Pennsylvania cyber charters are Very Sad, because the new governor of the state is threatening to end their long-standing party.
Years ago, a local departing superintendent offered a few words of advice. "If you want to get rich," he said, "go start a cyber school." He was not kidding. For the past decade-plus, running a Pennsylvania cyber charter has been as good as printing money. Despite their abysmal record of academic failure, Pennsylvania cybers rake in money hand over fist.
There's no big secret to it-- a cyber is paid the full per-capita home district cost of every student it enrolls. If it costs East Bucksawanna $10,500 per child to provide buildings and maintenance and infrastructure and resources and teachers and books and all the rest, then the Gotrox Cyber Acdemy gets that same $10,500, with which it provides the student with a computer (free!!) and access to a teacher or two (each of whom is carrying several hundreds of students).
It's like running a dealership where every customer will pay the purchase price of their last brand new luxury automobile and in return, all you have to give them is some object with wheels.
This has been a point of contention in PA because every cent that goes into cyber coffers comes straight out of public school tax dollars. Every student that a cyber enrolls is a budget cut for public schools, and the cuts are vicious and deep and resulting in loss of programs, closing of schools, and furloughs of teachers. Taxpayers are complaining to public schools, "What the hell did you do with all that money I gave you," and public schools reply, "That guy right over there [pointing at cyber charter] took it, and that guy right over there [pointing at legislator] says I have to let it happen." People are getting pissed off. The baloney about how the money follows the child isn't convincing, because people are now seeing that the child not only takes his own family's money, but the tax dollars from all the neighbors on his street, too.
Cyber charters in PA have created whole new traditions. For instance, a cyber school may test a student to determine if the student has special needs. Why would they care? Perhaps because they get roughly $10K for regular students and $25K for students with special needs.
There's also the tradition of enrollment day, on which guidance counselors and cyber schoolsters sit at their computers and toss students back and forth like hot potatoes on a reverse e-bay. Why? Well, there are two magic dates on the cyber calendar. After one certain date, the school gets to keep the money even if the kid leaves the cyber. After enrollment day, whoever still has the kid has to count that students test scores as their own.
Anyway. Governor Wolf has raised a fun question-- how much does it actually cost to educate a cyber-student? Because shouldn't it cost, you know, less? And if so, why should taxpayers pay more? No other public school (because, like all charters, cybers insist on calling themselves public schools) sets a budget that includes an extra couple of million just to feather the nest.
Wolf has proposed a flat fee-- $5,950. Cybers currently rake in about $400 million; Wolf's numbers would send about $160 million back to public schools (you know-- the schools that taxpayers thought they were funding in the first place). That sound you hear is the sound of cyber school operators whining, loudly.
"If that budget passes, we're going to have to either cut staff and
programming, or we're going to have to increase our enrollment," said
Kim McCully, the Interim CEO of 21st Century Cyber Charter,
headquartered in Downingtown.
I call bullshit.
21st Century Cyber spends $10,736 per student.
I call bullshit again. Those statements, if true, mean that 21st Century is the most inefficient, poorly-run excuse for a cyber school ever created.
"They've made all these conclusions about our school," said McCully,
"but they have never, ever reached out to us and said, can we please
come look."
I have no way of knowing if that's true in the case of 21st Century. I know that in some cyber-cases, it took some reaching out by federal grand juries to find out how a charter was spending money. Or by lawsuit. Or by another lawsuit. I also know that right now, the PA School Board Association is demanding to see charter schools financials, and charters have dismissed the whole thing as "frivolous." I think we can safely say that PA charters, both cyber and brick, have not been very interested in talking about fair funding. They've got theirs, Jack.
Or at least, they had theirs. Now they are worried. And whiny.
Cyber schools fill some real needs. There are students who are better served by that model than by the traditional set up. Cyber schools have also become a popular way to augment home schooling. But cybers have also become a good way to get out of having to pay one more truancy fine. And we don't talk very much about cyber assignments which, at the end of the day, just have to be completed on the computer at this end, by somebody.
There's a worthwhile discussion to be had about the value of cyberschools and about the many needs they meet. What we don't really need to discuss is how they meet the needs of some people to accumulate giant piles of money at the expense of public schools and Pennsylvania taxpayers. Wolf's proposal is long overdue; let's ee how it holds up against the impending onslaught of lobbyists for the charter biz. If you're in PA, now would be a good time to write to your legislators.
Friday, May 29, 2015
The High Expectations Fallacy
High expectations. Boy, do we love that phrase these days.
It's hard-wired into the Common Core. CCSS will use higher expectations to bring about great student achievement. I could link to hundreds of articles using some version of that phrase. The Core will save us all through the power of higher expectations.
As a flip side of this, every instance of a student coming up short is blamed on low expectations. The oft-repeated mantra that we have lied to students, telling them they're on track for college when they aren't. The claim that students with special needs only come up short on school achievement because their teachers have not expected enough of them. Here's the thought as clearly expressed by Washington State:
The evidence is clear that disabilities do not cause disparate outcomes, but that the system itself perpetuates limitations in expectations and false belief systems about who children with disabilities can be and how much they can achieve in their lifetime.
So, high expectations are the key to success and greater achievement. Higher expectations are the key to every thing!
Well, not everything.
For instance, we often offer proof that students aren't ready for college because so many of them take remedial courses. But why? Haven't colleges heard of the magical power of expectations?
I mean, why have the student take a remedial course when you could just have all professors raise their expectations? Come on, Professor McWeisenheimer! Just expect those freshmen to do better! Raise your expectations and surely, face with higher expectations, those college freshmen will be awesome!
And what about employers. We've heard that Common Core is needed to get students ready for careers, but couldn't employers do that just by raising expectations? If new employees are doing poorly, that disparate outcome must be the result of a corporate system that perpetuates limitations in expectations. If we could just train employers to have higher expectations, then all new employees would rise to those expectations! Paradise! Unicorn farms!
Look, I have great respect for the power of high expectations, and I think my students would back me up on this. But if reformsters are going to insist that high expectations are the secret to fixing everything about schools, they need to explain why the power of high expectations ONLY applies to K-12 education and not to either college or the workplace. Until then, the phrase is just an empty soundbite, and really, I expect much better of them.
It's hard-wired into the Common Core. CCSS will use higher expectations to bring about great student achievement. I could link to hundreds of articles using some version of that phrase. The Core will save us all through the power of higher expectations.
As a flip side of this, every instance of a student coming up short is blamed on low expectations. The oft-repeated mantra that we have lied to students, telling them they're on track for college when they aren't. The claim that students with special needs only come up short on school achievement because their teachers have not expected enough of them. Here's the thought as clearly expressed by Washington State:
The evidence is clear that disabilities do not cause disparate outcomes, but that the system itself perpetuates limitations in expectations and false belief systems about who children with disabilities can be and how much they can achieve in their lifetime.
So, high expectations are the key to success and greater achievement. Higher expectations are the key to every thing!
Well, not everything.
For instance, we often offer proof that students aren't ready for college because so many of them take remedial courses. But why? Haven't colleges heard of the magical power of expectations?
I mean, why have the student take a remedial course when you could just have all professors raise their expectations? Come on, Professor McWeisenheimer! Just expect those freshmen to do better! Raise your expectations and surely, face with higher expectations, those college freshmen will be awesome!
And what about employers. We've heard that Common Core is needed to get students ready for careers, but couldn't employers do that just by raising expectations? If new employees are doing poorly, that disparate outcome must be the result of a corporate system that perpetuates limitations in expectations. If we could just train employers to have higher expectations, then all new employees would rise to those expectations! Paradise! Unicorn farms!
Look, I have great respect for the power of high expectations, and I think my students would back me up on this. But if reformsters are going to insist that high expectations are the secret to fixing everything about schools, they need to explain why the power of high expectations ONLY applies to K-12 education and not to either college or the workplace. Until then, the phrase is just an empty soundbite, and really, I expect much better of them.
CAP Chicken Littles New Jersey
This is why I don't take CAP seriously.
There has been a predictable outcry over Chris Christie's announced abandonment of the Common Core. Christie's gesture is hollow and pointless, and some of the Core-loving criticism has been correct to call it cynical, as well as ultimately pointless, since Christie has also recommitted to PARCC and since the CCSS replacement will likely not be a whole new animal, but the same old pig with fresh make-up.
But CAP can be counted on to cobble together a bit of whineage constructed entirely from old reformster PR. They unvieled this slab of baloney in NJ.com under the by-line of Daniell Gibbs Leger, senior vice-president for communications and strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. In other words, her job is to go put stuff on line to try to promote the reformster program. Let's check to see if all the usual talking points are in place.
She opens by calling Christie out and quoting his former "courageous" support of the Core (because in 2010 it took real courage to accept all that money from various CCSS supporters). And she notes that turning on the Core is a popular parlor game among GOP Presidential aspirants.
But in his attempt to appease his base by opposing the Common Core, Gov. Christie has turned his back on the students of New Jersey, particularly students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.
Yes, we need the Core For The Children.
Also, Achievement Gap. There's a bad one, and it's all because of people with Low Expectations. The Common Core Standards would Level the Playing Field. Because the playing field is totally cockeyed because of educational standards for math and reading, and not at all because of systemic poverty and economic policies that favor the rich.
But see-- in the old days we were always Lying To Students about their college readiness, as proven by the number who have to Take Remedial Course. Also, students with College Degrees Make More Money. This is totally not because both college attendance and later-in-life earnings are directly tied to your socio-economic background.
Let's throw in some Stretchers as Evidence. " Kentucky, who was the first state to adopt the Common Core, saw college and career readiness rates increase from 34 percent to 62 percent in just four years." That would be more impressive if the college and career readiness rate was not simply another name for test results. All this says that after years of practicing taking tests, Kentucky students are better at taking tests.
And let's drive it home in a Big Thesis Without Any Actual Support. "By providing more rigorous standards and holding all students to higher expectations, students are better prepared to exit high school with the skills they need to succeed in college and careers." It sounds lovely, but it depends on the higher expectations magical thinking and references the skills needed to succeed in college and career which would be great except that no such list exists.
Let's throw in some True Statements Unconnected To The Point. "Our students—no matter the color of their skin or their socio-economic status—deserve the highest quality education." That is absolutely true-- but how is it that such a statement does not lead us to a discussion of equitable funding or teacher support or providing resources for poor schools? What exactly does Common Core have to do with providing the highest quality education? Is it used in all the top private schools? (Spoiler alert: not even when hell freezes over).
Doubling Down on Unsupportable Promise, and False Promise of Equity. Christie should support the "high standards that guarantee and equitable education for all students, no matter what their ZIP code may be." (Oh, yeah-- Tyranny of the Zip Code) Because using charters to eliminate geographical boundaries is working super-duper in Newark.
And finally, Alluding to Non-existent Success. Christie should not do this because it will be A Step Backwards "and our students will suffer the consequences." Because New Jersey has had huge educational success because of the Common Core.
I think cigarette companies do a better job of making a case for their project. CAP is reduced, again, to running in circles and hollering that the sky is falling and only the magical power of Common Core can save it.
There has been a predictable outcry over Chris Christie's announced abandonment of the Common Core. Christie's gesture is hollow and pointless, and some of the Core-loving criticism has been correct to call it cynical, as well as ultimately pointless, since Christie has also recommitted to PARCC and since the CCSS replacement will likely not be a whole new animal, but the same old pig with fresh make-up.
But CAP can be counted on to cobble together a bit of whineage constructed entirely from old reformster PR. They unvieled this slab of baloney in NJ.com under the by-line of Daniell Gibbs Leger, senior vice-president for communications and strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. In other words, her job is to go put stuff on line to try to promote the reformster program. Let's check to see if all the usual talking points are in place.
She opens by calling Christie out and quoting his former "courageous" support of the Core (because in 2010 it took real courage to accept all that money from various CCSS supporters). And she notes that turning on the Core is a popular parlor game among GOP Presidential aspirants.
But in his attempt to appease his base by opposing the Common Core, Gov. Christie has turned his back on the students of New Jersey, particularly students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.
Yes, we need the Core For The Children.
Also, Achievement Gap. There's a bad one, and it's all because of people with Low Expectations. The Common Core Standards would Level the Playing Field. Because the playing field is totally cockeyed because of educational standards for math and reading, and not at all because of systemic poverty and economic policies that favor the rich.
But see-- in the old days we were always Lying To Students about their college readiness, as proven by the number who have to Take Remedial Course. Also, students with College Degrees Make More Money. This is totally not because both college attendance and later-in-life earnings are directly tied to your socio-economic background.
Let's throw in some Stretchers as Evidence. " Kentucky, who was the first state to adopt the Common Core, saw college and career readiness rates increase from 34 percent to 62 percent in just four years." That would be more impressive if the college and career readiness rate was not simply another name for test results. All this says that after years of practicing taking tests, Kentucky students are better at taking tests.
And let's drive it home in a Big Thesis Without Any Actual Support. "By providing more rigorous standards and holding all students to higher expectations, students are better prepared to exit high school with the skills they need to succeed in college and careers." It sounds lovely, but it depends on the higher expectations magical thinking and references the skills needed to succeed in college and career which would be great except that no such list exists.
Let's throw in some True Statements Unconnected To The Point. "Our students—no matter the color of their skin or their socio-economic status—deserve the highest quality education." That is absolutely true-- but how is it that such a statement does not lead us to a discussion of equitable funding or teacher support or providing resources for poor schools? What exactly does Common Core have to do with providing the highest quality education? Is it used in all the top private schools? (Spoiler alert: not even when hell freezes over).
Doubling Down on Unsupportable Promise, and False Promise of Equity. Christie should support the "high standards that guarantee and equitable education for all students, no matter what their ZIP code may be." (Oh, yeah-- Tyranny of the Zip Code) Because using charters to eliminate geographical boundaries is working super-duper in Newark.
And finally, Alluding to Non-existent Success. Christie should not do this because it will be A Step Backwards "and our students will suffer the consequences." Because New Jersey has had huge educational success because of the Common Core.
I think cigarette companies do a better job of making a case for their project. CAP is reduced, again, to running in circles and hollering that the sky is falling and only the magical power of Common Core can save it.
Christie's Useless Gesture
So Chris Christie has decided to repudiate the Common Core.
Big frickin' deal.
Here are just a few of the reasons that his newly-discovered disdain for the standards is unimpressive, and unlikely to help save the fantasy of Christie running for President, ever.
The Core is so last year.
Repudiating the Core, even taking it to court, has not exactly set Bobby Jindal's campaign aflame. It's kind of ironic-- being against the Core no longer seems to be anything special. Once upon a time any politician could say that they were in favor of good schools and education and it was a safe, predictable position that didn't really earn votes or distinguish a candidate. Being against the Core seems to fall into the same category.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush continues to hold hands with the Core and give it Al Gore-style kisses in public, and it doesn't hurt him. Well, not any more than the whole complex of issues on which he is so clearly a corporate tool rather than an actual conservative. He may get the nod because, like Mitt Romney, he's the only candidate who's not a outright loon-burger, but nobody will be happy about it, and Common Core support will be just one of the many reasons. It's not enough to move the needle by itself.
He's leaving the PARCC alone.
The PARCC is the most visible and obnoxious part of the Core Complex. That Damned Test is what the parents and students encounter in the most frustrating, infuriating, time-wasting manner. Saying that he'll get rid of CCSS but keep PARCC is like announcing that the neighborhood bully's family will be moving, but they will still drop him off on the street every day to continue stealing your lunch money and pushing your kids into traffic.
A rose by any other name would smell dishonest
Getting rid of the Common Core nameplate may have worked a few times previously, but the public is starting to catch on. Dropping the Core Standards so that you can replace them with the Corre Standardds not only helps nothing, but it reveals a level of dishonesty and disinterest in actual educational concerns that is not flattering on anybody.
I mean, when Jeb stands up for the Core et al, he is completely full of baloney, but at least he's being honest about it. Trying to feed me poisoned baloney while telling me it's steak just ads insult to injury. This is particularly problematic for Christie, whose whole brand is based on his being a straight shooter. Promising your wife that you'll stop sleeping with other women in your house and then continuing your affairs on the porch is just weaselly crap.
Core is the least of his sins
Some conservatives have already tried to paint Christie as bending to pressure from teachers, but if he wants to suck up to teachers, he'll have to do far better than this. Perhaps actually following the funding formulas for schools, of funding pensions. Stop belittling them and calling them names. Saying that Christie is pandering to teachers is like saying that an abusive spouse is reformed because he beats his wife with his fists instead of a club.
Meanwhile, Christie has systematically denied local control to many of his own districts. He cannot pretend that his state control of Newark, where the district is in shambles and huge demonstrations have expressed the disgruntlement of everyone from high school students to the mayor of the city-- he can't pretend that's working, and he can't hope that people will never notice that this sort of oppressive systematic disenfranchisement of voters and parents has been done mostly to not-wealthy not-white citizens.
If Christie wanted to be a bold champion of local control, he could have stood up to say, "You know what? The state-controlled of public schools is not working. I thought it was worth a try, but it failed. We're going to transition these cities back to control of an elected school board, fire Cami Anderson and her ilk, and give New Jersey's citizens a say in their community schools again."
That would have been impressive. "I've decided to change the letterhead on the government paperwork," is not the move of a bold leader. Don't get me wrong-- it's always nice to see the Common Core Standards take a hit. But this is a useless, empty gesture unlikely to improve things for either the citizens of New Jersey or the Presidential campaign of their hapless governor.
Big frickin' deal.
Here are just a few of the reasons that his newly-discovered disdain for the standards is unimpressive, and unlikely to help save the fantasy of Christie running for President, ever.
The Core is so last year.
Repudiating the Core, even taking it to court, has not exactly set Bobby Jindal's campaign aflame. It's kind of ironic-- being against the Core no longer seems to be anything special. Once upon a time any politician could say that they were in favor of good schools and education and it was a safe, predictable position that didn't really earn votes or distinguish a candidate. Being against the Core seems to fall into the same category.
Meanwhile, Jeb Bush continues to hold hands with the Core and give it Al Gore-style kisses in public, and it doesn't hurt him. Well, not any more than the whole complex of issues on which he is so clearly a corporate tool rather than an actual conservative. He may get the nod because, like Mitt Romney, he's the only candidate who's not a outright loon-burger, but nobody will be happy about it, and Common Core support will be just one of the many reasons. It's not enough to move the needle by itself.
He's leaving the PARCC alone.
The PARCC is the most visible and obnoxious part of the Core Complex. That Damned Test is what the parents and students encounter in the most frustrating, infuriating, time-wasting manner. Saying that he'll get rid of CCSS but keep PARCC is like announcing that the neighborhood bully's family will be moving, but they will still drop him off on the street every day to continue stealing your lunch money and pushing your kids into traffic.
A rose by any other name would smell dishonest
Getting rid of the Common Core nameplate may have worked a few times previously, but the public is starting to catch on. Dropping the Core Standards so that you can replace them with the Corre Standardds not only helps nothing, but it reveals a level of dishonesty and disinterest in actual educational concerns that is not flattering on anybody.
I mean, when Jeb stands up for the Core et al, he is completely full of baloney, but at least he's being honest about it. Trying to feed me poisoned baloney while telling me it's steak just ads insult to injury. This is particularly problematic for Christie, whose whole brand is based on his being a straight shooter. Promising your wife that you'll stop sleeping with other women in your house and then continuing your affairs on the porch is just weaselly crap.
Core is the least of his sins
Some conservatives have already tried to paint Christie as bending to pressure from teachers, but if he wants to suck up to teachers, he'll have to do far better than this. Perhaps actually following the funding formulas for schools, of funding pensions. Stop belittling them and calling them names. Saying that Christie is pandering to teachers is like saying that an abusive spouse is reformed because he beats his wife with his fists instead of a club.
Meanwhile, Christie has systematically denied local control to many of his own districts. He cannot pretend that his state control of Newark, where the district is in shambles and huge demonstrations have expressed the disgruntlement of everyone from high school students to the mayor of the city-- he can't pretend that's working, and he can't hope that people will never notice that this sort of oppressive systematic disenfranchisement of voters and parents has been done mostly to not-wealthy not-white citizens.
If Christie wanted to be a bold champion of local control, he could have stood up to say, "You know what? The state-controlled of public schools is not working. I thought it was worth a try, but it failed. We're going to transition these cities back to control of an elected school board, fire Cami Anderson and her ilk, and give New Jersey's citizens a say in their community schools again."
That would have been impressive. "I've decided to change the letterhead on the government paperwork," is not the move of a bold leader. Don't get me wrong-- it's always nice to see the Common Core Standards take a hit. But this is a useless, empty gesture unlikely to improve things for either the citizens of New Jersey or the Presidential campaign of their hapless governor.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Writing: Not Unteachable, Often Mistaught
P. L. Thomas just put up a post about the teaching of writing, a subject that is near and dear to my heart, and the post is absolutely spot on (by which I mean I agree with it completely).
Thomas spins a bank shot off one of Vonnegut's writing quotes (short form: "Writing can't be taught") to re-enter that most contentious of English teacher topics-- the Five Paragraph Essay.
Ultimately, the five-paragraph essay allows both teachers and students to avoid the messy and complicated business that is writing—many dozens of choices with purpose and intent.
Yes- exactly.
Many English teachers don't like to teach writing because it is hard. More to the point, it is hard to reduce to simple set of rules and steps and a checklist one can use to grade the finished product. The problem has always been exacerbated by students themselves, many of whom would be most happy if the task of writing could be reduced to a simple set of steps that can be easily followed. "Give me my comfortable hoops," say some of my students, "and I will jump through them happily!"
I am not a five paragraph snob. I have used it my entire career and will continue to do so, primarily because many students come to me as fans of the Uniblob-- a giant mass of verbage and almost-sentences that have fallen out onto the page like toothpaste squeezed out a tube by a spasming fist. If we can get thoughts organized into paragraphs and some sort of simple progression, I absolutely call that a win.
But, as I'm not the first to observe, the FPE can be like training wheels-- useful when you're getting started, but an obstacle once you're really ready to ride.
The FPE ultimately becomes a Fill In The Blank question with five large paragraph-shaped blanks. The FPE encourages students to start by asking the wrong question. They ask "What can I use to fill in each of these blanks" or "What can I write to satisfy the assignment." These questions are most likely to produce inauthentic, lifeless, pointless pieces of writing-- but inauthentic, lifeless, pointless writing that meets the requirements of the teacher's (or standardized test scorer's) checklist.
The correct question to start with is, "What do I think about this?" A good follow-up question is "What's the best way for me to say it?"
The answers to those questions are absolutely personal. In his piece, Thomas compares himself to a colleague-- one puts words down as a first step, and one as a final step. That broad variety is, of course, normal. Some writers must be still to think, and some must be active. Some must be silent and some must be vocal.
There is no One Right Way to write. This is maddening for some teachers and some students. Where the hell is our list of rules? Unfortunately, the real list is short and only sort of helpful:
1) Figure out what you want to say.
2) Figure out a good way to say it.
3) Say it.
Most writing problems are really thinking problems, and the traditional way to solve them is to take thinking out of the equation. This is solving the problem by substituting a different problem. This is having trouble deciding what to order in a restaurant, so you go watch a movie about food instead. Templates and FPE are just a way to say, "Never mind thinking. Just fill in the blanks with what you believe the authorities will find acceptable."
There is nothing less open to standardization than writing, and yet for generations, long before the advent of Truly Terrible Tests, teachers and textbook publishers have tried to make it so. But you cannot standardize, templatize, or rulify writing without turning it into something else entirely.
I kiss my wife because I have a particular feeling, and I follow the impulse born of that feeling at that time. If I kiss my wife because I am concerned about satisfying some Higher Authority's Rules about how I should behave toward my wife, the action I take may bear a superficial resemblance to a kiss, but as I stand there carefully arranging my lips and checking for the approved level of moisture, angle of approach, degree of impact pressure, duration of contact, and any other rules I've been told I must follow for such interactions, the resulting action is something else entirely.
So, can writing be taught at all?
God, I hope so, or I don't know what the hell I've been doing for the past thirty-some years.
Here are some things that I believe work.
Tools. We teach students a variety of tools and techniques. This includes technical tricks like Ways To Make Transitions Happen and analytical tricks like Count All the Forms of Be in Your Paper and See If You Can Make Some Go Away. This also includes sharing and discussing process, so that students can learn a variety of ways that they could, for example, pre-write.
Permission. Particularly if they have wandered down the path of One True Way. I cannot even begin to guess how many students I have dealt with who insist on using approaches to writing that do not work for them at all, simply because they are convinced that's what they are Supposed To Do. Give students permission and encouragement to experiment and wander and try other things.
Write. Write write write write WRITE write write. I am pretty sure that if I simply had students write all the time and I never gave them a lick of feedback, but just kept them writing, they would get better. Feedback, reflection, discussion, sharing and assessment all speed up the process, but the activity central to improving writing is to write. Frequently, regularly, in a variety of modes and purposes, but write.
Individualization. I start with the premise that there are no child prodigy writers, which has to mean that everybody starts in the same place-- Downtown Suckville. Every writer is on a journey from Suckville to Awesome Town, but there is no bus or train that runs there, so every writer has to make the journey in her own way at her own speed. In fact, the trip metaphor only works if we allow for black holes and secret tunnels, because travelers don't even hit checkpoints in the same order. This week Chris may be ready to figure out conclusions but Pat is still wrestling with using less passive voice. Alphonse may be trying to work out writing tools that Fiona doesn't even care about. Every teacher of writing must make her own compromises, because you won't have time to handle the individual nature of learning instruction perfectly. Only you can figure out how you'll deal with that. But there is no tool more important to a writer than individual voice and that is, of course, individual.
So I believe that writing can be taught and fostered and mentored. The tricky part is that there are sooooooo many ways that a teacher can mess things up and get in the way. Templates and the FPE are prime examples of how that can go wrong. Thomas is right; Vonnegut is wrong. Writing is often mistaught, but it is not unteachable.
Thomas spins a bank shot off one of Vonnegut's writing quotes (short form: "Writing can't be taught") to re-enter that most contentious of English teacher topics-- the Five Paragraph Essay.
Ultimately, the five-paragraph essay allows both teachers and students to avoid the messy and complicated business that is writing—many dozens of choices with purpose and intent.
Yes- exactly.
Many English teachers don't like to teach writing because it is hard. More to the point, it is hard to reduce to simple set of rules and steps and a checklist one can use to grade the finished product. The problem has always been exacerbated by students themselves, many of whom would be most happy if the task of writing could be reduced to a simple set of steps that can be easily followed. "Give me my comfortable hoops," say some of my students, "and I will jump through them happily!"
I am not a five paragraph snob. I have used it my entire career and will continue to do so, primarily because many students come to me as fans of the Uniblob-- a giant mass of verbage and almost-sentences that have fallen out onto the page like toothpaste squeezed out a tube by a spasming fist. If we can get thoughts organized into paragraphs and some sort of simple progression, I absolutely call that a win.
But, as I'm not the first to observe, the FPE can be like training wheels-- useful when you're getting started, but an obstacle once you're really ready to ride.
The FPE ultimately becomes a Fill In The Blank question with five large paragraph-shaped blanks. The FPE encourages students to start by asking the wrong question. They ask "What can I use to fill in each of these blanks" or "What can I write to satisfy the assignment." These questions are most likely to produce inauthentic, lifeless, pointless pieces of writing-- but inauthentic, lifeless, pointless writing that meets the requirements of the teacher's (or standardized test scorer's) checklist.
The correct question to start with is, "What do I think about this?" A good follow-up question is "What's the best way for me to say it?"
The answers to those questions are absolutely personal. In his piece, Thomas compares himself to a colleague-- one puts words down as a first step, and one as a final step. That broad variety is, of course, normal. Some writers must be still to think, and some must be active. Some must be silent and some must be vocal.
There is no One Right Way to write. This is maddening for some teachers and some students. Where the hell is our list of rules? Unfortunately, the real list is short and only sort of helpful:
1) Figure out what you want to say.
2) Figure out a good way to say it.
3) Say it.
Most writing problems are really thinking problems, and the traditional way to solve them is to take thinking out of the equation. This is solving the problem by substituting a different problem. This is having trouble deciding what to order in a restaurant, so you go watch a movie about food instead. Templates and FPE are just a way to say, "Never mind thinking. Just fill in the blanks with what you believe the authorities will find acceptable."
There is nothing less open to standardization than writing, and yet for generations, long before the advent of Truly Terrible Tests, teachers and textbook publishers have tried to make it so. But you cannot standardize, templatize, or rulify writing without turning it into something else entirely.
I kiss my wife because I have a particular feeling, and I follow the impulse born of that feeling at that time. If I kiss my wife because I am concerned about satisfying some Higher Authority's Rules about how I should behave toward my wife, the action I take may bear a superficial resemblance to a kiss, but as I stand there carefully arranging my lips and checking for the approved level of moisture, angle of approach, degree of impact pressure, duration of contact, and any other rules I've been told I must follow for such interactions, the resulting action is something else entirely.
So, can writing be taught at all?
God, I hope so, or I don't know what the hell I've been doing for the past thirty-some years.
Here are some things that I believe work.
Tools. We teach students a variety of tools and techniques. This includes technical tricks like Ways To Make Transitions Happen and analytical tricks like Count All the Forms of Be in Your Paper and See If You Can Make Some Go Away. This also includes sharing and discussing process, so that students can learn a variety of ways that they could, for example, pre-write.
Permission. Particularly if they have wandered down the path of One True Way. I cannot even begin to guess how many students I have dealt with who insist on using approaches to writing that do not work for them at all, simply because they are convinced that's what they are Supposed To Do. Give students permission and encouragement to experiment and wander and try other things.
Write. Write write write write WRITE write write. I am pretty sure that if I simply had students write all the time and I never gave them a lick of feedback, but just kept them writing, they would get better. Feedback, reflection, discussion, sharing and assessment all speed up the process, but the activity central to improving writing is to write. Frequently, regularly, in a variety of modes and purposes, but write.
Individualization. I start with the premise that there are no child prodigy writers, which has to mean that everybody starts in the same place-- Downtown Suckville. Every writer is on a journey from Suckville to Awesome Town, but there is no bus or train that runs there, so every writer has to make the journey in her own way at her own speed. In fact, the trip metaphor only works if we allow for black holes and secret tunnels, because travelers don't even hit checkpoints in the same order. This week Chris may be ready to figure out conclusions but Pat is still wrestling with using less passive voice. Alphonse may be trying to work out writing tools that Fiona doesn't even care about. Every teacher of writing must make her own compromises, because you won't have time to handle the individual nature of learning instruction perfectly. Only you can figure out how you'll deal with that. But there is no tool more important to a writer than individual voice and that is, of course, individual.
So I believe that writing can be taught and fostered and mentored. The tricky part is that there are sooooooo many ways that a teacher can mess things up and get in the way. Templates and the FPE are prime examples of how that can go wrong. Thomas is right; Vonnegut is wrong. Writing is often mistaught, but it is not unteachable.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
A Voucher By Any Other Name
The New York legislature is getting ready to look at Education Tax Credits again. I know this because advocates are busy pushing it on twitter, including and most especially the Catholic Schools of New York. "We need your help to pass the education tax credit," they declare.
How does a education tax credit work? (These things have been around forever.) Simple, actually-- say we're giving a tax credit of $500 and you owe $2,000 in taxes this year. You send your child to an approved private school. Voila-- you owe $1,500. The government is going to give you $500 to help pay for your child's private schooling.
If you're thinking, "Well, that sounds pretty much like a voucher," you are correct. It is pretty much like a voucher. Here's Andy LeFevre, director of ALEC's education task force back in 2008.
"Tax credits have become popular in many states and are looked at in a little more favorable light in states than vouchers," said LeFevre. "And it's something that unions have a much harder time fighting against than a voucher program. I think they realize that the end goal is the same as a voucher; it's just a different way to come about it."
Catholic Schools of New York concur. They like how things worked out with a similar program in Florida, where the program now generates half a billion dollars in revenue for Catholic and private schools--er, I mean, a half a billion in scholarships for the students.
New York's initiative is so exciting it has its very own website at investined.org. (No doubt they meant to get "investinpubliced.org" but it just wasn't handy). The site declares boldly that "every child deserves a quality education" because that's a pretty controversial position to take. There's a nice Cuomo-centric video reminding us that ETC provides scholarships for "low and middle-income students." So many glowing happy pictures that you would think thousands and thousands of poor kids will finally get to attend private school.
Let me predict how many poor students will get to attend private schools because of ETC.
None.
That $500 figure above in my example? That's not hypothetical. That's the proposed credit. Five hundred dollars. Enough money to buy a couple of books or a uniform or two. It is not enough to make private school a possibility for families that could not otherwise afford it. However, if every family already attending a private school gets $500 and kicks it into the private school kitty-- ka-CHING!
In acrazily cynical charmingly conciliatory gesture, the architects of the bill have also included tax credits for public school teachers who buy supplies ($200 max, or as elementary teachers like to call it, "September").
Oh wait-- did I mention this:
Individuals and businesses can receive a tax credit for up to 75 percent of their donations made to not-for-profit organizations that award scholarships to private and out-of-district public schools based on financial need of the students’ families.
So tax credits to support rich folks who funnel money to private schools.
Clearly this is a bill that is All About The Kids and not in any way a method of diverting tax dollars to private and religious schools-- it's a way to divert tax dollars to people who divert dollars to private and religious schools, which is a totally different thing. I may not be able to give you twenty dollars to run down and buy me some beer, but I can give twenty dollars to my buddy who can give you twenty dollars to run down and buy me some beer. Totally different thing.
The website investined.org is not just informational. It is an advocacy site, with tools for emailing your legislator to push the bill. I would never tell you to go gum up that process with off-message emails. But if you want to tell a buddy to do it, I'm totally cool with that.
How does a education tax credit work? (These things have been around forever.) Simple, actually-- say we're giving a tax credit of $500 and you owe $2,000 in taxes this year. You send your child to an approved private school. Voila-- you owe $1,500. The government is going to give you $500 to help pay for your child's private schooling.
If you're thinking, "Well, that sounds pretty much like a voucher," you are correct. It is pretty much like a voucher. Here's Andy LeFevre, director of ALEC's education task force back in 2008.
"Tax credits have become popular in many states and are looked at in a little more favorable light in states than vouchers," said LeFevre. "And it's something that unions have a much harder time fighting against than a voucher program. I think they realize that the end goal is the same as a voucher; it's just a different way to come about it."
Catholic Schools of New York concur. They like how things worked out with a similar program in Florida, where the program now generates half a billion dollars in revenue for Catholic and private schools--er, I mean, a half a billion in scholarships for the students.
New York's initiative is so exciting it has its very own website at investined.org. (No doubt they meant to get "investinpubliced.org" but it just wasn't handy). The site declares boldly that "every child deserves a quality education" because that's a pretty controversial position to take. There's a nice Cuomo-centric video reminding us that ETC provides scholarships for "low and middle-income students." So many glowing happy pictures that you would think thousands and thousands of poor kids will finally get to attend private school.
Let me predict how many poor students will get to attend private schools because of ETC.
None.
That $500 figure above in my example? That's not hypothetical. That's the proposed credit. Five hundred dollars. Enough money to buy a couple of books or a uniform or two. It is not enough to make private school a possibility for families that could not otherwise afford it. However, if every family already attending a private school gets $500 and kicks it into the private school kitty-- ka-CHING!
In a
Oh wait-- did I mention this:
Individuals and businesses can receive a tax credit for up to 75 percent of their donations made to not-for-profit organizations that award scholarships to private and out-of-district public schools based on financial need of the students’ families.
So tax credits to support rich folks who funnel money to private schools.
Clearly this is a bill that is All About The Kids and not in any way a method of diverting tax dollars to private and religious schools-- it's a way to divert tax dollars to people who divert dollars to private and religious schools, which is a totally different thing. I may not be able to give you twenty dollars to run down and buy me some beer, but I can give twenty dollars to my buddy who can give you twenty dollars to run down and buy me some beer. Totally different thing.
The website investined.org is not just informational. It is an advocacy site, with tools for emailing your legislator to push the bill. I would never tell you to go gum up that process with off-message emails. But if you want to tell a buddy to do it, I'm totally cool with that.
The First Hurdle
Watching a roomful of students slog through Pennsylvania's algebra-flavored Big Standardized Test today, I'm reminded of one of the many flawed assumptions of test promoters.
Before you can compile the test answers, before you can crunch the numbers and sift the data and build your house of test-driven cards-- before you can do all that, you have a first hurdle to fling yourself over.
The students taking the test have to care.
Of all the bizarre, imaginary scenarios that test-promoters believe, this is perhaps the most reality impaired: a room full of sixteen year olds coming to school and thinking, "Boy, I cannot wait to do my very best on these. I can think of nothing more important to me right now than making sure that the state and federal government have accurate data about the kind of job my school is doing."
All discussions of test-generated data start with the assumption that the students were really trying, that they really wanted to do the very best that they could. I do not know where that assumption comes from. I can't help noticing that while many reformsters are parents, very few are parents of teenagers.
People often act as if teenagers are mysterious, otherworldly creatures. I've spent my entire life around teens, and I can tell you the secret to understanding them-- they are human beings. That's it. Teens are essentially rough cut version of their adult selves with some impulse control and long-term vision issues. But they're just people.
So imagine the following scenario. At work, you are periodically required to complete a series of tasks. These tasks are not really related to your usual job, and what connection they do have is only to a very small sliver of your total job. Performing these tasks does not help you do your job better, nor does it help your supervisor lead you. The tasks themselves are long and boring and require your actual work to come to a halt for days at a time. There's no benefit at all to doing really well; you just need to do well enough so that you can be done and get back to your regular work.
I would present you with a clearer analogy, but there really isn't anything like BS Testing in the adult world. Maybe when you have to go on line and watch one of those workplace slide shows and take an idiot quiz at the end (True or False: Stealing equipment from the office is okay.)
In that situation, do you imagine that you are trying your hardest, doing your best, or caring at all?
Test promoters have spent so much time pushing PR about the high noble valuable purposes of the BS Test that they've convinced themselves that students believe it, too. They do not.
In fact, getting older students to take any test seriously has always been one of the challenges of school (for the littler ones, who would eat fried weasel brains just to make the beloved Miss Othmar happy, motivation is less of a challenge). The entire institution is organized to coerce students into telling us what we want to know. You can't "pass" this course unless you try on this test. You can't "pass" this grade until you "pass" the course. This is why that smart-ass smart kid drives some of her teachers into a rage-- they all know she's not trying at all, but they don't have enough leverage to get her to really care about doing her best.
A small sub-industry of BS Testing has sprung up. Pep rallies. Bribes. Threats. Up the road, an administrator hauled all of students into an auditorium just to berate them for their lackluster test efforts. Occasionally, there's success-- the SAT and ACT command fear and attention because students are convinced that Big Things are riding on the test results. This is why BS Tests are destined to be high stakes-- because it's the only way we can think of to make students at least pretend to care.
And if the students don't care, the data aren't there.
Behind the test results are not students intent on showing The State what they know, but students with a hundred other thoughts in their mind, and not one of them was "Boy, this is really important."
The BS Tests offer nothing relevant or beneficial to students, and our older students are perfectly capable of seeing that. The flop-sweaty pep rallies and super-secret swears of silence just underline that the whole exercise is a waste of their time, and guess what-- teenagers don't react any better to having their time wasted than anyone else.
You can say that it's my job to fix that, my job to convince them that the BS Test is Valuable and Important and they should totally care, that because I have the classroom relationship with them, I have the juice to make it happen. But the very first step in that relationship with my students came last fall on Day One, when I promised them several things including 1) I would never willingly waste their time and 2) I would never lie to them.
So here we sit, stuck at the first hurdle, a room full of teens calculating just how much effort and care they can afford to throw at what appears to be a pointless waste of their time. I wish very test-touting reformster who ever tried to sell the data as being True and Real and Valuable had to sit here with me and actually watch these students take the test. Better yet, I wish those reformsters had to apologize to my students for wasting their time.
Originally posted at View from the Cheap Seats
Before you can compile the test answers, before you can crunch the numbers and sift the data and build your house of test-driven cards-- before you can do all that, you have a first hurdle to fling yourself over.
The students taking the test have to care.
Of all the bizarre, imaginary scenarios that test-promoters believe, this is perhaps the most reality impaired: a room full of sixteen year olds coming to school and thinking, "Boy, I cannot wait to do my very best on these. I can think of nothing more important to me right now than making sure that the state and federal government have accurate data about the kind of job my school is doing."
All discussions of test-generated data start with the assumption that the students were really trying, that they really wanted to do the very best that they could. I do not know where that assumption comes from. I can't help noticing that while many reformsters are parents, very few are parents of teenagers.
People often act as if teenagers are mysterious, otherworldly creatures. I've spent my entire life around teens, and I can tell you the secret to understanding them-- they are human beings. That's it. Teens are essentially rough cut version of their adult selves with some impulse control and long-term vision issues. But they're just people.
So imagine the following scenario. At work, you are periodically required to complete a series of tasks. These tasks are not really related to your usual job, and what connection they do have is only to a very small sliver of your total job. Performing these tasks does not help you do your job better, nor does it help your supervisor lead you. The tasks themselves are long and boring and require your actual work to come to a halt for days at a time. There's no benefit at all to doing really well; you just need to do well enough so that you can be done and get back to your regular work.
I would present you with a clearer analogy, but there really isn't anything like BS Testing in the adult world. Maybe when you have to go on line and watch one of those workplace slide shows and take an idiot quiz at the end (True or False: Stealing equipment from the office is okay.)
In that situation, do you imagine that you are trying your hardest, doing your best, or caring at all?
Test promoters have spent so much time pushing PR about the high noble valuable purposes of the BS Test that they've convinced themselves that students believe it, too. They do not.
In fact, getting older students to take any test seriously has always been one of the challenges of school (for the littler ones, who would eat fried weasel brains just to make the beloved Miss Othmar happy, motivation is less of a challenge). The entire institution is organized to coerce students into telling us what we want to know. You can't "pass" this course unless you try on this test. You can't "pass" this grade until you "pass" the course. This is why that smart-ass smart kid drives some of her teachers into a rage-- they all know she's not trying at all, but they don't have enough leverage to get her to really care about doing her best.
A small sub-industry of BS Testing has sprung up. Pep rallies. Bribes. Threats. Up the road, an administrator hauled all of students into an auditorium just to berate them for their lackluster test efforts. Occasionally, there's success-- the SAT and ACT command fear and attention because students are convinced that Big Things are riding on the test results. This is why BS Tests are destined to be high stakes-- because it's the only way we can think of to make students at least pretend to care.
And if the students don't care, the data aren't there.
Behind the test results are not students intent on showing The State what they know, but students with a hundred other thoughts in their mind, and not one of them was "Boy, this is really important."
The BS Tests offer nothing relevant or beneficial to students, and our older students are perfectly capable of seeing that. The flop-sweaty pep rallies and super-secret swears of silence just underline that the whole exercise is a waste of their time, and guess what-- teenagers don't react any better to having their time wasted than anyone else.
You can say that it's my job to fix that, my job to convince them that the BS Test is Valuable and Important and they should totally care, that because I have the classroom relationship with them, I have the juice to make it happen. But the very first step in that relationship with my students came last fall on Day One, when I promised them several things including 1) I would never willingly waste their time and 2) I would never lie to them.
So here we sit, stuck at the first hurdle, a room full of teens calculating just how much effort and care they can afford to throw at what appears to be a pointless waste of their time. I wish very test-touting reformster who ever tried to sell the data as being True and Real and Valuable had to sit here with me and actually watch these students take the test. Better yet, I wish those reformsters had to apologize to my students for wasting their time.
Originally posted at View from the Cheap Seats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)