with-me. I was looking for a way to be myself and be effective at the same time. That's when my headmaster introduced me to the works of people like Dr. William Glasser, and others.
I'm not going into detail what these philosphers/researchers have discovered about how we deal with our kids-you can read and discover for yourself. What I learned was that a classroom environment that is welcoming, open, and friendly works better than one that is not. (I can hear the facepalms and 'well, duhhh!' ) It makes sense, though, doesn't it? It really boils down to treating our kids as we would want to be treated ourselves. Think about a job that you really hated. What was it about that job that made it the worst? Was it the nature of the work, or the hours you put in? Think about it: what would have made that job more bearable? I'm willing to bet that the majority of your thoughts revolve around how you perceived the environment, how you were treated, and/or if you felt appriciated. All these work together to make up our quality world, and when something is out of line we don't do as well as we could.
Are our kids any different?
Most of what I'm about to say has already been said in many places, media, and modes, but it bears reapeating. Be welcoming. Be at the door of your classroom, or arrival duty place, each day, every day. This goes beyond the physical location. It is more than a matter of projecting the image. It means to live that moment and your philosophy fully. Our kids, especially at this level, can spot a fake in the next county. Shake everyone's hand as they come in and be sure you left any emotional baggage in your car or whatever vehicle you use to get to school because the kids will pick up on it. Greet them in a completely friendly, open way. You may be the first person in their day who is glad they're around. Have a wake-up exercise ready for them to do as they come in. In my case I use a review question as an 'entry ticket'.
How is your room arranged? Is it in neat rows and columns of desks? Is it in clusters? If the former, that's great for efficiency, but gives the impression that your kids are industrial units with specific points to occupy and nowwhere else. Do you have fun or inspirational/character affirming posters? I have a few, here and there, but the most important stuff on my walls and boards comes from the kids themselves. It's not my classroom, but our classroom.
How about your expectations. When you go into a place what makes you feel wanted/appriciated/respected (and therefore less likely to break a rule)? I have seen classrooms where The Rules are posted and written in such a way that, were I a ten-year old, I would feel guilty just for breathing and would look for ways to get out. The student handbook is read out in a way that would make Moses returning from the mountain look like an amateur, along with dire pronouncements of what the kids can expect to have done to them if they blink without permission.
Really, folks. Some of you are saying that you were brought up this way, that it taught you respect for the law, etc., and that you turned out great/look at what's happened since we became lax.... .
I submit that there are other factors involved, here, and I'm not going into them just now. In my classroom we design expectations to coincide with school policy, and focus on the do's rather than the don'ts. It's as simple as that. I don't read out my rules, I discuss them and work with the kids to understand, then model and teach those expectations. I let them know how I feel, and, most imortantly, listen and respond to them.
Enough for now-there's food for thought for a bit. There's work to do for both of us and the day's getting on.
As always, my door is open (that means you can comment if you want to). :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)