I like having my students debate, because even though they may believe strongly in one specific side of a topic, a debate helps them see why others might disagree with them, and also helps them distinguish strong arguments from weaker ones. Debating gives students a chance to be creative and engage in problem-solving, two skills that are essential in the workplace and in every day life.
In this post, I will present three different arguments, each with two sides. Although the purpose of this blog is to present my own personal beliefs, I do realize that there are many sides to each position (as we should teach our students to acknowledge). I do not usually illustrate both sides when I write (which is my right), but I am taking this opportunity to do just that, since there has been much from both sides recently in The Answer Sheet (which I am finally caught up on), my favorite column in the Washington Post. So, without further ado, and without any commentary whatsoever, I present the following.
Argument 1: Common Core Standards
Point: Principal Jayne Ellspermann of Florida lauds the idea that the CCSS provides the same standards for all students, regardless of where they go to school.
Counter-Point: Principal Carol Burris of New York argues that the Common Core Standards are more harmful than helpful.
Argument 2: The Importance of Shakespeare
Point: Dana Dusbiber argues that she doesn't want to teach Shakespeare to her English classes, so she shouldn't have to.
Counter-Point: Matthew Truesdale argues why teaching Shakespeare in today's modern world is essential.
Argument 3: Technology Use in Classrooms
Point: In Business Insider, Peter Jacobs states that technology is good for the classroom, especially for children in poor countries.
Counter-Point: Kentaro Toyama states that technology is not a panacea for poor schools; it in fact may make them worse.
This last pair of arguments is especially interesting to me, as I have always tried to integrate technology into the classroom, since that's the direction in which the world appears to be going, considering how popular MOOCs and other online platforms are now.
I will also be starting a new job next week that relies entirely on Distance Learning. So let's see what happens in my new adventures!
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Pass the salt.
So I can rub it into my wounds.
Or, more accurately, rub it into the wounds of my students, since that's what the test prep curriculum seems to be doing.
I am beginning to get burnt out at work, since all I do is test prep. Even though this is what the students ask for (since their goal is to pass the GED; they don't really care if they attain knowledge. I cannot blame this for this, as their long-term goal is to find a job with a living wage, which they need a GED to get, and most of the information on the GED they do not really need to know to be successful in these jobs. I felt the same way in high school; I wanted to pass chemistry but knew I would never use what I had learned in that class.), it is really tedious and boring teaching it (and probably learning it).
What's more: If students don't pass the test the first time, it is incredibly difficult for me as an educator to help them improve for next time, which I touched upon in my last post, in which I stated that the GED Testing Service does not let the students see which questions they missed, only which skills they need to work on. (By the way, this is especially frustrating with the writing portion, in which I cannot see what the students wrote, only what their grade is, so I cannot tell them why they received the score they did. I am consistently baffled by students -- strong writers in my class -- who end up scoring a zero on the writing section. I'm not just teaching these students "my way" of writing: I am using the writing curriculum published by the GED Testing Service.)
This blog post likens passing the bar to the test prep culture in public schools. That may seem like an obvious analogy, but the author makes a great point that her classes in law school far better prepared her for life as a lawyer than the bar exam did, stating that "ten years into private practice, I don’t draw on my two months of intensive bar test prep to advise my clients or manage my work.... My two months of bar test prep taught me that mass-produced bar prep can successfully raise scores: my MBE score skyrocketed when I left my inquisitiveness, curiosity, and thoughtfulness at the door, and instead immersed myself completely in the test-makers’ logic."
This is exactly what I tell my students: think like a test-maker. I hate doing this for the exact reason stated above: It severely limits their curiosity and thoughtfulness, which will serve them much better in the long run.
Furthermore, students who take the GED have different goals than many students in high school: Get a job. While many students in high school want this too, eventually, they also wish to pursue more education first, which is the population the GED is written for. (It is based on CCSS, which preps students for higher education. This is not a terrible goal, but it does not serve the particular population of students I work with.)
Lecester Johnson, a brilliant woman who runs the adult education program at Academy of Hope (whom I have had the pleasure of meeting personally), speaks to this point in a PBS Newshour, against President of the GED Testing Service, Randy Trask. I urge you to read this transcript and see who has the purer motive for helping students succeed.
Or, more accurately, rub it into the wounds of my students, since that's what the test prep curriculum seems to be doing.
I am beginning to get burnt out at work, since all I do is test prep. Even though this is what the students ask for (since their goal is to pass the GED; they don't really care if they attain knowledge. I cannot blame this for this, as their long-term goal is to find a job with a living wage, which they need a GED to get, and most of the information on the GED they do not really need to know to be successful in these jobs. I felt the same way in high school; I wanted to pass chemistry but knew I would never use what I had learned in that class.), it is really tedious and boring teaching it (and probably learning it).
What's more: If students don't pass the test the first time, it is incredibly difficult for me as an educator to help them improve for next time, which I touched upon in my last post, in which I stated that the GED Testing Service does not let the students see which questions they missed, only which skills they need to work on. (By the way, this is especially frustrating with the writing portion, in which I cannot see what the students wrote, only what their grade is, so I cannot tell them why they received the score they did. I am consistently baffled by students -- strong writers in my class -- who end up scoring a zero on the writing section. I'm not just teaching these students "my way" of writing: I am using the writing curriculum published by the GED Testing Service.)
This blog post likens passing the bar to the test prep culture in public schools. That may seem like an obvious analogy, but the author makes a great point that her classes in law school far better prepared her for life as a lawyer than the bar exam did, stating that "ten years into private practice, I don’t draw on my two months of intensive bar test prep to advise my clients or manage my work.... My two months of bar test prep taught me that mass-produced bar prep can successfully raise scores: my MBE score skyrocketed when I left my inquisitiveness, curiosity, and thoughtfulness at the door, and instead immersed myself completely in the test-makers’ logic."
This is exactly what I tell my students: think like a test-maker. I hate doing this for the exact reason stated above: It severely limits their curiosity and thoughtfulness, which will serve them much better in the long run.
Furthermore, students who take the GED have different goals than many students in high school: Get a job. While many students in high school want this too, eventually, they also wish to pursue more education first, which is the population the GED is written for. (It is based on CCSS, which preps students for higher education. This is not a terrible goal, but it does not serve the particular population of students I work with.)
Lecester Johnson, a brilliant woman who runs the adult education program at Academy of Hope (whom I have had the pleasure of meeting personally), speaks to this point in a PBS Newshour, against President of the GED Testing Service, Randy Trask. I urge you to read this transcript and see who has the purer motive for helping students succeed.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
How is a raven like a writing desk?
Is it like modern education "reform," in that no one has seemed to come up with a reasonable answer?
This post is, surprise, about standardized testing (which you're probably sick of hearing about, but that's essentially all we hear about now when it comes to education policy, and I'm going to talk about it at length and hope others do too in the hopes that policy makers will finally get on board and realize it's. Not. Working.)
I read this poignant article yesterday that I thought summed things up very nicely: "[The standardized test] is a fundamentally flawed tool that will only debase the good work we teachers do in the classroom, the work that districts do in designing and implementing quality curriculum, and the work our students do in learning to become enlightened critical thinkers."
One of the author's main points here is that the secrecy surrounding standardized tests make it extremely difficult -- perhaps even impossible -- for teachers to accurately gauge which skills students still need to improve once the tests have been graded. It seems to her as if the testing services, Pearson in particular, care more about their own security (read: profit) than about students actually knowing the material.
She also mentions the fact there are bad test questions. For example: "How does the narrator's point of view contribute to the mood of the story?" I am an English teacher, and when I read this question, my first thought was, "Huh?" because that doesn't make any sense. The writer of this article concurs; as she states, an author does not use point of view to develop mood. When tests are written by psychometricians and not educators, how can the test developers be held accountable (*ahem* another magic word in education reform *ahem*) in creating legitimate questions that test real skills?
I have noticed both these problems on the GED exam, since this is what I teach. It is extremely frustrating on both ends -- student and teacher -- when a student fails the test the first time, and I can't help them improve. The reason I cannot do this is because, like the tests in the previous article, there is great secrecy surrounding the GED exam, which was also developed by Pearson.
For example, when a student finishes his or her exam, the computer generates a score. The student cannot see which questions he or she got incorrect. Therefore, a non-passing score could be a result of a few skipped questions, or an accidental marking of "C" when the student meant to click "B," or even a misspelling on a fill-in-the-blank, since the computer grading system has no nuance.
Moreover, the GED Testing Service (which as far as I can tell is not "accountable" to anyone) lists a set of skills for the student to work on for next time, but this is not very helpful to the student, or to me as an educator, because without seeing how the student missed the questions that pertained to the skills, the student's only option is to essentially regurgitate what he or she has already been studying. It's very possible a student has these skills down cold, but could have missed a question due to an unknown vocabulary word, or was reading too quickly, or legitimately does not know how to solve the problem. These are all things that are essential for educators to know in order to better serve their students.
When I give quizzes back, the students can see immediately not only which questions they got wrong, but why. I think understanding this premise is, in some ways, more important than getting a multiple choice question correct. Also, I give students a chance to correct any wrong answers, and while I do not change their quiz grade, their corrections give them another opportunity to think critically and understand their own thinking.
I could probably type for another hour here about my issues with the GED Testing Service, and really, all standardized tests that employ the same level of secrecy, but I won't. Instead, I'll let this article about the more rigorous GED do the talking for me. In this one, a point is made that testing companies have a monopoly and seem to care more about their own profit margin than about students succeeding. This is especially the case with adult education, I feel, since these adults have a) been out of school for so long and b) were exposed to bad education in the first place, especially if they grew up poor and urban (which mine did). These students can often not handle the higher rigor of the new GED. I'm not saying we should eliminate rigor, of course; I'm simply saying there has to be a better way.
Perhaps instead of privatizing standardized testing, we can have schools and districts be in charge of what students should know and how to measure their knowledge.
This post is, surprise, about standardized testing (which you're probably sick of hearing about, but that's essentially all we hear about now when it comes to education policy, and I'm going to talk about it at length and hope others do too in the hopes that policy makers will finally get on board and realize it's. Not. Working.)
I read this poignant article yesterday that I thought summed things up very nicely: "[The standardized test] is a fundamentally flawed tool that will only debase the good work we teachers do in the classroom, the work that districts do in designing and implementing quality curriculum, and the work our students do in learning to become enlightened critical thinkers."
One of the author's main points here is that the secrecy surrounding standardized tests make it extremely difficult -- perhaps even impossible -- for teachers to accurately gauge which skills students still need to improve once the tests have been graded. It seems to her as if the testing services, Pearson in particular, care more about their own security (read: profit) than about students actually knowing the material.
She also mentions the fact there are bad test questions. For example: "How does the narrator's point of view contribute to the mood of the story?" I am an English teacher, and when I read this question, my first thought was, "Huh?" because that doesn't make any sense. The writer of this article concurs; as she states, an author does not use point of view to develop mood. When tests are written by psychometricians and not educators, how can the test developers be held accountable (*ahem* another magic word in education reform *ahem*) in creating legitimate questions that test real skills?
I have noticed both these problems on the GED exam, since this is what I teach. It is extremely frustrating on both ends -- student and teacher -- when a student fails the test the first time, and I can't help them improve. The reason I cannot do this is because, like the tests in the previous article, there is great secrecy surrounding the GED exam, which was also developed by Pearson.
For example, when a student finishes his or her exam, the computer generates a score. The student cannot see which questions he or she got incorrect. Therefore, a non-passing score could be a result of a few skipped questions, or an accidental marking of "C" when the student meant to click "B," or even a misspelling on a fill-in-the-blank, since the computer grading system has no nuance.
Moreover, the GED Testing Service (which as far as I can tell is not "accountable" to anyone) lists a set of skills for the student to work on for next time, but this is not very helpful to the student, or to me as an educator, because without seeing how the student missed the questions that pertained to the skills, the student's only option is to essentially regurgitate what he or she has already been studying. It's very possible a student has these skills down cold, but could have missed a question due to an unknown vocabulary word, or was reading too quickly, or legitimately does not know how to solve the problem. These are all things that are essential for educators to know in order to better serve their students.
When I give quizzes back, the students can see immediately not only which questions they got wrong, but why. I think understanding this premise is, in some ways, more important than getting a multiple choice question correct. Also, I give students a chance to correct any wrong answers, and while I do not change their quiz grade, their corrections give them another opportunity to think critically and understand their own thinking.
I could probably type for another hour here about my issues with the GED Testing Service, and really, all standardized tests that employ the same level of secrecy, but I won't. Instead, I'll let this article about the more rigorous GED do the talking for me. In this one, a point is made that testing companies have a monopoly and seem to care more about their own profit margin than about students succeeding. This is especially the case with adult education, I feel, since these adults have a) been out of school for so long and b) were exposed to bad education in the first place, especially if they grew up poor and urban (which mine did). These students can often not handle the higher rigor of the new GED. I'm not saying we should eliminate rigor, of course; I'm simply saying there has to be a better way.
Perhaps instead of privatizing standardized testing, we can have schools and districts be in charge of what students should know and how to measure their knowledge.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
It's been too long...
Things have been crazy, with house projects, personal stuff, being out of town, etc. (That, and being a little lazy.) Anyway, I'm leaving this here without comment, save one: Powerful and Perfect.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
I'm Published!
Even though I'm technically published here, let's face it: there is no accountability. I can do whatever I want; I have no editor and I can push my own agenda.
But now that I'm officially published on a legitimate education blog, I am excited!
Read my post on YEP's blog "Recess here.
But now that I'm officially published on a legitimate education blog, I am excited!
Read my post on YEP's blog "Recess here.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
"Those who know, do...
...Those who understand, teach." -Aristotle
I love this quote because it's so true. The best teachers are the ones who truly understand not only their subjects, but the students they teach. The best teachers are the ones who can make learning meaningful and fulfilling for students -- not saying "you need to know this because it's on a test."
Testing should measure students' knowledge. It should be the end, not the means, of gauging what is taught. I know I have spoken at length about this; that's because it is an important topic.
Testing does not equal teaching. Period. Yet that is what education has been reduced to. Because of this, so many talented teachers have lost the passion for teaching, because what they get to do now isn't really teaching. Yesterday's Answer Sheet published a letter from a teacher who said just that.
Data gives us important information, but you cannot measure effective teaching (or learning) strictly by the numbers. Teaching is far too complex for that. The teacher of the letter, Susan Barber from Georgia, states it well: "My classroom experience is far bigger than a checklist. Talk to my students. Talk to me."
I love this quote because it's so true. The best teachers are the ones who truly understand not only their subjects, but the students they teach. The best teachers are the ones who can make learning meaningful and fulfilling for students -- not saying "you need to know this because it's on a test."
Testing should measure students' knowledge. It should be the end, not the means, of gauging what is taught. I know I have spoken at length about this; that's because it is an important topic.
Testing does not equal teaching. Period. Yet that is what education has been reduced to. Because of this, so many talented teachers have lost the passion for teaching, because what they get to do now isn't really teaching. Yesterday's Answer Sheet published a letter from a teacher who said just that.
Data gives us important information, but you cannot measure effective teaching (or learning) strictly by the numbers. Teaching is far too complex for that. The teacher of the letter, Susan Barber from Georgia, states it well: "My classroom experience is far bigger than a checklist. Talk to my students. Talk to me."
Friday, January 30, 2015
The first sentence says it all...
"Few education policies are built from a deep knowledge of schools, the teachers who work in them, or the students who attend them," says Valerie Strauss in this article. How apt.
This is what I've been saying all along. And I don't think I have ever met a teacher who would not agree with this statement. Policy-makers, on the other hand...
The writer of this article also excoriates CCSS, her thesis being, rightly, that not all students develop at the same pace. That is one of the biggest issues with the standardization movement -- we know not everyone is the same (in terms of learning styles, interests, ability, etc.), so why does this movement insist on pretending that everyone is?
This is what I've been saying all along. And I don't think I have ever met a teacher who would not agree with this statement. Policy-makers, on the other hand...
The writer of this article also excoriates CCSS, her thesis being, rightly, that not all students develop at the same pace. That is one of the biggest issues with the standardization movement -- we know not everyone is the same (in terms of learning styles, interests, ability, etc.), so why does this movement insist on pretending that everyone is?
Thursday, January 29, 2015
How kids (and adults) learn
Many teachers and educational experts are against the standardized testing movement for many good
reasons, one of which is because testing does not equal learning. One of the reasons why I believe that
standardized tests are not accurate measures of what a student learns is because the brain naturally
works in such a way that it forgets what it does not deem relevant. If memorizing an algebraic equation
or analyzing a Shakespearean sonnet does not matter to the student, they may master this concept on a
test, but they will not remember it for the long-term. Things that are irrelevant to students (and, for that
matter, adults) have no meaning. This site has a great diagram (about 5/6ths of the way down) of what happens in our brains when something has no meaning for learners.
This theory is clearly observed when put into practice. We naturally gravitate toward what we enjoy. It should be no different in classrooms. In this blog post published almost a year ago, the author explains extremely well why students have trouble learning basic skills like spelling when teachers ignore (or don't know) how the brain works. She states that “[i]f spelling words are simply strings of letters to be learnt by heart with no meaning attached and no investigation of how those words are constructed, then we are simply assigning our children a task equivalent to learning ten random seven-digit PINs each week. That is not only very very hard, it's pointless.” Her idea about teaching morphemes so that a child will write “jumped” rather than “jumt” not only helps students develop meaning about words and therefore attach relevancy to them, but also helps them with deductive reasoning, which is a skill that is transferable to almost anything. But most standardized tests do not test deductive reasoning; most are based, instead, on rote memorizing, like spelling, which will likely be forgotten.
Teaching and testing methods that rely on this type of knowledge are not only ineffective, they are boring. This is one reason why children drop out of school. These children soon become adults, and since they have been out of school for so long, they often feel stuck, and they become unemployed and/or incarcerated. This is a problem particularly in DC, where more than 60,000 adults do not have a high school credential. The GED is designed in much the same way high school standardized tests are, so the problem remains: students must study for things they just don't care about. Can we blame them for not caring about quadratic equations and whether or not a character's mood changes in contrast with the setting? I don't think so. I think we should train teachers and test-makers instead to assess what is relevant. Students will be happier and more productive when we do.
This theory is clearly observed when put into practice. We naturally gravitate toward what we enjoy. It should be no different in classrooms. In this blog post published almost a year ago, the author explains extremely well why students have trouble learning basic skills like spelling when teachers ignore (or don't know) how the brain works. She states that “[i]f spelling words are simply strings of letters to be learnt by heart with no meaning attached and no investigation of how those words are constructed, then we are simply assigning our children a task equivalent to learning ten random seven-digit PINs each week. That is not only very very hard, it's pointless.” Her idea about teaching morphemes so that a child will write “jumped” rather than “jumt” not only helps students develop meaning about words and therefore attach relevancy to them, but also helps them with deductive reasoning, which is a skill that is transferable to almost anything. But most standardized tests do not test deductive reasoning; most are based, instead, on rote memorizing, like spelling, which will likely be forgotten.
Teaching and testing methods that rely on this type of knowledge are not only ineffective, they are boring. This is one reason why children drop out of school. These children soon become adults, and since they have been out of school for so long, they often feel stuck, and they become unemployed and/or incarcerated. This is a problem particularly in DC, where more than 60,000 adults do not have a high school credential. The GED is designed in much the same way high school standardized tests are, so the problem remains: students must study for things they just don't care about. Can we blame them for not caring about quadratic equations and whether or not a character's mood changes in contrast with the setting? I don't think so. I think we should train teachers and test-makers instead to assess what is relevant. Students will be happier and more productive when we do.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Arts Appreciation... or not
Educators and policy makers have been aware for a long time that the education movement has been focused on standardized testing, and that focus does not seem to be shifting. Those who have the most power still want the testing movement to press on -- see this article, despite the fact that everyone who knows anything about education keeps telling them there is much more to school than test scores. The article above, for instance, states it perfectly: "Despite assessment experts... warning over and over again that using students' standardized test scores to evaluate educators is misguided, Duncan maintained his allegiance to using [standardized tests] as an evaluation tool."
But as experts (and I) have stated time and time again, standardized tests are not the best measure of either a student's or a teacher's ability. Nor, for that matter, are they a particularly useful learning tool, since standardized tests will not continue once students are finished with school and enter the workforce (I'm not counting those one-time tests like the MCAT or LSAT that students take to enter a line of work -- I'm more interested in the rest of students' lives, once they have begun careers). So why are we so focused on teaching children test-taking skills and little else?
And with all the focus on helping students score high on standardized tests, we do not have time to teach children so many other (and I would argue, more important) skills they need to help them grow into successful adults. Untested subjects are often those that are more important -- the arts, for example. This blog post does a beautiful job of explaining why the arts enhance education and how they can be applied to all subjects. We don't measure art because it is often subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If you're still not convinced that there should be more focus on the arts in school, this article also does a great job at explaining why the arts are important (even if you don't believe in art for art's sake). Who can argue that the skills proffered in this article are not necessary for creating successful human beings? (Especially #10, ahem, which education policy-makers seem to be obsessed with.) Aren't these skills what employers look for when hiring new employees?
I'm not suggesting that we eliminate testing all together, but no two people learn exactly the same way. This, perhaps, is the largest failure of the standardization movement -- we cannot realistically expect all students to succeed on the same metric when learning styles will invariably differ. That's another reason we should focus on arts integration. The arts are intrinsically differentiated. Here is an excellent explanation from a drama resource teacher about how the arts are beneficial for all types of learners. We can still test students' abilities without the constraints of multiple-choice tests.
Finally, children are naturally curious and so much testing destroys their love for discovery, which is really what school should be about. Not that elementary school students should design their own curricula, but this student from New Jersey says in child-friendly language precisely what I am thinking. I've said many times before that teachers, not politicians, should lead the education reform movement, and clearly we need to listen to the children, too.
But as experts (and I) have stated time and time again, standardized tests are not the best measure of either a student's or a teacher's ability. Nor, for that matter, are they a particularly useful learning tool, since standardized tests will not continue once students are finished with school and enter the workforce (I'm not counting those one-time tests like the MCAT or LSAT that students take to enter a line of work -- I'm more interested in the rest of students' lives, once they have begun careers). So why are we so focused on teaching children test-taking skills and little else?
And with all the focus on helping students score high on standardized tests, we do not have time to teach children so many other (and I would argue, more important) skills they need to help them grow into successful adults. Untested subjects are often those that are more important -- the arts, for example. This blog post does a beautiful job of explaining why the arts enhance education and how they can be applied to all subjects. We don't measure art because it is often subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not important. If you're still not convinced that there should be more focus on the arts in school, this article also does a great job at explaining why the arts are important (even if you don't believe in art for art's sake). Who can argue that the skills proffered in this article are not necessary for creating successful human beings? (Especially #10, ahem, which education policy-makers seem to be obsessed with.) Aren't these skills what employers look for when hiring new employees?
I'm not suggesting that we eliminate testing all together, but no two people learn exactly the same way. This, perhaps, is the largest failure of the standardization movement -- we cannot realistically expect all students to succeed on the same metric when learning styles will invariably differ. That's another reason we should focus on arts integration. The arts are intrinsically differentiated. Here is an excellent explanation from a drama resource teacher about how the arts are beneficial for all types of learners. We can still test students' abilities without the constraints of multiple-choice tests.
Finally, children are naturally curious and so much testing destroys their love for discovery, which is really what school should be about. Not that elementary school students should design their own curricula, but this student from New Jersey says in child-friendly language precisely what I am thinking. I've said many times before that teachers, not politicians, should lead the education reform movement, and clearly we need to listen to the children, too.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Happy New Year!
Though in terms of policy, it's pretty much the same thing: Common Core supporters and critics, poor education for children in poverty, classism, and racism. (What does this have to do with teaching, you may ask? Pretty much everything, since the education system is designed largely by white people. More on that below.) There's also this nifty collection of charts showing how the teaching profession has progressed (or not) in various capacities this year. Yay data!
Regarding the point above about racism, writer/vlogger John Green does a great job at explaining that yes, systemic racism does still exist in today's world. As I have stated before, this (along with classism) has much to do with the inequality in education.
Although Green does not directly refer to education in his video (except for the subjects offered in predominately white vs. predominantly black schools -- which is an interesting point), he definitely proves society is racist, and the education system is created by this society. And he does mention incarceration rates and economic opportunities for blacks vs. whites, which are both results of the education system.
I said "yay data!" in the first paragraph, and have previously waxed poetic about my love for data. But Green makes it a point to say that data is not everything, which is oh so true. Skip to 3:32 to hear him state that "while I think statistics and data are really important, I also think it's important to listen to the voices of people who have been affected by racism." This is a key point that policy makers forget -- statistics do not tell the whole story. While we cannot necessarily "measure" anecdotes, they are more important, since, as Green states, "data is cold in a way that humans are not." Educational policy (along with economic, health, and environmental policy) is for humans, not robots. Therefore it makes sense that we should actually listen to human stories.
Speaking of humanity, humans generally do not like change. Perhaps this is one reason why policymakers are stuck on making sure the testing movement and/or CCSS works? Yet, according to this article, it's not that hard to change things.
So... happy new year from an education curmudgeon. Here's hoping 2015 won't be more of the same.
Regarding the point above about racism, writer/vlogger John Green does a great job at explaining that yes, systemic racism does still exist in today's world. As I have stated before, this (along with classism) has much to do with the inequality in education.
Although Green does not directly refer to education in his video (except for the subjects offered in predominately white vs. predominantly black schools -- which is an interesting point), he definitely proves society is racist, and the education system is created by this society. And he does mention incarceration rates and economic opportunities for blacks vs. whites, which are both results of the education system.
I said "yay data!" in the first paragraph, and have previously waxed poetic about my love for data. But Green makes it a point to say that data is not everything, which is oh so true. Skip to 3:32 to hear him state that "while I think statistics and data are really important, I also think it's important to listen to the voices of people who have been affected by racism." This is a key point that policy makers forget -- statistics do not tell the whole story. While we cannot necessarily "measure" anecdotes, they are more important, since, as Green states, "data is cold in a way that humans are not." Educational policy (along with economic, health, and environmental policy) is for humans, not robots. Therefore it makes sense that we should actually listen to human stories.
Speaking of humanity, humans generally do not like change. Perhaps this is one reason why policymakers are stuck on making sure the testing movement and/or CCSS works? Yet, according to this article, it's not that hard to change things.
So... happy new year from an education curmudgeon. Here's hoping 2015 won't be more of the same.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
A change is (hopefully) gonna come
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!
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)