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.
Friday, October 19, 2012
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)