You, Who Are On The Road, Must Have A Code That You Can Live By

The past few days have brought some things that have caused me to have arguments and snarky comments on Facebook. Because, really, that's what Facebook is for, arguments and snarky comments. I'm not commenting any further on Casey Anthony, because that outcry rings false, and besides, where is the outrage for all the other children who are victimized by those who are supposed to love them? Enough.

Today, what a distracting day. First, we have a piece of beauty about the nature of families, and how, if we're lucky, we get to make our own happiness. My bias should be apparent, but my sister is a tremendous writer, and to whoever needed to "clarify" her family to other people: BITE ME. Your unhappiness and insecurity need not bleed into her life.

Next, our lawmakers need to get their heads out of their assess. Building on the theme of love, marriage is love, as I've proclaimed, and fought for, for years. Tell your Congressmen abandon these silly pursuits and get down to the business that affects us all. Like the economy. Health care. National debt. Same-sex marriage will not destroy us, I promise.

Love often begets passion, and I am passionate about education, and special education, and about children achieving. Here is a terrific editorial, shared by one of my graduate school colleagues, that should cause us all to pause. I quote:

If your school teaches to the test, it’s not the test’s fault. It’s the leaders of your school.

This I believe. 100%.

Lastly, all that passion I've been ranting about caused me to rant, irrationally, about this piece. Which I didn't realize was fake until after I'd hit "send" to Christopher. He is allowed to laugh at my silliness and unwarranted outrage about Macca's publishing rights. ;)

I am nothing if not passionate. I make no apologies for it, either.


Teach Your Children - Crosby, Stills, and Nash

Maps Are Useless Tools If You Can't Read Them

A fascinating article in this morning's NY Times, regarding the perceived success of charter schools and their actual reality. More fascinating is how this disconnect still fuels negative perception regarding public schools. You know, the schools that most of the children in this country go to on a regular basis. This quote sums up the disparity for me quite succinctly:

“It’s easy to open schools, but it’s very hard to open and sustain and to grow networks of very good schools,” said Mr. Toch, a founder of Education Sector, a research group.

The education historian Diane Ravitch offers a parallel critique. “Charters enroll 3 percent of the kids,” she said. “The system that educates 97 percent, no one’s paying any attention to.”(source)

It is my responsibility, as an administrator, and as a school committee member, to advocate for the 97%. Public schools CAN do better; it requires money to attract quality teachers, money for resources beyond the traditional textbook, and COMMITMENT from community leaders to keep their schools funded and functioning. But, this does not mean just throwing money willy-nilly at school budgets to see what sticks. School budgets that address providing quality resources to improve STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES are what's necessary here. A weak teacher can have a class size of 10, and still not affect student learning in a meaningful way, but a strong teacher, with solid pedagogical skills, classroom management, and a thorough understanding of universal design for learning--a system where you first determine what you want the students to know when they leave your classroom/grade/school, design assessments to prove mastery of those overarching goals, and THEN create instructional experiences that will teach those skills to mastery--can teach a class of 30 and achieve at a high level. All students can learn, but they all learn differently. The X factor in all student achievement is the quality of the teacher standing in front of them.

Good education is expensive; get over it, and move on from this useless argument. The consumer adage, "you get what you pay for", applies here just as strongly. The map to success is simple; figure out where you're going, find a comprehensive mapping system, a good navigator, then, plot your course and see if you reach the top. Time, energy, and resources. It doesn't get simpler than that.

"I Am, Shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that GAMBLING is going on in this club..."

I have a question for the Honorable Mr. Greer from Florida. How do you suppose encouraging parents to boycott the President's speech to the students of this nation on Tuesday falls in line in ANY WAY with teaching them to honor the office of the President? I'm just making sure I have your logic straight in my head. I also want to make sure that the policies of setting personal goals, working hard, and staying in school are, in fact, liberal propoganda, so that I make sure that the children of the right wing NEVER, EVER plan to adhere to any of those tenets at all.

Please, conservative right-wing politicos, make sure your children, your future reject these abhorrent pieces of "socialist ideology" in their day to day life. Because HEAVEN FORBID, the leader of our country encourage its youth to work hard. DEAR GOD, what is he thinking, praising children for staying in school and learning? Because the good Lord only knows what would happen if children started taking a "shared responsibility" for their learning and their goals, and if parents renewed their commitment to ensuring their children receive the best education possible.

Madness. Pure madness. Why, that might make parents praise public schools, make students happy and engaged in their learning, able to form rational arguments and debate issues without hysteria. And I mean, teenagers with standards and goals for achievement? Plagues of locusts will surely follow this. I mean, an educated citizenry? Whoooooo, back that baby up, middle America. Certainly that's dangerous to American progress on its national and international goals, an educated citizenry. Crazy talk, I tell you, crazy talk.

Seriously, right wing parents, hunker down. Hide your head in the sand. Where is national unity going to get us? And make sure you teach them now, while they're young and impressionable, that the office of the President should be ridiculed, so that when they're older, and able to vote, they DON'T CARE WHO GETS ELECTED, because you'll have taught them well that the President is just a propoganda whore, and there to be ignored. See how well that works for you in 8 years.

Unbalanced Reporting

Anyone who knows what I spend my summer doing, and where I'm currently trying to get a job knows that this story went up my ass sideways. "Disabled Daughter Should Not Take the Test".

I'm rather disappointed with Channel 5 and their coverage of this story. The reporter leaves out critical pieces of information about not only the MCAS Alternate Assessment, but of federal and state laws that mandate these tests.

Yes, this girl is significantly disabled. However, she is a public school student in Massachusetts. She has the same rights as all of her non-disabled peers to access the general curriculum to the best of her ability, and the general curriculum includes the MCAS. It is actually a violation of her civil rights to deny her particpation in the MCAS. Dad's comment that the only thing people are telling him about her taking the test is, "It's the law" is misleading. Yes, it's the law, and yes, she needs to participate, but the MCAS Alternate assessment, which is portfolio based and a collection of work and data collected on skill mastery over the course of the year, and taken during routine instruction during the day, is not a sit-down test in any way. I would invite this father, Bianca de la Garza, and any of my readers to talk to me, or my colleagues, about what a sophisticated system of assessment the MCAS Alternate Assessment really is. Teachers go through specialized training on how to choose the appropriate frameworks, compile the data, and submit the portfolios. These students are contributing to the success of their individual school districts regarding No Child Left Behind progress monitoring, and students who participate in assessments of this nature are students who receive much needed funding and services to allow them their federally mandated access to the general curriculum.

I'm sure this father wants what's best for his daughter. As an educator, I want what's best for my students as well. But this news outlet's coverage of this story was bordering on irresponsible. No one from the assessment office was quoted in the story, people who can speak intelligently and eloquently on the MCAS and the MCAS Alternate assessment, who can give you a more detailed answer than, "it's the law". An answer that will show you that this test is not evil, or unfair, or inaccessible. It provides critical data on student learning and allows students who years ago would not have had opportunities to work with their peers on challenging curriculum the same chances to learn as their non-disabled peers. It's about access, it's about student learning, and it's about fairness. I'm sorry Channel 5 was so short sighted; it's not their style.

As if they don't beat us over the head with it enough.

As if they don't beat us over the head with it enough., originally uploaded by crau1971.

I was raving about this earlier. Those two wooden structures jut out of the front facade of the very modern, industrial complex looking building that houses the United States Department of Education. Little red schoolhouses. No other building in Washington has these cutesy little facades to distract us from the real mission; they all are what they are--cold hard policy.

The more I look at this picture, and think about those little schoolhouse entrances--an insincere, condescending attempt at being "teacherly"--the angrier I get. Because I think about the tax dollars that went to construct those, that DIDN'T go to educational programs in this country, or researchers to look into the actual effects of NCLB. I don't see these entrances as just structures designed to invite and welcome; I see these as proof of a government that allows us as a society to remain horribly misguided, reactionary, and out of touch. Where have we gone wrong as a society when children in sub-Saharan Africa can play tag with impunity, but American school children are banned because it's "too aggressive"? Seriously, someone answer this question for me.

End rant. I have actual educational work to do, and this travesty put forth by the USDOE is distracting me from my mission of ACTUALLY EDUCATING.

Boys and Girls in America

When I first saw this story out of Arizona, about a high school looking to ban hugs that last more than two seconds, I had the same initial reaction to it as the girl in the article: "totally ridiculuous". Not two minutes later, however, I came across a local story that detailed two adolescent boys sexually assaulting a girl in the bathroom of their public middle school. Suddenly, perhaps, not so ridiculous after all. Certainly, it could be argued that one school is hyperreacting to the natural tendencies of teenagers to respond to each other through touch, whether that touch is sexual or non-sexual, walk through the halls of a middle or high school as the bell rings, and you will see children hugging each other as if they've been separated for a lifetime, and not simply since 4th period. It could also be argued that one school is not attentive to the basic safety needs of younger adolescents who, in the course of exploring who they are developmentally, are not getting the best role models from society and popular culture. Who knows? I'm not sure if there is a right or wrong view to either of these stories, but it was certainly an interesting juxtaposition on a Sunday morning.

And, as if to lead me to my natural penchant for a middle ground, I read this fascinating article in the New York Times Magazine about a blossoming movement for single-sex public schools. Many of you familiar with public education laws and regulations see that label and start screaming, "Title IX, Title IX!!", as does the ACLU attorney monitoring this issue, who is quoted in this article. And yes, Title IX does expand upon the basic 14th Amendment prohibitions on gender discrimination by stating that public schools are not allowed to exclude boys or girls from programs solely based on their gender. We see this played out mostly in sports, but it applies to all public school systems. Co-ed, or unfunded, essentially. So, how does the single sex schooling movement justify itself, and receive public money to create these schools and classrooms?

One arm of the movement is spearheaded by the brain research of Leonard Sax, who uses his findings to claim that boys and girls are "wired differently" and therefore, should be taught differently. There have been modest successes in schools subscribing to this viewpoint, and I could detail to you a thousand meetings I've sat in with underachieving adolescent boys, who, when tested, show themselves to be quite bright and academically capable, but are struggling in middle school. The oft-repeated line in those meetings: he lacks motivation. And the article points to several schools in economically disadvantaged communities where single-sex classrooms and schools are working well for the students they serve. As quoted in the article,

Despite six years of No Child Left Behind, the achievement gaps between rich and poor students and white and black students have not significantly narrowed. “People are getting desperate” is how Benjamin Wright, chief administrative officer for the Nashville public schools, described the current interest in single-sex education to me. “Coed’s not working. Time to try something else.”

And many communities see this "something else" as the way to bring their students to high achievement levels.

The other side of the single-sex schools movement comes from Ann Rubenstein Tisch, who helped found The Young Womens Leadership School in Harlem. She feels that the brain research angle is too limiting, and states, “Nobody is planning the days of our girls around a photograph of a brain.” This school's philosophy is based largely on social reasons. Her single gender focus was framed by tours of elite private girls schools, social-economic research, and court decisions about schooling and gender, which will allow schools to provide single-sex education as long as a co-ed choice remains available.

This choice, it seems, is the lynchpin of the arguement both for and against. Academic research comparing co-ed versus same sex schools is largely inconclusive; however, what both models do illustrate is the power of parental choice and parental involvement in their children's educational needs.

...disadvantaged students at single-sex schools have higher scores on standardized math, reading, science and civics tests than their counterparts in coed schools. There are two prevailing theories to explain this: one is that single-sex schools are indeed better at providing kids with a positive sense of themselves as students, to compete with the antiacademic influences of youth culture; the other is that in order to end up in a single-sex classroom, you need to have a parent who has made what educators call “a pro-academic choice.” You need a parent who at least cares enough to read the notices sent home and go through the process of making a choice — any choice.

I work in a public school, and I can tell you, anecdotally, there are many days were having the boys and girls separated is a very good thing, and there are other days it's certainly better for them to be together. But, what I can tell you, definitively, is that the students I see who's parents are involved in their lives every day, and hold their own children accountable every day, are the students who succeed, across all demographic labels: gender, economics, race, disability category.

Which brings me back to the original two stories I posted. Would single-sex schooling have mitigated the problems in each of those articles? Perhaps not in the first; adolescent girls hug each other constantly. In the second article, maybe yes. The New York Times story makes some pretty powerful statements about how the single-sex classrooms and high schools allow education in a de-sexualized environment, which is often radically different from the environments the students live in. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but certainly in terms of eliminating fear of assault for at least part of the day cannot be bad. Allowing boys and girls to see there are options for their lives beyond the lure of pop culture is also motivating and powerful. I'm still not sure single-sex schooling is the answer, but it definitely brings up interesting questions.

She Gets It

Read this, and realize that middle school teachers rock. For example:

Place optimistic teachers, who love kids and remember what it is like to be half-child, half-adult, in the middle schools. We have to be optimists; we have to believe that these awkward children are going to grow up into beautiful adults. (source)

I'm posting this for me, as much as any of you, to go back to the next time I have a day like yesterday.

Immense challenges. Some days, immensely fun, although yesterday was not one of the fun days. Worth every minute.