Dear Sasha;
I read your entry in the ongoing Louis CK bloggy wars. It's so monumentally special that I just had to send you a little fan mail.
Your intro is fine. Blah blah blah Louis CK's twitter rant blah blah as a third grade teacher blah blah I don't want to throw gas on the fire, but I feel compelled to, somehow.
You followed that up with what you're doing in third grade math, and underlined that the Core are "a new set of multi-state learning standards that challenge students to think rather than compute." I like that "multi-state" thing-- great way to skate around the term "national standards," which sure doesn't fly with some folks these days. And that "think rather than compute"-- boy, that really gets to the heart of it. Who wants kids who can actually do math when we can get them to just think about it. I'm kind of surprised that it has taken us this long to adapt Professor Harold Hill's think system to math.
Then you gave proof that the strategies work. Once again, nail-head-ouch! New test prep aligned with new tests can only lead to better scores-- how can people not get that?
Does all this create stress for teachers, students, parents, lawyers, corporate test writers, you asked (I think). Sure it does! They should suck it up. And if they can't suck it up, they should just do what you folks at the highly effective Success Academies do-- throw the losers out on the street (well, or back into a public school). When the going gets tough, the tough get to bounce third graders back to whatever loser factory they crawled out of. "As teachers, we can’t afford to stand around complaining that the new standards are too hard. We have kids to inspire," or to force out of school-- whichever is going to make our numbers look best.
Next you brought up grit. Boy, am I glad you did that. People just don't understand that grit is magical; it's like a cleanser that scrubs away any need for kindness, support, or empathy. At least I think it gets rid of empathy. I can't really get a sense of what other people are thinking and feeling (but you know, who give a s#!%?).
And then, my favorite part-- you scold Louis CK.
"But a Twitter tirade doesn’t help anybody, least of all students. " You say, and boy that's dead on. The only thing that really helps people is a blog scolding; twitter tirades don't do a damn thing. Also, remember that the math world is hard on girls-- some day Louis CK will be glad that school roughed up his daughter and made her tough enough to succeed with her mathy thoughts.
"So to you, Sir, I say: Your daughter can do it. Her tears will not break
her. Sometimes, caring means comforting and sheltering our kids—but
sometimes it means challenging them, too"
Excellent finish. As a seven-year veteran of the classroom, and as someone who is a complete stranger to Louis CK and his daughter, you are clearly the best person to tell him what his daughter needs and what she will benefit from, as well as how best to show he cares about her. If there's anything parents need to understand about the brave new CCSS world, it's that complete strangers who don't know them or their children are clearly the best people to make educational prescriptions for them.
So you go, young woman. Using CK's daughter as a prop to make points about the Core may seem excessively ballsy to some, but I say, if you have to sell a program without any actual facts, data or support to back yourself up, sheer ballsiness is just what you need.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
NWEA: Teachers Think Testing Sucks Slightly Less
Northwest Evaluation Association just released some poll-based research about testing. It's not exactly a shocker, but get ready to watch its results get spun like marbles in a blender.
NWEA is a testing form that has been around since the pre-computer days, so they are not your typical CCSS cash-in operation, but they have picked up the language quickly, perhaps from some of their corporate partners including Edmentum, Achieve3000, Silverback and Triumphlearning. In some parts of the country, you know them as the MAP folks.
The new research covers attitudes about testing. On the only slightly surprising front, we have the news that fewer teachers think too much time is spent on testing than in 2011, though the majority still believe that too much time is being spent on testing.
1) Administrators, educators and policymakers need to engage with students when they're designing this stuff, especially when making test mandates at--wait?! What!! Engage with students??!! That's crazy talk!
2) Realign assessment priorities in support of teaching and learning. In less fancy words, stop designing tests around all this other baloney and create tests that actually help with education. One and two taken together translate as, "Design and deliver tests more like teachers and less like corporate bureaucrats."
3) There's a lot of gobbledeegook in this one, but I think it paraphrases roughly as "Train teachers better in how to sell these state tests, because students aren't properly absorbing the propaganda about what is going on."
4) Make educator collaboration a priority in every school and district. I honestly don't see where this one is coming from.
5) Prioritize technology readiness.
The title of the report is Making Assessment Matter. That title includes a message (hint: why are there no reports "Making Water Wet"?)-- you don't have to "make" something become what it already is. The contents of the report are clear-- the majority of students and teachers have figured out that state assessments don't matter, not when it comes to actual education.
NWEA is a testing form that has been around since the pre-computer days, so they are not your typical CCSS cash-in operation, but they have picked up the language quickly, perhaps from some of their corporate partners including Edmentum, Achieve3000, Silverback and Triumphlearning. In some parts of the country, you know them as the MAP folks.
The new research covers attitudes about testing. On the only slightly surprising front, we have the news that fewer teachers think too much time is spent on testing than in 2011, though the majority still believe that too much time is being spent on testing.
Look for this to be spun as a trend. EdWeek went with the mostly-misleading headline "Survey: More Educators Think 'Just the Right Amount' of Time Is Spent on Testing."
The online survey also turned up some responses from students regarding the purpose and value of testing, and this next chart is interesting because it shows that students know the difference between the classroom teacher's tests and the High Stakes Standardized Tests.
Note that for students, state tests only really serve the intent of evaluating student levels and evaluating teachers, schools, and administrators. For all other purposes, they are at best redundant and at most unnecessary, because classroom tests have it covered.
And given the framing of the question, this isn't even about the actual utility of the tests, but instead addresses the student perception of why the test is given. In other words, despite years of sales pitches, most students don't believe that states are administering these tests to help them with their education. Or, to frame it another way, students uniformly trust their classroom teacher more than the state to be giving tests that serve a useful educational intent.
Or more simply, even students understand that state standardized tests serve no educational purpose.
Or more simply, even students understand that state standardized tests serve no educational purpose.
Teachers and administrators have different perceptions and levels of understanding about the role of assessment in their work, and students demonstrate a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of assessment than their teachers believe.
Ya think? NWEA has five recommendations based on the study results.1) Administrators, educators and policymakers need to engage with students when they're designing this stuff, especially when making test mandates at--wait?! What!! Engage with students??!! That's crazy talk!
2) Realign assessment priorities in support of teaching and learning. In less fancy words, stop designing tests around all this other baloney and create tests that actually help with education. One and two taken together translate as, "Design and deliver tests more like teachers and less like corporate bureaucrats."
3) There's a lot of gobbledeegook in this one, but I think it paraphrases roughly as "Train teachers better in how to sell these state tests, because students aren't properly absorbing the propaganda about what is going on."
4) Make educator collaboration a priority in every school and district. I honestly don't see where this one is coming from.
5) Prioritize technology readiness.
The title of the report is Making Assessment Matter. That title includes a message (hint: why are there no reports "Making Water Wet"?)-- you don't have to "make" something become what it already is. The contents of the report are clear-- the majority of students and teachers have figured out that state assessments don't matter, not when it comes to actual education.
Idaho: More Interesting Than You Think
Across much of the US, we don't really think of Idaho as the hotbed of, well, anything. That's our mistake. But in the current battle for American public education, Idaho is the stage for some interesting battles.
The fight to watch right now is the four-way GOP contest for Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction; it's a battle that includes at least one anti-CCSS candidate. The other bone of contention is the report from the governor's task force and its recommendations for education in Idaho.
Let's back up a step. That report exists because previous Superintendent Tom Luna pushed a set of laws through in 2011 now known as Propositions 1, 2, and 3. Proposition 1 essentially erased all labor protections for teachers and principals; they could be fired without cause, and contract terms could be imposed by school boards. Proposition 2 was a lumpy, misshapen merit pay plan. Proposition 3 tackled technology and funding.
These laws raised a stink, and the battle over their rejection raised a ton of money, including $$ from the NEA (against) and Michael Bloomberg ($200,000 for). But ultimately the voters rejected the Luna Laws, leaving education "reform" in Idaho all dressed up with no place to go.
So Governor Otter rustled up a Task Force for Improving Education which came up with twenty recommendations that are the very picture of the proverbial committee-designed camel. The range is broad: mastery-based learning, adopt Idaho Core Standards, literacy before "significant content learning," college classes for high school students, statewide big data, tiered pay system for teachers, PLCs, more technology, strategic planning, and more kitchen sinks. Okay, I made up the last one. And despite the central-planning elements like Idaho's rebranded Common Core, a call for more autonomy and less state restricting of local schools.
Idaho Superintendent candidates have plenty to choose from, and choose they do. Randy Jensen (a principal) wants to raise the money needed to implement tiered licensing and career laddering for teachers, because that's the kind of thing that attracts top teachers.
Andy Grover (a superintendent) wants to see the state fund better teacher training; the recommendations include an endorsement of CCSSO's new teacher training program. "We need to make sure teachers have the tools they need to match the rigorous standards," says Andy.
Sherri Ybarra (federal programs director, which I suppose is an actual thing) is chirpilly supportive of both teachers and the Common Core.
And John Eynon (teacher) thinks the Core and its attendant noise are "just more big government" and that the Task Force ignored the voice of the people.
So there's always the possibility that the pro-CCSS vote splits three ways and a teacher becomes state superintendent with a promise to wipe out the Reformy Status Quo. The defeat of the three Propositions suggests that Idahoians (what do we call folks from Idaho) is not fully on board the CCSS train. Meanwhile, Gov. Butch Otter has re-election hopes of his won, which he's pinned on his desire to take the work he's started and "see it through."
I don't know the ins and outs of local politics in Idaho, but from out here in the cheap seats it looks like Idaho is one more state that may soon tell us just how toxic the Core have become politically.
The fight to watch right now is the four-way GOP contest for Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction; it's a battle that includes at least one anti-CCSS candidate. The other bone of contention is the report from the governor's task force and its recommendations for education in Idaho.
Let's back up a step. That report exists because previous Superintendent Tom Luna pushed a set of laws through in 2011 now known as Propositions 1, 2, and 3. Proposition 1 essentially erased all labor protections for teachers and principals; they could be fired without cause, and contract terms could be imposed by school boards. Proposition 2 was a lumpy, misshapen merit pay plan. Proposition 3 tackled technology and funding.
These laws raised a stink, and the battle over their rejection raised a ton of money, including $$ from the NEA (against) and Michael Bloomberg ($200,000 for). But ultimately the voters rejected the Luna Laws, leaving education "reform" in Idaho all dressed up with no place to go.
So Governor Otter rustled up a Task Force for Improving Education which came up with twenty recommendations that are the very picture of the proverbial committee-designed camel. The range is broad: mastery-based learning, adopt Idaho Core Standards, literacy before "significant content learning," college classes for high school students, statewide big data, tiered pay system for teachers, PLCs, more technology, strategic planning, and more kitchen sinks. Okay, I made up the last one. And despite the central-planning elements like Idaho's rebranded Common Core, a call for more autonomy and less state restricting of local schools.
Idaho Superintendent candidates have plenty to choose from, and choose they do. Randy Jensen (a principal) wants to raise the money needed to implement tiered licensing and career laddering for teachers, because that's the kind of thing that attracts top teachers.
Andy Grover (a superintendent) wants to see the state fund better teacher training; the recommendations include an endorsement of CCSSO's new teacher training program. "We need to make sure teachers have the tools they need to match the rigorous standards," says Andy.
Sherri Ybarra (federal programs director, which I suppose is an actual thing) is chirpilly supportive of both teachers and the Common Core.
And John Eynon (teacher) thinks the Core and its attendant noise are "just more big government" and that the Task Force ignored the voice of the people.
So there's always the possibility that the pro-CCSS vote splits three ways and a teacher becomes state superintendent with a promise to wipe out the Reformy Status Quo. The defeat of the three Propositions suggests that Idahoians (what do we call folks from Idaho) is not fully on board the CCSS train. Meanwhile, Gov. Butch Otter has re-election hopes of his won, which he's pinned on his desire to take the work he's started and "see it through."
I don't know the ins and outs of local politics in Idaho, but from out here in the cheap seats it looks like Idaho is one more state that may soon tell us just how toxic the Core have become politically.
My Teacher Appreciation
It is Teacher Appreciation Week, though you could be forgiven for not having noticed. It's the perfect time for all of us to stop and say a few words about the teachers who made a difference for us, whose work we respect, and whose lives in the classroom (and beyond) inspire us. Here are some of mine:
Susie and I went to high school together. She eventually returned to this area as a music teacher, a job she did with energy and panache; then, she was stricken with cancer. And she still did the job with energy and panache.She beat the cancer, and then it came back. She was determined to teach and to work and to live with just as much energy and determination as she could. At one low point in chemo, she would direct choir and then, after the period was over, go back behind the building and throw up. She didn't want to alarm her students, but she also wanted them to see her live right up until the end. She was a great choral director, but she was a beautiful and spirited human being, and her willingness to be open and available to her students right up until her death allowed her to be a huge gift to them.
Mike was my high school English teacher. His passion for the work and the reading and the writing and just everything about the class showed me that teaching could be-- should be-- just plain fun. Whether he was performing a story as all the characters or demanding that we get involved in the discussion, he showed me how energizing teaching could be.
Janet was my eighth grade teacher. She was the queen of the project, and it was in her class that I discovered the great secret of English teachers-- math teachers have to teach math, and phys ed teachers have to teach phys ed, and science teachers have to teach science, but in an English classroom everything is fair game. We wrote and performed plays and we did art projects and we did pretty much anything that she would come up with. I learned that there was sooooo much more to English than just reading and writing.
Jack ran a classroom where it was a good thing to be smart. That may seem obvious, but you know how it is-- in high school, having brains is not always the path to social success. But in Jack's class, it was good to know the answer, and it was a plus if you were smart enough to keep up with his nimble, sharp mind. In Jack's class I learned that the best way to learn new words was to hear them and use them. He wasn't cruel, and he didn't leave the slower students in the dust, but in his class, it was cool to be on top of things, to know answers.
From Tony, I learned patience. Tony could carefully and slowly explain anything, and if a student didn't get it, he would explain it again. And again. And again. And I watched him explain well past the point where I would have had a hard time keeping the judgment out of my voice. But Tony explained that everybody had to get there in their own way at their own time. I landed my first full time job when Tony hit the lottery and retired to sit on the back porch of his mobile home, drink beer and read great books. (Tony gave me my first copy of A Confederacy of Dunces)
Penny knew more about teaching at the beginning of her first year than I knew at the end of my tenth. And she had a natural gift for putting students at ease-- before her classes presented oral reports, they would sing the Brady Bunch theme song as loud as they could. I have no idea why that works, but it does. Once a nine weeks, Penny would take a Penny Paper Day and stay home, grading papers for 16 straight hours. Penny could never become comfortable with the compromise between what she knew she should be assigning in perfect world and what she had time to do in this world, and she left the profession. So my last lesson from her was that you have to make choices if you don't want to burn out.
Ed was my high school band director. He was the most ego-free band director I've ever met. He told us a million times that it was our band, not his, and we had better take responsibility for it. Most of what I know about fostering student leadership and ownership I learned in the high school trombone section. I also learned from Ed another type of success-- his big successes were not just the students who became professional musicians or music teachers, but those of us who kept playing our whole lives. I'm not a musician, but my life would suck without music. I got that from Ed-- not all our students have to follow in our footsteps to have had their lives enriched by what we teach them.
Those are just some of the biggies. Here's my challenge to you-- I have told every one of these people how they were important to me over the past several decades. You should do the same. Drop a note, send a card, stop and say hi to one of the teachers that made a difference in your life.
It is hard to talk about Teacher Appreciation Week without sounding self serving, but we all owe a huge debt to the teachers who made a difference in our lives. If we're going to live out what we value, we need to tell them so. Take some time this week.
Susie and I went to high school together. She eventually returned to this area as a music teacher, a job she did with energy and panache; then, she was stricken with cancer. And she still did the job with energy and panache.She beat the cancer, and then it came back. She was determined to teach and to work and to live with just as much energy and determination as she could. At one low point in chemo, she would direct choir and then, after the period was over, go back behind the building and throw up. She didn't want to alarm her students, but she also wanted them to see her live right up until the end. She was a great choral director, but she was a beautiful and spirited human being, and her willingness to be open and available to her students right up until her death allowed her to be a huge gift to them.
Mike was my high school English teacher. His passion for the work and the reading and the writing and just everything about the class showed me that teaching could be-- should be-- just plain fun. Whether he was performing a story as all the characters or demanding that we get involved in the discussion, he showed me how energizing teaching could be.
Janet was my eighth grade teacher. She was the queen of the project, and it was in her class that I discovered the great secret of English teachers-- math teachers have to teach math, and phys ed teachers have to teach phys ed, and science teachers have to teach science, but in an English classroom everything is fair game. We wrote and performed plays and we did art projects and we did pretty much anything that she would come up with. I learned that there was sooooo much more to English than just reading and writing.
Jack ran a classroom where it was a good thing to be smart. That may seem obvious, but you know how it is-- in high school, having brains is not always the path to social success. But in Jack's class, it was good to know the answer, and it was a plus if you were smart enough to keep up with his nimble, sharp mind. In Jack's class I learned that the best way to learn new words was to hear them and use them. He wasn't cruel, and he didn't leave the slower students in the dust, but in his class, it was cool to be on top of things, to know answers.
From Tony, I learned patience. Tony could carefully and slowly explain anything, and if a student didn't get it, he would explain it again. And again. And again. And I watched him explain well past the point where I would have had a hard time keeping the judgment out of my voice. But Tony explained that everybody had to get there in their own way at their own time. I landed my first full time job when Tony hit the lottery and retired to sit on the back porch of his mobile home, drink beer and read great books. (Tony gave me my first copy of A Confederacy of Dunces)
Penny knew more about teaching at the beginning of her first year than I knew at the end of my tenth. And she had a natural gift for putting students at ease-- before her classes presented oral reports, they would sing the Brady Bunch theme song as loud as they could. I have no idea why that works, but it does. Once a nine weeks, Penny would take a Penny Paper Day and stay home, grading papers for 16 straight hours. Penny could never become comfortable with the compromise between what she knew she should be assigning in perfect world and what she had time to do in this world, and she left the profession. So my last lesson from her was that you have to make choices if you don't want to burn out.
Ed was my high school band director. He was the most ego-free band director I've ever met. He told us a million times that it was our band, not his, and we had better take responsibility for it. Most of what I know about fostering student leadership and ownership I learned in the high school trombone section. I also learned from Ed another type of success-- his big successes were not just the students who became professional musicians or music teachers, but those of us who kept playing our whole lives. I'm not a musician, but my life would suck without music. I got that from Ed-- not all our students have to follow in our footsteps to have had their lives enriched by what we teach them.
Those are just some of the biggies. Here's my challenge to you-- I have told every one of these people how they were important to me over the past several decades. You should do the same. Drop a note, send a card, stop and say hi to one of the teachers that made a difference in your life.
It is hard to talk about Teacher Appreciation Week without sounding self serving, but we all owe a huge debt to the teachers who made a difference in our lives. If we're going to live out what we value, we need to tell them so. Take some time this week.
Monday, May 5, 2014
It's That Week Again
What week is it? Well, of course, it's "Stop Telling Me That It's All Arne Duncan's Fault And President Obama Would Totally Have Our Back If Not For His Evil Advisers" Week.
For thirty years, the PTA has celebrated this week as Teacher Appreciation Week, or as they say "Since 1984, National PTA has designated the first week in May as a special time to honor the men and women who lend their passion and skills to educating our children." It's a nice gesture, and it comes at a time of year when teachers are feeling all the feelings. Stress over testing season. Anxiety over trying to get as much education as possible into the few days left. Riding the tiger as students experience a huge burst of springtime energy. Sadness over soon saying goodbye to the small people in whom we've invested all this year. Knowing that someone has noticed you pouring your heart out into the classroom is nice; knowing they appreciate it is even nicer.
Meanwhile, in DC, President Obama has this to say:
At the heart of who we are as Americans is the simple but profound idea that no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you come from, if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can succeed. Our Nation can only realize this idea through the guarantee of a world-class education for every child. During National Charter Schools Week, we pay tribute to the role our Nation's public charter schools play in advancing opportunity, and we salute the parents, educators, community leaders, policymakers, and philanthropists who gave rise to the charter school sector.
The first week of every May under the Obama administration has been dedicated to celebrating Charter Schools, institutions that apparently achieve awesomeness without the benefit of actual teachers ("educator," as all educators know is a weasel word used to lump not-actually-teachers in with actual teachers, who are generally called "teachers").
This ironic train wreck of symbolism has been noted before (every year of the Obama administration, in fact) and is being noted this year, and while I try not to be redundant here, there are some things that just need to be noted a lot.
It's not that charter schools are innately anti-teacher or anti-public school. There are some absolutely awesome charters out there, doing great work for students and making teachers salivate at the prospect of working there. Charters done right can be an enormous boost to educational excellence in a community.
But what the current administration has fostered is not charter schools devoted to excellence, but charter schools as investment opportunities, and most ironic for our purposes today, charter schools that lead the nation in innovative ways to crush teaching as a profession. The modern charter makes money by cutting payroll costs ruthlessly, reducing teachers to at-will temps who can be easily churned and burned.
In short, the modern charter school is one of the most teacher-hostile environments for the modern-day school teacher.
The President could have made his obeisance to the charter school bosses any other week of the year (given the gift he's provided of federal pressure on states to raise charter caps, Christmas would have made sense), and that would have been enough of a slap in the face to our nation's public school teachers. But to use The Salute To Charters Week to upstage Teacher Appreciation Week is going the extra mile to slap every public school teacher in the face. I look forward to the administration's Labor Day Salute To Corporate Leaders and Job Creators!
For thirty years, the PTA has celebrated this week as Teacher Appreciation Week, or as they say "Since 1984, National PTA has designated the first week in May as a special time to honor the men and women who lend their passion and skills to educating our children." It's a nice gesture, and it comes at a time of year when teachers are feeling all the feelings. Stress over testing season. Anxiety over trying to get as much education as possible into the few days left. Riding the tiger as students experience a huge burst of springtime energy. Sadness over soon saying goodbye to the small people in whom we've invested all this year. Knowing that someone has noticed you pouring your heart out into the classroom is nice; knowing they appreciate it is even nicer.
Meanwhile, in DC, President Obama has this to say:
At the heart of who we are as Americans is the simple but profound idea that no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you come from, if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can succeed. Our Nation can only realize this idea through the guarantee of a world-class education for every child. During National Charter Schools Week, we pay tribute to the role our Nation's public charter schools play in advancing opportunity, and we salute the parents, educators, community leaders, policymakers, and philanthropists who gave rise to the charter school sector.
The first week of every May under the Obama administration has been dedicated to celebrating Charter Schools, institutions that apparently achieve awesomeness without the benefit of actual teachers ("educator," as all educators know is a weasel word used to lump not-actually-teachers in with actual teachers, who are generally called "teachers").
This ironic train wreck of symbolism has been noted before (every year of the Obama administration, in fact) and is being noted this year, and while I try not to be redundant here, there are some things that just need to be noted a lot.
It's not that charter schools are innately anti-teacher or anti-public school. There are some absolutely awesome charters out there, doing great work for students and making teachers salivate at the prospect of working there. Charters done right can be an enormous boost to educational excellence in a community.
But what the current administration has fostered is not charter schools devoted to excellence, but charter schools as investment opportunities, and most ironic for our purposes today, charter schools that lead the nation in innovative ways to crush teaching as a profession. The modern charter makes money by cutting payroll costs ruthlessly, reducing teachers to at-will temps who can be easily churned and burned.
In short, the modern charter school is one of the most teacher-hostile environments for the modern-day school teacher.
The President could have made his obeisance to the charter school bosses any other week of the year (given the gift he's provided of federal pressure on states to raise charter caps, Christmas would have made sense), and that would have been enough of a slap in the face to our nation's public school teachers. But to use The Salute To Charters Week to upstage Teacher Appreciation Week is going the extra mile to slap every public school teacher in the face. I look forward to the administration's Labor Day Salute To Corporate Leaders and Job Creators!
Defending the Core in OK
Sherry Labyer is superintendent of Duncan Public Schools out in Oklahoma. She has occasionally taken issue with Reformsters in her state, particularly over the use of letter grades for schools. But she loves her some Common Core, and as Oklahoma has wrangled over the future of CCSS (several bills have been floated to repeal, leash, hamstring and otherwise interfere with the Core), Ms. Labyer penned an op-ed (full image at the bottom of the page).
Her piece is just one more example of the kind of thinking that leads folks to support the Core. Let's take a look.
She opens with the historical perspective, highlighting years of preparation, training and investment in launching OK into the CCSS era. Like many CCSS supporters, she has her favorite parts: "Critical thinking and problem solving is one of the major shifts in Common Core." Oklahoma's old PASS standards were, in her words, like "asking our students to memorize Jeopardy facts," which is an evocative image except that I don't think people win on Jeopardy by memorizing every possible fact that might come up. In fact, Jeopardy answers often require a little sideways twist of cross-filing information with pattern recognition and wit. I think Jeopardy questions are closer to what CCSS fans imagine is their perfect goal.
"We must teach them how to think and help them to become innovators instead of just doers." Instead of just doers? That is a new one for me. Exactly why is being a "doer" a bad thing? Do we not like people who "get things done"? Is there not a special place in the American heart for people who "get things done" with creativity and ingenuity?
Labyer would like to clear up some confusion about the standards. See, local districts still have control; the standards only tell them what exactly what skills the students need to acquire. The Labyer tries her hand at the curriculum/standards distinction, and let me make confession here-- there was a time when I saw these as very separate items as well, but the more CCSS supporters explain the difference, the less certain I am of the distinction between the two.
Labyer fails hard. "A standard is a statement that describes what a student should be able to do at a certain point in his/her educational career. Curriculum is the scope and sequence of skills that are to be learned in a particular subject at a particular grade level." So let's say that the task at hand is to walk from the corner of 9th and Liberty Streets to the corner of 12th and Liberty at noon. Standards would look like this: At 12:01, you should be walking across 9th Street. At 12:06, you should be standing at the corner of 10th and Liberty. At 12:11 you should be standing at the corner of 11th and Liberty. At 12:16, you should be standing at the corner of 12th and Liberty. But curriculum would be the scope and sequence of how you would meet all those standards, which would-- I don't know. Have different verbs? I swear, reading about Common Core is just making me stupider on this particular subject.
Labyer moves on to the old baloney about fewer standards that are more complex and deep. She notes that we no longer live in a "fill in the blank" world and not for the first time I wonder if I teach in some sort of pedagogical paradise because who the heck teaches like it's a fill-in-the-blank world except of course everybody trying to get their students ready for The Big Standardized Test (which few of us think of as real teaching so, my point).
Nor can I, for the life of me, find the deep complex critical thinking part of the standards. If you see Labyer, please ask her for me to give an example of specific standard and explain how that standard is either deep or related to critical thinking.
The bottom line is: the standards are good, they are complex, we already have them, resources have been spent preparing for them, current assignments are aligned to them, and Oklahoma educators have been involved in their development.
This is a list of unsupported assertions and our big up and coming CCSS Talking Point (replacing the previous "Let's Not Lose Momentum" point) which is "Hey, we've already spent a bunch of money on this!" You can also think of this as the "Throw good money after bad" or "Waist deep in the Big Muddy." When you're doing a dumb thing, doing it harder is a lousy solution. And of course, Oklahoma teachers did not help develop so much as a comma of the Common Core.
She offers a parting nod to college and career readiness, because that's the whole purpose of education-- vocational training and nothing else. Tell me, Ms. Labyer, will young women whose goal is to become a housewife be allowed to drop out of school?
This is the same old tired stuff, without a shred of evidence offered to support the various assertions about Common Core.Labyer is trying to talk people out of dumping the Core in OK. I hope she is unsuccessful.
Her piece is just one more example of the kind of thinking that leads folks to support the Core. Let's take a look.
She opens with the historical perspective, highlighting years of preparation, training and investment in launching OK into the CCSS era. Like many CCSS supporters, she has her favorite parts: "Critical thinking and problem solving is one of the major shifts in Common Core." Oklahoma's old PASS standards were, in her words, like "asking our students to memorize Jeopardy facts," which is an evocative image except that I don't think people win on Jeopardy by memorizing every possible fact that might come up. In fact, Jeopardy answers often require a little sideways twist of cross-filing information with pattern recognition and wit. I think Jeopardy questions are closer to what CCSS fans imagine is their perfect goal.
"We must teach them how to think and help them to become innovators instead of just doers." Instead of just doers? That is a new one for me. Exactly why is being a "doer" a bad thing? Do we not like people who "get things done"? Is there not a special place in the American heart for people who "get things done" with creativity and ingenuity?
Labyer would like to clear up some confusion about the standards. See, local districts still have control; the standards only tell them what exactly what skills the students need to acquire. The Labyer tries her hand at the curriculum/standards distinction, and let me make confession here-- there was a time when I saw these as very separate items as well, but the more CCSS supporters explain the difference, the less certain I am of the distinction between the two.
Labyer fails hard. "A standard is a statement that describes what a student should be able to do at a certain point in his/her educational career. Curriculum is the scope and sequence of skills that are to be learned in a particular subject at a particular grade level." So let's say that the task at hand is to walk from the corner of 9th and Liberty Streets to the corner of 12th and Liberty at noon. Standards would look like this: At 12:01, you should be walking across 9th Street. At 12:06, you should be standing at the corner of 10th and Liberty. At 12:11 you should be standing at the corner of 11th and Liberty. At 12:16, you should be standing at the corner of 12th and Liberty. But curriculum would be the scope and sequence of how you would meet all those standards, which would-- I don't know. Have different verbs? I swear, reading about Common Core is just making me stupider on this particular subject.
Labyer moves on to the old baloney about fewer standards that are more complex and deep. She notes that we no longer live in a "fill in the blank" world and not for the first time I wonder if I teach in some sort of pedagogical paradise because who the heck teaches like it's a fill-in-the-blank world except of course everybody trying to get their students ready for The Big Standardized Test (which few of us think of as real teaching so, my point).
Nor can I, for the life of me, find the deep complex critical thinking part of the standards. If you see Labyer, please ask her for me to give an example of specific standard and explain how that standard is either deep or related to critical thinking.
The bottom line is: the standards are good, they are complex, we already have them, resources have been spent preparing for them, current assignments are aligned to them, and Oklahoma educators have been involved in their development.
This is a list of unsupported assertions and our big up and coming CCSS Talking Point (replacing the previous "Let's Not Lose Momentum" point) which is "Hey, we've already spent a bunch of money on this!" You can also think of this as the "Throw good money after bad" or "Waist deep in the Big Muddy." When you're doing a dumb thing, doing it harder is a lousy solution. And of course, Oklahoma teachers did not help develop so much as a comma of the Common Core.
She offers a parting nod to college and career readiness, because that's the whole purpose of education-- vocational training and nothing else. Tell me, Ms. Labyer, will young women whose goal is to become a housewife be allowed to drop out of school?
This is the same old tired stuff, without a shred of evidence offered to support the various assertions about Common Core.Labyer is trying to talk people out of dumping the Core in OK. I hope she is unsuccessful.
An Educated Person
"Don't you think there are things that every educated person should know?"
I hear this fairly often, generally in response to my stated disinterest in having Common Core standards in particular and national education standards ever in general. It's an eye-opening question for me , because even just a few years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have answered yes. But the current toxic educational status quo and its foundation of Making People Prove They Know Things has forced me to really examine my thoughts in this area.
The issue breaks down into three parts for me.
I. The List
In the English teacher biz, we wrestle with The Canon all the time, and that master list is always a work in progress. If you're old enough, you can remember the struggle surrounding the recognition that we might want to expand beyond the traditional list of Dead White Guys, but there have been many mini-arguments over the years, none of which have been conclusively settled.
But that's content. What about skills? Well, we agree on reading-writing-speaking-listening in principle, but in English-land there's ongoing debate about the usefulness of knowing grammar, and the process of writing (which was only "discovered" in the last forty years or so) is still metamorphosing. And in most places, the speaking-listening piece is a haphazard Rube Goldberg stapled to the airborne seat of our pedagogical pants.
And that's just my field. Multiply that by every other discipline. Factor in all the parents and taxpayers who believe that What Kids Should Learn is roughly the same as What We Studied Back In My Day.
But I do believe there are things students should learn, don't I? I mean, how else do I make decisions about what I should teach (because in my district, I make many of those decisions myself)?
Turns out, when I think about it, what I really have is a list of Things I think It Would Benefit a Person To Know.
I think any person would be better off knowing some Shakespeare. I think every person would benefit from being able to express him/her-self as clearly as possible in writing and speaking. I think there's a giant cargo-ship-load of literature that has important and useful things to say to various people at various points in their journey through life.
But this is a fuzzy, individual thing. Think of it as food, the intellectual equivalent of food. Are there foods that everybody would benefit from eating? Wellll.... I would really enjoy a steak, but my wife the vegan would not. And given my physical condition, it might not be the best choice for me. On the other hand, if I haven't had any protein in a while, it might be great. And a salad might be nice, unless I already had a salad today, because eating a lot of salad has some unpleasant consequences for me. Oh, and I do enjoy a lobster, which is fairly healthy, unless I'm have to eat while I'm traveling-- lobster makes very bad road food in the car. You see our problem. We can agree that everybody should eat. I'm not sure we can pick a menu and declare that every single human being would benefit from eating exactly that food at exactly the same time.
Ditto for The List. I mean, I think everybody should learn stuff. Personally, I'm a generalist, so I think everybody would benefit from learning everything from Hamlet to quantum physics. But then, I know some people who have made the world a better place by being hard core specialists who know nothing about anything outside their field.
So if you ask me, can I name a list of skills and knowledge areas that every single solitary American must learn, I start to have trouble. Every mechanic, welder, astronaut, teacher, concert flautist, librarian, physicist, neurosurgeon, truck driver, airplane pilot, grocery clerk, elephant trainer, beer brewer, housewife, househusband, politician, dog catcher, cobbler, retail manager, tailor, dentist-- what exactly does every single one of those people have to know?
II. And Why?
Let's pretend there is a list. What is it for?
Do we want people to be more productive workers? Do we want them to be more responsible parents? Do we want them to be kinder, more decent human beings? Do we want them to be better citizens?
Then why aren't we trying to teach them those things?
One of the most bizarre disconnects in the current toxic ed status quo is the imaginary connections between disconnected things. We have to get students to score better on standardized tests, because that's how we'll become the economically dominant Earth nation. Ignoring for a moment the value of either of those goals, what the heck do they have to do with each other?
Reformsters are constantly telling us that we must drive to Cleveland because that's the only way we'll make it to St. Louis. If you want to drive to St. Louis, first, let's discuss whether we really want to go to St. Louis or not and next, if we agree, let's map a path to St. Louis, not Cleveland.
III. Enforcement
So even if I have my tiny list of things I think absolutely every person must learn, the small irreduceable list of content and skills that every educate person should know, I have another hurdle to climb.
Do I think the full force of law and government should stand behind forcing people to learn those things?
Should the federal and state governments say, "We think you should learn these things, and we will put the full weight of law behind that requirement. You will not be allowed to proceed with your life unless you satisfy us that you have learned the stuff on this list."
What is X such that I would stand in front of a diploma line and say, "Since you have not proven to me that you know X, I will not let you have a diploma."
"Don't you think there are things that every educated person should know?" seems like such a fair and simple question, but by the time I've come up with a short list of skills and knowledge for every single solitary human being, and then filtered it through the question of what deserves to have the full force of federal law behind it, my list is very short and extremely general.
Maybe you think that makes me one of those loose teachers who lets his students slop by with whatever half-assed work they feel like doing. You will have to take my word for it-- my students would find that assessment of my teaching pretty hilarious.
But The List approach is, in fact, List-centered, and I'm well-anchored to an approach to teaching that is student-centered. It is, I have become convinced, the only way to teach. We cannot be rules-centered or standards-centered or test-centered or teacher-centered or list-centered, even though we need to include and consider all of those elements. How to weigh and balance and evaluate all these elements? The answer has been, and continues to be, right in front of us. We balance all the elements of education by centering on the student. As long as we keep our focus on the students' needs, strengths, weaknesses, stage of development, hopes, dreams, obstacles, aspirations-- as long as we stay focused on all that, we'll be good.
What does every educated person need? Every educated person needs-- and deserves-- an education that is built around the student. Everything else must be open to discussion.
I hear this fairly often, generally in response to my stated disinterest in having Common Core standards in particular and national education standards ever in general. It's an eye-opening question for me , because even just a few years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have answered yes. But the current toxic educational status quo and its foundation of Making People Prove They Know Things has forced me to really examine my thoughts in this area.
The issue breaks down into three parts for me.
I. The List
In the English teacher biz, we wrestle with The Canon all the time, and that master list is always a work in progress. If you're old enough, you can remember the struggle surrounding the recognition that we might want to expand beyond the traditional list of Dead White Guys, but there have been many mini-arguments over the years, none of which have been conclusively settled.
But that's content. What about skills? Well, we agree on reading-writing-speaking-listening in principle, but in English-land there's ongoing debate about the usefulness of knowing grammar, and the process of writing (which was only "discovered" in the last forty years or so) is still metamorphosing. And in most places, the speaking-listening piece is a haphazard Rube Goldberg stapled to the airborne seat of our pedagogical pants.
And that's just my field. Multiply that by every other discipline. Factor in all the parents and taxpayers who believe that What Kids Should Learn is roughly the same as What We Studied Back In My Day.
But I do believe there are things students should learn, don't I? I mean, how else do I make decisions about what I should teach (because in my district, I make many of those decisions myself)?
Turns out, when I think about it, what I really have is a list of Things I think It Would Benefit a Person To Know.
I think any person would be better off knowing some Shakespeare. I think every person would benefit from being able to express him/her-self as clearly as possible in writing and speaking. I think there's a giant cargo-ship-load of literature that has important and useful things to say to various people at various points in their journey through life.
But this is a fuzzy, individual thing. Think of it as food, the intellectual equivalent of food. Are there foods that everybody would benefit from eating? Wellll.... I would really enjoy a steak, but my wife the vegan would not. And given my physical condition, it might not be the best choice for me. On the other hand, if I haven't had any protein in a while, it might be great. And a salad might be nice, unless I already had a salad today, because eating a lot of salad has some unpleasant consequences for me. Oh, and I do enjoy a lobster, which is fairly healthy, unless I'm have to eat while I'm traveling-- lobster makes very bad road food in the car. You see our problem. We can agree that everybody should eat. I'm not sure we can pick a menu and declare that every single human being would benefit from eating exactly that food at exactly the same time.
Ditto for The List. I mean, I think everybody should learn stuff. Personally, I'm a generalist, so I think everybody would benefit from learning everything from Hamlet to quantum physics. But then, I know some people who have made the world a better place by being hard core specialists who know nothing about anything outside their field.
So if you ask me, can I name a list of skills and knowledge areas that every single solitary American must learn, I start to have trouble. Every mechanic, welder, astronaut, teacher, concert flautist, librarian, physicist, neurosurgeon, truck driver, airplane pilot, grocery clerk, elephant trainer, beer brewer, housewife, househusband, politician, dog catcher, cobbler, retail manager, tailor, dentist-- what exactly does every single one of those people have to know?
II. And Why?
Let's pretend there is a list. What is it for?
Do we want people to be more productive workers? Do we want them to be more responsible parents? Do we want them to be kinder, more decent human beings? Do we want them to be better citizens?
Then why aren't we trying to teach them those things?
One of the most bizarre disconnects in the current toxic ed status quo is the imaginary connections between disconnected things. We have to get students to score better on standardized tests, because that's how we'll become the economically dominant Earth nation. Ignoring for a moment the value of either of those goals, what the heck do they have to do with each other?
Reformsters are constantly telling us that we must drive to Cleveland because that's the only way we'll make it to St. Louis. If you want to drive to St. Louis, first, let's discuss whether we really want to go to St. Louis or not and next, if we agree, let's map a path to St. Louis, not Cleveland.
III. Enforcement
So even if I have my tiny list of things I think absolutely every person must learn, the small irreduceable list of content and skills that every educate person should know, I have another hurdle to climb.
Do I think the full force of law and government should stand behind forcing people to learn those things?
Should the federal and state governments say, "We think you should learn these things, and we will put the full weight of law behind that requirement. You will not be allowed to proceed with your life unless you satisfy us that you have learned the stuff on this list."
What is X such that I would stand in front of a diploma line and say, "Since you have not proven to me that you know X, I will not let you have a diploma."
"Don't you think there are things that every educated person should know?" seems like such a fair and simple question, but by the time I've come up with a short list of skills and knowledge for every single solitary human being, and then filtered it through the question of what deserves to have the full force of federal law behind it, my list is very short and extremely general.
Maybe you think that makes me one of those loose teachers who lets his students slop by with whatever half-assed work they feel like doing. You will have to take my word for it-- my students would find that assessment of my teaching pretty hilarious.
But The List approach is, in fact, List-centered, and I'm well-anchored to an approach to teaching that is student-centered. It is, I have become convinced, the only way to teach. We cannot be rules-centered or standards-centered or test-centered or teacher-centered or list-centered, even though we need to include and consider all of those elements. How to weigh and balance and evaluate all these elements? The answer has been, and continues to be, right in front of us. We balance all the elements of education by centering on the student. As long as we keep our focus on the students' needs, strengths, weaknesses, stage of development, hopes, dreams, obstacles, aspirations-- as long as we stay focused on all that, we'll be good.
What does every educated person need? Every educated person needs-- and deserves-- an education that is built around the student. Everything else must be open to discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)