Last time, I mentioned an article that was a tongue-in-cheek account of what makes a "bad" teacher. On the other hand, this article (by the same author of the former one) explains what makes great teachers. She not only discusses traits that cannot easily be tested, but she mentions that she created this list based on data-driven observations. So if one person can develop a non-test-driven matrix for judging teachers (granted, an untested one, but it's worth a shot! It can't be worse than the current matrix!), why are we still using ridiculous "Value Added Measures" to determine whether or not a teacher is successful?
The current "reform" movement in fact makes the art of teaching worse, not better. We have long been aware that teachers need more money, more recognition, etc. etc., but this article makes an excellent point about what teachers would do with more time. They would not take longer vacations, or assign longer essays, or bitch about students with colleagues; instead, according to the article, teachers would develop stronger relationships with students and parents, perfect their teaching methods and share their practices with other professionals, and provide more nuanced comments on student assignments rather than give just a letter grade. Granted, this is one person's opinion, but being surrounded by teachers and knowing that most people go into teaching expressly to make a difference in students' lives, I don't think it's far-fetched at all. (Perhaps what teachers do with their time can be another factor in the way we determine whether or not a teacher is "great.")
If any policy makers are reading this: Please change things. I've said it before and I'll say it again because it's the best thing you can do: LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS!
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Unmeasureable greatness
It is nearly impossible to escape data in pretty much every walk of life. This is not a bad thing -- data tells store owners what merchandise to stock, data tells non-profit agencies which populations to serve, and data tells school administrators how many teachers to hire.
I love data. It is important and useful. But it often does not tell the whole story -- hence why the standardization movement in education is harmful -- because often, data cannot measure everything. Yet people in charge of school reform seem to forget this fact. And with something as complex as a school system, which serves and employs thousands of people, we cannot make decisions based solely upon the data that has been gathered. Data can and must be a tool to inform our decisions, but we must be careful to not have it be the only tool. Herein lies the problem with the modern education movement.
Test scores, as we know, are the driving force behind the determination over whether or not a teacher is "good." But that is unfair, as there is so much you cannot measure that determines whether or not a teacher is successful. In fact, this article does a succinct job of explaining the important factors that determine if a teacher is "bad." We could, I suppose, come up with some sort of test to measure these five criteria, but why? Education should become more humanistic, not more robotic. Perhaps the most important outcome of education -- that of a student's later success -- is unmeasurable. But is that necessary a bad thing?
I love data. It is important and useful. But it often does not tell the whole story -- hence why the standardization movement in education is harmful -- because often, data cannot measure everything. Yet people in charge of school reform seem to forget this fact. And with something as complex as a school system, which serves and employs thousands of people, we cannot make decisions based solely upon the data that has been gathered. Data can and must be a tool to inform our decisions, but we must be careful to not have it be the only tool. Herein lies the problem with the modern education movement.
Test scores, as we know, are the driving force behind the determination over whether or not a teacher is "good." But that is unfair, as there is so much you cannot measure that determines whether or not a teacher is successful. In fact, this article does a succinct job of explaining the important factors that determine if a teacher is "bad." We could, I suppose, come up with some sort of test to measure these five criteria, but why? Education should become more humanistic, not more robotic. Perhaps the most important outcome of education -- that of a student's later success -- is unmeasurable. But is that necessary a bad thing?
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Student Autonomy
I am a huge believer in the student-centered classroom. I believe that students learn best (and develop the motivation to learn) when they are given opportunities to take ownership of their own learning. There are many studies that prove students learn better (and, more importantly, are more interested in learning) when they can construct their own learning plans, compared to when teachers simply talk at them. There is an expression, in fact, that teachers should serve as a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage." The former phrase suggests that teachers' roles are to guide students in their own discoveries, whereas the latter states that teachers have all the answers and are simply regurgitating the information, which I strongly disagree with.
Many leading education experts agree that teachers should be more of a guide and less of a sage. At the forefront of this movement is Alfie Kohn, who for decades has supported progressive education. In this essay, he explains how widely-used reading practices in particular kills students' love of reading. When I read this, I agreed with him wholeheartedly, yet I also felt empathic for educators, whose professions revolve around formalized assessments, and thus encouraging students' own construction of their learning is often not possible.
I especially like the part toward the bottom where Kohn discusses self-determination theory. (I discussed this theory briefly as well about six months ago.) Here, he offers further evidence that VAM are the opposite of effective education. Teachers and principals (in other words, those in the trenches) have known this for years. When will policy-makers (those who have no experience in the classroom, by the way) come to their senses?
Many leading education experts agree that teachers should be more of a guide and less of a sage. At the forefront of this movement is Alfie Kohn, who for decades has supported progressive education. In this essay, he explains how widely-used reading practices in particular kills students' love of reading. When I read this, I agreed with him wholeheartedly, yet I also felt empathic for educators, whose professions revolve around formalized assessments, and thus encouraging students' own construction of their learning is often not possible.
I especially like the part toward the bottom where Kohn discusses self-determination theory. (I discussed this theory briefly as well about six months ago.) Here, he offers further evidence that VAM are the opposite of effective education. Teachers and principals (in other words, those in the trenches) have known this for years. When will policy-makers (those who have no experience in the classroom, by the way) come to their senses?
Monday, December 1, 2014
Been a while...
...since things have been crazy. I have been quite behind. However, I saw this video on youtube earlier today and I thought it was fantastic.
For the complete opposite approach, Larry Cuban collected these anti-technology cartoons.
Moral of the story? No one thing will completely fix education. We do not teach, or learn, in a vacuum.
For the complete opposite approach, Larry Cuban collected these anti-technology cartoons.
Moral of the story? No one thing will completely fix education. We do not teach, or learn, in a vacuum.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Oh assessments...
Assessments are my life right now. As much as I may hate it, I teach to the test. Specifically, I teach to the GED, since that's why my students attend the program.
But just because students pass the GED doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful in post-secondary education, or, for that matter, in life. The same applies to all standardized tests. Life isn't standardized, so why should students' assessments be?
At its best, education should prepare students for life, which standardized tests do not do. Therefore, the standardization movement is unethical, since it does not accurately prepare students for real-world skills. I also think the movement is dangerous, since our society depends upon a well-educated populace with critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The standardization movement is essentially destroying our own future (not to be overly dramatic or anything). This will continue to be the case for as long as the movement is run by billionaires, for-profit testing corporations, and other people who are not teachers.
In the article linked above, a mother is concerned that Pearson's wrong answer in a textbook would carry over to Pearson's test; but more than that, she is concerned that the test is not allowing her children (or herself) the chance to hold them accountable. As the author states, Pearson is writing tests "we parents will never get to see. Tests we parents will never get to review. Tests we parents will never get to question." This is extraordinarily unethical, and extraordinarily dangerous. Any curriculum designer will tell you to BEGIN with the assessment to see what students know, not END with the assessment to penalize students for what they don't. (Of course, you need pre- and post-assessments to be entirely accurate, but the point of the final one is to see which skills students still have not mastered, not to be used as the end-all be-all of how to grade students and their teachers.) If the testing company is the only one that knows the answer, how can students, parents, and teachers know how to improve? (Moreover, if teachers have to be held accountable, why doesn't the testing industry have to live up to its own standards?)
I experience this same frustration with my students. We give them practice tests through the testing sites, and we are able to see a score, and nothing more, once the student has finished. That's it. This is incredibly unhelpful in terms of designing lessons and assessing skills. This is not how you learn. This is not how you teach.
Clearly, I am not a fan of the for-profit testing industry. Nor, as I'm sure you're aware, am I a fan of the larger movement in which billionaires seem to have ultimate control over education reform, regardless of how ignorant they are of the complexities of the school system. (Warning: This article is really long.) They continually harp upon accountability, but to whom are they accountable?
The current education reform movement, in a nutshell, seems to be saying that if you have money and power, you get to make the rules, and that teaching really isn't that hard, since they can get the answers (albeit wrong ones) from the textbooks. The entire movement undermines the entire profession of teaching, what with all this hate about teacher tenure and Teach for America, which doesn't seem to think that one needs experience or much training to become a teacher. That's why I'm glad that Harvard may no longer be sending graduates to TFA -- at least that is one baby step in the right direction. But we have so far to go.
But just because students pass the GED doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful in post-secondary education, or, for that matter, in life. The same applies to all standardized tests. Life isn't standardized, so why should students' assessments be?
At its best, education should prepare students for life, which standardized tests do not do. Therefore, the standardization movement is unethical, since it does not accurately prepare students for real-world skills. I also think the movement is dangerous, since our society depends upon a well-educated populace with critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The standardization movement is essentially destroying our own future (not to be overly dramatic or anything). This will continue to be the case for as long as the movement is run by billionaires, for-profit testing corporations, and other people who are not teachers.
In the article linked above, a mother is concerned that Pearson's wrong answer in a textbook would carry over to Pearson's test; but more than that, she is concerned that the test is not allowing her children (or herself) the chance to hold them accountable. As the author states, Pearson is writing tests "we parents will never get to see. Tests we parents will never get to review. Tests we parents will never get to question." This is extraordinarily unethical, and extraordinarily dangerous. Any curriculum designer will tell you to BEGIN with the assessment to see what students know, not END with the assessment to penalize students for what they don't. (Of course, you need pre- and post-assessments to be entirely accurate, but the point of the final one is to see which skills students still have not mastered, not to be used as the end-all be-all of how to grade students and their teachers.) If the testing company is the only one that knows the answer, how can students, parents, and teachers know how to improve? (Moreover, if teachers have to be held accountable, why doesn't the testing industry have to live up to its own standards?)
I experience this same frustration with my students. We give them practice tests through the testing sites, and we are able to see a score, and nothing more, once the student has finished. That's it. This is incredibly unhelpful in terms of designing lessons and assessing skills. This is not how you learn. This is not how you teach.
Clearly, I am not a fan of the for-profit testing industry. Nor, as I'm sure you're aware, am I a fan of the larger movement in which billionaires seem to have ultimate control over education reform, regardless of how ignorant they are of the complexities of the school system. (Warning: This article is really long.) They continually harp upon accountability, but to whom are they accountable?
The current education reform movement, in a nutshell, seems to be saying that if you have money and power, you get to make the rules, and that teaching really isn't that hard, since they can get the answers (albeit wrong ones) from the textbooks. The entire movement undermines the entire profession of teaching, what with all this hate about teacher tenure and Teach for America, which doesn't seem to think that one needs experience or much training to become a teacher. That's why I'm glad that Harvard may no longer be sending graduates to TFA -- at least that is one baby step in the right direction. But we have so far to go.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
I'll take Policy Potpourri for 500, Alex (aka Link Storm 2014)
Most educational reforms, as most of us know, deal with testing and accountability. In many cases, this means several things: teachers lack control of their own curricula, academics take priority over everything else; and schools systematically find ways to deal with "bad kids" who inhibit learning.
To the first point: Curricula cannot be one-size-fits-all. All students, and all teachers, are different. But when one is teaching to a specific standardized test, this idea is often forgotten, and then teachers are stuck teaching things they themselves may not even care about. Thus, students become bored and disengaged, and no one can learn like that. Education needs to be relevant or you won't remember what you learned. That's basic learning theory. Additionally, as this article points out, racial makeup of schools (in regards to both students and staffing) does matter, especially in terms of how comfortable students and parents feel in their neighborhood schools. I believe that first and foremost, schools should feel like a community for all involved, not simply a place where one goes to learn stuff. When teachers can't control what they're teaching, it breaches basic theories about how students learn, and quashes the idea that schools act as safe communities who embrace their students' cultures. Perhaps more importantly, when teachers are not in control, their voices are not heard, and neither are their students'.
To the second point: We all know that there is not enough time in the day to do everything we want to do. This is even more problematic for teachers, especially when they must teach to the test. But is it really a bad thing when students don't have time for non-academic activities, like music, sports, and theater? Yes. The author here does an amazing job of advocating for the arts. I know from experience that the arts are vital. Especially for at-risk students. True, the arts are not tested. But we can still hold arts teachers accountable for what their students learn. Not all successes can be measured through numbers (and this is coming from someone who creates pivot tables for fun...).
And to the last point: Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand why there is such a preponderance of expulsions and suspensions in the school system. First of all, if a child dislikes school, suspending him is not a punishment. Secondly, while I understand that teachers may not be able to manage a classroom with constant misbehavior (speaking from experience), taking a child out of school sends a message that the people in charge are giving up on helping her. This article alludes to the idea that expulsion rates correlate to drop out rates (and looking at this graph, you can see that "not being interested" -- i.e. the first and second points -- and "missing too many days" account for the most popular reasons for why students drop out (page 3)). We need to develop a culture that tells students school is important, but this goes back to making school relevant and interesting again.
Finally, to end on a good note, despite the fact that is so much wrong with education reform, the world needs passionate and caring teachers. This professor explains why beautifully.
.
To the first point: Curricula cannot be one-size-fits-all. All students, and all teachers, are different. But when one is teaching to a specific standardized test, this idea is often forgotten, and then teachers are stuck teaching things they themselves may not even care about. Thus, students become bored and disengaged, and no one can learn like that. Education needs to be relevant or you won't remember what you learned. That's basic learning theory. Additionally, as this article points out, racial makeup of schools (in regards to both students and staffing) does matter, especially in terms of how comfortable students and parents feel in their neighborhood schools. I believe that first and foremost, schools should feel like a community for all involved, not simply a place where one goes to learn stuff. When teachers can't control what they're teaching, it breaches basic theories about how students learn, and quashes the idea that schools act as safe communities who embrace their students' cultures. Perhaps more importantly, when teachers are not in control, their voices are not heard, and neither are their students'.
To the second point: We all know that there is not enough time in the day to do everything we want to do. This is even more problematic for teachers, especially when they must teach to the test. But is it really a bad thing when students don't have time for non-academic activities, like music, sports, and theater? Yes. The author here does an amazing job of advocating for the arts. I know from experience that the arts are vital. Especially for at-risk students. True, the arts are not tested. But we can still hold arts teachers accountable for what their students learn. Not all successes can be measured through numbers (and this is coming from someone who creates pivot tables for fun...).
And to the last point: Perhaps I am naive, but I don't understand why there is such a preponderance of expulsions and suspensions in the school system. First of all, if a child dislikes school, suspending him is not a punishment. Secondly, while I understand that teachers may not be able to manage a classroom with constant misbehavior (speaking from experience), taking a child out of school sends a message that the people in charge are giving up on helping her. This article alludes to the idea that expulsion rates correlate to drop out rates (and looking at this graph, you can see that "not being interested" -- i.e. the first and second points -- and "missing too many days" account for the most popular reasons for why students drop out (page 3)). We need to develop a culture that tells students school is important, but this goes back to making school relevant and interesting again.
Finally, to end on a good note, despite the fact that is so much wrong with education reform, the world needs passionate and caring teachers. This professor explains why beautifully.
.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
This week's post is brought to you by the letter B
...for backwards.
I've written before how much I think modern education policy is going in the wrong direction. This post will be no exception. First, the Young Education Professionals' Blog has this great piece about the "3 blunders of Common Core" and solutions for each. While CCSS does have good ideas, its biggest blunder is that things happened much too quickly. As any policy-maker or scientist can tell you, slower changes for something as gigantic as the national education system, work better. It's easier to tell what works and what doesn't when there are fewer variables.
Valerie Strauss has also reported about two different issues that I would like to address: The first relates to the concept above, that change must happen slowly, and that it doesn't come out of nowhere. Finally, this other piece suggests that collaboration is at the core of strong policy, especially when it comes to the classroom, which I firmly believe. But when you have Race to the Top and similar initiatives, competition takes the place of collaboration. Though competition is not in and of itself a bad thing, education is not the place for it. When it comes to improving schools, things work much more smoothly if collaboration is firmly in place.
I'm not saying anything that has not been said before. But perhaps if these things keep getting said by parents, educators, students, and other people who are actually in the trenches of education, things will finally start getting better.
I've written before how much I think modern education policy is going in the wrong direction. This post will be no exception. First, the Young Education Professionals' Blog has this great piece about the "3 blunders of Common Core" and solutions for each. While CCSS does have good ideas, its biggest blunder is that things happened much too quickly. As any policy-maker or scientist can tell you, slower changes for something as gigantic as the national education system, work better. It's easier to tell what works and what doesn't when there are fewer variables.
Valerie Strauss has also reported about two different issues that I would like to address: The first relates to the concept above, that change must happen slowly, and that it doesn't come out of nowhere. Finally, this other piece suggests that collaboration is at the core of strong policy, especially when it comes to the classroom, which I firmly believe. But when you have Race to the Top and similar initiatives, competition takes the place of collaboration. Though competition is not in and of itself a bad thing, education is not the place for it. When it comes to improving schools, things work much more smoothly if collaboration is firmly in place.
I'm not saying anything that has not been said before. But perhaps if these things keep getting said by parents, educators, students, and other people who are actually in the trenches of education, things will finally start getting better.
Monday, September 1, 2014
RIP my highlighter
I recently finished reading Diane Ravitch's "The Death and Life of the Great American School System," which discussed why the culture of testing and choice undermine the goals of a true education. It was phenomenal, and though I knew about and agreed with most of her claims, I thought that by embedding the current reforms into educational history was a great way to show two things: 1) How we got to this point and 2) How we keep going in circles. I recommend it for all educators, policy makers, and anyone else interested in education. (I also am metaphorically kicking myself for not having read it sooner...)
Ravitch's book reminded me about Richard Whitmire's "The Bee Eater," about Michelle Rhee's reign in DC, which led me to find this. The article discusses the dangers and irresponsibility of Rhee's ignoring the very real effect that poverty has on children's educations. This other piece from the NY Times goes on to say how many things that should be handled by the government that are becoming privatized (i.e. charter schools and jails) are harming the poor even more -- in this case, making the poor pay for their own services once provided by the government. Let's be clear -- as much as I (and others) complain about the government, there are things the government is good for. Like regulating businesses. But evidently, that is not the case anymore.
Ravitch's book reminded me about Richard Whitmire's "The Bee Eater," about Michelle Rhee's reign in DC, which led me to find this. The article discusses the dangers and irresponsibility of Rhee's ignoring the very real effect that poverty has on children's educations. This other piece from the NY Times goes on to say how many things that should be handled by the government that are becoming privatized (i.e. charter schools and jails) are harming the poor even more -- in this case, making the poor pay for their own services once provided by the government. Let's be clear -- as much as I (and others) complain about the government, there are things the government is good for. Like regulating businesses. But evidently, that is not the case anymore.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The circle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiife
Inevitably, at least one point in our lives, we end up circling back to something we have done, seen, or heard before. We are, after all, creatures of habit, and the world orbits among trends.
Earlier this month, I had written a piece about how Ferguson is connected to education, and now others are drawing this connection even more explicitly. Students cannot be expected to learn if they are reeling from a recent tragedy like this. (They also cannot be expected to learn if they are hungry, anxious, sick, and a whole slew of other feelings, as numerous researchers have also noted.) Teachers cannot be expected to teach if students are unmotivated, angry, and dour. Administrators cannot be expected to administrate if there exists an inherent distrust of "the authority" within a community. And parents cannot be expected to parent when the very lessons they are trying to teach are being undermined by the society at large.
Once again, we see how everything is connected. Schools do not exist within a silo. Therefore the policies that aim to improve them should involve the community at large. Education affects everything, therefore everything should focus, at least to some extent, on education.
Earlier this month, I had written a piece about how Ferguson is connected to education, and now others are drawing this connection even more explicitly. Students cannot be expected to learn if they are reeling from a recent tragedy like this. (They also cannot be expected to learn if they are hungry, anxious, sick, and a whole slew of other feelings, as numerous researchers have also noted.) Teachers cannot be expected to teach if students are unmotivated, angry, and dour. Administrators cannot be expected to administrate if there exists an inherent distrust of "the authority" within a community. And parents cannot be expected to parent when the very lessons they are trying to teach are being undermined by the society at large.
Once again, we see how everything is connected. Schools do not exist within a silo. Therefore the policies that aim to improve them should involve the community at large. Education affects everything, therefore everything should focus, at least to some extent, on education.
Friday, August 22, 2014
The importance of counselors
Several weeks ago, I wrote about the fact that education policies often do not work because they consider only the school, not the community. In many cases, they even go less deep than that -- they look only at the academics at the school, not at, for example, the extra-curriculars, library supplies, or the counselors. This last aspect I think is incredibly important.
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of studies to back me up (see how this aspect is ignored?), but I can tell you anecdotally why the education policy-makers should spend more time discussing counseling. I went to a small school where we didn't have counselors and I did okay (although I think I would have been much less stressed and better prepared if I did have someone guiding me through the college application process). But what about the students who needed counselors -- students who had mental health issues, scheduling conflicts, and crises with regular teenage things? This last aspect did happen to me -- I was afraid one of my friends at the time was an alcoholic and I didn't want to tell her teachers or her parents. I went to our principal because I trusted him, and I was lucky to be in a school that was small enough where he not only knew my name, but he knew my personality. Most students are not in that situation. Most students don't even know their own counselors well because of the sore lack of them around the country.
Most professionals don't even know what counselors really do. They do SO much more than college planning. That is another issue -- we cannot advocate for them if we don't understand what it is they do. We need to educate policy makers and the rest of the community before we can help educate children. So much is left to be done.
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of studies to back me up (see how this aspect is ignored?), but I can tell you anecdotally why the education policy-makers should spend more time discussing counseling. I went to a small school where we didn't have counselors and I did okay (although I think I would have been much less stressed and better prepared if I did have someone guiding me through the college application process). But what about the students who needed counselors -- students who had mental health issues, scheduling conflicts, and crises with regular teenage things? This last aspect did happen to me -- I was afraid one of my friends at the time was an alcoholic and I didn't want to tell her teachers or her parents. I went to our principal because I trusted him, and I was lucky to be in a school that was small enough where he not only knew my name, but he knew my personality. Most students are not in that situation. Most students don't even know their own counselors well because of the sore lack of them around the country.
Most professionals don't even know what counselors really do. They do SO much more than college planning. That is another issue -- we cannot advocate for them if we don't understand what it is they do. We need to educate policy makers and the rest of the community before we can help educate children. So much is left to be done.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Why Ferguson is an education issue
The big story in the news right now is the shooting of Michael Brown from Ferguson, MO, who was young and black. There are many similarities between this killing and that of Trayvon Martin, as well as the Rodney King riots. But why, you may ask, is an education blogger mentioning this?
To answer that question, it is necessary to first unpack the inherent racial profiling that occurred in all three of the above cases. There can be no question that each of these scenarios might have happened differently if the victims were white. Perhaps they still would have been killed, but the backlash about race would not have been so powerful. Many people have recently alluded to the white privilege that white people don't often realize they have. In the latter article, the writer mentions that even though she grew up dirt-poor, she still possesses white privilege simply due to her skin color. Another Huffington Post writer states that the media isn't helping with the perpetuation of stereotypes.
Additionally, in nearly every category that the government gathers statistics of -- people in jail, people in college, people on welfare -- people of color are disadvantaged. Is it because POC are genuinely more driven to commit crimes, not finish school, or not obtain living-wage jobs? Of course not. A great deal of the disadvantages occur because this country perpetuates white privilege, whether the people perpetuating it are aware of this or not. True, there is no longer slavery or legal segregation, but this is a culture dominated by white males, and it therefore can leave those who do not fall into this category feeling like outcasts.
But what does this have to do with education? First, as stated a remarkable piece written by Peggy McIntosh in 1988 (which all educators should familiarize themselves with, by the way), there are (at least) 50 reasons why white people can feel more comfortable in this culture. Because they fit in they may not be able to sympathize with POC in even their simplest struggles (like being followed while shopping). As a result, POC often feel marginalized or unwanted. If you possess these feelings (especially if they are coupled with worrying about whether you can eat today), school is most likely not your first priority.
Secondly, school systems were designed by this white culture. Therefore, there is often a disconnect not only in the curriculum for people of color (i.e. history being written by white men, required books by mostly white authors), but also in everyday scenarios similar to those McIntosh lists. White teachers may not be able to empathize with black students who feel like they can't walk around the school or community wearing jeans and a hoodie. This is why POC (especially black males) are especially vulnerable when it comes to dropping out of school. (Of course it's not the only reason, but if teenagers cannot relate to something or understand how it is relevant to their lives, they will not be invested.)
What's going on now in Ferguson is terrible, of course, but it can also open our eyes to the bigger issues -- there is still segregation in terms of society's perspectives of the races. We cannot hope to reform schools in the so-called inner cities until we reform these attitudes about race. For better or worse, they are intertwined.
To answer that question, it is necessary to first unpack the inherent racial profiling that occurred in all three of the above cases. There can be no question that each of these scenarios might have happened differently if the victims were white. Perhaps they still would have been killed, but the backlash about race would not have been so powerful. Many people have recently alluded to the white privilege that white people don't often realize they have. In the latter article, the writer mentions that even though she grew up dirt-poor, she still possesses white privilege simply due to her skin color. Another Huffington Post writer states that the media isn't helping with the perpetuation of stereotypes.
Additionally, in nearly every category that the government gathers statistics of -- people in jail, people in college, people on welfare -- people of color are disadvantaged. Is it because POC are genuinely more driven to commit crimes, not finish school, or not obtain living-wage jobs? Of course not. A great deal of the disadvantages occur because this country perpetuates white privilege, whether the people perpetuating it are aware of this or not. True, there is no longer slavery or legal segregation, but this is a culture dominated by white males, and it therefore can leave those who do not fall into this category feeling like outcasts.
But what does this have to do with education? First, as stated a remarkable piece written by Peggy McIntosh in 1988 (which all educators should familiarize themselves with, by the way), there are (at least) 50 reasons why white people can feel more comfortable in this culture. Because they fit in they may not be able to sympathize with POC in even their simplest struggles (like being followed while shopping). As a result, POC often feel marginalized or unwanted. If you possess these feelings (especially if they are coupled with worrying about whether you can eat today), school is most likely not your first priority.
Secondly, school systems were designed by this white culture. Therefore, there is often a disconnect not only in the curriculum for people of color (i.e. history being written by white men, required books by mostly white authors), but also in everyday scenarios similar to those McIntosh lists. White teachers may not be able to empathize with black students who feel like they can't walk around the school or community wearing jeans and a hoodie. This is why POC (especially black males) are especially vulnerable when it comes to dropping out of school. (Of course it's not the only reason, but if teenagers cannot relate to something or understand how it is relevant to their lives, they will not be invested.)
What's going on now in Ferguson is terrible, of course, but it can also open our eyes to the bigger issues -- there is still segregation in terms of society's perspectives of the races. We cannot hope to reform schools in the so-called inner cities until we reform these attitudes about race. For better or worse, they are intertwined.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
It takes a village
I'm sure most people have heard the expression "It takes a village to raise a child." This is very true, and this is one reason why modern school reform efforts are not working. These policies look only at the schools, not at other factors that affect a student's education -- i.e., a student's home life and mental health, among others. This is one reason why I think "education policy," "economic policy," "health policy," etc. should all be working together rather than in silos.
The writer of this article outlines five reform efforts that he thinks would affect education for the better, and I agree especially with his points about building community ties (due to the above reasons) and a student-centered learning environment. To this second point: In grad school, I was taught that a student-centered learning environment (in which students take "ownership" of their learning, rather than the teacher lecturing) is sacrosanct. Yet I have only seen it implemented in a handful of classrooms (granted, I have not observed more than probably a dozen, but I have heard enough stories from my own students that school didn't work this way for them; thus they have to be taught how to engage in my own student-centered classroom).
Ravani also mentions instructional guidance, which I think is highly lacking when new policies are implemented. We are all expected to attend Professional Development events, because like every other profession, there are changes in the field. Yet these events, though well-intentioned, are often useless, because we are not taught how to implement new teaching methods. This New York Times article details how the "new math" of the Common Core is an incredibly good idea, but teachers are not given adequate time to learn how to teach it. Therein lies the problem.
But back to the village scenario. Ravani's first point is about strong school leadership, and I think we can all agree that strong leadership of any organization is essential for its success. The goal of strong school leaders should be to ensure that all their students are successful, and they can do so by ensuring that all of the school's parts are working together. Larry Cuban explains that there is a difference between complex and complicated tasks, and school reform is the former due to all its moving parts. Hence, we need a village to run a school as well as raise a child. Therefore, why is one entity (the government) in charge of everything? We need to include ALL parts, in this case, students, parents, teachers, and administrators, into the decision making process.
The writer of this article outlines five reform efforts that he thinks would affect education for the better, and I agree especially with his points about building community ties (due to the above reasons) and a student-centered learning environment. To this second point: In grad school, I was taught that a student-centered learning environment (in which students take "ownership" of their learning, rather than the teacher lecturing) is sacrosanct. Yet I have only seen it implemented in a handful of classrooms (granted, I have not observed more than probably a dozen, but I have heard enough stories from my own students that school didn't work this way for them; thus they have to be taught how to engage in my own student-centered classroom).
Ravani also mentions instructional guidance, which I think is highly lacking when new policies are implemented. We are all expected to attend Professional Development events, because like every other profession, there are changes in the field. Yet these events, though well-intentioned, are often useless, because we are not taught how to implement new teaching methods. This New York Times article details how the "new math" of the Common Core is an incredibly good idea, but teachers are not given adequate time to learn how to teach it. Therein lies the problem.
But back to the village scenario. Ravani's first point is about strong school leadership, and I think we can all agree that strong leadership of any organization is essential for its success. The goal of strong school leaders should be to ensure that all their students are successful, and they can do so by ensuring that all of the school's parts are working together. Larry Cuban explains that there is a difference between complex and complicated tasks, and school reform is the former due to all its moving parts. Hence, we need a village to run a school as well as raise a child. Therefore, why is one entity (the government) in charge of everything? We need to include ALL parts, in this case, students, parents, teachers, and administrators, into the decision making process.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
Innovation is not always innovative
How do you define innovation? Does it always have a positive connotation?
Part of the problem with getting money to begin "innovations" is that those who give money want data and evidence, and many innovations are not quantifiable because they are, by definition, something that has not been done before. And certainly not all of them are good ideas. As Arthur Camins points out in this article, many innovations in education policy deal with assessments, which are not necessarily innovative, or even good.
So how do we know which innovations are worth the money? Even The Common Core, which has costs much time and money to implement, is an innovation, and although it has merits, it has garnered much criticism as well. In fact, many states don't want to go anywhere near this so-called innovation.
I believe that part of the problem with both teaching and policy is that you need to experiment to see what works. That's what innovation is. But you also need to be able to step away and say something didn't work. I think that's the part that so many policy makers are afraid of, but they can be models for students and learn from their mistakes. That is probably the most important lesson that students (and teachers) can learn.
Part of the problem with getting money to begin "innovations" is that those who give money want data and evidence, and many innovations are not quantifiable because they are, by definition, something that has not been done before. And certainly not all of them are good ideas. As Arthur Camins points out in this article, many innovations in education policy deal with assessments, which are not necessarily innovative, or even good.
So how do we know which innovations are worth the money? Even The Common Core, which has costs much time and money to implement, is an innovation, and although it has merits, it has garnered much criticism as well. In fact, many states don't want to go anywhere near this so-called innovation.
I believe that part of the problem with both teaching and policy is that you need to experiment to see what works. That's what innovation is. But you also need to be able to step away and say something didn't work. I think that's the part that so many policy makers are afraid of, but they can be models for students and learn from their mistakes. That is probably the most important lesson that students (and teachers) can learn.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Quotes!
I love quotes, and I haven't posted nearly enough. So it's catch up time!
I'm not actually going to post that many, but I found a bunch. While I don't generally enjoy, or even trust, Buzzfeed, these quotes are worth noting. Here are my favorites:
Also, something of substance: another (perhaps forgotten) reason why Gates' policies are not a panacea.
I'm not actually going to post that many, but I found a bunch. While I don't generally enjoy, or even trust, Buzzfeed, these quotes are worth noting. Here are my favorites:
Also, something of substance: another (perhaps forgotten) reason why Gates' policies are not a panacea.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Everything is connected
I have yet to talk to someone who doesn't think that education is the key to success. We have heard this mantra and seen it first hand over and over again. We know the statistics about the link between education and poverty. My students are very aware of this: They are in the program to escape poverty.
Yet I am drawn to education policy not because I think it's a panacea for poverty alleviation (although it will certainly help). I am drawn to education policy because I think it's connected to so much more: for instance, the economy, international relations, and social justice. Hear me out: First, say you do believe the premise that with a good education, anyone can be successful. And think about what the definition is of success for many people: having enough money to live comfortably. People who live comfortably contribute to the economy. Therefore a well-educated population leads to a stronger economy. It is in our best economic interests to invest in education (which, by the way, may not be as expensive as we think).
Next, think about how many of us gauge "success" in this country. We are capitalists; therefore, many of us value competition. And when you compare the U.S.'s stats to many of those from other countries, we fall woefully behind. (There are several studies about this, the most recent one being here.) Improving education in this country will make this country look more desirable in how we approach education.
My last point was about social justice, which is incredibly broad. It of course ties into poverty alleviation, and that is one of the goals of education. But it also ties into making sure that every single child has access to an education system that fits his or her needs. This is not yet the case in much of this country.
This is why I teach. These are the reasons why education policy is so important: It affects everything.
Yet I am drawn to education policy not because I think it's a panacea for poverty alleviation (although it will certainly help). I am drawn to education policy because I think it's connected to so much more: for instance, the economy, international relations, and social justice. Hear me out: First, say you do believe the premise that with a good education, anyone can be successful. And think about what the definition is of success for many people: having enough money to live comfortably. People who live comfortably contribute to the economy. Therefore a well-educated population leads to a stronger economy. It is in our best economic interests to invest in education (which, by the way, may not be as expensive as we think).
Next, think about how many of us gauge "success" in this country. We are capitalists; therefore, many of us value competition. And when you compare the U.S.'s stats to many of those from other countries, we fall woefully behind. (There are several studies about this, the most recent one being here.) Improving education in this country will make this country look more desirable in how we approach education.
My last point was about social justice, which is incredibly broad. It of course ties into poverty alleviation, and that is one of the goals of education. But it also ties into making sure that every single child has access to an education system that fits his or her needs. This is not yet the case in much of this country.
This is why I teach. These are the reasons why education policy is so important: It affects everything.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Finally some good education reform
I've always felt that many of the disruptions in class come from when students are bored. That's why an engaging lesson plan is extremely important. But even with the most engaging lessons, some students move at a faster pace than others. Many of the adult students I currently work with are incredibly smart, and didn't finish school just because they felt bored, because they moved faster than their peers and were not given any recognition for it. (Not to mention, DC Public Schools are not known for having the best GT services, which these students would most likely have benefited from.)
But there is good news! DC is in the process of implementing graduation requirements based on competency, rather than on number of hours spent in class. This supposedly radical policy has already been implemented in New Hampshire. Hopefully once implemented, rewarding students based on competency rather than class hours will solve several problems all at once: a) students who "pass" to the next grade level will not have holes in their learning; b) students can learn how to take charge of their own learning and develop life skills such as time-management and self-responsibility; c) the independence required in college and in other options after high school won't be as much of a transition; d) students who are really motivated can finish high school early (i.e. by 15 or 16) and have time to work to pay for school (and get real-world experience) before heading off to college; and e) as I've already stated, classroom discipline will be less of an issue since students can always be doing something.
So many good things can come from this! Hopefully this policy will come to fruition.
But there is good news! DC is in the process of implementing graduation requirements based on competency, rather than on number of hours spent in class. This supposedly radical policy has already been implemented in New Hampshire. Hopefully once implemented, rewarding students based on competency rather than class hours will solve several problems all at once: a) students who "pass" to the next grade level will not have holes in their learning; b) students can learn how to take charge of their own learning and develop life skills such as time-management and self-responsibility; c) the independence required in college and in other options after high school won't be as much of a transition; d) students who are really motivated can finish high school early (i.e. by 15 or 16) and have time to work to pay for school (and get real-world experience) before heading off to college; and e) as I've already stated, classroom discipline will be less of an issue since students can always be doing something.
So many good things can come from this! Hopefully this policy will come to fruition.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
People Who Know What They're Talking About
I have a job because the public education system is broken. My adult students want to be successful, but the public schools did not give them that opportunity. Sure, many of them had to leave because they got pregnant, or had to start working, but the majority of students I've talked to said they weren't motivated and found school boring. These students are extremely smart and perhaps had undiagnosed learning disabilities or felt their teachers didn't care, which is a totally legitimate thought for a teenager with other things going on in his or her life.
The problem is not getting any better, and the standardized testing movement has tricked us into thinking our schools are improving. But when we compare American schools to those internationally, we are doing pretty terribly in the things that really matter: problem solving, inquiry, and written expression. The great Linda Darling-Hammond explains things eloquently and succinctly here. Watch it.
The problem is not getting any better, and the standardized testing movement has tricked us into thinking our schools are improving. But when we compare American schools to those internationally, we are doing pretty terribly in the things that really matter: problem solving, inquiry, and written expression. The great Linda Darling-Hammond explains things eloquently and succinctly here. Watch it.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
What motivates you?
Yesterday I participated in Part 1 of 3 of a webinar training about Self Determination Theory. As this was the first session, we merely brushed the surface, but our primary objective was determining the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and how we can encourage the former.
For those who don't know, intrinsic motivation happens when people want to do something because it appeals to their sense of relevance, values, and/or long-term goals. An example relevant to education would be people doing well in a subject because it interests them. An example relevant to all of us would be taking out the garbage because we don't want the house to smell. Extrinsic motivation is when people do something for external reasons, like getting a good grade or getting a promotion. So for example, if a parent tells a child to do their homework or they're grounded, the child has external motivation to do it, but isn't necessarily getting anything out of it because their internal motivation hasn't been activated. Thus, homework to the extrinsically motivated child is something they "must" do rather than "choose" to do.
The tough question is: how do we get students to "choose" to do something, thus propelling their internal motivation? External motivation alone won't cut it. This is the case regardless of your age. Yes, my adult students respond to candy in the same way my teenage students did -- but what's the bigger motivation that drives them? Getting their GEDs, sure, but there has to be something beyond that point. Part of my job is to steer them toward a more long-term goal, but this is challenging when they didn't grow up in an environment in which "long-term" was normal vocabulary. I'm eager to see if this webinar will uncover ways to help students reach this mindset.
At the end of the webinar, the instructor gave us an assignment to complete before the next session to get full PD points, to which one participant said it was external motivation that was making us complete the assignment -- but I think it's a little of both (if you're interested in this topic, that is). At this point I'm still chewing on what we discussed yesterday, and will hopefully have more to blog about next week.
For those who don't know, intrinsic motivation happens when people want to do something because it appeals to their sense of relevance, values, and/or long-term goals. An example relevant to education would be people doing well in a subject because it interests them. An example relevant to all of us would be taking out the garbage because we don't want the house to smell. Extrinsic motivation is when people do something for external reasons, like getting a good grade or getting a promotion. So for example, if a parent tells a child to do their homework or they're grounded, the child has external motivation to do it, but isn't necessarily getting anything out of it because their internal motivation hasn't been activated. Thus, homework to the extrinsically motivated child is something they "must" do rather than "choose" to do.
The tough question is: how do we get students to "choose" to do something, thus propelling their internal motivation? External motivation alone won't cut it. This is the case regardless of your age. Yes, my adult students respond to candy in the same way my teenage students did -- but what's the bigger motivation that drives them? Getting their GEDs, sure, but there has to be something beyond that point. Part of my job is to steer them toward a more long-term goal, but this is challenging when they didn't grow up in an environment in which "long-term" was normal vocabulary. I'm eager to see if this webinar will uncover ways to help students reach this mindset.
At the end of the webinar, the instructor gave us an assignment to complete before the next session to get full PD points, to which one participant said it was external motivation that was making us complete the assignment -- but I think it's a little of both (if you're interested in this topic, that is). At this point I'm still chewing on what we discussed yesterday, and will hopefully have more to blog about next week.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
I'm back!
I really have no excuse for being gone this long. In August, I took a job teaching GED classes to adults and it's incredibly rewarding and far better (for me, at least) than teaching high school students. I guess maybe I was using that change in my life to justify not writing about K-12 education, but that's a stupid reason, especially since if K12 ed were better, there would be no need for GED classes.
And then after a couple more months, I figured "well, I've stopped for this long. Might as well stop entirely," but that's an even dumber reason because that's essentially quitting for no good reason. So I have wised up, and here I am again.
I'm sure you're not asking what the catalyst for my return is, but I'll tell you anyway. I read this feel-good article in WaPo today about a student from Anacostia High (probably the worst school in the District) getting a full ride to Georgetown and my initial reaction was, "Awesome! Good for her!" But then I stumbled upon this article and thought, "Oh yeah, good point. High schools (especially those in urban areas) really need to ramp it up."
Finally, I read this article from The New York Times, and the TL;DR version of it is is that students from lower-income families have a lower chance of graduating from college which often has more to do with the culture shock and motivation required in college, not finances. A professor at UT-Austin is trying to figure out ways to help them graduate.
It's no secret that schools in "poor" areas are not as good as schools from wealthy areas, but I thought all three of these articles did a great job of pointing out the psychological endeavors students must go through when they transition to college, which lower-income students struggle more with. These are things you cannot measure. But these are things that are critically important to be aware of, and then attempt to fix.
As Rashema points out in the first article, "[E]ducation is the only way out [of poverty]." If an 18 year old understands this, why don't the people who make the decisions?
And then after a couple more months, I figured "well, I've stopped for this long. Might as well stop entirely," but that's an even dumber reason because that's essentially quitting for no good reason. So I have wised up, and here I am again.
I'm sure you're not asking what the catalyst for my return is, but I'll tell you anyway. I read this feel-good article in WaPo today about a student from Anacostia High (probably the worst school in the District) getting a full ride to Georgetown and my initial reaction was, "Awesome! Good for her!" But then I stumbled upon this article and thought, "Oh yeah, good point. High schools (especially those in urban areas) really need to ramp it up."
Finally, I read this article from The New York Times, and the TL;DR version of it is is that students from lower-income families have a lower chance of graduating from college which often has more to do with the culture shock and motivation required in college, not finances. A professor at UT-Austin is trying to figure out ways to help them graduate.
It's no secret that schools in "poor" areas are not as good as schools from wealthy areas, but I thought all three of these articles did a great job of pointing out the psychological endeavors students must go through when they transition to college, which lower-income students struggle more with. These are things you cannot measure. But these are things that are critically important to be aware of, and then attempt to fix.
As Rashema points out in the first article, "[E]ducation is the only way out [of poverty]." If an 18 year old understands this, why don't the people who make the decisions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)