Archive for August, 2009

Avoiding the Dickensian Curriculum

August 27th, 2009

Monotonous tedium and homogeneous uniformity — the great plagues of education. With rampant disregard for age, class, or ability, a curriculum lacking topography flatlines interest, dulls creativity, and limits potential. Yet, we find ourselves haphazardly careening toward fact based national standards, accountability systems, and teacher pay incentives that further cement our commitment to high stakes assessments. Such batteries that, by proxy, entrench pedagogical practices in the mires of conformity.
What we need now is a hyperbolized metaphor to cast the right light on the situation. Enter 19th century Dickens.
I’m reminded of the orphan scene from Oliver Twist, in which sallow eyed kids lament full bellies while heavy handed lords offer meager sustenance, the lowest common denominator for survival. “Please, sir, can I have some more?” “MORE?!”
Fast forward to the 21st century, the faces of students drawn down by boredom, teachers droning on and dolling out dittos of “test prep” materials. One curriculum looks the same community to community, offering little variety (or interest) for the educators or the learners. Students under such Dickensian conditions soon associate learning and schooling with drudgery, toil, and starved minds.
The rare lesson that engages students to dig deep into an idea or concept, to explore new avenues, and to get a bit messy with creativity awakens and feeds an enthusiasm long suppressed by the sameness of repetition. Students for whom such learning has been absent, or withheld, find their palates whet with the sweet taste of authenticity and relevance. “Please, marm, can I have some more?” “MORE?!”
A bit much you say? Too overstated? How could I possibly compare NCLB to the New Poor Law of 1834?
You’re right to question, to stand up for an education system that endeavors to educate all students, and to advocate on behalf of the millions of educators working to cultivate the minds of our young.
However, the fact remains that while the world around us has changed, much of the education system remains firmly rooted in an industrial society that no longer exists. It is less important now that students can repeat the same task over and over. The standard of yesterday’s literacy, “Can the worker read the signs in the factory to ensure the safety of himself and his colleagues?” no longer applies to the degree it once did.
We enjoy a world with abundant and assorted information, replete with mutliple access points for ideas, concepts, and knowledge. Students of diverse backgrounds (and of both genders) can reasonably vie for myriad careers and a range of higher level learning opportunities, if so interested. Given this, it is of absolute necessity that we seek to add topography to our educational landscape. Homogeneity must give way to heterogeneity if we aim to give all students connecting points.
How do we do that?
Teachers need the demonstrated ability and supported autonomy to effectively tailor curriculum for the unique culture, skills, needs, and interests of each class. Beginning with a framework of basic skills, concepts, and themes, the teacher must seek two main pillars to effectively differentiate for the individuals within an individual class.
What does that mean?
Connections and Contrasts
Constructing knowledge begins with connections. If students are to make any sense of material, they must first find a connection with it. If we are to believe Jay McTighe’s quip that, “Facts don’t transfer, big ideas do,” then it is imperative that we elicit student involvement in order to link the big ideas to their interests and backgrounds.
Teachers have known this for ages. The KWL chart (Know, Want to know, Learned) is a well known acronym in teacher-ese. Beginning with the connection, teachers then need to provide enough contrast so as to stimulate the brain and effectively engage the student. Building (or at least maintaining) nueral pathways requires broad exposure that keep the nueral connections alive, functioning, and well traveled.
Unfortunately, legislation has come to think of that as simply exposure to copious facts we want the students to know. What we’ve ended up with are standards that are a mile wide and an inch deep. What the brain thrives on is consistent contrast.
Students need newness, contrast in experiences, and depth of study. This is the great beauty of the differentiated instruction movement — it seeks to provide big ideas that span the curriculum and add multiple connection points for students. Combined with the Understanding by Design efforts, in which teachers create new experiences that offer a contrast to the experiences of the past, we have the potential for a rich depth of learning that students find relevant, meaningful, and ultimately, useful.
The challenge then becomes, if we aim to leave no child behind and recognize that each student is different, how do we standardize teaching and learning without monotonizing teaching and learning?
Image: BBC One

Education: LISTEN TO THIS MAN!

August 27th, 2009

How do you personally feel about the future of American education?

I’m panicked, I’m worried. I think if we continue along the path that we’re going, our greatest days are behind us. But, I still believe we can turn it around. That’s why I’m still in the classroom, and I’m gonna do my best. But as long as we embrace “testing is everything,” and as long as we keep shrinking art programs and physical education programs, we’re not in a good place. Those are the things that inspire kids to do great things, so I hope we keep enlarging them, not shrinking them.

The words are those of Rafe Esquith, at the end of an interview currently freely available from Teacher Magazine in a piece called Lighting Fires With Rafe Esquith. Esquith is one of America’s great teachers, winner of many awards, a notable author. The key is the impact he has upon his students.

Equith teachers 5th grade at an inner city school, Hobart Elementary, in Los Angeles. He has his kids actually performing (passionately) Shakespeare. He is more than a little “unconventional.” Perhaps the best description of what he does can be seen in the title of his 2nd (and best-selling) book (published 2 years ago): Teach Like Your Hair’s on Fire: The Methods and Madness Inside Room 56.

I am going to strongly suggest that if you have any interest in education and meaningful teaching – as parent, educator, policy maker, or simply citizen/taxpayer – that you take the link to the interview and print it down and save it — NOW. The link will expire at some point, and you will not want to lose access to this insightful piece.

Let me offer a few more exchanges from the interview, with some observations and commentary of my own.

I think the absolute key is that learning, the education of a child, is a long process, and we are now in the middle of a fast food society. We want instant everything. We even have books now like Algebra Made Easy and Shakespeare Made Easy. But I want teachers and parents to remember that it’s not easy! To be good at anything—anything!—takes thousands and thousands of hours of patient study, and I want people to know that when kids make mistakes or have setbacks, we don’t need to jump all over them for every little thing. This is a long process. I’m hoping that from the lessons of Lighting Their Fires people will understand that I’m trying to teach things that kids will remember after they’ve left my classroom, not just for the test at the end of the year.

not just for the test at the end of the year – and yet the Obama administration wants to tie merit pay for teachers to student performance on those same end of year tests, rather than finding other ways of examining the effects teachers have upon their students. I suspect that anyone who would walk into Esquith’s classroom in Room 56 at Hobart would immediately grasp the positive effect he has upon students, regardless of any results either on end of year tests examined separately, or the growth shown as compared either to last year’s tests or tests at the beginning of the year.

Esquith talks about reminding teachers of the importance of being themselves. Let me offer a bit of this section, right after he mentions other teachers thanking him for that.

Because a lot of people are telling the teacher not to be yourself. That we’re all supposed to be exactly the same. We’re not. In a country that says it’s supposed to celebrate diversity, we’re not! And that’s what I want those burned-out teachers to remember. Be yourself. You’re valuable, you’re important, and you’re making a difference, even though maybe you’re in a school that doesn’t appreciate what you’re doing. It’s a thankless job, it really is. But when you do it well, it’s a fun job.

It is not only a “fun job,” it is absoluting energizing, especially on those occasions when you “hit a home run” and find a way of really connecting with the students.

Here I note that I have insisted my student teachers learn how to be themselves in front of the adolescents in my classroom, who can quickly determine if a teacher is being something different, that is, is in “teacher mode” – for many, that will serve as a barrier, because what the students really hunger for is someone who respects them enough to be genuine with them. By the way, as we mourn the loss of Ted Kennedy, perhaps we should note that so much of the response to him was that he was very much himself, which was a very caring person, in his interactions even with those who opposed him politically, which might be why he was able to find common ground on occasion and become close friends with the likes of Orrin Hatch. Effective teaching also involves the building of relationships through trust, the showing of genuine care. If in fact your real self is not caring towards the students in your charge, I strongly suggest you find another occupation, no matter how knowledgeable about your subject matter you may be.

Esquith talks about the number of former students who come back to his classroom and provide positive role models for his current students. Here I note that I teach mainly 10th graders, and I see a similar effect – they have older siblings who come back to me for college recommendations, or neighbors, teammates, those on the bus who will share their experiences in my classroom. I will not claim I have anything near the impact Esquith does – his students are younger, and for many his is the first such encounter with a caring and challenging adult not related to them. There are many great teachers in our school, and I am fortunate that almost all of my students have already had at least one such encounter before they enter my classroom.

Esquith also talks about how his classroom works:

The idea that kids don’t like school is a myth. Kids love school when it’s fun and interesting. They don’t like school when it’s boring. But you let them do things that are relevant, like play in a rock band, as we do in my classes, and capture their imagination. I think that’s what people see in my classroom─there’s a great energy level, an atmosphere of warmth and humor and hard work all mixed together.

Note especially those last words: an atmosphere of warmth and humor and hard work all mixed together – that combination encourages students who are struggling to keep trying. If I am going to challenge my students to go further, I have to build the trust, lighten the burden with humor, affirm that I know they can do it.

A couple of quotes without comments:

I do think that the goal should be that we’re going to give every child the opportunity to be the best they can be. Right now, we’re not doing that. And as I always tell the kids, “It’s not my job to save your soul, but it’s my job to give you an opportunity to save your own soul.” I can’t make a kid smarter or better, but I can give them the opportunity to become that and show them how to do that. That’s my job, and that’s a parent’s job─creating opportunities.

I’m really hoping is that teachers, when they keep growing, they can grow into themselves. They’re so busy following the script, they stop being themselves. I think if the teacher’s a great cook, then I hope she cooks with the kids as part of the day! Work it into the lesson plan! Because that’s your passion… the good news is, in my classroom, it is absolutely my room. Even though we follow all the standards, my three particular passions, which are baseball, rock & roll and Shakespeare are all a part of that classroom. And it works really well, because I’m good at showing kids how to do those things.

Rafe Esquith is an extraordinary teacher, one of the nation’s best. And yet, instead of learning from teachers like him when we make our policy, too often we listen to economists and politicians, we are far too inclined to try to standardize – and not just in how we test. When teachers are empowered – as Esquith is and as I have been fortunate enough to be by 5 principals in three different schools – they commit themselves to their students despite the barriers and obstacles, despite the restriction s of external testing and pacing guides (which often make no sense even as they are supposed demonstrate that we have ‘covered” the material for which the students will be held “accountable”).

We need to remember that we are teaching students, a collection of individual, unique personalities, not a class or a subject if by phrasing in the latter fashion we lose sight of those individuals. We need to be able to adjust our instruction to the persons before us.

I have a decreasing amount of hair. I’m not sure how much I can afford to lose by setting it on fire. But I know Esquith is right – it is by bringing one’s own passion to the task of learning with one’s students that I am most effective as a teacher. It is also by providing an environment that the passions with which the students arrive can somehow be included within the classroom as well. Esquith is an elementary teacher – he has his students for the entire day. I teach 6 periods, each of 45 minutes, each with a different collection of students, currently with up to 36 in the room at one time (and that will expand today). It is somewhat different, but still fundamentally the same – I may have less time to accomplish that, and far more specific content with which to connect them, but they are still unique individuals with different backgrounds and interests. I make clear I am passionate and invite them along for the ride.

along for the ride – that means I am traveling that road with them. That is one fundamental concept of teaching which Esquith may not explicitly state, but which underlies his entire approach, and with which I strongly agree.

Esquith will be the first to tell you he does not have all the answers. And perhaps his words may raise more questions, to which he would almost certainly say “good!” It is by asking questions that we can reexamine our thinking and improve our own actions.

Which is why this post has the title that it does.

Education: LISTEN TO THIS MAN!

Peace.

Google Custom Search Refines Research Skills

August 26th, 2009

By Tanya Roscorla, originally posted at Converge Online

If you type in “king snake” to Google’s regular search engine, you’ll find about 12.4 million hits, and not all of them focus on the reptile. That’s a problem for educators who want to teach their students how to research online, but they’re addressing it by creating Google custom search engines.

Last year, Darcy Sanderson set up a wiki on animals for the science teachers at J.T. Henley Middle School in Virginia. She came up with a list of five to seven good animal Web pages for the engine so that the kids could hone in on reliable sites that gave them the information they needed, said Sanderson, who worked as a curriculum and technology integration partner as well as an algebra teacher at the time.

“I think it helped them in the long run,” Sanderson said, “and if we hadn’t done that, I think the searching would have been a much more tedious and a longer process.”

The animal custom search engine allowed kids to research on quality sites without spending six hours learning how to evaluate them, which thrilled parents such as Melissa Techman, whose daughter used it in her class.

“Once you explain to teachers and parents what it is, they love it, because it’s almost like training wheels for researchers,” Techman said. “They’re getting the good research experience, but they’re not spending a lot of time looking for sources.”

As the technology lead teacher and librarian for Broadus Wood Elementary School, Techman wants to create a fifth-grade tech squad this year that will work with her on lunch breaks a few times a week to build custom searches that they can share with their classes.

At Chocowinity Primary School in North Carolina, fourth-grade teacher Kelly Hines plans to set up a custom search engine this year so that her students won’t get bogged down by Web sites that are too advanced in vocabulary and context.

“When we study magnetism and electricity or animal habitats, we’ll be able to kind of just narrow the focus of what they are researching and make the Internet a more manageable place for them to navigate,” Hines said.

Search engines create safe, quality learning experiences

Custom searches help students become better researchers, and they act as a scaffold to weed out some of the irrelevant and inappropriate information, said Lucy Gray, a technology integration specialist at the Center for Elementary Math and Science Education at the University of Chicago.

“There’s a mentality around effective searching that has to be taught kindergarten through 12th grade,” Gray said. “It’s not something that you just do one lesson on and then everybody’s good on search. There’s a lot of critical thinking that goes into being an effective searcher.”

She has made more than 20 engines and has learned to maximize the power of the search engines as a Google Certified Teacher. For example, instead of finding all the sites for the engine herself, she can invite other contributors. When she finds a site that she likes, she can add it to some of her search engines by clicking on Google Marker from her toolbar.

Creating a search engine doesn’t take a lot of time, and it’s more effective than searching the whole Web, said Obe Hostetter, an instructional technology resource teacher at Rockingham County Public Schools in Virginia.

“This is actually better than putting things in a bookmarking Web site because then it’s searchable,” Hostetter said, “and you don’t have to remember the tag or the word or which category you put it under.”

Thousands of teachers throughout Virginia use one of Hostetter’s custom search engines to find lessons related to state standards. They can type in topics and even specify what kind of file they want. The one thing that’s missing from Google is a customized image search engine to keep inappropriate images out, he said.

But the search engines do keep students from finding inappropriate sites on the whole Web, said Cindy Lane, an adjunct professor, Google Certified Teacher and instructional technology specialist from St. Louis. One of her students looked up “black holes” in a regular search, and you can just imagine what that child found, she said.

She taught a four-week class this summer at Southwest Baptist University for K-12 educators on Google applications, and she focused on searching during one of those weeks. All of the students created custom search engines, but many of them said they had never heard about it before.

“You would think teachers would know about all of the applications that make their lives easier in their classrooms, but unless they take classes or they go to technology conferences or they have some really good PD [professional development] already imbedded in their schools, it’s a hit and miss kind of thing,” Lane said, “which is unfortunate.”

Check out these resources:
Create a Custom Search Engine (from Google)
Google Teacher Academy Resources (from Google)
Guide to Create Google Custom Search Engine (Word document from Rockingham County Public Schools)
Google Web Search – Classroom Lessons and Resources (from Google)
Create Your Own Student-Friendly Search Engine with Google
(from the blog EdTech Gold Rush)

Google Custom Searches
Math Search
Science Search
Sites for Teachers

K12 Schools Search Engine
Sheridan School Research Sites

Featured examples: Google Picks

Mrs. Gray’s Research Sites for Kids
The Best of Educational Technology
Four Engines used by Virginia teachers
Mrs. Reilly’s Web sites for “A Long Way from Chicago”

Making the Shift, Part 2: Toolboxes not Suitcases

August 17th, 2009

Ever go through a turnstile and realize something you needed was left on the other side of the gateway? During my first encounter with a public transit system, I tried to take a rolling suitcase through a subway turnstile. Of course I ended up on one side of the gateway with my luggage on the other. Fortunately a friendly New Yorker (They do exist!) saw my dilemma and hoisted my suitcase over the turnstile.

Such gateways are one-way by design; they promote lawful movement in single directions. However, a similar design for teaching, learning, and thinking limits student learning and its usefulness. Much of what we should emphasize ends up like my suitcase—on the wrong side of the turnstile.

For example, we may teach a biology unit on cell construction and emphasize new terminology and locations of various cell parts. Then, after students seem to have absorbed the information and can recite it back, we may engage them in “critical thinking” by asking questions that represent various “levels” of a taxonomy. Like my suitcase, thinking gets pulled along behind and occasionally doesn’t make it through the gate. It gets left behind because of pressures to cover the curriculum or because the assessment will only involve the memorization elements of the unit. If time allows, if the gateway stays open, we might pull in some thinking.

But what if thinking were not a wheeled suitcase but a toolbox, something we carry in-hand and set in a central place to enable our work, our learning? What if instead of thinking of ourselves as teaching content, we viewed ourselves as teaching thinking?

That doesn’t mean students would not learn any content. In fact, content would be exactly what they’d gain by making thinking the force that “pulls in” new understandings. After all, students need to learn how to learn to function successfully once a teacher is no longer telling them what to know.

Activating executive function (EF) offers a potential gateway for developing both understanding of new content and strategic abilities for future learning and success. Executive function comprises “complex cognitive processes that serve ongoing, goal-directed behaviors,”1 including goal setting and planning, self-regulation and metacognition, and working memory processes, such as organizing and patterning data. Executive function serves both as “infrastructure” and “overseer” of other cognitive functions.2 By itself, EF lacks purpose, but when infused with ideas and concepts, it illustrates the brain working at its best. Perhaps most importantly for us as teachers, EF enables intention, the transfer of new learning to novel situations. Teaching only to know—that is, to repeat on demand—does not engage the cognitive processes that promote intention. Martha Bridge Denkla describes such knowing as being able to recall a strategy without the capacity to be strategic.3 Simply knowing does not require the level of EF activation that doing does.

Philip David Zelazo suggests that the EF processes of solving problems and attaining goals reveal EF “subfunctions.” These subfunctions can be easily understood by viewing their roles through the questions they attempt to answer:

  • representation: “What do I need to accomplish? What is preventing me from accomplishing it?”
  • planning: How can I get from the current state to the desired state?
  • execution: What’s next? Check. What’s next?
  • evaluation: Did that action accomplish its intended result? What do I need to change to make progress toward the desired state?4

Teaching students to successfully engage these subfunctions equips them to learn independently. Engaging these subfunctions as a means of learning new content equips students to use their learning beyond the classroom. This brief look at executive functions reveals some principles that provide guidance for making thinking more of a toolbox and less of a rolling suitcase. An emphasis on teaching for action, or on teaching for knowing how, is more likely to produce transferable learning. Since doing requires greater executive function engagement than simply knowing, teaching that engages students in doing better equips students to transfer their learning to new situations.

Knowing that should become more of a by-product of applying know-how. Rather than just asking, “What do students need to know?” we need to ask “What can students do/produce to foster learning of what they need to know?” (This has additional implications for what and how we teach. I’ll explore these in a future post.)

Increasing an emphasis on executive function is better education for life. It’s impossible to know what knowledge and skills will be essential in the future, but it is certain that EF will continue to enable successful living.

Before concluding, allow me to attempt to prevent some potential misunderstandings. First, I am not advocating abandonment of the disciplines. As the Purview Project states, the disciplines “have contributed to man’s construction of knowledge for ages.” I believe the disciplines will continue to form much of the content schools teach. What I am suggesting is that how we teach the disciplines needs to change. Others have recently suggested similar ideas—e.g., Jose Bowen’s “Teach Naked” approach, which advocates increased thinking in the classroom. But an implication of changing the “how” is changing the “what.” If we’re going to engage students in more thinking, we need to equip and strengthen them to think optimally. I’ll explore this more in future posts.

Second, the ideas expressed here are easier to envision in content-heavy disciplines, such as social studies than in skill-heavy disciplines such as reading and math. I’ll explore these differences in future posts and suggest ways these principles can be applied in both types of material.

In conclusion, I have a confession. I’m writing this post as much to process these ideas as I am to communicate them. I’m in the learning process, which means I have more questions than answers, vague ideas than concrete specifics, and swirling concepts than guiding frameworks. Over the weekend I was asked what was “going on” in my head. In reply, I listed at least seven different major elements. This post is a very initial attempt to sort through some of them. I hope to explore and clarify these ideas in future posts. Stay tuned!

  1. Meltzer, L. “Executive Function: Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks,” in Meltzer, L. (ed.), Executive Function in Education: From Theory to Practice, (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007), 1-2.
  2. Denckla, M. B. “Executive Functions: Binding Together the Definitions of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Disabilities,” in Meltzer, L. (ed.), Executive Function in Education: From Theory to Practice, (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007), 7.
  3. Ibid, 11.
  4. Zelazo, P. D., “Executive Function Part One: What is executive function?” http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Executive-Function-Part-One-What-is-executive-function.aspx?
    articleID=8024&categoryID=news-type

Race to the Top Jumpstarts Education Debate

August 12th, 2009

By Tanya Roscorla, originally posted at Converge Online

kids laptop learningThe green flag has dropped. The competition has begun. But it’s not just any jaunt around the track. States are vying for $4.35 billion in federal education grants, and many of them are serious about winning.

If they want to earn the prize, they have to transform education for the better, said Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who announced the start of the Race to the Top on July 24. States have to ratchet up student standards and assessments; find and reward quality educators; install student data systems; and turn around low-performing schools.

But the results may vary depending on how states change their school systems and how much they focus on these four specific areas. And that has educators and education activists questioning what impact the race will have.

“It’s really easy to sit up there at the top and really narrow the focus on what you want to try to accomplish with something like Race to the Top money,” said Pam Moran, the superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools in Virginia, “and I’m not sure that you’re going to get the kind of entrepreneurial risk taking out there on the table if you get too narrow a definition of what you want to accomplish.”

Duncan has already told states that they will start the contest handicapped if they limit the number of charter schools within their borders. They also might not compete well if they don’t adapt national English and math curriculum standards or link student performance data to teachers.

Failing to address these areas could knock states out of the competition even if they are innovating in other areas.

“They might lose some opportunities for some states to compete that could potentially have the next best educational invention that’s out there,” Moran said, “and I would hate to see that happen.”

Duncan and President Barack Obama have set a sweeping agenda to transform public education, and that’s a good thing, said Jeanne Allen, the president of the Center for Education Reform. They’ve lifted up some states for their progress and have singled out states that show no signs of changing their old, comfortable ways.

“Education reform, however, is neither comfortable nor a race,” Allen said. “It must be achievement-focused and come from a true desire to see America’s children succeed on a global scale. Reform that is bought can easily be voted away once the federal coffers run dry.”

Teaching content through skills

Because states are racing to win the prize, they might cause the nation to move quickly toward national standards and tests without allowing enough room or time for debate, said Chad Sansing, who teaches humanities at a charter school in Virginia and blogs about transforming classroom practice at classroots.org. If the nation leaves out debate, education will be too much like the status quo, and teaching will emphasize learning content by rote.

Race to the Top has given the country an opportunity to change the way it assesses kids, he said, and that should involve providing authentic learning experiences and engagement that’s relevant in the real world.

“We don’t have to have a race for students to master content and leave out skills,” Sansing said. “We don’t have to have students master skills and forget about content. We can bring the two together, but we have to do it in a way that students are mastering content through the skills; that’s possible. It’s not going to be possible for students to master the skills just through the content.”

Several tests are mixing content with skills, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the College and Work Readiness Assessment. Schools are jumping on board in their classroom instruction as well, including those started by the nonprofit group Expeditionary Learning Schools Outward Bound and Quest High School in Humble, Texas.

Personalization, not standardization

In addition to assessing skills as well as content, tests should measure students differently based on their learning styles, said Deven Black, a middle school social studies teacher in New York City. Not all kids express themselves the same way, so the standard fill in the bubble or write an essay methods don’t accurately show how well they have mastered content.

Tailored tests can be more expensive, but they would allow students to demonstrate what they have learned through art, music or other means, he said.

The assessment system in this country is in place because it’s cheap, efficient and easy to score, and that limits how educators can measure complex thinking and application, said Superintendent Moran, who mentioned that author Tony Wagner captured this idea clearly in his latest book The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need –– And What We Can do About It.

States need to move away from standardized, narrowly-defined measures of student performance that are calculated almost everywhere by multiple choice testing. Moran said she hopes that someone will figure out an authentic and scalable way to assess students’ skills though technology instead of continuing the “drill and kill” teaching methods that educators use to prepare kids for tests.

Those tests are designed to evaluate whether students meet grade-level standards, but the standards don’t make sense to Rhonda Feder, an education activist in the nonprofit sector and a Pennsylvania mother of three grade-school children. Grade-level standards presume that a normal course of steps exists for a 10-year-old, and that every 10-year-old takes those same steps.

“It’s like saying, ‘Well, you’re 10, you should wear a size 3 shoe,’” Feder said.

Not all 10-year-olds wear size 3 shoes, and not all 10-year-olds learn the same way, which means that policy-makers need to look at real life kids in the classroom when they’re deciding what they should learn.

They should respect the individuality of children and shouldn’t be afraid to offer different options to different kids, Feder said, adding that if they try to make every class of fifth-graders look the same and write standards from far away, they’re bound to cause some children to fail.

Tests increase pressure on teachers

They’re also bound to cause some children to become bored. In Pennsylvania, children take tests that are tied to state standards about every other month so that teachers can adjust their instruction depending on what concepts students aren’t grasping.

kid children teaching teacherWith talk swirling about Duncan giving preference to states that link student assessment data to teacher performance, the teachers are probably going to focus on making sure that everybody passes the tests and spend less time on those who have already met the standards, Feder said. That’s what happened to one of her children.

He tested proficient after the first few weeks of school, yet had to keep doing worksheets on content he had already mastered, which meant that he spent a lot of time sitting and waiting for everyone else to finish.

Rather than asking whether all sixth-graders meet the standard, educators should look at where they started the year and where they ended. If they focus on the bar, they tend to focus only on students who fall below it. The quality of instruction doesn’t necessarily go down, but it drops to a different level for the students who need it, which doesn’t reach those who have already passed the bar.

A great education depends on great teachers, but any system that places a high percentage of weight on one element of the system is not realistic, Feder said. Teachers, parents and students all have to work together to succeed.

“My child can’t fail without my consent,” she said. “If my kid is failing repeatedly year after year, and I’m just going along for the ride, I’m just as responsible as that school district or that school system or those teachers.”

If the only measure that the government uses to assess teachers is standardized test data, it’s missing the point, Feder said. Race to the Top puts much of the burden on teachers, but it’s not the teachers alone who will help children succeed.

What happens in individual classrooms may be problematic, but teachers as a group are not the problem; they’re just the easy part, said Black, the New York City teacher. High-stakes assessments aren’t scored fast enough for teachers to adjust their teaching, and the scores don’t tell them a heck of a lot.

“The whole way that these major assessments are done just seems to be finding fault with somebody rather than trying to improve anything,” Black said, “and teachers more and more are feeling that they’re the ones that people want to find fault with, as if we were the root of the problem.”

Transforming education

One of the best things that the country can do is to encourage educators from the bottom up to take entrepreneurial risks that will help them re-imagine and reinvent themselves, Superintendent Moran said. And that extends to the kids in the classroom as well. When she walks through the halls of schools, she wants to see kids who are engaged in challenging work that pushes them to become more analytical and creative.

Teachers also need more freedom to be creative and experiment with different ways to engage students, Black said. Any one model is not going to serve the vast majority of people in it, so teachers and schools should have to differentiate instruction.

Coming up with different ways to teach students plays to teachers’ strengths, which policy-makers should take advantage of, Feder said. Figuring out how to fix problems is much harder than identifying them, but it has to be done.

“I don’t think there is one solution. I think the solution is you have to be open to doing what works, and that’s not going to look the same,” she said. “That’s messy, and from year to year you’re going to get it wrong.”

Postscript: States can start applying for Race to the Top funds in the fall, and the first round of prizes will go out in early 2010. Duncan has posted the proposed requirements and selection criteria online so that the public can comment on them before Aug. 28, which means that the race has started, but the rules could change.



Photo credits: woodleywonderworks’ flickr photostream, One Laptop per Child’s flickr photostream / CC BY 2.0

A teacher explains why she is leaving

August 9th, 2009

originally posted at Daily Kos

It happens all the time. People come into teaching, full of enthusiasm, sometimes accompanied by real talent. But they do not stay. After all, we lose half of those entering into teaching before they start their sixth year, the bulk of those before they start their fourth. There are lots of reasons. Some, like those entering through programs like Teach for America, never intended to make a career of it. Others find they cannot handle the pressures, or live on the salaries.

I could give you statistics, but that is often not effective. I remind you that Stalin said that the death of millions was a statistic, but the death of an individual was a tragedy. So let5′s look at a tragedy, the death of a teaching career, after the magical three-year mark, of a gifted teacher who is able to explain why she is leaving.

Sarah Fine puts it bluntly in the title of her Washington Post op ed: Schools Need Teachers Like Me. I Just Can’t Stay. Please read the whole thing. It won’t take long. Then we’ll talk.

It is rarely one reason when a person who is dedicated to the ideal of teaching chooses to abandon the profession. Money is certainly part of it. The job can be hard, and the term “burnout” is often applicable, but not because of the difficulty of the job, at least, the part of the job that involved dealing with students, even the most difficult students.

Fine acknowledges that her own story is not unique, writing

In 2005, the year I started teaching, nearly a third of new teachers in the District of Columbia were recent college graduates who had enrolled in Teach for America or the D.C. Teaching Fellows program. Statistics suggest that many of these recruits have already moved on. Nationally, half of all new teachers leave the profession within five years, and in urban schools, especially the much-lauded “no excuses” charter schools, turnover is often much higher.

One reason not directly addressed in Fine’s piece is that most urban charter schools are not unionized. For better or worse, that means that the teaching staff lacks the protections a union can give them, making them subject to abusive or unrealistic demands by administrations. We see this in the paragraph following what I have already quoted from Fine, who has already told us that she uses the term “burnout” as as a kind of shorthand:

When I talk about the long hours, for example, what I mean is that, over the course of four years, my school’s administration steadily expanded the workload and workday while barely adjusting salaries. More and more major decisions were made behind closed doors, and more and more teachers felt micromanaged rather than supported. One afternoon this spring, when my often apathetic 10th-graders were walking eagerly around the room as part of a writing assignment, an administrator came in and ordered me to get the class “seated and silent.” It took everything I had to hold back my tears of frustration.

Here I would interject that some of what troubled her about her own situation is becoming increasingly the case in public schools that are unionized as well. The idea of micromanagement – especially in ways that interfere with the teachers’ ability to really connect with the students, are among the most troubling problems teachers encounter. We see it in canned lessons, rigid pacing guides used to require everyone to be on the same page at the same time.

The idea that decisions are made behind closed doors is also something we all encounter. Or, if the doors are not closed, the voices of those of us in the classroom are not included when the decisions are being made. Fine writes about spending weeks with fellow teachers revising a curriculum proposal only to see it rejected by her administration without even looking at it. We see this now on a national scale: on July 27 I posted Education: what is wrong with this picture? in which I pointed out that the panels involved in drafting new national standards for English and Math and the support panels included a grand total of one classroom teacher and no participation by the professional organizations for the two curricular areas.

Fine is a gifted writer. She acknowledges her frustration in not being able to reach all her students, and worries about those who fall through the cracks. As a teacher myself, that draws me to her, because even after 14 years I still wrestle with the same worries. That demonstrates the kind of caring that is usually essential to reaching the most difficult students. And reading the description of the classroom, where we realize that she herself – not her school – provided the library of young adult literature for her students, that she honored them by posting their efforts at poetry, it is easy to see her as the kind of teacher who draws students to what she asks, who is effective in having her students go beyond their comfort levels. And even while expressing pride in her students effective performance on the required external test does not make up for the sense of failing students who did not succeed.

That kind of frustration can break a lesser teacher, even one with the support of her administration. If one enters the profession wanting to make a difference,or as Fine puts it,

it only seemed right that I “give back” after spending 22 years in a suburban, Ivy League bubble

those failures can cut very deeply, that can be devastating to on’e moral and sense of purpose. Even as one struggles with the sense of failure for those one did not reach, being able to persist, to try to adjust, to maintain one’s effort on behalf of those students one is reaching, is critical if we are going to make a difference in the lives of the people served by the kind of school in which Fine taught. Note that I said people, not children or students. In many cases it is by what we do for those in our classroom that also inspires and sustains the adult members of their families, who seeing possibilities opening up for their children are inspired to overcome inertia and despair and themselves try to make a difference in their own lives.

What Fine describes as most devastating is the lack of respect for the profession. She reminds us that

Teaching is a grueling job, and without the kind of social recognition that accompanies professions such as medicine and law, it is even harder for ambitious young people like me to stick with it.

Here the problem is more widespread than many are willing to recognize. All professions have underachievers, and/or people who perhaps should be encouraged to leave the profession. That is certainly true of elected legislators, it is very true of lawyers (remember, that profession includes the likes of Orly Taitz), we have seen how true it was of bankers, and far too many in medical fields are more concerned with the money they make than with the real health of their patients. Yet no other profession is subject to the constant drumbeat of criticism, to the palpable lack of respect for the profession. Even a president who claims to be committed to improving education is prone to the kind of rhetoric that paints with brush strokes far too broad.

It is true in teaching, as in other fields, that some are far more effective in reaching their students, in having those students succeed no matter what measure you use – score on external tests, persistence in doing work, developing the ability to work independently in the domain. Our approach should not be to incentivize those teachers, but rather to use them to help understand how and why they are more successful, and thus to empower other teachers to greater success. Instead we see arguments for merit pay for teachers based at least in part on performance on test scores, including statements and actions by our President and his Secretary of Education, ignoring all the evidence both in education and in other fields of the ineffectiveness – and sometimes the destructiveness – of merit pay as a means of improving overall performance in the field.

Our Secretary of Education is not only insisting upon using student test performance as a key factor in making such merit pay decisions, he is also insisting upon states expanding the use of charter schools, despite a clear lack of evidence that they are any more effective overall in teaching students, as a recently released study at Stanford made clear.

Fine taught in a charter school. It is dangerous to make policy by anecdote, and in referencing her experience, it is not my intent to do so. But she illustrates very clearly that merely setting up a charter does not overcome many of the problems inherent in education, particularly in situations such as inner city minority neighborhoods. Students will arrive absent the skills and knowledge one should be able to expect at that grade level. Issues of family dysfunction, poverty, nutrition and health, are not overcome by magically doing away with the normal structure of the traditional public school, including having unions to protect the rights of the teachers. Many charters are able to select out the more difficult to educate students, or the ones whose families are not seen as being as “supportive” of the school and its mission. The hours worked by their teachers are often not sustainable, which also contributes to high turnover of staff which undercuts the effectiveness of the school.

Some charters are more successful, especially those able to develop and maintain a clear sense of mission, one which is a product of a group effort of the entire staff, not just of one person. The flexibility that allows that to happen in a charter is key. And perhaps we should acknowledge that, and rather than insisting states merely allow or even mandate more charters, start trying to give a similar flexibility to “traditional” public schools so that they can meet the needs of the students in their classes.

In any case, teaching is a key to the success of our students. We have known about the high turnover among teachers for many years. It has been an important issue since before I began my own Master of Arts in Teaching program in 1994, and it has gotten worse in the decade and a half since. If we cannot develop and maintain a sufficient core of competent or better teachers, we will not overcome the crisis of education that we currently face, which is far more than the issue of international economic competition, an issue which receives too much attention at the expense of things far more basic. We will not be educating our young people to be participants in the representative democracy we pretend to be. We will not be empowering each student to pursue that which most energizes them for work or even for avocation. We will not be equipping our students to be able to learn on their own, to be willing to take intellectual risks.

All of that requires teachers. I am about to start my 15th year of teaching. I am still learning how to be more effective for the students in my care. By all counts I am at least a pretty good teacher, more than minimally competent even on my occasional bad days – and remember, teachers are human, and like those in other fields we have days where we are not as effective.

Fine closes her piece like this:

Having a base of teachers who teach for more than a token few years is critical to school reform. It helps principals and school leaders develop trusting relationships with teachers. It helps teachers collaborate with one another. Most of all, it helps students. A teacher with experience is not always a good teacher, but a good teacher is always better after a few years of experience. As my former principal not-so-subtly put it: “The kids don’t need one-year wonders. There is no such thing as a one-year wonder.”

Four-year wonders are better than nothing, but still not enough.

We need to listen to the voices of teachers. Effective organizations regularly do exit interviews of those leaving, hoping thereby to be able to make adjustments to improve conditions for those remaining. We do not as a regular practice do this in education. We should. Learning why people leave is critical information.

Sarah Fine has done her own exit interview. She has taken the time and used her expressive gifts to explain her decision to leave teaching. He piece appears in the newspaper serving our national capital city. It is unfortunately that so many involved in educational policy are not in town to read it.

But we can. We can pass it on. We can reflect upon what we learn from her, and perhaps thereby from many like her who leave the teaching profession far too soon.

Peace.

Let Creative Design Work Drive Merit Pay Discussion

August 7th, 2009

By Darah Bonham (@darahbonham -twitter)

In the June 2008 edition of the Harvard Business Review, Tim Brown wrote an article entitled “Design Thinking”. Mr. Brown is the CEO and president of IDEO, an innovation and design firm with headquarters in Palo Alto, California. His perspective on innovation focuses on the need to use “design thinking” as a strategic process for not only making products and services more aesthetically appealing but to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs. (follow Tim Brown at the IDEO web site http://www.ideo.com/)

In reading his work, I reflected on how design thinking could play a role into secondary education. Corporate America is increasingly looking towards innovators and creative thinkers to not simply repackage existing products or services but to create new opportunities often stemming from the problems that are facing their consumers. Mr. Brown references Bank of America’s “Keep the Change” experiment in 2005 that provided a savings incentive to consumers who decided to sign up for this service with their debit card. In return, the customer would have their purchases rounded up to the next dollar with the difference deposited into their account for savings. This ingenious idea and plan led to 700,000 new customer accounts.

Ideas such as this seem clever in retrospect but they are strategic in design, process, and delivery. So how can educators use this model to not only initiate reform but cause measurable change that is driven by its employees and stakeholders, not simply top level management? One possibility could be tied to merit pay and pay for performance in our schools.

It is no secret that from the President, to the Secretary of Education, to local school leaders, compensatory reform for teachers is a hot topic. The debate is nothing new but the focus from a new administration surely brings more people to the table for the discussion. Many of the opponents to merit pay argue that the playing field isn’t level. Teachers don’t get an opportunity to choose the kids in their class nor their aptitude and attitude. How is it fair that some teachers get a better “crop” to plow, they may argue? Added to the argument is the notion that state or other summative assessments are used as the, often only, metric in determining success in the classroom. Landing on the “how” may cause such merit pay desires to get caught in bureaucratic battles with school officials and teachers’ unions.

What is one possible solution to create incentives for teachers to perform their job better and strive to be exemplary (by whatever that is defined by)? Perhaps a look into Tim Brown’s article can open up new ideas for how to reward those who are performing at the level that is benefiting our schools. One solution I’ve been bouncing around looks at rewarding staff members (not just teachers) in compensation based on their “design thinking” that Mr. Brown alludes to. Instead of rewarding just teachers for higher test results at the end of the year, how about rewarding “stakeholders” with creative “systems thinking” plans, not just ideas, that help improve all those areas we keep focusing on in education: dropout rates; achievement gap; interdisciplinary approach to project base learning; STEM integration, etc.

Teams could be created within each school and division ( think-tanks come to mind but I would rather they be more focused on outcomes and plans than simply conjuring up ideas) to tackle solutions with creative ideas that are not necessarily derived from how we normally “do” education. Entrepreneurs see problems as opportunities. The bigger the problem, the greater the opportunity to maximize a benefit for your company and the consumer. The problem in education is that we see many of the problems as bigger issues beyond the scope of a teacher’s job along with the less feeling of empowerment to actually make change work. The critical part in this type of work is providing the time and resources to have educators create, design and put a plan in action. Brown’s article focuses on the development of rapid prototypes. We don’t need long, laborious, wordsmithing exercises that involve rewriting strategic plans, rather actual prototypes that can be tangible in use.

How would this type of work tie in with a compensation model? One of the metrics used to identify exemplary work in education is student performance. Most often this is tied to a standardized assessment where improvement is noted either within particular classes/students or in comparison to previous classes’ results. These measurements can’t be ignored for they are a critical measurement of the high stakes testing that is part of our environment. That being said, the use of such a specific metric doesn’t take into account the other factors that measure student success and doesn’t truly define what success “is” or “looks like”. Too often whatever improvements were made are reinvented or lost with an entire group of new students the following year or with an unsuccessful teacher.

Creating an incentive model that focused on systems change tied to collaborative, creative design thinkers would allow improvements within schools and divisions that would not be terminal and could be implemented in various ways with continuous improvement and tinkering. In Virginia, we speak of the SOL’s (standards of learning) tests as the “floor not the ceiling”. With a systems, creative-thinking model, the results of a well thought-out, collaborative, stakeholder owned plan, would look at improving the system as a whole that would reverberate into positive outcomes for the individual student.

How would such work be compensated? Rather than looking at individual test results, look at the results of enacted plans from the stakeholder groups. While this may take more than a year to measure, stipends could be provided for those participants of plans that caused incremental and significant improvement in the way things are done in schools. If you truly want stakeholder involvement, don’t limit the improvement process to simply student scores and performance. Expand the opportunities for systems improvement in areas such as transportation, student wellness, employee morale, community involvement, and yes, eliminating the achievement gap.

Well run companies spend sufficient resources towards targeted employee improvement plans and providing opportunities to improve processes and products within their institution. While intrinsic motivation is inherent in most teachers and school employees, most see their role in improvement centered upon the day to day work that happens inside their classroom walls. That other “stuff” on the outside is critical but what a student learns takes precedent over all else. (no argument here) Consequently, most of the effort and energy is left to those particular students within that teacher’s class when, in fact, the strategies and plans the teacher implements could have greater implication on the school beyond those 120 students. Why not foster, empower, and incentivize these opportunities?

While collaboration and innovation are becoming over-used terms in education, similar to 21st century skills, more opportunities are available to provide these opportunities through the use of technology. The internet is no longer a one-way street. Social networks, collaborative software, and cloud computing all allow platforms for educators (custodians, finance officers, administrators and teachers) to share, improve and design. While school buildings are usually the last to catch up with the latest technological advances, the likes of Twitter, Wikis, and blogs have provided more tools to share ideas with those in-house and from other areas across the country and world. Perhaps the collaborative teams don’t all reside in your own school house.

If we truly want all of our stakeholders to be vested and active towards system change and educational reform, we owe it to provide a platform for creative, design thinking that is supported by resources that could include additional dollars in one’s pocket.

In the spirit of collaboration, I encourage your thoughts and comments.

Backward, Ironically, is Pretty Forward

August 7th, 2009
Jason Flom, Ecology of Education

Moving toward a goal seems quite intuitive. Toddlers demonstrate profound awareness of this concept daily.

“I want to pet (i.e. manhandle) that cat up there. With a chair, a box, and a bit of climbing, I can. Go-go Gadget Toddler-Ingenuity.”

Ideally, we move beyond this form of immediate gratification to a more complex, intentional set of actions. But, as I usually demonstrate whenever I go to the grocery store hungry, thinking strategically is not a skill we stumble upon. It takes effort.

Applying strategic thinking to individual actions can be challenging (and humbling) to say the least. Applying it to an organization requires leadership, vision, thick skin, and a willingness to let go of power a bit. (Applying it to schools also requires a bit of verve, because aligning and organizing teachers can sometimes be akin to corralling squirrels.)

Enter Jay McTighe, stage right. He and his colleague, Grant Wiggins, have grown beyond their initial publication, Understanding by Design, to expand their reach. Schooling by Design, aims to apply basic strategic thinking to cultivating a collaborative culture with a clear mission, sound learning principles, and effective instructional programs.

Like many of today’s educational leaders, he advocates for building the curriculum around big ideas with the mantra, “Facts don’t transfer, big ideas do.” He suggests using questions to offer a doorway into those big concepts. Big ideas act as “cognitive velcro,” and help students “connect the dots”. Because individual lessons and units collectively add up to the culture and curriculum of the school, we should map out our curriculum around concepts and big ideas for long term effect.

One hour only provided a sampler platter of the foundation and framework of his program, but it was enough to know that schools can grow forward by looking ahead in order to look back.

Making the Shift, Part 1: No More Objectives

August 6th, 2009

The following statement preoccupied my thoughts for several hours: “As a result, a large gap separates the skills and strategies taught in school from the executive function processes needed for success there and in the workplace.” The basis for this conclusion, the cause, is education’s focus “on the content, or the what, rather than the process, or the how, of learning.” Our teaching frequently fails to emphasize executive functions—the cognitive processes that enable goal setting, problem solving, organizing, attention shifting, and metacognition.1

In introducing the Purview Project, I wrote about the shift to a more thinking-centric emphasis in education, and in a recent post focused on thinking within the disciplines, I described how researchers illustrated the difference between knowing what and knowing how by contrasting AP social studies’ students and practicing historians results on differing types of assessment. Despite the recent discussion of national standards in the US, I believe this shift is underway, necessary, and inevitable.

A shift in what we emphasize requires shifts in our own thinking about teaching and learning. If we teach more process and less content, textbooks will either change or become obsolete. If we emphasize how rather than what, assessment will need to engage students in demonstrating how to do rather than what to memorize. If we want to develop students’ executive functions, we need to reexamine every aspect of our practice. We need to close the “large gap,” beginning with one of our most ingrained ideas: objectives.

What we know and believe about objectives depends somewhat on how long we’ve been educators. I was trained to develop “behavioral” objectives that specified what students would specifically do and to what percentage of accuracy they would do it. Wording was a major concern and everything had to be measurable. (You can still see this philosophy being emphasized in current discussions.) Researchers then divided behavioral objectives into three types: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. We were told to display the objectives for students to see. Then, for a time, behaviorism and its objectives became “yesterday’s news” and “outcomes” became the focus. These were followed by objectives addressing student “emotional quotient” or “EQ.” Next came different objectives for each of the learning styles and/or multiple intelligences, and objectives based on various taxonomies of thinking. In many schools, more emphasis was placed on form and wording than imagination.

That’s right, imagination. Einstein famously said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”2 School-based learning happens as a teacher’s envisioned future becomes a student’s reality. If we are shifting to a greater focus on developing students’ executive functions, our notions of objectives need to be replaced with something more imaginative, something more forward looking than what we can measure tomorrow.

But what? What can provide a guiding vision that will focus our teaching?

In his book Think Better, Tim Hurson introduces the concept of “Target Future,” an “imagined future” so “powerful and compelling” that it generates motivation to achieve it. It generates “Future Pull.”3

That sounds great, but how do you develop one? Hurson suggests an act of imagination; he suggests telling yourself a story. Before you succumb to the temptation to write this off as too involved or requiring too much time, allow me ask a simple question: When you envision your students using the thinking processes you’ve taught them, when they’re applying such thinking on their own, what do you see? Stretch that vision, seeing your students utilizing the thinking they’ve learned in multiple scenarios outside of the classroom. Hurson suggests making this vision, this story as “vivid and sensory” as possible. How would your students feel? How would their use of the thinking influence their work and their interactions with others? Imagine all this as reality. That’s a “Target Future.” That’s what you’re teaching for—what you work to make real.

What’s the difference? Objectives tie us to schools, to classrooms, to limited contexts for our students to put their learning to use. “Each student will be able to answer two-digit addition problems with 85% accuracy.” See how that pulls you into the classroom. We feel like we are teaching for a classroom-based assessment that features an easily determined rate of accuracy. The problem is that we are not educating students to live successful lives in a classroom. We’re trying to close the “large gap” between school and successful living in the real world.

Wording a “Target Future” so that it satisfies those who insist on objectives may be a challenge. (Something for which you can offer suggestions in the comments!) However, we won’t educate for the real world until we envision our students operating within it, using the executive functions we’ve helped them develop.

In future posts, I hope to explore additional shifts we as teachers can make that will aid the inevitable shift to more thinking-centric education. For now, consider opening your next lesson with, “Students, let me tell you a story, a story in which you are the main characters…” Then use all your teaching ability to make that story their reality.

  1. Meltzer, L. (ed.), Executive Function in Education, (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007), xi-xiii.
  2. Einstein, A. Albert Einstein Quotes, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/imagination_is_more_important_than_knowledge-for/260230.html
  3. Hurson, T., Think Better, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), 127-141.