I opened my "mouth" on Facebook ...

A friend of mine had a simple status on Facebook this morning: "When did teachers become the bad guys?"  It led to a small discussion, part of which I joined.  As an afterthought, I added that if anyone cared, I had a solution.  Another friend of mine said she'd be curious to hear it.  What?  You, too?  Great, because here is what I wrote:

Compulsory education only until 8th grade. After 8th grade, everyone can try high school, but you don't have to. If you choose to stay, you are choosing to NOT be a disciplinary problem. If you can't handle that, you are no longer invited. (Now, I don't mean we won't have fights or what-have-you. But we will not have chronic issues, because those children will be asked to leave.) In my utopian system, there will be alternative schools available.

Likewise, if you are in high school and want to drop out, by all means, drop out. The catch is, you can't go on welfare; you have to get a job. If, after twelve consecutive months, you decide you really do want an education, then you can come back. Except we'll have "night school" for you. After one school year there, you either graduate, or you are eligible to move back to regular day school. Or, you can choose to stay. The education is the same, but there are no extra-curriculars, etc. It is 100% academics-focused. Some kids just DO better in alternative settings, and this will be their chance. The difference between night school and day school is not so much punitive (although you DO have to earn the right back into day school) as it is that one setting is no-frills and the other has all the traditional accoutrements of high school.

In my system, a child can "age out" of eighth grade. You get two tries. After that, you must leave for twelve months. Last year, I taught eighth grade math. I had a student who was SEVENTEEN. He was in his third round of 8th grade -- and he was failing!! C'mon now. Really? What kind of influence do you think HE had on his classmates? Even better, what kind of influence do you think he had on the 6th graders at that school? Unacceptable. As a PARENT, I would not want this "adult" around my 6th-grade child; but the law said we had to let him. Ridiculous. And you can only begin to imagine, I'm sure, how some of the girls thought he hung the moon. Let's just say it was a terrible situation and if I had a sixth-grade daughter, I would have been beside myself with the fact that the "system" allowed this phenomenon.

In "The World According to Jen," we will also stop trying to push down classes like algebra into seventh and sixth grade. We will bring back recess, and gym, and let kids be kids. Then, when physiology and science and age together indicate that they are ready for abstract reasoning (right around 9th grade), we will teach more abstract stuff ... and we will STOP trying to cover everything a mile wide; instead we'll try to make sure that what we do teach, the kids actually learn. There's no race to finish the textbook, and no constant interruptions for standardized testing. I want our students to LEARN, not to learn how to bubble. OUr local schools here lose TWENTY DAYS a year to standardized testing in various forms. Um, did anyone count?! That's an entire school month spent on testing! Unaceptable. Won't happen in Jen's Utopian World.

Also, I think we need to go back to what we all had in school -- at least Longwood -- where we all had both academics and trades available to us. There shouldn't be this distinction of BOCES or trades as being somehow lesser than a "traditional" education. Trades are invaluable, and our society has made them second-class. Nope. EVERYONE should have to take some trade class, just like we all had to take tech-ed; I wish it had continued into a high school requirement!

Now, do I pretend to have all the answers? No, and this system of mine surely has issues. I haven't even gotten to special ed!

BUT -- this system eliminates chronic discipline problems, and I believe with all my heart that the root of every problem in our schools today starts with discipline. I don't care what anyone's home life is, or what disadvantages they have, etc., etc. If they are chronically disruptive and we allow it to continue, we ruin everything for everyone. Our schools today pander to the lowest-common-denominator. Our success rate is abyssmal because we leave behind the very kids who are capable and want to be successful. We throw them away to try -- often in vain -- to reach the bottom kids. I have asked this over and over and over again: WHY? (I am not talking about special ed kids here. I am talking about kids who don't WANT to do; not kids who aren't ABLE to do.)

Bet you're sorry you asked now, huh?! ;)

Math Education

Here is a link to a neat article in the New York Times about a young non-mathematician who is making math fun, or at least, making the fun-if-ication of math her goal.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/science/18prof.html?_r=1&ref=education

I admire Ms. Hart, and certainly her intentions, as I have also aspired to such a goal. 

But here is what I really took away from the article, and it was delightfully refreshing:  What I especially appreciate is that neither Ms. Hart nor the Times, though they lament the too-frequent doldrums that a typical math class often is, purport to be able to change that with the typical suggestions of "group work," "investigations," and so forth.  Because to me, so much of the richness of those types of activities can only really come when you've had a primer in the content.  It's a little bit of the chicken-and-the-egg conondrum, but not entirely:  you have to learn a little of the math to be able to explore it.  I liken it to tinkering, really.  My grandfather used to tinker with anything electronic.  He knew enough of the gist of it to fiddle, and all his fiddling taught him more.  Same for mathematics.  Same, I imagine, for anything worth tinkering with.

So, thank you, Ms. Hart.  You're right -- too many math classes are boring, dry, and miserable, and you're doing your part to show that math, in and of itself, need not be.  And thank you again for not insisting that we can fix that with dog-and-pony shows instead of math classes. 

Now, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could convince the curriulum gods to (a) slow down, so kids can study fewer concepts, but really learn them, and in slowing things down (b) build in some time to let us explore what is, really, the beauty and magic of mathematics?

Shouldn't that be part of any -- nay, every -- math curriculum?

Early Childhood, Baltimore, and "Changes at the Margin"

Go ahead, yell at me.  I promised to write more and actually managed to write even less.  I am clearly still working out the kinks of establishing a blogging schedule -- and failing miserably!  So I won't promise, again, to write more regularly.  But I will say with a smile, "I'm baaaa-aaack!!" 

Saw this article in the NY Times today.  It is actually from Tuesday. 

Here is the executive summary:

• The achievement gap, a well-documented enigma, exists.  It's proven itself largely un-fixable despite countless efforts.
• A new study says that believe it or not, it's worse than we thought, and part of where we need to fix will be unpopular for a lot of reasons:  the correlation is more than just poverty, but rather what happens at home in the early childhood years. 
• Baltimore has done a great job seeming to close the gap, and in fact had the dropout rate of black students lower than that of white students.
• The Baltimore schools head attributes this NOT to "changes at the margin," but rather to staying on top of the kids, where they are and what decisions they are making, IN REAL TIME. 

This is interesting.  (And not just because it's a story from the NY Times that doesn't blame teachers for all that is wrong in education today, and doesn't point to anyone else who does so!)  In fact, in two separate places, the article seems to point to the kinds of things I've often lumped together as "common sense," but which of course go far beyond that moniker.

First -- we can do everything in our power to change what happens at school, and before and after school, and we can adjust for single-parent and no-parent homes, but until and unless we can change what happens because of what is considered normal in raising the youngest children, we likely can't make as much of a difference as we'd like.  A person who doesn't know (how or even whether) to talk to an infant, or read to a toddler, or teach proper grammar to a child who is learning to speak, is likely not going to raise that child to survive our schools, to be literate or even functional.  I suppose you can say that one can teach what one doesn't know.  We all know that our actions speak louder than our words, and we raise our children (at least to some extent) how we were raised, following what was modeled for us.  When what has been modeled is universally agreed to be not just non-ideal, but actually a failure of society, we need to have the discussions about how to change what has been generationally embedded. 

Second -- the highly-touted "solutions" of closing failing schools, lengthening the school day/year, increasing the prevalence of charter schools, and increasing teacher quality, are actually not much of anything.  They are, according to the study, not really shown to make a difference; and according to the Baltimore schools chief Andres A. Alonso, they are the "changes at the margin" -- the things that don't make as much of a difference as they make a headline and a stink.

Here's the article.  If the link is expired, leave a comment and I can update to a pdf version.

A Reporter's Thoughts on Necessary Qualities for A School Board Member

If you haven't been able to tell by now, I regularly read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's education blog, Get Schooled.  It's a pretty decent way to see some "hot topics," and the discussion can occasionally be enlightening.  Maureen Downey is the blogmaster/author/what-have-you, and she does a pretty good job of posting regularly, even occasionally participating in the discussion.

In Sunday's print edition of the AJC there was a special pull-out section on metro-Atlanta school boards.  If you've seen any of the news around here in recent years, some prominent counties in metro Atlanta have become notorious for their school boards' dysfunction; one district even lost its accreditation.  Following this section, Ms. Downey posted a blog entry about what she thinks ought to be minimum requirements for school board members anywhere.  It was a thoughtful post; generally she writes an intro based on her experiences with the topic at hand and then shares a related news story, but in this instance she opened with the news and took an opportunity to write her opinion.

Here  is a link to the blog itself, and reprinted here (in italics, to distinguish her writing from mine) is her list of requirements.  I am pleased to say that I agree with most of them.  I've got to step away from the computer for now, but I intend to come back later to comment in more detail on some of these requirements.

In evaluating school board candidates, here are some considerations that I think are important for voters:

— What’s been their historic involvement with the schools? Can they name the schools in their districts and the principals? As surprising as it may seem, some candidates can’t list the schools in the areas they want to represent.

This should be agiven.  In a big enough district, I don't think a candidate needs to know every principal's name, but if you don't even know the schools in your district, you can't possibly hope to represent them.

— Have they attended school board meetings on a regular basis? Potential board members don’t have to show up at every meeting, but they have to attend enough to understand what the board does.

This is a great point.  When I "ran" for the school board position this summer, I had not attended meetings regularly (to be fair, I hadn't attended at all).  I was pretty naive, really, in this respect, and will surely attend meetings regularly when we "land" someplace where we intend to live.  That being said, it is entirely possible to be very involved and yet unable to attend meetings regularly.  I agree with the last sentence 100%: you might not need to attend every meeting, but you sure ought to know what goes on and how.

— What are their plans to improve student achievement? At some forums, candidates never address student achievement except to complain that it’s not high enough. But they offer no ideas about how to raise it.

One of my biggest pet peeves. Can we start, please, with a definition of achievement?  Then, let's talk about what we mean by improving it?  THEN let's see if the candidate has a plan.  Anyone can stand up and pontificate on how we need to improve student achievement (sheesh, it seems everyone already does!); no one ever seems to define it -- nevermind to lay out a plan other than "train our teachers."  Let's not get me started here ...

— Be wary of candidates running because of a private gripe with the district over how their child was treated. Such candidates may be great advocates for their own kids, but lack a broader interest in the success of all students.

Never thought about this, but I agree.  On the other hand, if a personal gripe got a person motivated enough to run and to want to make a difference, who am I to say that they won't take the entirety of the job to heart?  Be wary, I agree; but don't write them off.

— Can the candidates work as part of a team? Everyone loves a rebel, but at some point board members have to work together to pass policy, hire superintendents and create goals for students. A board overrun with mavericks provides great drama but few results. And somebody usually ends up in court.

What if the board is already rife with mavericks?  A person who is abrasive and contentious likely won't get the position to begin with, so this one seems to me a bit ridiculous.

— Can the candidates put forth any proposals to improve student learning that don’t require piles of cash? Because there won’t be piles. Anywhere. For a long time.

Amen.  But again, can we please, please please define "improve student learning"? Anyone?

— Listen carefully when candidates talk about their goals. Are they compliance-driven — do they talk about meeting the mandates set by the state Department of Education? Or are they performance-driven — do they focus on how to get students achieving not only to the state bar, but to national and international levels? You don’t want schools that just comply; you want schools that perform.

True enough.  But one needs to first comply, and for a district that is far enough from compliance that this is an election issue, I'd prefer someone with a plan for getting back on track than someone with a lofty goal for "once we get there."

— What is their broader vision for the schools? And how will they hold the superintendent accountable for acting on the vision? Candidates ought to spell out specific sets of measures they’d use to assess whether superintendents are doing a good job.

THIS has been a particularly important issue for the system in which I applied for the position, and tricky at best.  I don't know that any one candidate can have this solved, but to have not given it any thought would be a big red flag.

— What do they know about the range of programs offered to students? For instance, are they aware of the state’s Virtual High School? If so, can they tell you how many high schoolers in the district are taking Advanced Placement courses online? Can they report how many kids are taking AP classes, period? Do they know why it’s important for students to not only take AP classes, but to take and score high on AP tests?

Again, perhaps too detail-focused.  I'm okay with a candidate knowing the gist of these figures.  Anyone can say "we need more kids taking AP courses."

— Do they have other sources of income or are they regarding the school board stipend as their livelihood? As a rule, people with dire money problems — houses in foreclosure, no clear source of income, collection agencies at their heels — don’t make effective boardmembers. They ought to straighten out their own finances before they manage a district’s finances. (One tip: If a candidate’s phone has been disconnected, he or she is not a good bet.)

Yikes!  In this economy, and for personal reasons, I am perhaps more forgiving of imperfect credit than many folks might be.  But a disconnected phone?!  There's a difference between having had a rough time, and being in trouble presently or persistently. 

— Is the candidate a current or retired school employee? In concept, boards are supposed to give parents a hand in their local schools, but they’ve come to be dominated by educators. That skews the focus of boards from student concerns to teacher concerns. Look for candidates without financial ties to the school system, either their own or family members.

As a former teacher, I have not seen this as a problem, only because I've not seen it.  I'm not a teacher-union kind of person to begin with, but I have actually often thought we need more former teachers on the boards, and not fewer; too many things are blamed on and forced on teachers without any real understanding of the day-to-day implications (or whether it will even make a difference other than to push paper)!

–Watch for the perennial candidates who envision a career in politics and are looking for any foothold. School boards require people willing to slog through reports, scrutinize budgets and read the fine print. Don’t waste a vote on someone who sees the board as way to get their name in the paper on their way to the Legislature.

Amen...

— On the other hand, beware  of lifers. After two decades or more, a member ought to step down and make room for new voices and ideas.

... and again.

A Little Bit About Tenure

Let me begin by saying that although I have taught in systems that offered tenure, I have never stayed in any one place long enough to be eligible for it.  So I am writing this as a chronically, if you will, non-tenured-but-not-unhappy teacher.

My husband and I were driving the other day and flipping among a few Sirius Satellite radio stations.  At one point we lingered on Fox News (if you have to criticize me, hey, at least I'm being honest here) and caught an interview with a gentleman from California.  The subject was teacher tenure. For the life of me I can't remember his name, or who the interviewer was, so forgive me for that.

The Fox interviewer seemed hung up on bad teachers who have tenure and are forever employed, and are hurting our students.  The gentleman from California tried in vain to explain that tenure does not mean that your job is guaranteed, but rather that you're entitled to due process.  Shame on the reporter, because she wouldn't listen to the man, and she was, dare I say it, quite wrong.

So, let me explain this:

ALL TENURE MEANS IS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS TO HAVE CAUSE TO FIRE YOU, AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS.  THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL, WHERE YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW WHY YOU ARE BEING FIRED, OR TO ANY APPEAL.

I have no idea why this is so difficult for everyone to understand, and I struggle with the idea that "tenured teachers are the root of all evil," as that particular Fox News interviewer would apparently have us believe.

So let's break this down.

First:  People think that tenure means you are guaranteed your job forever.  Please see the bold, above.  As far as I know, the only person on this earth who is guaranteed to hold his job 'til death is the Dalai Lama.  If you are a tenured teacher, that means that in order to fire you, the school system needs to show just cause, and you are entitled to due process.  In English, that simply means that you are entitled to know why you are being fired, and to some sort of an appeals process.  You still can be fired.

Second:  In reality, though, it is probably true that many teachers with tenure correctly consider themselves "unfire-able,"  not because they can't be fired, but because school systems won't/don't fire them.  Schools and administrators have been historically lax about starting the requisite paper trail to provide cause.  Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but until the past few years, every administrator with whom I have discussed this issue had the attitude of "we know so-and-so could be better, but to really document it all would be so much work, it's not worth it."  So the lousy teacher who just so happens to have tenure, gets to keep at it.

Third:  There are many "offenses" which people would think count as cause, but which in reality are not.  A prime example of this, and something I've heard tossed about more and more lately, is the hypothetical teacher who chooses to serve none of his or her assigned duties.  Folks, unless this is a line-item in your contract, it's not a fire-able offense.  I worked in New England where every expectation was defined in our contract, and if it wasn't there, we couldn't be required to do it, and that was for a non-union position!  I am quite positive that unionized systems define job duties even more specifically.  I've also worked in Georgia and Alabama, where we had the catch-all on our contract, "and other duties as assigned," which I always found to be beyond b.s., and likely unenforceable.  Did they mean to tell me that if the principal told me I was suddenly to scrub the toilets every afternoon, I would have to do it?

Fourth:  Just because someone is tenured does not automatically make them a lousy teacher!  The news media seems to make this straight-line connection, and it's simply not correct.  Are there lousy tenured teachers?  Of course!  Are there lousy non-tenured teachers?  Yep!  And guess what, folks?  The non-tenured teachers get to keep changing systems -- they are still teaching, just the same as the tenured teachers!  It's not tenure that's the problem, it's the poor teachers.

Moral of the story: if you want to be able to fire tenured teachers, and you most certainly can, you need to change two things.
One -- Change the attitudes of administrators, so that documentation is not a nightmare, and the requisite paper trail is started early.  (In fairness, the paper trail aspect is starting to change, with our teacher accountability and documentation frenzy, administrators need to be able to point to teachers who don't pull their weight, and have evidence all along.  They shouldn't realize a problem and then need to begin compiling evidence from that point forward.)
Two -- If we think certain things, such as attending meetings, being part of committees, or serving duties, should count as "cause," we need to clearly define them in the job descriptions.

Teacher Loses His Cool in Nashville

I hope this link still works. Please let me know if it doesn't.  A teacher in Nashville was filmed (undoubtedly on a cell-phone camera) essentially losing his cool.  The footage starts out where the teacher is trying to regain control of an already-gone class, and the footage ends with the teacher throwing a desk.  According to news reports, the tirade escalated to his actually throwing a desk out a window (Hmm.  Intentionally damaging state property.  Felony?) and being taken from the school in handcuffs.

I can't say I defend this teacher, and I wish the footage continued so we could all see a little more of what unfolded, and how.  I'd also like to know how the class got to this point of unruly-ness as the class period went on.

But I also can't say I haven't felt like this before, and certainly can understand how a problematic class can go from sunshine to storms in a millisecond.  I have had classes like this, and those classes have certainly and regularly had days like this, and in those instances I've called our school police officer.  In fact, in the beginning of the video I'd argue the teacher is actually trying to reason with the students, and perhaps going off the deep end -- at least a little -- in an effort to shock them into listening for at least a half a second.  They don't seem to want to do that, and his efforts backfired.  But that's my hypothesis, and I don't know that I am right.

As I can see it, the difference between me-in-my-experiences and the gentleman here, is that I called the resource officer and sat down at my desk.  (Did I want to quit?  Sure.  Was the chronic, unpunished behavior a systemic problem big enough for me to not want to come back?  Sure.  Did I quit?  No.)


(Note:  There is a not-insignificant difference between thinking to yourself,  "I am angry and frustrated enough to throw a desk!" and actually throwing said desk.  I have infrequently been the former, and never done the latter.)

Diane Ravitch

I'm reading her book.  I've had it since it came out, and I am very far behind in my personal reading.  In the meantime, check out this link.

More on this soon.