Tuesday, April 11, 2006

EDUCATION IS NOT A HAIRCUT and other uncomfortable truths about student responsibility and one-size-fits-all education strategies

And when I'm done, you'll know how to:

Write a 1,000-word persuasive essay and a 10-page research paper, work out quadratic equations, explain cellular respiration, describe Rembrandt's style and use of light and shadow, analyze the causes of WWI, and prove the Pythagorean Theorem.

Just hold your head still, please!

=======================================================

If only teaching and learning were this simple!

=======================================================
Someone can give you a haircut against your will;It happens on sports teams, in fraternities, and in the military, all the time. You can be given a haircut while you sleep.

In fact, you can be given a complete haircut without doing anything else besides sitting down and holding your head reasonably still.

Could a person be given AN EDUCATION in the same way?
Of course not.

Acquiring an education is a very ACTIVE process, and not at all a passive activity. In truth, one could say, that without active participation of the "recipient", NO ONE could be "given" an education.

So it is safe to say that an
EDUCATION IS NOT A HAIRCUT. Not at all. Not even close.

An education is something that is ACHIEVED, and not merely received, like a haircut or a shoe-shine, or an appendectomy.

It is assembled. It is BUILT--One day at a time, one assignment at a time, one experience at a time.

So why, then, are STUDENTS so seldom held accountable when test scores are low, or "too many" kids fail, or drop out?

It seems like it is ALWAYS "The School's", or "The Teacher's" fault (note: NEVER the politicians, though).

Sometimes it IS the fault of the school or teacher, but from my experiences, it is usually, NOT.

And many school actions and policies related to the classroom are administered on an almost totally "supply-side" concept, with teachers often dealt with and thought of (by administrations and politicians) as mere "deliverers" of curricula to vast numbers of passive "recipients"----As if the student's state of participation were always constant, as with some emotionless, ever-predictable "widget", or machine!

Facing large numbers of low-motivated-to-UNmotivated kids in the current test-score-crazy environment can be a lonely feeling, even for a veteran teacher, feeling so distant from the lofty powers-that-be that send down the standards and expectations so frequently, and sometimes, so arbitrarily.

But this is not to deny that, just like ballplayers, golfers and musicians, some teachers are better than others; Some are much better. A few are crap; some are brilliant.And ALL teachers can keep learning and improving, no matter how long they've already been at it. Just like it is in many other professions, I suspect.

But most teachers I have seen in 25+ years in education are pretty decent at it, or even quite solid----MORE than good enough to teach meaningful skills and knowledge to almost any kid who cares enough to listen, follow directions, ask for help when needed, and work on assignments until they are done.

As critical as I have been of schools, politicians and administrative policies, and a hostile media, I must share this disturbing fact with you:

The most frequent and ubiquitous barrier to learning in classrooms today is----The student.

Yes, THE STUDENT.

In some classes I have seen, as many as 1/3 to 1/2 of the class sits passively throughout the lesson, and if not pushed constantly by the teacher, won't even write a word down on the paper. These same students seldom turn in homework as well, and usually fail the class, often not even coming close to passing, in spite of having no particular learning disability or lack of intelligence.

Surely, it would be amazing to the opinionated politicians, pundits and many loud critics of public Education to actually experience how many kids sit inertly in class, completely ignoring any instruction that is going on, and only showing energy or enthusiasm in defying, or bogging-down the teacher when the teacher takes time out from the lesson (and valuable time away from the cooperative students) to try and get the "non-workers" involved, most often to no avail.

To be fair, most of my teaching experience has been in low-income schools, where these problems are more common.

And certainly, it is understandible when Johnny-X, who may have witnessed something as harrowing as seeing his father punching his mother around the kitchen that morning in a screaming rage, may be a little too distracted to focus on writing his essay dealing with character motivation in "The Scarlet Ibis" that day. (Another all-to-frequent reason is when a student admits to a "hangover", but that is another topic).

But overall, teachers must learn to balance their compassion for kids' hardships with the firmness necessary to move a class forwards towards worthwhile, or even "lofty" educational goals.

I said, A CLASS.

Classroom teachers do not generally have the luxury of just being able to stop everything to meet the needs of 1 student--That is what counseling sessions and afterschool 1-on-1 meetings are for.

And school outsiders would be shocked at just how few academically needy teenagers are unwilling to come in for help or makeup work afterschool, even if just for a few minutes!

Outsiders would also be stunned at how many parents of failing students seem to never get the grade reports which are mailed or taken home each quarter--The student intercepts them!

Shockingly, I've talked to the astonished parents of seniors, literally hundreds of credits short of graduation (due to chronic fails in coursework)----Parents who had never seen a report card from the school!

OK, obviously these sound like dysfunctional families, and parents lacking even basic trust and communication with their own children. Tragic. But all too common.

Over the years, my biggest struggles in the high school classroom have not been about how to teach writing better, or to get a piece of literature across, or to teach an important concept well (that is the FUN part of teaching, and the kids who are engaged, generally get it).

Unfortunately, some of the biggest challenges have been more on the level of how to get Jimmy, Jerry and Marie to bring materials to class, to sit in their assigned seat, or just to cease their nonstop socializing and follow simple directions for the assignment. And now, in the age of the cellphone, the miniature video game and ever-smaller digital music headphone systems, the challenges are even greater.

I know this sounds like mundane stuff. But this mundane stuff is stifling the education of, I would guess, perhaps a few million students coast-to-coast.

Discipline is part of teaching, and probably always will be. At least until Utopia is achieved.

But simple classroom management these days seems harder than it has ever been in my quarter-century in the classroom.

I have talked to teachers in many schools, and these problems are common in all but the most highly-academic environments.

In low-income areas, they can seem epidemic.

And that brings me to my second point, about one-size-fits-all education strategies so common these days.

It seems that my high school, and most others I know of, now seem to be oriented towards aiming every child toward a college education.

Vocational programs and trades-training are a thing of the past in many schools, leaving kids who are not academically-oriented basically hung out to dry.

Let's face it--Not everyone loves to read and has an academic leaning.

So-called "book-learnin'" is not for everyone.

Just like everyone is not an athlete, everyone is not a natural handyman/gadget-fixer, or master craftsman/woman.

But academic test scores and college admission rates are where the money and status is for schools, so now it's ACADEMICS FOR EVERYONE, better or worse.

Back in the 50s and 60s when I was in school, there were plenty of kids who were not academic--They weren't lacking in intelligence, they just weren't folks who loved reading, writing, thinking and analyzing--Academic concerns.

Can and will society accept that some folks are simply this way and can't, or won't, be changed?

But in the past they made perfectly good electricians and mechanics, contractors and yes, factory-workers.

But most of America's factories have long-since departed overseas in the constant search for cheap labor, leaving many non-academic people with few alternatives but to pursue an education they actually do not want in their hearts, and which they will only halfheartedly "attain".

Sure, some kids will fight the educational process, and disrupt classrooms, and intercept their failing report cards before their parents can read them,and refuse to cooperate with the teacher, and fail to do their homework, and if they graduate at all, graduate with minimal skills.

A good part of the responsibility for failure will ALWAYS be the student's, because education is not a haircut.

But how much less an obstacle to their own education would they be, if schools started offering a wider spectrum of career and skills training, to address the wide spectrum of living, breathing human beings we have in our society.

Currently, the way many schools are set up to operate seems to be based firmly on the notion of the educational process being administered, unfortunately, like a haircut---All "supply-side" emphasis and the same track and goals for nearly every student.

Someday, perhaps our society will regain its sincerity about education, give up on the "everybody is on college-track", one-size-fits-all fantasy of today's test-score-obsessed educational policies, and then we will find out just how many of our kids will still want to fight the process of their own education.

One size does not, and never will, fit all.


Even if every child in every school loved reading and was intensely academic, the sad truth is that there are not nearly enough college-degree-type jobs for them--not even close, as this article reminds us:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8436.shtml


Various criticisms and
doubts regarding the one-size-fits-all
approach to education:

http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-08-24-02.htm

http://community.thenewstribune.com/?q=one_size_fits_all_doesnt_work_for_our_students

http://www.jobseducationwis.org/252%20Why%20must%20all%20high%20school%20graduates%20be%20prepared%20for%20college.doc

http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/laredo.html

http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/federal/10-29-04nclburbanrural.php

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1344&dept_id=433794&newsid=15095329&PAG=461&rfi=9
http://files.ruraledu.org/docs/charleston_gazette_editorial.htm
http://www.okea.org/ESEA/legislativeactionkit/fix/whatnclbdoes.html
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=1445


A teacher's devastating critique of NCLB:

http://www.debracraig.com/


===========================================

===========================================

posted by Da Manijment @ 9:22 AM 3 comments

Monday, April 10, 2006

Does the media HATE public Education?

============================================
Again and again, in one newspaper and magazine article after another, Public Education is skewered mercilessly.

Criticism is heaped upon criticism, as if the Public Education system is such a dismal failure that the prospect of improving it seems utterly hopeless.

And we seemingly never get any positive suggestions or new ideas from the same self-righteous press which is so unrelentingly hostile in its
neverending attacks.

It is true that many Educators in Public Ed, including this writer, are frequent critics of Public School systems' faults and often misguided solutions and policies. But such criticisms come from people who nonetheless still believe in the idea of public education and feel it needs to be overhauled and re-tooled for a changing world in a new millenium in order to meet the needs of a free society in flux.

It is easy to speculate that the almost totally corporate-controlled media is attacking Public Ed for far more sinister and deliberate reasons (i.e. a total discrediting of Public Ed in order to facilitate a future takeover perhaps?).

Sounds like a plan.

Billions of dollars and the future of Public Education in America are at stake.

This article from the Daily Howler Blog
(with a link to a sample article from the Washington Post) calls attention to a classic example of this persistent media habit
of negativism about public schools,
which seems epidemic in
America's Media today:
(note--Article starts about 1/3 down the pg)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh041006.shtml

Excerpt:

“ 'Baltimore schools need urgent attention.' But omigod! The state itself has no plan for these schools; it will turn them over to unnamed third parties, and let those parties figure things out! Our question: Is there any reason to think that these unnamed third parties will get better results at Douglass? The editors don’t show the slightest sign of having tried to figure that out. They don’t say who these third parties might be. They offer no information—none at all—about the track records of such third parties. They simply prefer to thunder and roar—to pretend that they care about these matters. They trash the people who now run these schools—although they don’t offer the slightest sign that they themselves have any ideas about how to solve Douglass High’s problems.
What should change in Baltimore’s classrooms? The editors have no suggestions—not one."

And:

"What’s happening inside those charter school classrooms? [reporter] Gootman didn’t bother to check. What’s happening in those endless Sacramento reading classes? Dillon didn’t check that either. Meanwhile, what are Deasy and Janey’s ideas? In each case, the Post didn’t bother to ask. Upper-class editors—like those at the Post—don’t soil gloved hands with questions like that. Instead, they thunder loudly, pretending to care about what goes on inside Douglass High. They insist on “urgent, even dramatic action”—then admit that they’re willing to settle for something which is likely quite different.
So it goes as our upper-class news orgs pretend to cover low-income schools. They rarely soil their dainty hands by stepping inside real low-income schools. (Have any of the outraged editors ever set foot inside Douglass?) In part for that reason, they have zero ideas—none; not one—about the way such schools should be run. But then, no one seems to have such ideas."


Ultimately, it's not actually about "hate" (although the visible symptoms look the same).
It's probably not even personal
at all.

In truth,
the attacks are about power, and especially,
as one might expect,
money.
===========================================

posted by Da Manijment @ 2:52 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Would your local school district turn YOUR child in as a TERROR suspect?

SUSPICION?


Is this a new trend in American schools?

Excerpt:
"Picture this. You're at work one day and your phone rings. It's the principal at your teenager's school. You need to leave work and come to the school right away. When you arrive, there is your son, two policemen and the principal waiting. Your son is about to be expelled for making terrorist threats. Your mind reels. Your son is a good student, well liked by everyone, an athlete and a musician. The two of you are close. This can't be true..."

For more, read this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/5/8388/95229


A few comments added to the story here:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-is-dumber-than-school-district.html

========================================

posted by Da Manijment @ 9:38 AM 0 comments

Saturday, April 01, 2006

NCLB and the narrowing of curriculum in American Public Schools

................................................................................................
From the NY Times, March 26, 2006:

SCHOOLS CUT BACK SUBJECTS TO PUSH
READING AND MATH:

http://www.trueblueliberal.com/2006/03/26/schools-cut-back-subjects-to-push-reading-and-math/

Excerpt:

"Thousands of schools across the nation are responding to the reading and math testing requirements laid out in No Child Left Behind, President Bush’s signature education law, by reducing class time spent on other subjects and, for some low-proficiency students, eliminating it.Schools from Vermont to California are increasing — in some cases tripling — the class time that low-proficiency students spend on reading and math, mainly because the federal law, signed in 2002, requires annual exams only in those subjects and punishes schools that fall short of rising benchmarks.
The changes appear to principally affect schools and students who test below grade level.
The intense focus on the two basic skills is a sea change in American instructional practice, with many schools that once offered rich curriculums now systematically trimming courses like social studies, science and art. A nationwide survey by a nonpartisan group that is to be made public on March 28 indicates that the practice, known as narrowing the curriculum, has become standard procedure in many communities."

(See link above for complete article)
===============================================
Lately, some schools are beginning to stop this trend of narrowing the curricula and are adopting "new-old" strategies to accomodate more of their students' needs:

http://mobile.latimes.com/mobile.php?UMPG=article&UM_SCTN=Education&UM_ARTICLE_LINK=http://www.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Feducation%2Fla-me-voced6apr06%2C1%2C5971960.story%3Fcoll%3Dla-news-learning

Excerpt:

"Chris Walker, a lobbyist for several blue-collar trade groups in Sacramento, predicted that ConnectEd would confront barriers from the University of California and the California State University systems, which are loath to accept some vocational courses as college prep material. Increasingly, California school districts are adopting the entry requirements of the university systems as high school graduation requirements. "More and more, this college pathway is edging career tech out," Walker said. The poll commissioned by Irvine, which was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates among a representative sample of California high school students, found that only 39% of students said they liked going to school and that their school "does a good job of motivating me to work hard and do my best." The remaining 61% who disagreed with that statement were selected for more in-depth interviews. Of those students, 88% said they probably would enroll in a career-oriented school if they had the chance. There was virtually no difference among racial or ethnic groups, but in a departure from stereotype, girls were more likely than boys to say that they would benefit from hands-on learning."
=============================

posted by Da Manijment @ 1:55 PM 0 comments