What makes schools successful? The results of standardized tests? The amount of money thrown at a school? The curriculum that is taught? Or the education that goes beyond the national standards? I think I do. I make schools work.
Before we write me off as a boastful rookie teacher who thinks. I can make a difference! Please note I am not that person. I am jaded. I am tenured. I am tired. But the thing is, I keep showing up every day to work. And, also, when I say "I," I mean that teacher who does the same thing I do. No matter the hoops you are given to jump through. No matter the new state or national mandates that are sent down the pike. No matter how late you were there at parent-teacher conferences waiting for that one parent you really needed to talk to but they never came, you keep showing up for work the next day. You keep showing up because there is that small part of you that thinks you can make a difference. But there is an even bigger part of you that knows what should be at the heart of your thoughts every second you step into your school-the students.
In Sharon Otterman's study of the Harlem Children's Zone, it was inconclusive whether the amount of money spent on a child's education mattered (Otterman, 2010). It was even stated by one of Otterman's resources that "'The fact the impact has not been proven doesn't mean if doesn't matter'" (Otterman, 2010). Compare that to the passion and tone of Deborah Meier's account of the Central Park East Secondary School (Meier, 2002). From the first paragraph you can tell that Meier loved teaching children even though that was not her intention for getting into the classroom (Meier, 2002, p. 48). Being the jaded professional I am, I often advise those considering going into education to find a different job. Who would knowingly go into a profession where your pay, credentials, amount of success and growth students are making and the fact that you get a little time off in the summer to breathe is being questioned and put on the chopping block? Yet, here I am. I still keep showing up.
And when I arrive, I am engulfed with my students to the point where it may become a little obsessive. I take the time to get to know my students. Not just as a learner, but who they are outside of the classroom. Meier found great success in doing the same thing (Meier, 2002, p. 49). I share who I am so I do not appear as the ruler toting power figure (even though I am told I can be kind of scary and kind of like that) but an approachable adult who is a person and who cares. I have targeted in on my personal areas of expertise and developed them so I feel I could be evaluated as a master teacher (Meier, 2002, p. 53). But the bottom line is, I care about kids. I care that some day my kids will be in a classroom and I hope they are treated with the same respect and passion I choose to use. I want students to know that for the seven hours we are together, five days a week, I am the one they can come to not just if they don't know how to regroup across a zero, but because they had a really rough morning. And no matter how rough my morning was, I will still be there.
When I started to read Meier's chapter I chuckled to myself that she thought Kindergarten would be a great place to get her feet wet as an educator (Meier, 2002, p. 48). I often joke that if I was transferred to teach Kindergarten, I might as well just quit now. But, this is the truth. I wouldn't. I would be extremely nervous and more of an emotional wreck that I am already, but I would show up. And I would bring the passion that I have for students every day.
Plus, a copy of this book wouldn't hurt either.
http://robertfulghum.com/index.php/fulghumweb/booksentry/all_i_really_need_to_know_i_learned_in_kindergarten_15th_anniversary_ed/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvAGOGGuaQ
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Welcome Everyone
I am currently in my tenth year of teaching. In that that time I have looped with my class from second to third grade. I have looped from third to fourth. I have had a traditional classroom (one class for one year). Next was team teaching with two separate classrooms. Following that was single gender classrooms with team teaching. Another year of mixed gender with continued team teaching. That leads me to this year when I moved to a double classroom with team teaching and co-teaching. One aspect of my classes has remained the same every year. Each year I have students with special education Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and teach them through a push in or inclusion program. And yes, I have asked to be an inclusion teacher every year.
Now please don't get me wrong and picture me as a serene person who does not stress out about this professional choice. Every year I want to pull my hair out and every year I question my decision. Every argument that Karen Agne makes against inclusion runs through my mind on a regular basis (Agne, 1998). I question if I am giving enough attention to the students who struggle yet do not qualify for an IEP. I experience anxiety wondering if I am challenging those students who already know and can apply the knowledge I am delivering to the class. And then the mom in me comes out. And I wonder, what if it were my child? And this question is on every level. Not just, what if my child were the one with the IEP, but what if my child is the one who needs to be challenged? Or, what if my child were the one that struggles but not enough to get support? Every year I draw the same conclusion. I believe that all students are better off with inclusion.
Agne argues that little education can take place when there is a "disruptive, emotionally disturbed child" in the classroom (Agne, 1998, p. 250). She also quotes a teacher expressing the frustration that a brain damaged child has never expressed any sign of learning, yet by law is required to sit in her class every day (Agne, 1998, p. 250). I would argue back that there is an education going on. Just not the one that the curriculum is creating. The education that goes on with inclusion is one of awareness and acceptance. The scenarios Agne portrays are very different than what occurs in my classroom. I have support. As Jean B. Arnold and Harold W. Dodge acknowledge, inclusion on any level is a team effort (Arnold and Dodge, 1994, p. 248) When you are in my co-taught classroom, that means a certified special education teacher comes in for the content areas that students have IEP goals in. Currently, that means we have three certified teachers for Math and our Language Arts block. Our special education teacher also has the flexibility to pull small groups for reteaching or further instruction if the lesson that we are doing does not fit student needs. This is the way we help ALL students make progress, no matter the educational starting point (Agne, 1998, p. 252).
Our classroom also discusses openly and on a regular basis how each student learns differently. Because of the number of adults we have, I am able to run small groups that focus on our gifted and talented students. We have numerous class conversations on how that gifted and talented group is flexible due to each individuals' strengths as a learner. Talk of all of the support our class has to offer in regards to the number of adults is also routinely brought up so the stigma of working with our special education teacher is dispelled. Often, students see it as a privilege to work with her in a small group setting versus it being a punishment. The power of classroom conversations with the purpose of creating acceptance for all learners was clearly absent in Agne's argument.
Now, I do not live in a bubble and realize that my situation is unique. The question is, does it have to be? If we are required by law to give each student access to all curriculum as designed by parents and school officials, why can't we all have an inclusion utopia (Arnold and Dodge, Agne, 1998, p. 242)? I feel it is because it is a lot of work. Arnold and Dodge understand that inclusion does not mean putting a student with special needs in a general education classroom and leaving them to his/her own devices. They communicate that you design an educational program that is best for the student with special needs and consider all student needs as well (Arnold and Dodge, 1994, p. 244). In my class if there is student or behavior getting in the way of the education of the majority of class, it is dealt with immediately. This goes for students with special needs and those without. My main priority is to provide an education to all students no matter of ability, race, gender, interests-nothing. If there is something or someone getting in the way of that education, a plan goes into action. And even though that plan might take me away for the lesson written in my plans, all students are still getting knowledge. They are seeing first hand that not all students learn the same way but all students have value and deserve the right to access education.
Now please don't get me wrong and picture me as a serene person who does not stress out about this professional choice. Every year I want to pull my hair out and every year I question my decision. Every argument that Karen Agne makes against inclusion runs through my mind on a regular basis (Agne, 1998). I question if I am giving enough attention to the students who struggle yet do not qualify for an IEP. I experience anxiety wondering if I am challenging those students who already know and can apply the knowledge I am delivering to the class. And then the mom in me comes out. And I wonder, what if it were my child? And this question is on every level. Not just, what if my child were the one with the IEP, but what if my child is the one who needs to be challenged? Or, what if my child were the one that struggles but not enough to get support? Every year I draw the same conclusion. I believe that all students are better off with inclusion.
Agne argues that little education can take place when there is a "disruptive, emotionally disturbed child" in the classroom (Agne, 1998, p. 250). She also quotes a teacher expressing the frustration that a brain damaged child has never expressed any sign of learning, yet by law is required to sit in her class every day (Agne, 1998, p. 250). I would argue back that there is an education going on. Just not the one that the curriculum is creating. The education that goes on with inclusion is one of awareness and acceptance. The scenarios Agne portrays are very different than what occurs in my classroom. I have support. As Jean B. Arnold and Harold W. Dodge acknowledge, inclusion on any level is a team effort (Arnold and Dodge, 1994, p. 248) When you are in my co-taught classroom, that means a certified special education teacher comes in for the content areas that students have IEP goals in. Currently, that means we have three certified teachers for Math and our Language Arts block. Our special education teacher also has the flexibility to pull small groups for reteaching or further instruction if the lesson that we are doing does not fit student needs. This is the way we help ALL students make progress, no matter the educational starting point (Agne, 1998, p. 252).
Our classroom also discusses openly and on a regular basis how each student learns differently. Because of the number of adults we have, I am able to run small groups that focus on our gifted and talented students. We have numerous class conversations on how that gifted and talented group is flexible due to each individuals' strengths as a learner. Talk of all of the support our class has to offer in regards to the number of adults is also routinely brought up so the stigma of working with our special education teacher is dispelled. Often, students see it as a privilege to work with her in a small group setting versus it being a punishment. The power of classroom conversations with the purpose of creating acceptance for all learners was clearly absent in Agne's argument.
Now, I do not live in a bubble and realize that my situation is unique. The question is, does it have to be? If we are required by law to give each student access to all curriculum as designed by parents and school officials, why can't we all have an inclusion utopia (Arnold and Dodge, Agne, 1998, p. 242)? I feel it is because it is a lot of work. Arnold and Dodge understand that inclusion does not mean putting a student with special needs in a general education classroom and leaving them to his/her own devices. They communicate that you design an educational program that is best for the student with special needs and consider all student needs as well (Arnold and Dodge, 1994, p. 244). In my class if there is student or behavior getting in the way of the education of the majority of class, it is dealt with immediately. This goes for students with special needs and those without. My main priority is to provide an education to all students no matter of ability, race, gender, interests-nothing. If there is something or someone getting in the way of that education, a plan goes into action. And even though that plan might take me away for the lesson written in my plans, all students are still getting knowledge. They are seeing first hand that not all students learn the same way but all students have value and deserve the right to access education.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Purposeful Dialogue
Typically when a topic comes up about education, I have a strong opinion. Yet, when it comes to moral education, I didn't until recently. Maybe it was because I felt I don't have time for it. Maybe I felt it was the parents' responsibility to build in morals. Maybe I was doing it and not even realizing it. Now I know it was and still is going on. I have a major impact on the development of my students' moral education. Yet I feel there is a right way to do it. Graham Haydon states, one of the views of moral education is, "that all education is in a sense moral education" (Haydon, 2005, p. 2). It is also pointed out by the same author that "moral education is but one aspect of education" (Haydon, 2005, p. 2).What I now feel strongly about is the way I develop my students' moral education.
It is impossible to teach and not express or model some of my moral views on to my students. We do it as a whole school. When we teach our students our school-wide behavior expectation systems, we are in a sense developing their virtues (Graham, 2005, p. 5). A major part of our behavior lessons is having students talk about what behaviors they see in the videos and making judgments on what type of behaviors those are. As Graham brings up, discussion is a vital part of the moral education schools can provide, but also requires students to make value judgments (Graham, 2005, p. 8) (Lickona, 1991, p. 8). More specifically, I am developing my students' moral education when I express my expectations of them. I am also developing them when I bring up examples of behavior I have seen and how I expect those behaviors will not be seen again.
What I think is the most important and often minimized part of moral education is explicit discussion. Kids like to talk. My students especially process verbally more than in their own minds. It is a natural stage of the developing process. When something is out of the ordinary in the class. When the schedule does not follow the routine. When one of the regular staff members are gone. My students continually process. And as they process, they ask questions. This naturally leads to a discussion of the origin of the change. At the beginning of every day I go over our daily schedule and take questions on our day. Even though this is a stretch to connect to moral education, it is still a vital link. My students are not able to deal with change until there is information that supports it. The same is true for moral education. There can not be positive growth in the area of children's moral education without discussion and dialogue (Haydon, 2005, p. 8).
In my class this is most directly tied to student behavior. A few years ago I had a student that was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. She was very intelligent, yet the behaviors she demonstrated on a daily basis were disturbing to the other students. The other students were not able to concentrate due to her verbal and physical responses to the adults in the room. They were also uncomfortable that her behaviors did not fit the "norm." Haydon concludes that the aim of moral education will create tension with each other yet there is reason to pursue it (Haydon, 2005, p. 9). So, instead of ignoring the signs from my students that they were uncomfortable with her behaviors, we talked about it. We brought in our district social worker and talked about what ASD was and how it could affect someone. The positive attributes of their classmate were emphasized (because she was such an interesting and valuable part of our class!) so students could look beyond her behaviors. That to me was the best educating I had done all year. I was teaching moral values to my students in a way that let them express concern and responded with knowledge about how minds of students work differently. The message that was clearly sent was differences are okay.
We also gave the class strategies of how to model appropriate classroom behavior and to encourage our classmate to do them as well. We gave them techniques to help redirect her behavior if they saw her anxiety being expressed. Now let me get on my soap box for a quick minute. I understand that not all classroom behavior expectations make sense for every child. I was not, and my students were not, asking this child to change who she was. We were just trying to help her be understood by the class and to have them see value in who she was as a person. We were also trying to give the students permission to ask questions and to accept differences in others. Thomas Lickona address that "there is a clear and urgent need" for values education (Lickona, 1991, p. 20). This was my goal and still is today. There is no longer strength in combining ignorance with false judgements. I could have easily dealt with my student's behaviors in a figurative bubble and redirected or ignored other students' desires for answers. Yet, that would be sending an even louder message to them-that we ignore differences and move on without understanding them. That to me is moral education of another kind.
Moral education is present in every classroom and should be. Questions regarding differences in morals should not be ignored but discussed in a purposeful way. This is the way to having acceptance of a variety of morals in classrooms and eventually the community outside of it.
It is impossible to teach and not express or model some of my moral views on to my students. We do it as a whole school. When we teach our students our school-wide behavior expectation systems, we are in a sense developing their virtues (Graham, 2005, p. 5). A major part of our behavior lessons is having students talk about what behaviors they see in the videos and making judgments on what type of behaviors those are. As Graham brings up, discussion is a vital part of the moral education schools can provide, but also requires students to make value judgments (Graham, 2005, p. 8) (Lickona, 1991, p. 8). More specifically, I am developing my students' moral education when I express my expectations of them. I am also developing them when I bring up examples of behavior I have seen and how I expect those behaviors will not be seen again.
What I think is the most important and often minimized part of moral education is explicit discussion. Kids like to talk. My students especially process verbally more than in their own minds. It is a natural stage of the developing process. When something is out of the ordinary in the class. When the schedule does not follow the routine. When one of the regular staff members are gone. My students continually process. And as they process, they ask questions. This naturally leads to a discussion of the origin of the change. At the beginning of every day I go over our daily schedule and take questions on our day. Even though this is a stretch to connect to moral education, it is still a vital link. My students are not able to deal with change until there is information that supports it. The same is true for moral education. There can not be positive growth in the area of children's moral education without discussion and dialogue (Haydon, 2005, p. 8).
In my class this is most directly tied to student behavior. A few years ago I had a student that was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. She was very intelligent, yet the behaviors she demonstrated on a daily basis were disturbing to the other students. The other students were not able to concentrate due to her verbal and physical responses to the adults in the room. They were also uncomfortable that her behaviors did not fit the "norm." Haydon concludes that the aim of moral education will create tension with each other yet there is reason to pursue it (Haydon, 2005, p. 9). So, instead of ignoring the signs from my students that they were uncomfortable with her behaviors, we talked about it. We brought in our district social worker and talked about what ASD was and how it could affect someone. The positive attributes of their classmate were emphasized (because she was such an interesting and valuable part of our class!) so students could look beyond her behaviors. That to me was the best educating I had done all year. I was teaching moral values to my students in a way that let them express concern and responded with knowledge about how minds of students work differently. The message that was clearly sent was differences are okay.
We also gave the class strategies of how to model appropriate classroom behavior and to encourage our classmate to do them as well. We gave them techniques to help redirect her behavior if they saw her anxiety being expressed. Now let me get on my soap box for a quick minute. I understand that not all classroom behavior expectations make sense for every child. I was not, and my students were not, asking this child to change who she was. We were just trying to help her be understood by the class and to have them see value in who she was as a person. We were also trying to give the students permission to ask questions and to accept differences in others. Thomas Lickona address that "there is a clear and urgent need" for values education (Lickona, 1991, p. 20). This was my goal and still is today. There is no longer strength in combining ignorance with false judgements. I could have easily dealt with my student's behaviors in a figurative bubble and redirected or ignored other students' desires for answers. Yet, that would be sending an even louder message to them-that we ignore differences and move on without understanding them. That to me is moral education of another kind.
Moral education is present in every classroom and should be. Questions regarding differences in morals should not be ignored but discussed in a purposeful way. This is the way to having acceptance of a variety of morals in classrooms and eventually the community outside of it.
Friday, October 19, 2012
No Reader Left Behind
I teach at a MiBLSi school. We have expectations on the behaviors our students exhibit. We have expectations regarding the outcomes students achieve in reading. By the end of this year, the same will stand for math. We practice the Response to Intervention pedagogical triangle on a daily basis. We feel the pressures of No Child Left Behind and we are doing everything we can to not have our system break down. I could go on about how detrimental I feel that the No Child Left Behind Act (United States Department of Education, 2001) is to our educational system. But, that would make me a total hypocrite. Here's why. When my former team teacher left her position, I took her spot on our MiBLSi leadership team. She first signed up for it because she thought the whole idea of teaching students how to walk in the hallway and use the bathroom appropriately was a bunch of bologna. Yet, after she spent three years on the leadership team, her philosophies changed. The same happened to me. I quickly realized that we had to have expectations for our students' behaviors. We had to explicitly teach them how to demonstrate those behaviors. We could not assume they knew what we expected.
What is the connection to NCLB? We collected positive data that proved success with our behavior expectations. Our focus then shifted to reading. Before MiBLSi, our teachers had the freedom and ability to teach reading any way they saw fit. Teachers were passionate about how they taught reading, but still had those students not making any growth. We had some teachers (myself included!) that really felt clueless in how to bring the levels up of those readers who weren't achieving. Enter, MiBLSi. Enter a mandatory 90 minute uninterrupted reading block. Enter a core reading program. Now please understand, I do not like our core reading program. In fact I think it stinks in a lot of ways. Ninety minutes of uninterrupted reading time is tough. But, humor me for a minute while I put my leadership team hat on. In order to understand if a student is not achieving grade level reading expectations, you have to have a common assessment that shows a disparity. In order to have that assessment be valid, you have to have fidelity in the teaching of the corresponding program. You have to buy in to what you are doing. Whether I liked it or not, I needed to teach my core reading program. Then, I had more supports available to me to assist those students not making progress.
This is the heart of it-kids need to learn how to read. This is what I feel is good about our MiBLSi progress. We have a system (albeit broken at times) that is holding us accountable for doing our job. We teach. Some students learn. We teach, some students don't learn. We don't just move on! We don't shrug our shoulders and hope for the best next year. Now, I agree that student learning in the areas of art, music, science, social studies and physical education should not be deleted. The research clearly proves that when school districts increase reading time, time on other subjects are decreased (Rothstein and Jacobsen, p. 264-265, 2006). Those areas are important to create a well-rounded learner. Yet, how are students going to learn about those areas, if they can't read? If we skip our reading lessons so they can do a science experiment, when do you do it?
This is a very grey area. Students need to be exposed to all curriculum, but they also need to be able to access the curriculum. How do they do that? By reading. There has to be some flexibility in order to teach kids how to read first and then get experiences in all of the other areas next. Just as Richard Rothstein states, the accountability system must get fixed-not deleted (Rothstein, p. 26, 2009). The way my school is finding a balance is by adopting the Walk To method. After our initial reading assessment, students are grouped by reading strengths and deficits. For the last 30 minutes Monday through Friday, students go to Walk To. Core readers go to a teacher and learn Social Studies or Science. They are taught with heavy Language Arts integration. Strategic or intensive readers get Tier III supports. The Tier III classes work on a variety of reading skills. But they also do their best to tie in Science and Social Studies.
Another way that I expose all students to Science is through the Big Zoo Lesson. Our week long learning experience at Potter Park Zoo integrates all curriculum areas while focusing heavily on Science. This is usually the week that my struggling readers feel the most successful. I still have to assist them like I would in the class with reading interventions. Yet, they are getting such a rich experience and exposure to Science.
There has to be a balance. We can not teach reading and math all day long. Yet, you can't ignore your struggling readers. As a professional you must find a way to create that balance. We must also have a system that holds teachers accountable. That in itself is a whole different creature. A big one. Rothstein proves with a historical perspective that at one time, the United States had a system that worked (Rothstein, p. 26, 2009). Yet, going back to that requires something we don't have. Money. Meira Levinson documents the amount of money going towards accountability systems. "The United States alone has committed over five billion dollars in just the last couple of years to developing a new generation of state and national curriculum standards and assessments. Millions of dollars are raining down on districts to pay teachers for their students' performance gains on standardized tests and to implement new systems for holding students, teachers, and administrators accountable for students' academic performance on these tests" (Levinson, p. 125, 2011).
Every day in the classroom is a constant battle of what holds priority number one. For me, it's reading. I clearly understand that my students need Science. They need Social Studies. They need that integration of curriculum to be able to survive outside of our school. They also need to know how to read. So I will take my leadership hat off and keep at it.
What is the connection to NCLB? We collected positive data that proved success with our behavior expectations. Our focus then shifted to reading. Before MiBLSi, our teachers had the freedom and ability to teach reading any way they saw fit. Teachers were passionate about how they taught reading, but still had those students not making any growth. We had some teachers (myself included!) that really felt clueless in how to bring the levels up of those readers who weren't achieving. Enter, MiBLSi. Enter a mandatory 90 minute uninterrupted reading block. Enter a core reading program. Now please understand, I do not like our core reading program. In fact I think it stinks in a lot of ways. Ninety minutes of uninterrupted reading time is tough. But, humor me for a minute while I put my leadership team hat on. In order to understand if a student is not achieving grade level reading expectations, you have to have a common assessment that shows a disparity. In order to have that assessment be valid, you have to have fidelity in the teaching of the corresponding program. You have to buy in to what you are doing. Whether I liked it or not, I needed to teach my core reading program. Then, I had more supports available to me to assist those students not making progress.
This is the heart of it-kids need to learn how to read. This is what I feel is good about our MiBLSi progress. We have a system (albeit broken at times) that is holding us accountable for doing our job. We teach. Some students learn. We teach, some students don't learn. We don't just move on! We don't shrug our shoulders and hope for the best next year. Now, I agree that student learning in the areas of art, music, science, social studies and physical education should not be deleted. The research clearly proves that when school districts increase reading time, time on other subjects are decreased (Rothstein and Jacobsen, p. 264-265, 2006). Those areas are important to create a well-rounded learner. Yet, how are students going to learn about those areas, if they can't read? If we skip our reading lessons so they can do a science experiment, when do you do it?
This is a very grey area. Students need to be exposed to all curriculum, but they also need to be able to access the curriculum. How do they do that? By reading. There has to be some flexibility in order to teach kids how to read first and then get experiences in all of the other areas next. Just as Richard Rothstein states, the accountability system must get fixed-not deleted (Rothstein, p. 26, 2009). The way my school is finding a balance is by adopting the Walk To method. After our initial reading assessment, students are grouped by reading strengths and deficits. For the last 30 minutes Monday through Friday, students go to Walk To. Core readers go to a teacher and learn Social Studies or Science. They are taught with heavy Language Arts integration. Strategic or intensive readers get Tier III supports. The Tier III classes work on a variety of reading skills. But they also do their best to tie in Science and Social Studies.
Another way that I expose all students to Science is through the Big Zoo Lesson. Our week long learning experience at Potter Park Zoo integrates all curriculum areas while focusing heavily on Science. This is usually the week that my struggling readers feel the most successful. I still have to assist them like I would in the class with reading interventions. Yet, they are getting such a rich experience and exposure to Science.
There has to be a balance. We can not teach reading and math all day long. Yet, you can't ignore your struggling readers. As a professional you must find a way to create that balance. We must also have a system that holds teachers accountable. That in itself is a whole different creature. A big one. Rothstein proves with a historical perspective that at one time, the United States had a system that worked (Rothstein, p. 26, 2009). Yet, going back to that requires something we don't have. Money. Meira Levinson documents the amount of money going towards accountability systems. "The United States alone has committed over five billion dollars in just the last couple of years to developing a new generation of state and national curriculum standards and assessments. Millions of dollars are raining down on districts to pay teachers for their students' performance gains on standardized tests and to implement new systems for holding students, teachers, and administrators accountable for students' academic performance on these tests" (Levinson, p. 125, 2011).
Every day in the classroom is a constant battle of what holds priority number one. For me, it's reading. I clearly understand that my students need Science. They need Social Studies. They need that integration of curriculum to be able to survive outside of our school. They also need to know how to read. So I will take my leadership hat off and keep at it.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
It Takes a Village...
The first parent teacher conferences of this school year are in two weeks. I am thankful that this time around there is no report card to focus on. I can just have a conversation with the parents of my students. Goals will be set for each child based on the academics and behaviors displayed so far. But, who's job is it to decide what is an appropriate goal for a fourth grader? As an educated professional, is it solely on me? Do the parents control all the rights to those decisions? What about the child who is the center of all of the it? I say the power belongs in all of us. As a team, we together have to decide what is best for each individual child.
Amy Gutman's examination regarding power over a child's education clearly concludes needing a group effort to benefit the child (Gutman, 2005). "States, parents, and professional educators all have important roles to play in educating free and equal persons" (Gutman, 2005, p. 8). Removing one of the elements of that democratic education tips the scales and does not provide an adequate education (Gutman, 2005, p. 7-8). When a teacher is removed, theory, best practice, knowledge and awareness are missing. When a parent is removed, family morals, buy in and support are gone. And when a child is absent from the equation, there may as well not be a reason for the team in the first place.
One way that I involve students is through student led conferences. Students are encouraged in the fall and then required to attend in the spring. This expectation arose after two years of frustrating conferences. Without the child present, it was next to near impossible to discover the motivation for bad behavior choices. It was unclear why a student did not understand a concept. Once students were present, we got answers. A team quickly formed for each family with each person an equal stake holder. We were all there for a common reason-what is best for that child (Gutman, 2005, p. 8). The child is the one who is doing the learning. It makes more sense for the learner to have a stake in what is being taught, or how content is being delivered. As James G. Dwyer confirms, "The minds that are being shaped belong to the children, not to any adults" (Dwyer, 2005, p. 7).
Another prominent example of democratic education in my career is when the reproductive health lessons are taught. In fourth grade, each gender only learns about their own body. Parents can choose to opt their child out of the lessons. In the past, I have heard parents express that their child isn't ready for the conversation. Sometimes parents aren't ready for their child to have that conversation. Some parents felt it was not the school's place to teach that content. And a few times, it was religious beliefs that took them out. What usually happens is that instead of getting the education and vocabulary from a certified teacher, those children who opt out get a lesson in reproductive health out on the playground. As a mother, I would rather have my children hear it from the horse's mouth. Yet, as a teacher, I have to respect each parents decision. Even if I don't agree with it. That is what being a part of a team is all about. Doing what is best for the child. It was one made with the parents, with the child in mind (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 81).
Now this may sound like a complete contradiction. I whole-heartily feel the child is a part of the educational team, but just discussed that they may miss instruction because of parental beliefs. As Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift point out, up to a developmental point, children are not able to make decisions on their own (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 80, 82) Especially decisions that revolve around their education. Putting my son in charge of his education would mean reading about construction trucks all day. For others, it would mean no reading at all. As Brighouse and Swift conclude, "Young children are entirely dependent and incapable of having formulated or previously expressed views about what their interests are" (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 82). This is the risky side of a balanced team that is representing a child's best interest. Occasionally there will be conflict of what is best for a child. It has happened to me in the past and I know it will continue in the future. Brighouse and Swift argue that the parent-child relationship is an extremely complicated one that sets it own terms and norms (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 92).
The one idea I won't go back on is that the child is a vital part of the educational system. Without children and the innate desire to learn, I wouldn't have a job. Why would one continue to support a system that ignores them?
Amy Gutman's examination regarding power over a child's education clearly concludes needing a group effort to benefit the child (Gutman, 2005). "States, parents, and professional educators all have important roles to play in educating free and equal persons" (Gutman, 2005, p. 8). Removing one of the elements of that democratic education tips the scales and does not provide an adequate education (Gutman, 2005, p. 7-8). When a teacher is removed, theory, best practice, knowledge and awareness are missing. When a parent is removed, family morals, buy in and support are gone. And when a child is absent from the equation, there may as well not be a reason for the team in the first place.
One way that I involve students is through student led conferences. Students are encouraged in the fall and then required to attend in the spring. This expectation arose after two years of frustrating conferences. Without the child present, it was next to near impossible to discover the motivation for bad behavior choices. It was unclear why a student did not understand a concept. Once students were present, we got answers. A team quickly formed for each family with each person an equal stake holder. We were all there for a common reason-what is best for that child (Gutman, 2005, p. 8). The child is the one who is doing the learning. It makes more sense for the learner to have a stake in what is being taught, or how content is being delivered. As James G. Dwyer confirms, "The minds that are being shaped belong to the children, not to any adults" (Dwyer, 2005, p. 7).
Another prominent example of democratic education in my career is when the reproductive health lessons are taught. In fourth grade, each gender only learns about their own body. Parents can choose to opt their child out of the lessons. In the past, I have heard parents express that their child isn't ready for the conversation. Sometimes parents aren't ready for their child to have that conversation. Some parents felt it was not the school's place to teach that content. And a few times, it was religious beliefs that took them out. What usually happens is that instead of getting the education and vocabulary from a certified teacher, those children who opt out get a lesson in reproductive health out on the playground. As a mother, I would rather have my children hear it from the horse's mouth. Yet, as a teacher, I have to respect each parents decision. Even if I don't agree with it. That is what being a part of a team is all about. Doing what is best for the child. It was one made with the parents, with the child in mind (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 81).
Now this may sound like a complete contradiction. I whole-heartily feel the child is a part of the educational team, but just discussed that they may miss instruction because of parental beliefs. As Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift point out, up to a developmental point, children are not able to make decisions on their own (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 80, 82) Especially decisions that revolve around their education. Putting my son in charge of his education would mean reading about construction trucks all day. For others, it would mean no reading at all. As Brighouse and Swift conclude, "Young children are entirely dependent and incapable of having formulated or previously expressed views about what their interests are" (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 82). This is the risky side of a balanced team that is representing a child's best interest. Occasionally there will be conflict of what is best for a child. It has happened to me in the past and I know it will continue in the future. Brighouse and Swift argue that the parent-child relationship is an extremely complicated one that sets it own terms and norms (Brighouse and Swift, 2006, p. 92).
The one idea I won't go back on is that the child is a vital part of the educational system. Without children and the innate desire to learn, I wouldn't have a job. Why would one continue to support a system that ignores them?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Old School is the New School?
If you had to label me as a teacher, it would be old school. I have deep feelings in regards to the way that students should behave in order to function successfully in the classroom. When an adult or peer is talking, you should be listening, work smarter, not harder, walk in the hallway with a silent voice so we don't disturb other learners and stay organized are expectations that I am constantly saying, modeling and teaching to my students. I am positively recognizing those students who are able to function with my expectations (http://miblsi.cenmi.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=mh0c2DyoAH8%3D&tabid=2048) within the parameters that my MiBlSi school leadership team (that I am now a member of) has created and shared with other cohorts. I am also, and probably more so in fact, following up with those students that don't or can't met those expectations with research based behavior plans. So, yes, I am that teacher that will not talk until it is quiet and I am that teacher that makes kids sit quietly inside while the rest of the classes are out enjoying recess and I am that teacher that makes them toe the line.
Yet, my students soon learn that when they (finally!) meet those expectations on a consistent basis, I am not the old school teacher that they thought I was. I am the teacher that when it comes down to it-I am the one that lets them learn what ever way is best for them. If you need to stand up to learn, I am not going to force you to sit. If your reading skills are so low that you need audio readers, I am not going to make you read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by yourself. If you struggle with linguistic processing, I am not going to force you to write your ideas down-I can dictate for you. I may not be able to let you learn only what you are passionate about (please see early post) but I will try my best to provide you with additional resources and experiences so that you can be passionate about what I have to am required to expose you to.
So what am I? Old school? New school? Or, am I the best of both school worlds? Am I an Organic Montessori teacher stealthy making my way through the traditional educational system? I would have to argue that I am a traditionalist just trying to keep my head above water and lead our future society down a path of success. I am the teacher that strongly feels the class must be under control as if it is a it a Social Efficiency model (Schiro, p. 4-5) in order to help students develop a love of learning that is the basis of learning at the Marietta Johnson School of Organic Education (http://fairhopeorganicschool.com/Home_Page.html). And as much as I would love to let students develop their own passions in various units of study as Montessori schools are based on (The Montessori Foundation, 2012), I still have the 34 Common Core Standards to teach, reteach, assess and re-engage my students in over the course of one school year (and that is only Math, mind you) (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012).
According to the professionals and executives that make up The Jobs Council (which please note that only one of them is a professor that has any experience teaching in a classroom) I need to be a teacher that "keep pace with most of our major industrial competitors who already have comprehensive, consistent standards in education" (The Jobs Council, ND Recommendations). My inner struggle with a label of myself lies within this question-how can I ask my students to function at a level correlating to a Learner Centered Ideology (Schiro, p. 5-6) if they can't function as a group and/or functioning individuals? How can I have data that shows areas of strength and improvement to parents, businesses and my staff if I can't collect that data because I can't read one on one with my students because they can't adhere to my behavior expectations? It is a constant battle not only of my inner-self, but of the society of education as a whole.
Will there ever be a settling in my mind of, "Yes! That is the kind of teacher I am!"? I hope not. I hope I continue to have my passionate beliefs, have them questioned by my peers and change with the direction to fit societies' needs. I hope to keep expecting a lot from my students behavior so that I can push them academically. And maybe I hope to find a balance so that I can handle the CCS and use them a a guide to give my students freedom to explore their passions. For now, I feel settled with that.
Yet, my students soon learn that when they (finally!) meet those expectations on a consistent basis, I am not the old school teacher that they thought I was. I am the teacher that when it comes down to it-I am the one that lets them learn what ever way is best for them. If you need to stand up to learn, I am not going to force you to sit. If your reading skills are so low that you need audio readers, I am not going to make you read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by yourself. If you struggle with linguistic processing, I am not going to force you to write your ideas down-I can dictate for you. I may not be able to let you learn only what you are passionate about (please see early post) but I will try my best to provide you with additional resources and experiences so that you can be passionate about what I have to am required to expose you to.
So what am I? Old school? New school? Or, am I the best of both school worlds? Am I an Organic Montessori teacher stealthy making my way through the traditional educational system? I would have to argue that I am a traditionalist just trying to keep my head above water and lead our future society down a path of success. I am the teacher that strongly feels the class must be under control as if it is a it a Social Efficiency model (Schiro, p. 4-5) in order to help students develop a love of learning that is the basis of learning at the Marietta Johnson School of Organic Education (http://fairhopeorganicschool.com/Home_Page.html). And as much as I would love to let students develop their own passions in various units of study as Montessori schools are based on (The Montessori Foundation, 2012), I still have the 34 Common Core Standards to teach, reteach, assess and re-engage my students in over the course of one school year (and that is only Math, mind you) (Common Core Standards Initiative, 2012).
According to the professionals and executives that make up The Jobs Council (which please note that only one of them is a professor that has any experience teaching in a classroom) I need to be a teacher that "keep pace with most of our major industrial competitors who already have comprehensive, consistent standards in education" (The Jobs Council, ND Recommendations). My inner struggle with a label of myself lies within this question-how can I ask my students to function at a level correlating to a Learner Centered Ideology (Schiro, p. 5-6) if they can't function as a group and/or functioning individuals? How can I have data that shows areas of strength and improvement to parents, businesses and my staff if I can't collect that data because I can't read one on one with my students because they can't adhere to my behavior expectations? It is a constant battle not only of my inner-self, but of the society of education as a whole.
Will there ever be a settling in my mind of, "Yes! That is the kind of teacher I am!"? I hope not. I hope I continue to have my passionate beliefs, have them questioned by my peers and change with the direction to fit societies' needs. I hope to keep expecting a lot from my students behavior so that I can push them academically. And maybe I hope to find a balance so that I can handle the CCS and use them a a guide to give my students freedom to explore their passions. For now, I feel settled with that.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Introduction: You're Teaching What?
The first week of school is done. My team teacher and I would look at each other at the end of every day and both say, "When can we just get to the academics!?!" Of course the team building, routines and teaching of class and school expectations are vital to the success of the entire year. But there comes a point in time when I just want to teach. Not that we haven't been breaking our backs and teaching the entire week, but I want to give the students some knowledge that they don't already have, make their brains wrap around a new concept that challenges them and makes them ask, "Why?" I just want to teach.
But when I do finally get into the meat and the heart of what I want to teach my students (watch out, we start on Monday!), do I really get to do that? Do I have the authority to pick and chose what I want to focus on for the year? No. Simple as that. I do not have the authority to pick and choose what knowledge I want to give to my fourth graders that satisfies my opinion of what an "education" can and should be. So, who does have that authority? Good question. I'm looking for that answer too.
There used to be a time when teachers did have a choice. A veteran teacher in my school often reminisces about a time when she got to pick every topic that her students learned about in Science, Social Studies, Reading and Writing. What ever a teacher was passionate about, he/she got to teach it. Math was another story; she taught whatever was in the Math text book, but I digress, she still had choice. It all rested with her. What a novel idea! Being able to teach what one is passionate about! Isn't that what professionals who specialize in active and engaged learning preach? As educators we have a responsibility to find out what our students are passionate about and then help them question, research, dive in until they are an expert? But, we have a slight kink in the system.
Enter in parents, as proved in Nomi Stolzenberg's article, "He Drew a Circle that Shut Me Out" (Stolzenberg, 1993). Now don't get me wrong, as a parent myself, I do feel that I should have some say in what my children learn. I have my own personal beliefs in what skills I think my children should acquire by going to school. But because I am also a teacher, it gets a little complex. Yes, I want to have some say, but I also know that the perception of teachers still teaching what ever they want to is not what it seems. When teachers instruct, they may be focusing on a topic but the life-long learning skills underlying are what is not always evident to parents (or politicians for that matter, but don't even get me started on them). When parents removed their children from a class and school system because the text students were being required to read were exposing them to perspectives and attitudes that parents were not happy with, in my opinion, what the parents may not have realized is that the teachers were not focusing on a topic but how to be a better reader (Stolzenberg, 1993, p. 584). The texts being used were just a tool for learning.
Enter in the recent legislature change in Texas where they actually changed what history is being taught (McKinley, 2010). The question of who has the authority to change relies in the hands of the government (MSNBC, 2010). That is what is happening in my district and the nation as we speak. As all the states (except Texas, ironically) transition to the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012) we have even less say in what we teach. The group of governors, teachers and administrators who created the goals are not mandated by the federal government but are "committed to developing a long-term governance structure with leadership from governors, chief state school officers, and other state policy makers" (CCSSI, 2012). Forgive me if I am wrong, but aren't those all in some way connected to the federal government?
The one way we do have a say in what we teach is how we teach it. What instructional methods, what technology to incorporate, what ways we actively engage, etc. I was going to say by what literacy text choices we make, but that may get me in trouble with some families. This all raises the question of who does have the authority to pick what students learn. Is there a right answer? Should we solely let the teachers choose? We did in one point in time. Should we let the government, whether on a state or federal level, guide us in what expectations to have? We are right now. Has either choice been the best for the students?
I am not sure of the answer. Right now I am just going to continue to teach what I am being told to teach and I am going to instruct using the strategies that I know from experience students learn best by. May I sneak a little of my own passion into the classroom? Probably. But for now, I think I will just go back to my Core Curriculum Math guide and try to figure out what it is that they want me to teach. On Monday.
But when I do finally get into the meat and the heart of what I want to teach my students (watch out, we start on Monday!), do I really get to do that? Do I have the authority to pick and chose what I want to focus on for the year? No. Simple as that. I do not have the authority to pick and choose what knowledge I want to give to my fourth graders that satisfies my opinion of what an "education" can and should be. So, who does have that authority? Good question. I'm looking for that answer too.
There used to be a time when teachers did have a choice. A veteran teacher in my school often reminisces about a time when she got to pick every topic that her students learned about in Science, Social Studies, Reading and Writing. What ever a teacher was passionate about, he/she got to teach it. Math was another story; she taught whatever was in the Math text book, but I digress, she still had choice. It all rested with her. What a novel idea! Being able to teach what one is passionate about! Isn't that what professionals who specialize in active and engaged learning preach? As educators we have a responsibility to find out what our students are passionate about and then help them question, research, dive in until they are an expert? But, we have a slight kink in the system.
Enter in parents, as proved in Nomi Stolzenberg's article, "He Drew a Circle that Shut Me Out" (Stolzenberg, 1993). Now don't get me wrong, as a parent myself, I do feel that I should have some say in what my children learn. I have my own personal beliefs in what skills I think my children should acquire by going to school. But because I am also a teacher, it gets a little complex. Yes, I want to have some say, but I also know that the perception of teachers still teaching what ever they want to is not what it seems. When teachers instruct, they may be focusing on a topic but the life-long learning skills underlying are what is not always evident to parents (or politicians for that matter, but don't even get me started on them). When parents removed their children from a class and school system because the text students were being required to read were exposing them to perspectives and attitudes that parents were not happy with, in my opinion, what the parents may not have realized is that the teachers were not focusing on a topic but how to be a better reader (Stolzenberg, 1993, p. 584). The texts being used were just a tool for learning.
Enter in the recent legislature change in Texas where they actually changed what history is being taught (McKinley, 2010). The question of who has the authority to change relies in the hands of the government (MSNBC, 2010). That is what is happening in my district and the nation as we speak. As all the states (except Texas, ironically) transition to the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012) we have even less say in what we teach. The group of governors, teachers and administrators who created the goals are not mandated by the federal government but are "committed to developing a long-term governance structure with leadership from governors, chief state school officers, and other state policy makers" (CCSSI, 2012). Forgive me if I am wrong, but aren't those all in some way connected to the federal government?
The one way we do have a say in what we teach is how we teach it. What instructional methods, what technology to incorporate, what ways we actively engage, etc. I was going to say by what literacy text choices we make, but that may get me in trouble with some families. This all raises the question of who does have the authority to pick what students learn. Is there a right answer? Should we solely let the teachers choose? We did in one point in time. Should we let the government, whether on a state or federal level, guide us in what expectations to have? We are right now. Has either choice been the best for the students?
I am not sure of the answer. Right now I am just going to continue to teach what I am being told to teach and I am going to instruct using the strategies that I know from experience students learn best by. May I sneak a little of my own passion into the classroom? Probably. But for now, I think I will just go back to my Core Curriculum Math guide and try to figure out what it is that they want me to teach. On Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)