Inner Education for Inward Educators

It seems as if I won’t get a straight answer to my question to Arne Duncan after all.  Jay Mathews has posted the news tidbit he mentioned in response to my question where it is suggested that we try to add important words for the new NCLB.  While I would prefer firm answers to being asked to help the education department spin their next initiative, I added three words as a suggestion, which I hoped were less obvious the of some posters before me:

• Invigoration (I thought Enhance was overused)
• Transcending (for what we really have to do)
• Academic (what is getting lost in current Ed Law)

I feel used.

• Leave a comment... (0)

To wrap up this series, some final thoughts on NCLB.  For the new, visit the rest of the series:

Part One [Removing Bad Elements]

Part Two [Enhancing What Works]

Part Three [What Should Stay]

What This Law Now Means

Educational is now a national issue.  Yes, in many ways it has always been, but for the days of the federal government acting in an advisory capacity seem to be over.  That was apparent from Day One.

What is becoming more apparent now is the spirit behind this law, which disturbs me on a few levels.  Equality is an elusive goal; despite our best intentions–disabilities, home environments, varying resources, and individual motivation create individual differences.  The goal behind NCLB is to achieve national “proficiency.”  As we have observed before, states are achieving this more by gaming the numbers then actually raising proficiency levels.  Some increases have been observed and InnerEd applauds those while worrying about the goals.

I’ve had two days to consider NCLB now since I wrote Part Three, what I thought would be the end of the series but I believe that this needs be said.  NCLB’s gold standard of acceptance, AYP, is only achieved when proficiency is met across the lines of many different people across  gender, race, economics, and disabilities.  Most of the schools above NCLB’s high water mark are fairly homogenous with a middle or upper class norm.  There are exceptions, but those excellent schools who achieve with lower-income populations have environments that is proving difficult to replicate.

NCLB is really one of the USA’s greatest experiments in legislated equality, and it should be recognized as such.  This is not a bad thing by itself, but I really want to emphasize that this law is a social educational experiment on a grand scale.  It attempts to achieve something that no society has ever done–give all its sub-groups an equal, high-quality education without exception or excuse.

It should perhaps be somewhat humorous then when we hear pundits chuckling about our failing schools (if it was not so true) or openly wondering why teachers aren’t raising all kids to Ivy League levels, why all kids of every race (and mixed race, which the law tragically ignores) and background aren’t performing at a certain bar?

This is why I think my suggestions are so important.  Part One allows teachers and schools to focus on the students in front of them, not defeated by students they rarely if ever see.  Part Two increases NCLB’s beneficial aspects, and Part Three lets us keep the good parts.  Ultimately for me, I do feel that every child regardless of parentage or birthplace should have the opportunity for a college preparatory education.  I also believe, though, that this opportunity can be rejected, and schools can’t live being assessed by the weight of those who who never darken its doors.

But let’s not go back to ignoring those kids.  Lets find programs for them outside of the NCLB framework.  I don’t want the ignorant to be damned by their own ignorance, but do we have to squash whole  schools to save these–yet still not save them?

• Leave a comment... (0)

For today final look in the series in how I’d fix NCLB, I would like to focus on a few things the law does well.  I feel I’ve been pretty even-handed with this bill. Part One focused on what I thought the law was doing wrong, especially in poor ways that I thought it statistically evaluated schools.  Part Two focused on what I thought the law needed to add to increase better instruction and evaluation.  For my final suggestion for the law, I would like to look at what the law is doing well.

What I would (mostly) leave alone:

• One of the greatest benefits of NCLB is that it has shed light on educational data.  There is a plethora of educational data publicly available now that either didn’t exist before or was hard to find.  In Part Two I suggested some items to add to this, but if this was removed as I believe some anti-NCLB people want, I think education would take a huge step backwards.
• I would leave Adequate Yearly Progress.  Yes, it has some inherent flaws.  Yes, it desperately needs my suggestions from Part One, and I might concede that I might get rid of it if some them aren’t implemented, but I know too many educators who would coast along without this.  It is the kick in the butt that many schools need.
• I would also have no problem calling a failing school a failing school, which is another issue that NCLB-haters complain about.  Having worked in one, I have no problems saying this, that you need to call a spade an spade.  At the same time, it is a responsibility of the community and the media to recognize that even one failing subgroup fails the entire school.  I have not really addressed the subgroups much (that all subgroups:  race, gender, economics, disability) need to pass, if statistically significant in number, for a school to pass because I am still not sure what to make of it.  I see how it enforces some race stereotyping and “victim” grouping, but yet I do feel that these kids will be ignored if this is removed.
• I would also continue to stay out of making national standards.  What we saw on model 21st Century Skill standards that came out of the Education Department over the summer was evidence that we are not in a good place for this right now.  Those standards were so shallow and so broad (and this from me, someone who favors broad skills) to be unusable.  Instead, model good standards, good assessments, and good organizational structure as I related in Part Two.

• Leave a comment... (0)

• Because students do not know enough history to appreciate a text
• Because it connects students with real-world situations
• Because it synthesizes English instruction with history instruction
• Because I realize that others might not
• Because history has lessons to teach us that novels might not necessarily do
• Because the English language is a product of history
• Because history is a product of the English language
• Because writing and context cannot and should not be separated
• Because language skills are fairly useless without content knowledge

One of the most unique complaints that I think I get from students is that I use history/current events in my English class.   I’m sure other teachers get this sometimes, but I think that I definitely have my own bridge on the highway of “This Isn’t History Class.”  I was reminded of this when teaching short stories recently.  I had done a whole mega-unit on argumentation using current events the first quarter, and we had entered generic short stories in the textbook for the second quarter, when I realized that when I hit my last selection involving the Vietnam War that their background knowledge of this period was zero, and this was hurting their understanding.

So, to further our understanding and work on research skills in advance of our research paper, I’m doing a 1960’s research presentation project.  I’ve done things like this before, but it has been some time.  It is very social studies, and the English content is more subtext, picked up on the way to the product.

I also have realized today that I am happiest when my teaching crosses paths with the social studies.  Those short stories that we were reading, studying irony, point of view, and tone just seemed to divorced from the real world for me.  It’s a big change that I’ve had in my career; as a teacher-intern four years ago, I would have seen those stories as essential canon.  Now, I question their usefulness to my honors class; I still wish I was teaching from current events right now.

I teach history because it makes me a better English teacher, my classrooms a better educational laboratory, and my students more well-rounded.

Do you hear that Tenn Board of Education?  Feel like teaching US History sometime before 11th grade?

• Leave a comment... (2)

In continuing from yesterday post on items that I thought the feds should ease up on on NCLB, let’s look at what items I think should be toughened or initiated.

Items I Would Strengthen:

• Make the deadlines for providing parents with options to change schools be more quickly given and put teeth in the law that penalizes districts and states who hinder students from leaving failing schools by either short deadlines, short notification periods, or late notification periods.  This happens way too much.
• Require states to have a school’s attendance rate be a part of its report card, along with its mobility rate.  Note that I do not want the school’s AYP to be actually based on this (as I said in the last post, I think attendance is a parental issue), but I think that information should be more public and as easily accessible as the test scores.
• Require state writing assessments to be returned to the school/student; this will stop some states from gaming the scores (cough, cough, Tennessee).
• While I do not at this time favor national standards, I would create a state report card for each state’s standards and give them a grade based on real-world applicability, teacher flexibility (should be high), and requiring higher-order thinking.  I would make the release of this score a very loud press release.  Review the state’s assessments and have a similar program.  This would be a cheap way to bully states into having high standards.
• Force more accurate reporting of the use of Title I funds.  Enforce regulations that monies have to be available for all Title I students, not just those whose teachers happen to be veterans or ones who are the best buddies of the school’s Title I coordinator.  I’ve seen a lot of problems in schools with this; only those “in the know” know how or when to request Title I money or that a fund exists for their students.
• Require districts to justify in writing how any use of Title II money for teacher workshops will enhance student instruction.
• Create model assessments based on some of the best state standards that use higher-order thinking for states/testing companies/districts/teachers to emulate.  Create writing rubrics for many types of assignments modeled after the AP English 9-point rubrics.
• Require state boards of education members to visit at least four different Title I schools a year–elementary, middle, high, alternative.  I’m really tempted to raise that number.
• Increase funds for full-time teacher/literacy/math coaches in schools.  Some of these people have been the best educators I have ever worked with (full disclosure:  also the worst).
• Develop models for Corrective Action status that do not involve reconstituting an entire school.  While it isn’t always bad, there is definitely some “throw the baby out with the bathwater” problems when good teachers leave a year or two early for another schools when they think that their school will get reconstituted no matter how well they teach.   I’ve seen reconstituted schools lose star teachers when they are forced into the open market, and they rebuild worse then they were.
• Require online check posting of any spending of Title I funds exceeding $1,000.  It’s necessary, and we don’t have to post salary checks of teachers (though we could…).

Not a bad list, I must say.  In part three, I’ll look at what I would not change at all.

• Leave a comment... (0)

NCLB’s authorization will soon expire.  Reflecting on my question to Arne Duncan, I have a few thoughts on the law’s next version.  Today, I’ll focus on some things that I think the law should stop doing/change.  Later, I’ll focus on items the law should start doing or add to supplement its current workings.

Items I would Ease Up On:

• Do not hold schools accountable for any student who misses more then 15 days of school.  This is one of the law’s largest problems.  Some schools give teachers a break on this (like on the TN English I EOC) regarding their own achievement records, but I believe that attendance is a parent problem, and schools shouldn’t be responsible for educating truants.  Too often have I been statistically responsible for students who have never been around to be educated.
• On that same note, schools shouldn’t be responsible for anyone who is expelled or goes on long-term suspension.  It’s sad that one of the few tools that principals have to address student behavior is suspension, but they get penalized if they use it.  Do we need to find other options (yes)?  Do we need to penalize a school when they exclude someone who is violent (no)?
• Change the “ease-in” period of three years in which ESL students are excused from testing.  I am not sure if this is a Tenn regulation or a federal one.  Every study that matters says that it takes five years to learn a language.  The kids are barely speaking in coherent paragraphs at the end of two.
• Either focus on achievement (my choice) or the graduation rate.  Balancing the two is costing too many good people their jobs as teachers are pressured to teach high standards but then have their principals pressure them to pass students [yes, it happens everywhere].  As the high school diploma is becoming a less-worthy credential, I’d say doing the former could help plenty.
• Find a consistent formula for assessing mobile students.  It bothers me to no end that a school can be rated up/down for a student that it has for less then 1/2 a year.  Likewise  we need to find ways to help schools with high mobility rates.  One year I began with 75 students, I had 57 when the school year was over and half of those I never started with.
• Allow special ed teachers broader authority to substitute some college prep with job skills instead.  Some will call this lowering the standards for disabled students.  I say it’s cruel to force a kid with a 65 IQ to learn Algebra II.  I say it’s common sense.  Let educators and parents who know the students make some judgments.

• Leave a comment... (1)