The family has been watching Star Trek Voyager, and we recently watched an episode from Season 6 entitled "Child's Play." At this point in the series, the crew of Voyager has liberated four children of various races from the Borg, and Seven of Nine has been assigned to look after the children and help them adjust to life on Voyager.
For those who are not Star Trek fans, I should explain that the Borg are a collective of humanoids who are mentally linked, technologically-enhanced, and constantly assimilating more species in order to add to their biological and technological "perfection." In short, after being essentially a half-robotic bee in a hive, it's hard to learn to think and act as an individual. That is Seven of Nine's story arc, and at this point in the story, she's trying to be a governess, because that's part of every woman's evolution, right?
Sorry--it's easy to fork off into feminist diatribes when discussing women in Star Trek.
There's a main plot to this episode, which is interesting, but what caught my attention was the side plot in which Seven of Nine is shown interacting with the children. She has learned that children need a variety of activities in order to thrive, including opportunities for education in multiple subjects and frequent play periods, and so she has scheduled exactly that, down to the minute.
It's meant to be funny, and it is--this idea that a Borg who is an expert in astrometrics and hand-to-hand combat and engineering doesn't understand play--but in 1999 it was only that. Now, it seems so much more. It seems like a parody of our educational system.
In 1999 it seemed like only a Borg could be so ridiculous as to think that all children needed was lessons that could be quantified. It seemed like only a Borg would think that every second of a child's time could and should be scheduled. That only a Borg would expect children to have fun in prescribed ways. And all of those ideas are meant to be utterly ridiculous--the comic relief in an episode about ethics, culture and the essence of parenthood.
What have we become?
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Advice for Teachers
Why are teachers afraid to declare that they know more about education than the general public?
So often I hear about schools kowtowing to parents or politicians who want more homework or more testing or test prep at younger ages. But we know what is best for kids. We have data. We have case studies. We have the examples of other countries that have tried different models. In fact, in the US we have fifty different educational systems to study, not to mention private schools and charters.
So why don't teachers and administrators seem to have the ability to tell parents and politicians about these facts?
If someone says you should assign more homework, ask them why. What are their goals? What kind of homework? Explain why you do what you do, and ask them to provide reasons (evidence-based reasons would be best) for why you should change.
If someone says that testing is important, find out what evidence they have that the test is valid. Explain that testing takes up class time and ask how they will account for that time. Show them the assessments you currently use and explain why they work.
If someone says your kindergarteners should spend less time playing, explain that playing is the way children learn at that age. Show them the learning that takes place in your classroom, and ask for evidence that the worksheets (or whatever) they want you to use are more effective at teaching math than block play.
It is the job of teachers to teach the public about education. You are the experts. You really do know more about kids and education than most parents and politicians. Act like it.
So often I hear about schools kowtowing to parents or politicians who want more homework or more testing or test prep at younger ages. But we know what is best for kids. We have data. We have case studies. We have the examples of other countries that have tried different models. In fact, in the US we have fifty different educational systems to study, not to mention private schools and charters.
So why don't teachers and administrators seem to have the ability to tell parents and politicians about these facts?
If someone says you should assign more homework, ask them why. What are their goals? What kind of homework? Explain why you do what you do, and ask them to provide reasons (evidence-based reasons would be best) for why you should change.
If someone says that testing is important, find out what evidence they have that the test is valid. Explain that testing takes up class time and ask how they will account for that time. Show them the assessments you currently use and explain why they work.
If someone says your kindergarteners should spend less time playing, explain that playing is the way children learn at that age. Show them the learning that takes place in your classroom, and ask for evidence that the worksheets (or whatever) they want you to use are more effective at teaching math than block play.
It is the job of teachers to teach the public about education. You are the experts. You really do know more about kids and education than most parents and politicians. Act like it.
Friday, August 2, 2013
On childhood athletics
I hate the current state of kids' sports, where everybody gets to play and nobody ever loses. One of the benefits of playing sports as a kid is that you learn how to handle disappointment and failure in a relatively safe environment. Losing that Little League game might feel like it's the worst thing that's ever happened, but it isn't cancer or homelessness or even school.
On the other hand, coaches often err on the other side and humiliate kids. That's where I think this "no losing" movement got its start. Because it hurts--it really, really hurts--to see your kid humiliated. It is a horrible feeling when your child goes from loving a sport and putting hours of effort into practice to never wanting to try that sport again. Even if that feeling is temporary and normal and understandable, it's not something you want your child to experience. And that feeling--the feeling a parent gets when she looks at her child feeling that kind of humiliation--might just be the reason parents lose it and punch coaches. I'm not saying that kind of violence is excusable or justified, just that I know where it comes from.
So what should coaches do? They should think about the purpose of the team. What is the goal here? The goal is not always the same, but if you're working with kids, developing them physically and emotionally should be part of it. Yes, kids need to learn to live with disappointment and failure. They need to learn to work as a team even when one player makes a serious error, or when "working as a team" means that some people have to sit on the bench.
But there are emotions that go along with those things--disappointment, sadness, anger, embarrassment--and those emotions are normal and more or less universal. So as adults, we should expect those emotions and help kids through them. Part of that is coping with them when they surface. Another part of that is managing how, when and where we tell kids disappointing news.
A really good coach can give a kid the news that she isn't playing, or isn't first string, or didn't make the team, in a way that makes her want to work harder next time. Ideally, the child will be told when she's alone, or in a small group of other kids receiving the same news. If the coach has to announce who's playing in a team meeting, then the kids who are disappointed should be pulled aside afterward. The coach can then explain why they weren't picked, what is expected of them now (Are they still required to come to the game? Will they be possible substitutes for the kids who are playing?) and what they can do to improve so that in the future they will be picked. Is it just a matter of age? (Not a lot of Freshman make the varsity football team.) Is it skill level? Would extra practice help? A private coach? New equipment? Do you feel like the child isn't giving her all and she needs to change her attitude? Or is this a matter of talent and does this kid need to understand that she will probably never be picked for the team?
All of this should be done privately so that the child is not embarrassed in front of the rest of the team. And it should be done in such a way that the child feels valued as a person, and so that her effort is assessed and appreciated. Most importantly, our expectations should be age-appropriate. A Junior in high school can reasonably be expected to understand that not everyone can play every game, and that the coach wants the best players to play. This isn't "fair," perhaps, but it's life, and a seventeen year old should be able to deal with her feelings on her own and/or have a support system (friends, parents, teachers) she can go to to for help if she needs it. A kid in elementary school, however, should not be expected to just deal with it. She may never have faced this kind of failure before. She does not have a sense of time that allows her to understand that she will probably get picked next year--next year is like next millennium when you're ten--and she doesn't have the emotional sense to understand that her anger, frustration and disappointment will go away after a time. She needs help from adults to receive and process this information.
So don't water down sports. Don't eliminate all disappointments and make it so that nobody loses, ever. Everyone has to learn how to lose, how to fail, and how to deal with situations that just don't seem fair, but are out of our control. But do think about the news you're about to give, and how the kid you're talking to is going to receive that news. Do give parents every opportunity to help their kid through the situation. Do give kids the option to deal with disappointing or potentially embarrassing news privately. Maybe even give them a chance to save face. ("No, I couldn't make it to the game." "I don't like to compete. I just come to practices to keep in shape." "The coach decided to red shirt me to see how I develop next year.") Do help kids learn from losses.
After all, that's what these programs are supposed to be about, right?
On the other hand, coaches often err on the other side and humiliate kids. That's where I think this "no losing" movement got its start. Because it hurts--it really, really hurts--to see your kid humiliated. It is a horrible feeling when your child goes from loving a sport and putting hours of effort into practice to never wanting to try that sport again. Even if that feeling is temporary and normal and understandable, it's not something you want your child to experience. And that feeling--the feeling a parent gets when she looks at her child feeling that kind of humiliation--might just be the reason parents lose it and punch coaches. I'm not saying that kind of violence is excusable or justified, just that I know where it comes from.
So what should coaches do? They should think about the purpose of the team. What is the goal here? The goal is not always the same, but if you're working with kids, developing them physically and emotionally should be part of it. Yes, kids need to learn to live with disappointment and failure. They need to learn to work as a team even when one player makes a serious error, or when "working as a team" means that some people have to sit on the bench.
But there are emotions that go along with those things--disappointment, sadness, anger, embarrassment--and those emotions are normal and more or less universal. So as adults, we should expect those emotions and help kids through them. Part of that is coping with them when they surface. Another part of that is managing how, when and where we tell kids disappointing news.
A really good coach can give a kid the news that she isn't playing, or isn't first string, or didn't make the team, in a way that makes her want to work harder next time. Ideally, the child will be told when she's alone, or in a small group of other kids receiving the same news. If the coach has to announce who's playing in a team meeting, then the kids who are disappointed should be pulled aside afterward. The coach can then explain why they weren't picked, what is expected of them now (Are they still required to come to the game? Will they be possible substitutes for the kids who are playing?) and what they can do to improve so that in the future they will be picked. Is it just a matter of age? (Not a lot of Freshman make the varsity football team.) Is it skill level? Would extra practice help? A private coach? New equipment? Do you feel like the child isn't giving her all and she needs to change her attitude? Or is this a matter of talent and does this kid need to understand that she will probably never be picked for the team?
All of this should be done privately so that the child is not embarrassed in front of the rest of the team. And it should be done in such a way that the child feels valued as a person, and so that her effort is assessed and appreciated. Most importantly, our expectations should be age-appropriate. A Junior in high school can reasonably be expected to understand that not everyone can play every game, and that the coach wants the best players to play. This isn't "fair," perhaps, but it's life, and a seventeen year old should be able to deal with her feelings on her own and/or have a support system (friends, parents, teachers) she can go to to for help if she needs it. A kid in elementary school, however, should not be expected to just deal with it. She may never have faced this kind of failure before. She does not have a sense of time that allows her to understand that she will probably get picked next year--next year is like next millennium when you're ten--and she doesn't have the emotional sense to understand that her anger, frustration and disappointment will go away after a time. She needs help from adults to receive and process this information.
So don't water down sports. Don't eliminate all disappointments and make it so that nobody loses, ever. Everyone has to learn how to lose, how to fail, and how to deal with situations that just don't seem fair, but are out of our control. But do think about the news you're about to give, and how the kid you're talking to is going to receive that news. Do give parents every opportunity to help their kid through the situation. Do give kids the option to deal with disappointing or potentially embarrassing news privately. Maybe even give them a chance to save face. ("No, I couldn't make it to the game." "I don't like to compete. I just come to practices to keep in shape." "The coach decided to red shirt me to see how I develop next year.") Do help kids learn from losses.
After all, that's what these programs are supposed to be about, right?
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Brilliance
If you don't already listen to Star Talk Radio, you should start now. I have loved Neil deGrasse Tyson for years, every since he first appeared on, then began hosting, Nova Science Now*. He's the Director of the Hayden Planetarium at The American Museum of Natural History, and is known as the guy who de-planeted Pluto. He's brilliant.
And on this week's episode of Star Talk Radio, he said this:
This should be what we all answer every time a child says, "Why do I need to know this? When will I ever use this in life?"
Because the fact is, nobody knows when you'll use it, or how you'll use it. And "creative" applies to more than just hip hop, more than just art. Learning is itself a creative act. When you learn something, you are creating understanding, and it is much easier to learn when you can connect the new information to something you already know.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because we need creative thinkers in every field or we would never have progress. Inventing a new product requires creativity. Solving problems requires creativity. Negotiating contracts requires creativity. But creativity is also essential to putting robots on Mars or dealing with personnel or training dogs. We need people in every field who are able to think in new ways, to look at problems from multiple directions and to create metaphors that help us all understand the universe from a perspective we never saw before.
And that means we need people to have command of as many pockets of knowledge as possible. Because you never know when that math lesson or book you read in high school or painting your parents made you look at in the museum will be the key to understanding a problem you have to solve.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, in trying to understand for himself how MC's write music, stated for all of us why Public Education is essential to the functioning of a democracy. He explained deftly why schools must teach not only math and English, but also science and art and music and physical education and foreign languages and drama and dance and creative writing.
Because education in a variety of disciplines is the key to creativity. The more systems of thought you understand, the more you can think. And the more you can think, the better you can do whatever you do.
---------------
*He's no longer the host, but you can find some of his episodes on Netflix, and he'll soon be hosting the new version of Cosmos, which should be awesome.
And on this week's episode of Star Talk Radio, he said this:
The more pockets of knowledge you have command of, the more creative you can be....He was talking about hip hop, and really just rephrasing something in order to understand how MC's work, but he said something profound.
This should be what we all answer every time a child says, "Why do I need to know this? When will I ever use this in life?"
Because the fact is, nobody knows when you'll use it, or how you'll use it. And "creative" applies to more than just hip hop, more than just art. Learning is itself a creative act. When you learn something, you are creating understanding, and it is much easier to learn when you can connect the new information to something you already know.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because we need creative thinkers in every field or we would never have progress. Inventing a new product requires creativity. Solving problems requires creativity. Negotiating contracts requires creativity. But creativity is also essential to putting robots on Mars or dealing with personnel or training dogs. We need people in every field who are able to think in new ways, to look at problems from multiple directions and to create metaphors that help us all understand the universe from a perspective we never saw before.
And that means we need people to have command of as many pockets of knowledge as possible. Because you never know when that math lesson or book you read in high school or painting your parents made you look at in the museum will be the key to understanding a problem you have to solve.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, in trying to understand for himself how MC's write music, stated for all of us why Public Education is essential to the functioning of a democracy. He explained deftly why schools must teach not only math and English, but also science and art and music and physical education and foreign languages and drama and dance and creative writing.
Because education in a variety of disciplines is the key to creativity. The more systems of thought you understand, the more you can think. And the more you can think, the better you can do whatever you do.
---------------
*He's no longer the host, but you can find some of his episodes on Netflix, and he'll soon be hosting the new version of Cosmos, which should be awesome.
Friday, June 14, 2013
On dreams and education
I heard Scott Barry Kaufman on The Leonard Lopate Show yesterday. You can listen to it here:
But I got stuck on one small interaction. Kaufman said that we should respect children's dreams. Lopate replied that letting children pursue their dreams makes for a chaotic classroom, if one child wants to draw a picture while another child wants to do scientific experiments. (I'm paraphrasing. Those might not have been his precise examples, but you get the gist of his point.)
This annoyed the crap out of me.
There is a difference between treating children with respect and letting them run wild. There is also a difference between respecting a child's wishes and not asking them to do anything else.
It is our job as adults to educate children. We have to help them develop into adults who can function in the world. I agree with Kaufman's premise that we put too much emphasis on testing and in the process we expect everyone to be good at the same thing. Testing measures a very small range of skills, and there are many useful skills that cannot be tested with a bubble sheet.
However, limiting children by holding them to the dreams they have when they are children is no better. Children have very little experience. They do not understand the scope of the world or even the scope of their own strengths. As they develop, they change, and they are able to learn new skills. It is our duty to expose children to many different kinds of thinking as they grow both so that they can get some sense of what they do not know and so that they can find new things to dream about.
But yes, we should respect children's dreams. I respect Boo's dream to become an Olympic swimmer. In respecting that dream, I enroll her in classes and let her join swim teams where she can refine her skills and practice competing. I will encourage this dream as long as it lasts, partly because there is the remote possibility that she can achieve it, but more importantly because I believe it is good for children to push themselves until they find their limits. However, I still send her to school and camp where she is expected to learn the skills and rules of other sports. She has come to enjoy soccer, and yesterday she asked if she can learn to play lacrosse. Perhaps this will not change her dream, and swimming will always remain her favorite sport. Perhaps she'll find a sport she likes better. Either way, she benefits by learning different ways to use her body, by refining skills that require different talents, and by finding out her strengths and weaknesses. She has come to enjoy playing soccer with her friends at recess. If she never joins a soccer team, she has already benefitted from being forced to try a sport that did not interest her at first.
The same applies to academics. Yes, we should respect the dreams and talents of our children. Teachers should ask those who love art to illustrate things in the classroom. They should also ask those who dislike art to try illustration because they will learn something from it. Especially during the elementary years, children should not be specializing. They do not know enough at that age to make such an important decision. We can respect a child's dream while still asking her to challenge herself, while exposing her to the dreams of others, dreams she may not yet have the capacity to imagine.
Kaufman's point is that everyone has strengths and there are many kinds of intelligence in this world. I agree with him. I just wish he had set Leonard Lopate straight.
But I got stuck on one small interaction. Kaufman said that we should respect children's dreams. Lopate replied that letting children pursue their dreams makes for a chaotic classroom, if one child wants to draw a picture while another child wants to do scientific experiments. (I'm paraphrasing. Those might not have been his precise examples, but you get the gist of his point.)
This annoyed the crap out of me.
There is a difference between treating children with respect and letting them run wild. There is also a difference between respecting a child's wishes and not asking them to do anything else.
It is our job as adults to educate children. We have to help them develop into adults who can function in the world. I agree with Kaufman's premise that we put too much emphasis on testing and in the process we expect everyone to be good at the same thing. Testing measures a very small range of skills, and there are many useful skills that cannot be tested with a bubble sheet.
However, limiting children by holding them to the dreams they have when they are children is no better. Children have very little experience. They do not understand the scope of the world or even the scope of their own strengths. As they develop, they change, and they are able to learn new skills. It is our duty to expose children to many different kinds of thinking as they grow both so that they can get some sense of what they do not know and so that they can find new things to dream about.
But yes, we should respect children's dreams. I respect Boo's dream to become an Olympic swimmer. In respecting that dream, I enroll her in classes and let her join swim teams where she can refine her skills and practice competing. I will encourage this dream as long as it lasts, partly because there is the remote possibility that she can achieve it, but more importantly because I believe it is good for children to push themselves until they find their limits. However, I still send her to school and camp where she is expected to learn the skills and rules of other sports. She has come to enjoy soccer, and yesterday she asked if she can learn to play lacrosse. Perhaps this will not change her dream, and swimming will always remain her favorite sport. Perhaps she'll find a sport she likes better. Either way, she benefits by learning different ways to use her body, by refining skills that require different talents, and by finding out her strengths and weaknesses. She has come to enjoy playing soccer with her friends at recess. If she never joins a soccer team, she has already benefitted from being forced to try a sport that did not interest her at first.
The same applies to academics. Yes, we should respect the dreams and talents of our children. Teachers should ask those who love art to illustrate things in the classroom. They should also ask those who dislike art to try illustration because they will learn something from it. Especially during the elementary years, children should not be specializing. They do not know enough at that age to make such an important decision. We can respect a child's dream while still asking her to challenge herself, while exposing her to the dreams of others, dreams she may not yet have the capacity to imagine.
Kaufman's point is that everyone has strengths and there are many kinds of intelligence in this world. I agree with him. I just wish he had set Leonard Lopate straight.
Monday, June 10, 2013
What Works in Education
Dana Goldstein wrote a piece for Slate today about grouping kids by ability in classrooms. Evidently it's back in fashion and she's wondering whether or not it's good for kids.
Here's what's good for kids: small enough classes (preferably between 12-18 if there is one teacher) so that the teacher can really know each child's learning and check in with each child every day. A classroom where the teacher has a clear philosophy of education and is free to practice it, either because it is the same as the philosophy of the school as a whole (as in private schools) or because the teacher has the freedom to run her classroom the way she sees fit (as in a good public school.) Food in their bellies. A good night's sleep. A sense of safety. And a group of adults who are working together to ensure that the child maximizes her potential.
That's it.
You can study classrooms all you want. You can come up with fads and new methods and old methods and recycled methods. You can throw money at the problem or insist that teachers are the cause of it all.
But it comes down to those things.
In fact, there are several different well-thought-out philosophies of education that work well. There is some evidence that it is helpful to match the child to the right philosophy, but I think matching the parents to the right philosophy is more important. When the parents and the teacher agree on how children should be treated and what is important in education, kids do better. But what is essential is that the teacher has a clear philosophy and knows how to execute it. Because whether you believe that children need individualized learning (Montessori) or that children should be treated as a community (Waldorf) or that children learn best when the topics are based on their interests (child-centered) or that teachers teach best when they teach to their interests (teacher-centered) or that we only learn when we are able to connect new information to something we already know (constructivist) or whatever, if you're doing what you do well, kids will learn.
I happen to think that ability grouping is helpful. Smarter children are less likely to get bored and children who struggle are less likely to tune out if the lesson is targeted to their abilities. I also think there's less fodder for teasing if children are taught in a more narrow intelligence band and that children are more likely to take risks if everyone around them is about as likely to make a mistake as they are.
But are they better or worse than any other philosophy? Not demonstrably.
The biggest problem in education is that everyone is looking for one method that works all the time in every situation for everyone. There isn't one. Just like any other art form--painting, dance, acting, medicine--there are different methods that work in different situations. Each teacher needs to find what she believes in--what works for her--and deliver that to her students.
I think it's good when a Principal comes in and creates a philosophy for the school. It's easier for the students if all the teachers have similar philosophies. What's not good is telling teachers how to teach in such a way that each teacher cannot do her job. And that's what's so popular today, both in articles like this one and in politics. It's got to stop.
Teachers are professionals. They are well-trained and intelligent. Pay them what they're worth, and let them do what you hired them to do.
Here's what's good for kids: small enough classes (preferably between 12-18 if there is one teacher) so that the teacher can really know each child's learning and check in with each child every day. A classroom where the teacher has a clear philosophy of education and is free to practice it, either because it is the same as the philosophy of the school as a whole (as in private schools) or because the teacher has the freedom to run her classroom the way she sees fit (as in a good public school.) Food in their bellies. A good night's sleep. A sense of safety. And a group of adults who are working together to ensure that the child maximizes her potential.
That's it.
You can study classrooms all you want. You can come up with fads and new methods and old methods and recycled methods. You can throw money at the problem or insist that teachers are the cause of it all.
But it comes down to those things.
In fact, there are several different well-thought-out philosophies of education that work well. There is some evidence that it is helpful to match the child to the right philosophy, but I think matching the parents to the right philosophy is more important. When the parents and the teacher agree on how children should be treated and what is important in education, kids do better. But what is essential is that the teacher has a clear philosophy and knows how to execute it. Because whether you believe that children need individualized learning (Montessori) or that children should be treated as a community (Waldorf) or that children learn best when the topics are based on their interests (child-centered) or that teachers teach best when they teach to their interests (teacher-centered) or that we only learn when we are able to connect new information to something we already know (constructivist) or whatever, if you're doing what you do well, kids will learn.
I happen to think that ability grouping is helpful. Smarter children are less likely to get bored and children who struggle are less likely to tune out if the lesson is targeted to their abilities. I also think there's less fodder for teasing if children are taught in a more narrow intelligence band and that children are more likely to take risks if everyone around them is about as likely to make a mistake as they are.
But are they better or worse than any other philosophy? Not demonstrably.
The biggest problem in education is that everyone is looking for one method that works all the time in every situation for everyone. There isn't one. Just like any other art form--painting, dance, acting, medicine--there are different methods that work in different situations. Each teacher needs to find what she believes in--what works for her--and deliver that to her students.
I think it's good when a Principal comes in and creates a philosophy for the school. It's easier for the students if all the teachers have similar philosophies. What's not good is telling teachers how to teach in such a way that each teacher cannot do her job. And that's what's so popular today, both in articles like this one and in politics. It's got to stop.
Teachers are professionals. They are well-trained and intelligent. Pay them what they're worth, and let them do what you hired them to do.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Montessori
It seems odd that the wife of a public school teacher who is also the daughter of a public school teacher chose to send her child to private school. And perhaps even odder that Hopper also made that choice.
We believe in public education. We believe that it should be there for everyone. We believe that it should be fully funded, and that teachers should be paid more than they are so that we can get and keep the best and the brightest in the profession. We also believe that schools should be fully funded so that they have sufficient support staff--Social Workers, Psychologist, Special Ed Teachers, and so on--so that every kid in this country has a fighting chance at an education.
As parents, though, our one job was to find the right school for Boo. When she was four, we enrolled her in a Montessori school two towns away. It's the perfect match for her. We kept her there because they have all-day kindergarten (which our local public school does not) and then we had to make the big decision for first grade.
It was tough. Our local school was good. The Principal was organized and thoughtful. She knew the children when she took me on a tour. She knew the philosophy of each teacher, and was willing to experiment with different set-ups to see what worked best for different kids. There was a looping class (that stayed with the same teacher for two years) in first and second grades. The beautiful library had a full-time Librarian. The cafeteria had hot food. There was instrumental music starting in fourth grade and either French or Spanish starting in Kindergarten. The first grade classes had between 15-17 students per class. It was a really good public school.
But I love Montessori. Boo's school has the most amazing feeling when you walk in. It's quiet and calm, and every child knows exactly where she is supposed to be and what she is supposed to be doing. The children are taught to take responsibility for their own work. They have jobs inside the school, helping out with younger children, delivering lunches, or collecting compost to take out to the bin. They are in multi-age classrooms, which I think is one of the most brilliant ideas that has ever existed in education. Why are so many people opposed to multi-age classrooms? Boo has learned so much about helping younger children and getting along with older ones. She has had the opportunity to stretch by working with older kids on things that come easily to her, and to practice ideas that are harder for her by teaching them to younger children. When she's one of the older kids in the room, she gets to practice her leadership skills. And when she's one of the youngest, she struggles to learn the social rules of the game and how do deal with kids who are more sophisticated than she is.
So we decided to send her to the private school.
And then Chris Christie got elected. Now, the public school has no Librarian. The principal left. Teachers were let go and the first grade had 25 kids per class the year Boo would have started. The looping class was cancelled. French is gone and Spanish starts in fourth grade. And don't get me started on testing.
For that reason, and many others that have come up over the years but which I'm keeping confidential to respect Boo's privacy, we're so glad we chose the private school. It's the right thing for Boo. And we're her parents, so it's our job to do what's best for Boo.
We believe in public education. We believe that it should be there for everyone. We believe that it should be fully funded, and that teachers should be paid more than they are so that we can get and keep the best and the brightest in the profession. We also believe that schools should be fully funded so that they have sufficient support staff--Social Workers, Psychologist, Special Ed Teachers, and so on--so that every kid in this country has a fighting chance at an education.
As parents, though, our one job was to find the right school for Boo. When she was four, we enrolled her in a Montessori school two towns away. It's the perfect match for her. We kept her there because they have all-day kindergarten (which our local public school does not) and then we had to make the big decision for first grade.
It was tough. Our local school was good. The Principal was organized and thoughtful. She knew the children when she took me on a tour. She knew the philosophy of each teacher, and was willing to experiment with different set-ups to see what worked best for different kids. There was a looping class (that stayed with the same teacher for two years) in first and second grades. The beautiful library had a full-time Librarian. The cafeteria had hot food. There was instrumental music starting in fourth grade and either French or Spanish starting in Kindergarten. The first grade classes had between 15-17 students per class. It was a really good public school.
But I love Montessori. Boo's school has the most amazing feeling when you walk in. It's quiet and calm, and every child knows exactly where she is supposed to be and what she is supposed to be doing. The children are taught to take responsibility for their own work. They have jobs inside the school, helping out with younger children, delivering lunches, or collecting compost to take out to the bin. They are in multi-age classrooms, which I think is one of the most brilliant ideas that has ever existed in education. Why are so many people opposed to multi-age classrooms? Boo has learned so much about helping younger children and getting along with older ones. She has had the opportunity to stretch by working with older kids on things that come easily to her, and to practice ideas that are harder for her by teaching them to younger children. When she's one of the older kids in the room, she gets to practice her leadership skills. And when she's one of the youngest, she struggles to learn the social rules of the game and how do deal with kids who are more sophisticated than she is.
So we decided to send her to the private school.
And then Chris Christie got elected. Now, the public school has no Librarian. The principal left. Teachers were let go and the first grade had 25 kids per class the year Boo would have started. The looping class was cancelled. French is gone and Spanish starts in fourth grade. And don't get me started on testing.
For that reason, and many others that have come up over the years but which I'm keeping confidential to respect Boo's privacy, we're so glad we chose the private school. It's the right thing for Boo. And we're her parents, so it's our job to do what's best for Boo.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Let's get real
I got some pushback on Facebook about my assertion that teachers would be happy to work more, assuming they'd get paid for it.
And it's true: not all teachers want to work more.
But I'm tired of teachers getting accused of that like there's something wrong with them.
YES, we want people to go into teaching because they love kids and want to educate them. But who chooses a job in a vacuum? If you have any choice of career in your life, you consider all the aspects:
What kind of work do I want to do?
How much money will I make?
What kind of benefits will I get?
What is the schedule?
All of those things (and others as well) go into someone's work decision. And that's part of the reason teachers are so angry at Chris Christie. He's trying to change all the rules, and that's really stressful when you're talking about someone's job. It can also be a deal breaker, depending on why you went into teaching in the first place.
When Hopper started teaching (this is his 9th year) the deal was:
Fairly low salary, offset by incredible job security (tenure), great benefits, very good time off (in which to supplement low income) and a secure pension.
Christie has already lowered the pay, reduced the benefits and threatened the pension. He's changed the rating system and dearly wants to end tenure. Now he's after the time off. So yeah, I can see why some teachers would give up the job, not because they don't love teaching, but because the deal has changed to the point where they feel they can't do the job anymore.
That doesn't make them bad people.
Also, there was a time when teachers were respected by the general population. Now, they're public target #1.
Stop acting like teachers should take whatever is dished out because they love their jobs. They deserve to be treated like professionals and paid like professionals.
And it's true: not all teachers want to work more.
But I'm tired of teachers getting accused of that like there's something wrong with them.
YES, we want people to go into teaching because they love kids and want to educate them. But who chooses a job in a vacuum? If you have any choice of career in your life, you consider all the aspects:
What kind of work do I want to do?
How much money will I make?
What kind of benefits will I get?
What is the schedule?
All of those things (and others as well) go into someone's work decision. And that's part of the reason teachers are so angry at Chris Christie. He's trying to change all the rules, and that's really stressful when you're talking about someone's job. It can also be a deal breaker, depending on why you went into teaching in the first place.
When Hopper started teaching (this is his 9th year) the deal was:
Fairly low salary, offset by incredible job security (tenure), great benefits, very good time off (in which to supplement low income) and a secure pension.
Christie has already lowered the pay, reduced the benefits and threatened the pension. He's changed the rating system and dearly wants to end tenure. Now he's after the time off. So yeah, I can see why some teachers would give up the job, not because they don't love teaching, but because the deal has changed to the point where they feel they can't do the job anymore.
That doesn't make them bad people.
Also, there was a time when teachers were respected by the general population. Now, they're public target #1.
Stop acting like teachers should take whatever is dished out because they love their jobs. They deserve to be treated like professionals and paid like professionals.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Special Interests?
According to stuff I'm hearing on Facebook, Chris Christie now claims that he wants a longer school day and longer school year, but "special interests" are blocking him.
Now, this article is rather vague. All it says is that Christie wants more hours of classroom time and the Teachers like having the summer off. It doesn't tell us anything about the negotiation or Christie's proposals or even who blocked them. But let's start with his accusation.
Yes, many teachers enjoy having the summer off. Many are parents of school-age children and find it convenient to be on the same schedule as their children so that they don't need child care. If the whole state increases the school year, that won't be an issue. Other teachers simply enjoy a long vacation. Christie seems to be implying that there's something wrong with taking a 10-month job, with commensurate pay, and then enjoying the time off. That seems quite ethical to me.
Of course, the implication is that the teachers like the time off so much that they refuse to negotiate for a longer year. That has me wondering, because I know many teachers who believe that a longer school year would be beneficial. However, they can't afford to work a longer year at their current salaries because right now they use the time in the summer to work a second job. Losing that income would be a problem.
And that makes me wonder whether Christie offered to pay the teachers for the extra time he wants them to work. Actually, since the Governor doesn't decide the pay of teachers (districts do) I wonder if the teachers are even the problem. Perhaps the districts told the Governor that they can't afford to pay the teachers for extra time without raising taxes.
Or maybe the teachers asked Governor Christie how the extra time is to be used. See, extra time in the classroom doesn't magically improve student performance. You have to use the time productively. A longer school day may or may not help--it depends how tired students are at the end of the day. And a longer year won't help if the time is just spent on more test prep.
And then there's money for facilities. Many schools in New Jersey are not equipped with air conditioning. I'm not saying that air conditioning is a necessity, but if I was a teacher negotiating a longer school year, I'd sure be asking for it. Teaching a room full of kids in NJ in July or August without air conditioning would be a tough job for even the best teacher.
Or maybe the Special Interests the Governor refers to are parents who don't want their kids in school all year round because they should have some time to play. Or because the parents want to send their kids to camp so they can have some alone time. Or because they want to take family vacations around the world. Lots of people think summer vacation is a necessity for children.
I'm really tired of the Governor making these vague comments that make teachers look lazy. Give us the details. With whom were you negotiating (and on what basis, since the State doesn't negotiate teacher contracts) what was your suggestion, and what was the objection to your plan? What you're saying now means nothing.
Now, this article is rather vague. All it says is that Christie wants more hours of classroom time and the Teachers like having the summer off. It doesn't tell us anything about the negotiation or Christie's proposals or even who blocked them. But let's start with his accusation.
Yes, many teachers enjoy having the summer off. Many are parents of school-age children and find it convenient to be on the same schedule as their children so that they don't need child care. If the whole state increases the school year, that won't be an issue. Other teachers simply enjoy a long vacation. Christie seems to be implying that there's something wrong with taking a 10-month job, with commensurate pay, and then enjoying the time off. That seems quite ethical to me.
Of course, the implication is that the teachers like the time off so much that they refuse to negotiate for a longer year. That has me wondering, because I know many teachers who believe that a longer school year would be beneficial. However, they can't afford to work a longer year at their current salaries because right now they use the time in the summer to work a second job. Losing that income would be a problem.
And that makes me wonder whether Christie offered to pay the teachers for the extra time he wants them to work. Actually, since the Governor doesn't decide the pay of teachers (districts do) I wonder if the teachers are even the problem. Perhaps the districts told the Governor that they can't afford to pay the teachers for extra time without raising taxes.
Or maybe the teachers asked Governor Christie how the extra time is to be used. See, extra time in the classroom doesn't magically improve student performance. You have to use the time productively. A longer school day may or may not help--it depends how tired students are at the end of the day. And a longer year won't help if the time is just spent on more test prep.
And then there's money for facilities. Many schools in New Jersey are not equipped with air conditioning. I'm not saying that air conditioning is a necessity, but if I was a teacher negotiating a longer school year, I'd sure be asking for it. Teaching a room full of kids in NJ in July or August without air conditioning would be a tough job for even the best teacher.
Or maybe the Special Interests the Governor refers to are parents who don't want their kids in school all year round because they should have some time to play. Or because the parents want to send their kids to camp so they can have some alone time. Or because they want to take family vacations around the world. Lots of people think summer vacation is a necessity for children.
I'm really tired of the Governor making these vague comments that make teachers look lazy. Give us the details. With whom were you negotiating (and on what basis, since the State doesn't negotiate teacher contracts) what was your suggestion, and what was the objection to your plan? What you're saying now means nothing.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Useful Assessment
On Thursday, we went to see Boo's Third Grade Presentation. Each third year student at her school has to research and write a report on an assigned topic (this year they were all about plants) and then present the report to an audience of parents, school staff, and first through eighth graders.
During the Presentation, the second graders each stood up with a first grader and read a "Who Am I?" about a specific plant. Then the first grader would hold up a picture of the plant and say its name.
From first through third grades, the children learn about public speaking in a step-by-step, age-appropriate manner. They learn how to be a good audience. There was no teasing or jeering from the older students at the presentation. In fact, there wasn't even talking or obvious distraction. They were a respectful audience, probably because they had all been there and empathized with the experience of the first through third graders and the nerves one has getting up before an audience for the first time.
They also, of course, learn about the research topic each year. Boo has had the Solar System, The History of Communication, and Classification of Plants. She learned a lot from each presentation.
This is how you tell whether children have learned something. Incidentally, it's the same way we find out whether adults have learned anything. I work at a university. I watch adults give reports on their research all the time. The grad students I work with are jealous that Boo is learning this skill so early--some of them didn't learn it until graduate school.
In participating in these projects over three years, Boo has learned research skills, she has worked with others and individually. She has learned about non-fiction writing. She has learned public speaking skills and how to be a good audience member. She overcame her nerves and felt successful. And she worked hard and then had that work acknowledged by her learning community.
I suppose that some people might say there is no way to quantify what the children have learned from this process, or whether or not their teachers are effective. Boo has never taken a test in her life. She has never received a grade or a report card. And yet I feel confident in saying that she has learned a great deal at her school and her teachers are very effective. How do I know? Regular conferences with the teachers that take about 45 minutes twice a year. Constant additional communication via e-mail, phone, and in person. Displays of student work around the school. Presentations I'm invited to like this one. Watching Boo grow and develop and engage with the world in a different way than she did before.
That's how you evaluate a school. It's also an assessment of student learning, but one that teaches useful skills at the same time. Nothing about that Presentation was a waste of time.
So why isn't any of this happening in public school?
Oh, and all the work for the presentation happened in school. None of it was homework.
During the Presentation, the second graders each stood up with a first grader and read a "Who Am I?" about a specific plant. Then the first grader would hold up a picture of the plant and say its name.
From first through third grades, the children learn about public speaking in a step-by-step, age-appropriate manner. They learn how to be a good audience. There was no teasing or jeering from the older students at the presentation. In fact, there wasn't even talking or obvious distraction. They were a respectful audience, probably because they had all been there and empathized with the experience of the first through third graders and the nerves one has getting up before an audience for the first time.
They also, of course, learn about the research topic each year. Boo has had the Solar System, The History of Communication, and Classification of Plants. She learned a lot from each presentation.
This is how you tell whether children have learned something. Incidentally, it's the same way we find out whether adults have learned anything. I work at a university. I watch adults give reports on their research all the time. The grad students I work with are jealous that Boo is learning this skill so early--some of them didn't learn it until graduate school.
In participating in these projects over three years, Boo has learned research skills, she has worked with others and individually. She has learned about non-fiction writing. She has learned public speaking skills and how to be a good audience member. She overcame her nerves and felt successful. And she worked hard and then had that work acknowledged by her learning community.
I suppose that some people might say there is no way to quantify what the children have learned from this process, or whether or not their teachers are effective. Boo has never taken a test in her life. She has never received a grade or a report card. And yet I feel confident in saying that she has learned a great deal at her school and her teachers are very effective. How do I know? Regular conferences with the teachers that take about 45 minutes twice a year. Constant additional communication via e-mail, phone, and in person. Displays of student work around the school. Presentations I'm invited to like this one. Watching Boo grow and develop and engage with the world in a different way than she did before.
That's how you evaluate a school. It's also an assessment of student learning, but one that teaches useful skills at the same time. Nothing about that Presentation was a waste of time.
So why isn't any of this happening in public school?
Oh, and all the work for the presentation happened in school. None of it was homework.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Baseball
Baseball has merit pay: players get paid more if they win.
Merit pay is no better for baseball than it is for teachers.
With merit pay, a player on a bad team is actually not motivated to win: he's motivated to make himself look good so that another, better team will want him. He's also got a motivation for negotiating pay that is too high for the team to afford so that they will choose to trade him.
What if baseball instituted a system in which players instead got loyalty bonuses and a pension? Not a huge pension, but enough money that they know they'll be okay once they can't play anymore. I think it would improve the game in various ways.
1) Players would be more invested in building a solid team and working together. After all, these are the guys you're going to be with for your career.
2) Players would be more willing to take reasonable risks (like pitching an entire game) that might benefit the team. After all, if your arm gives out, you'll still have your pension.
3) Managers would be less likely to ask players for unreasonable risks. After all, you're going to be paying this guy whether he's playing or not. So it's better to let that pitcher rest an extra day and keep him healthy for the long haul.
4) Players would be more invested in their communities. When you know you're going to live somewhere for a long time, you put down roots.
5) Fans would be more invested in the team. It's more fun to follow guys you know, and it makes the team feel more real. You can point to particular people who are part of the team and not just the logo.
As it turns out, the same benefits apply to longevity bonuses and tenure in teaching.
1) Teachers become invested in the kids and families they are working with. They learn to work together over the years in ways that benefit everyone. I've been working with another Hebrew School teacher for the past seven years. We're now really good at working together, helping each other when we need it, and pooling our resources so that the kids get the best of our individual strengths and are impacted as little as possible by our individual weaknesses.
2) With tenure, teachers can take risks that might otherwise jeopardize their careers. They can teach that controversial book. They can make an accommodation for a child who needs it that might be seen as unfair. And when they're treated as professionals and not automatons, they're motivated to do those extra things that are personally costly sometimes, like staying late to help a kid when you should go home, or spending your whole weekend making a really great lesson.
3) When test scores aren't defining everything, administrators can give a teacher what she needs to be the best teacher she can be. They don't need to justify everything or supervise by checklist to make sure every teacher is doing the same thing. Every teacher shouldn't do the same thing. Every teacher should do what she does best so that the students will be inspired and will be getting the most the teacher can provide.
4) My dad taught at the same school for 41 years. He knew families, sometimes even teaching the children of former students. And he brought in stuff. My dad taught Biology, and he found every sample from the real world he could and kept them in his classroom (he could do that because he was in the same classroom for all 41 years.) Every trip to the beach of my life involved looking for shells and horseshoe crab castings that Dad could keep in his classroom. He had live animals in tanks, too. And he even argued with the OB when I was born until the hospital let him have my placenta. If he taught a different subject every year or was shuttled around from classroom to classroom, he wouldn't have been able to keep a collection like that, and that would have been a loss to generations of students.
5) Kids look forward to having that teacher who teaches the amazing class. When I was in school, I couldn't wait to take Shakespeare with Mr. Valmoro. This is partly because I love Shakespeare, but it was also because he loved Shakespeare. His class was amazing and everyone knew it. In fact, I knew ahead of time which teachers were teaching which classes most of the time, which is part of how I chose what class to take. These days, with the idea that every teacher should be able to teach every class, that relationship is gone and students are missing out.
Merit pay doesn't work.
Merit pay is no better for baseball than it is for teachers.
With merit pay, a player on a bad team is actually not motivated to win: he's motivated to make himself look good so that another, better team will want him. He's also got a motivation for negotiating pay that is too high for the team to afford so that they will choose to trade him.
What if baseball instituted a system in which players instead got loyalty bonuses and a pension? Not a huge pension, but enough money that they know they'll be okay once they can't play anymore. I think it would improve the game in various ways.
1) Players would be more invested in building a solid team and working together. After all, these are the guys you're going to be with for your career.
2) Players would be more willing to take reasonable risks (like pitching an entire game) that might benefit the team. After all, if your arm gives out, you'll still have your pension.
3) Managers would be less likely to ask players for unreasonable risks. After all, you're going to be paying this guy whether he's playing or not. So it's better to let that pitcher rest an extra day and keep him healthy for the long haul.
4) Players would be more invested in their communities. When you know you're going to live somewhere for a long time, you put down roots.
5) Fans would be more invested in the team. It's more fun to follow guys you know, and it makes the team feel more real. You can point to particular people who are part of the team and not just the logo.
As it turns out, the same benefits apply to longevity bonuses and tenure in teaching.
1) Teachers become invested in the kids and families they are working with. They learn to work together over the years in ways that benefit everyone. I've been working with another Hebrew School teacher for the past seven years. We're now really good at working together, helping each other when we need it, and pooling our resources so that the kids get the best of our individual strengths and are impacted as little as possible by our individual weaknesses.
2) With tenure, teachers can take risks that might otherwise jeopardize their careers. They can teach that controversial book. They can make an accommodation for a child who needs it that might be seen as unfair. And when they're treated as professionals and not automatons, they're motivated to do those extra things that are personally costly sometimes, like staying late to help a kid when you should go home, or spending your whole weekend making a really great lesson.
3) When test scores aren't defining everything, administrators can give a teacher what she needs to be the best teacher she can be. They don't need to justify everything or supervise by checklist to make sure every teacher is doing the same thing. Every teacher shouldn't do the same thing. Every teacher should do what she does best so that the students will be inspired and will be getting the most the teacher can provide.
4) My dad taught at the same school for 41 years. He knew families, sometimes even teaching the children of former students. And he brought in stuff. My dad taught Biology, and he found every sample from the real world he could and kept them in his classroom (he could do that because he was in the same classroom for all 41 years.) Every trip to the beach of my life involved looking for shells and horseshoe crab castings that Dad could keep in his classroom. He had live animals in tanks, too. And he even argued with the OB when I was born until the hospital let him have my placenta. If he taught a different subject every year or was shuttled around from classroom to classroom, he wouldn't have been able to keep a collection like that, and that would have been a loss to generations of students.
5) Kids look forward to having that teacher who teaches the amazing class. When I was in school, I couldn't wait to take Shakespeare with Mr. Valmoro. This is partly because I love Shakespeare, but it was also because he loved Shakespeare. His class was amazing and everyone knew it. In fact, I knew ahead of time which teachers were teaching which classes most of the time, which is part of how I chose what class to take. These days, with the idea that every teacher should be able to teach every class, that relationship is gone and students are missing out.
Merit pay doesn't work.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Screens are bad, except when they're not
Recently I was asked how I feel about screens in classrooms.
I can't answer that.
You may have noticed that I tend to have opinions about things, and I'm generally not shy about sharing them, especially when my opinions are well-researched and science-based. If you ask me about children zero to three and screens, I'll tell you my opinion:
TURN IT OFF.
I don't care if it's an educational game on the iPad, or Sesame Street, or Angry Birds. It's not good for your child's brain. I feel so strongly about this that I made Boo turn off the iPad when my 1-year-old niece was attracted to the screen.
There are exceptions, of course. Boo watched a few hours of TV in her 0-3 years when we were on an airplane, when she was sick and screaming while I waited for the Tylenol to kick in, and (of course) the Olympics. And I was able to take this principled stand because my husband came home at 3:45 every day and took over baby care. And I have only one child. So if it's 4:30 and you're going to kill your three kids if you don't turn on the TV, then by all means--turn on the TV. It's easy for me to say I didn't have to--I didn't have to.
As Boo has gotten older, we watch more TV together. She loves movies, so we watch a lot of those. We also like watching some educational stuff together--nature shows, shows about Ancient Egypt, and science shows. Sometimes when I can see that Boo is too tired to handle herself well, we even watch these things on school nights. And she loves Tabletop.
And this is why I can't answer the question about screens in classrooms. Because every situation is different, and while it's clear that very young children learn by doing things and don't learn by watching things (screen-type things. They do learn by watching actual things, like a person building with blocks) this becomes less true as kids get older. However, it is pretty much always true that people learn better by doing than by watching and so there should always be a healthy dose of doing in the classroom.
On the other hand, some things have to be demonstrated ahead of time, and video or computer-based animated text can be good at that. Some things you can't bring into the classroom, like Tibet, and photos or video are great for showing those things. Some things need to be documented, and SmartBoards allow the teacher to keep a record of what was written on the board, which is really useful sometimes. And some things are just too dangerous, too expensive, or too restricted for kids to do themselves. (Just try getting a permit to take a field trip to a construction site.) Video is great for those things.
SmartBoards are also a great way to teach kids how to use computers, which is something we want kids to learn before they graduate high school.
Can you teach these things without SmartBoards? Of course. Can a SmartBoard be a total waste of money? Absolutely. But in the hands of a masterful teacher who knows how to use a SmartBoard well and integrates that tool into a lesson, it's a great thing (for older kids.)
I would NOT want to see a SmartBoard below first grade. Younger than that, kids should be doing things: building, practicing reading and writing skills, counting, making things, and playing with other children to develop social skills. I would want to see it used sparingly in the younger grades for the same reason. Up to about age 9 kids have not fully developed abstract thinking and still need concrete examples (doing things) in order to learn. And they need lots of time to play.
But after about age 9, most children have developed the ability to think abstractly, and they can then learn from screens quite well, although as I said, learning should always involve a healthy dose of doing stuff.
So how do I feel about screens in classrooms? If they're used well, they're great. If they're not, then they are a waste of money. What you need in a classroom is a great teacher, and then you should buy that teacher the tools she needs to teach the way she teaches best. It's really not about the screens.
But at home, less is more. I should say that I love TV. I considered getting a Master's in it. Seriously. So it would have been really easy for me to turn on the TV when Boo was little and watch all the kid shows. I would have enjoyed it. But whenever I was tempted, I thought, "What will we do if I don't turn on the TV?" Again, if the answer is, "I'll beat her to death," then please--turn on the TV. But if the answer is frisbee (as it was for me on Monday, when I played this game with myself for the eleventh-billionth time) or reading a book, or having a chat, then don't turn it on. Do the other thing instead.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Please civilize your children!
Tonight we went to services. Boo wanted to sit with her friends, and I feel that children should sit with their parents, so we went and sat with Boo's friends too.
I hate sitting with children at services.
No...I hate sitting with other people's children at family services.
I have no problem sitting with my class when we have services during Hebrew School. I love sitting with Boo and Hopper. But people need to civilize their children.
First of all, half the kids were wearing jeans and sneakers. Now, I realize things aren't as formal as they used to be, and I'm willing to cut everyone slack for wearing snow boots today, because it's snowy. But jeans and sneakers don't belong in Temple at Shabbat services. You're sending kids the wrong message by letting them dress that way. The message you want to send is that this is something special and we have to act like we're fancy: fancy clothes and fancy manners. Of course manners at Temple are different from other places. We sit in rows like the theater, but we don't clap and we do sing along. But we're definitely calm and quiet and we pay attention.
That's my second of all: teach your kids manners. Teach them to stand up when everyone stands, to sit when everyone sits, and to shut the hell up when the mourner's prayer is going on. You can even explain that it's a prayer we say for people who died and that people are sad when they say it so we have to be kind to those people. But teach it.
Otherwise, someone will be standing there with one hand on her husband, who's saying a prayer for his dead father, and the other hand trying to stop your son from hitting your daughter with a stick. I'm not saying who, but someone. And that person will not be getting the sense of peace and community she came to services to find.
It's not fair to let your children's bad manners get all over everyone else. So please, civilize your children so I don't have to.
I hate sitting with children at services.
No...I hate sitting with other people's children at family services.
I have no problem sitting with my class when we have services during Hebrew School. I love sitting with Boo and Hopper. But people need to civilize their children.
First of all, half the kids were wearing jeans and sneakers. Now, I realize things aren't as formal as they used to be, and I'm willing to cut everyone slack for wearing snow boots today, because it's snowy. But jeans and sneakers don't belong in Temple at Shabbat services. You're sending kids the wrong message by letting them dress that way. The message you want to send is that this is something special and we have to act like we're fancy: fancy clothes and fancy manners. Of course manners at Temple are different from other places. We sit in rows like the theater, but we don't clap and we do sing along. But we're definitely calm and quiet and we pay attention.
That's my second of all: teach your kids manners. Teach them to stand up when everyone stands, to sit when everyone sits, and to shut the hell up when the mourner's prayer is going on. You can even explain that it's a prayer we say for people who died and that people are sad when they say it so we have to be kind to those people. But teach it.
Otherwise, someone will be standing there with one hand on her husband, who's saying a prayer for his dead father, and the other hand trying to stop your son from hitting your daughter with a stick. I'm not saying who, but someone. And that person will not be getting the sense of peace and community she came to services to find.
It's not fair to let your children's bad manners get all over everyone else. So please, civilize your children so I don't have to.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Today at Vassar
Today Vassar College was picketed by Westboro Baptist Church. A few weeks ago, someone in the extended Vassar community found out that WBC was planning this protest, and wheels went into motion.
I graduated from Vassar in 1996 and I have to say that I am really proud to be a part of the Vassar community today.
Instead of confronting WBC, Vassar decided to work even harder at being a place where everyone feels included. Instead of denouncing WBC, Vassar decided to work even harder at being a place that WBC would hate. Instead of fighting against hate disguised as religion, Vassar embraced inclusiveness and rationality.
You may not know that when Vassar was founded in 1861, it was not widely believed that women could handle a regimen of physical exercise combined with intellectual learning, or even that women should have higher education at all. Matthew Vassar created a women's college that became an elite institution, respected for educational rigor throughout the country and around the world. Although he was criticized (if women studied and exercised at the same time, their ovaries would shrivel) Matthew Vassar enabled generations of women to receive a higher education.
In the 1960's, Vassar became known as a liberal institution. In the 70's and 80's after going co-ed, Vassar became a haven for gays and lesbians and a place known for embracing the individuality of students who might not fit into the mainstream. When I took a tour of Vassar, I was told that Vassar students' unofficial motto was, "We will not tolerate intolerance." When I was there, it was more like, "Everyone at Vassar is a freak."
And that made it an amazing place to live. In high school I got away with being different by becoming a Drama Freak. So when I wore purple overalls and was too dramatic and carried a moose hat hanging from my purse, it was just part of my persona. But at Vassar, I could wear a coat made from fake fur with a panda print on it and just be me. And most importantly, I could be smart. At Vassar, being smart isn't weird. Wanting to do your homework doesn't make you a dork. And you can always find people who want to discuss the book you're reading, or the paper you're writing, or the news, or whether or not money should exist.
So I owe a great deal of who I am to the time I spent at Vassar, and the friends I met there. And I am really proud to be a part of the Vassar community, today and every day.
I graduated from Vassar in 1996 and I have to say that I am really proud to be a part of the Vassar community today.
Instead of confronting WBC, Vassar decided to work even harder at being a place where everyone feels included. Instead of denouncing WBC, Vassar decided to work even harder at being a place that WBC would hate. Instead of fighting against hate disguised as religion, Vassar embraced inclusiveness and rationality.
You may not know that when Vassar was founded in 1861, it was not widely believed that women could handle a regimen of physical exercise combined with intellectual learning, or even that women should have higher education at all. Matthew Vassar created a women's college that became an elite institution, respected for educational rigor throughout the country and around the world. Although he was criticized (if women studied and exercised at the same time, their ovaries would shrivel) Matthew Vassar enabled generations of women to receive a higher education.
In the 1960's, Vassar became known as a liberal institution. In the 70's and 80's after going co-ed, Vassar became a haven for gays and lesbians and a place known for embracing the individuality of students who might not fit into the mainstream. When I took a tour of Vassar, I was told that Vassar students' unofficial motto was, "We will not tolerate intolerance." When I was there, it was more like, "Everyone at Vassar is a freak."
And that made it an amazing place to live. In high school I got away with being different by becoming a Drama Freak. So when I wore purple overalls and was too dramatic and carried a moose hat hanging from my purse, it was just part of my persona. But at Vassar, I could wear a coat made from fake fur with a panda print on it and just be me. And most importantly, I could be smart. At Vassar, being smart isn't weird. Wanting to do your homework doesn't make you a dork. And you can always find people who want to discuss the book you're reading, or the paper you're writing, or the news, or whether or not money should exist.
So I owe a great deal of who I am to the time I spent at Vassar, and the friends I met there. And I am really proud to be a part of the Vassar community, today and every day.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
What if Teachers had the money to do anything they wanted?
Over the past two weeks, This American Life has been airing one of the most moving stories I've ever heard on that show. And that's saying something. I strongly encourage you to listen to Harper High School, Part 1 and Harper High School, Part 2 if you haven't already.
The stories from Harper High School are about gangs, guns, and being a teenager, but what moved me to write today is a piece at the end of the second hour in which the Principal of Harper High talks about what she would do if she won the lottery. She talks for four and a half minutes about things she would buy for the kids at the school--little things, like coats for kids who don't have them, and bigger things, like support staff for the school or houses where homeless kids could stay and be safe.
And this got me thinking: what if, instead of putting all our effort into getting rid of bad Teachers and bribing them with merit pay, we just give the money to the good Teachers? What if we said to the best Teacher in each school, "Here's $10,000. Do whatever you want with it." What would happen then?
Of course, people would get all touchy about unregulated government funds, but couldn't we make a Teacher Committee out of, say, five of the best Teachers in a school, and give the money that would have been used for Merit Pay to them to spend in the school? Or have Teachers write grant applications for things they want to do in the school?
When I think about a school like Harper, where some kids don't get home to shower, change and eat before coming to school, I wonder what would happen to test scores if every Teacher had a fridge with milk and a box of cereal in her classroom. What if kids could get a shower and a clean uniform if they got to school 30 minutes early? Or just if they needed it?
And most painfully, next year Harper High will only be able to afford a part-time Social Worker next year. That's what Chicago Teachers were striking about, if you recall. Most of the kids in the school have witnessed at least one shooting, and the city thinks they can get by with ONE PART-TIME Social Worker? That's insane. How can anyone expect learning to go on in any productive way in a school where hundreds of traumatized kids are trying to co-exist and there's nobody with the professional expertise to help them? What does a kid do if his best friend is killed on a day when the Social Worker isn't there?
Those are just the things someone who hasn't taught in a city school would think of. I taught in a New York City school for a year and a half. If someone had given me $10k back then, the first things I would have bought were paper and a working copier. The school provided me with two reams of paper for the year. After that, I had to buy my own or rely on donations from parents. No paper, no copies. And everyone was always making copies with only 25 sheets in the copier, so it was always jammed. After that, I would have bought pre-sharpened pencils by the gross because the kids were always losing theirs. And then I would have bought a bed for the student who told me that he wanted a bed for Christmas because he was still sleeping in a toddler bed, even though he was in fourth grade and about 5 feet tall.
I know the hot thing now is the idea that Merit Pay will make all Teachers work harder. But if we've got the money, how about first making sure all the kids are eating, then making sure there are support staff in every school, then getting Teachers the supplies they need. The money that's left over can go to Merit Pay.
The stories from Harper High School are about gangs, guns, and being a teenager, but what moved me to write today is a piece at the end of the second hour in which the Principal of Harper High talks about what she would do if she won the lottery. She talks for four and a half minutes about things she would buy for the kids at the school--little things, like coats for kids who don't have them, and bigger things, like support staff for the school or houses where homeless kids could stay and be safe.
And this got me thinking: what if, instead of putting all our effort into getting rid of bad Teachers and bribing them with merit pay, we just give the money to the good Teachers? What if we said to the best Teacher in each school, "Here's $10,000. Do whatever you want with it." What would happen then?
Of course, people would get all touchy about unregulated government funds, but couldn't we make a Teacher Committee out of, say, five of the best Teachers in a school, and give the money that would have been used for Merit Pay to them to spend in the school? Or have Teachers write grant applications for things they want to do in the school?
When I think about a school like Harper, where some kids don't get home to shower, change and eat before coming to school, I wonder what would happen to test scores if every Teacher had a fridge with milk and a box of cereal in her classroom. What if kids could get a shower and a clean uniform if they got to school 30 minutes early? Or just if they needed it?
And most painfully, next year Harper High will only be able to afford a part-time Social Worker next year. That's what Chicago Teachers were striking about, if you recall. Most of the kids in the school have witnessed at least one shooting, and the city thinks they can get by with ONE PART-TIME Social Worker? That's insane. How can anyone expect learning to go on in any productive way in a school where hundreds of traumatized kids are trying to co-exist and there's nobody with the professional expertise to help them? What does a kid do if his best friend is killed on a day when the Social Worker isn't there?
Those are just the things someone who hasn't taught in a city school would think of. I taught in a New York City school for a year and a half. If someone had given me $10k back then, the first things I would have bought were paper and a working copier. The school provided me with two reams of paper for the year. After that, I had to buy my own or rely on donations from parents. No paper, no copies. And everyone was always making copies with only 25 sheets in the copier, so it was always jammed. After that, I would have bought pre-sharpened pencils by the gross because the kids were always losing theirs. And then I would have bought a bed for the student who told me that he wanted a bed for Christmas because he was still sleeping in a toddler bed, even though he was in fourth grade and about 5 feet tall.
I know the hot thing now is the idea that Merit Pay will make all Teachers work harder. But if we've got the money, how about first making sure all the kids are eating, then making sure there are support staff in every school, then getting Teachers the supplies they need. The money that's left over can go to Merit Pay.
Monday, February 25, 2013
If I ran the world
Today after school I took Boo to get some boxes, and then I packed up some books while she did her homework. After that, she really wanted to get some work done on the move, so I told her we could move the contents of the closets.
We worked for a solid hour or more and got all three closets emptied, cleaned and the contents swapped to their new locations.
After that, we had a half hour or so before dinner, so I continued teaching Boo to play cribbage, which we had started last night.
If I ran the world, Boo's homework for this week would be planning and executing the move and learning to play cribbage. She'd be practicing responsibility, organization, hard work, planning, strategic thinking, math and social skills. Output could include a list of ways to make 15 and 31 from the cards in a deck (necessary for scoring in cribbage), written plans for the move, and pictures of the completed rooms.
Oh, and a win/loss chart for the games she played over the week. That would be a way for the teachers to count how much time she spent on her homework, and she'd enjoy it since nine-year-olds are really into winning and losing.
But we can't have kids spending their time that way. How would we write the tests?
We worked for a solid hour or more and got all three closets emptied, cleaned and the contents swapped to their new locations.
After that, we had a half hour or so before dinner, so I continued teaching Boo to play cribbage, which we had started last night.
If I ran the world, Boo's homework for this week would be planning and executing the move and learning to play cribbage. She'd be practicing responsibility, organization, hard work, planning, strategic thinking, math and social skills. Output could include a list of ways to make 15 and 31 from the cards in a deck (necessary for scoring in cribbage), written plans for the move, and pictures of the completed rooms.
Oh, and a win/loss chart for the games she played over the week. That would be a way for the teachers to count how much time she spent on her homework, and she'd enjoy it since nine-year-olds are really into winning and losing.
But we can't have kids spending their time that way. How would we write the tests?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
A warning to college profs from a high school teacher
From The Answer Sheet:
"In many cases, students would arrive in our high school without having had meaningful social studies instruction, because even in states that tested social studies or science, the tests did not count for “adequate yearly progress” under No Child Left Behind. With test scores serving as the primary if not the sole measure of student performance and, increasingly, teacher evaluation, anything not being tested was given short shrift.
"In many cases, students would arrive in our high school without having had meaningful social studies instruction, because even in states that tested social studies or science, the tests did not count for “adequate yearly progress” under No Child Left Behind. With test scores serving as the primary if not the sole measure of student performance and, increasingly, teacher evaluation, anything not being tested was given short shrift.
Further, most of the tests being used consist primarily or solely of multiple-choice items, which are cheaper to develop, administer, and score than are tests that include constructed responses such as essays. Even when a state has tests that include writing, the level of writing required for such tests often does not demand that higher-level thinking be demonstrated, nor does it require proper grammar, usage, syntax, and structure. Thus, students arriving in our high school lacked experience and knowledge about how to do the kinds of writing that are expected at higher levels of education.
Recognizing this, those of us in public schools do what we can to work on those higher-order skills, but we are limited. Remember, high schools also have tests—No Child Left Behind and its progeny (such as Race to the Top) require testing at least once in high school in reading and math. In Maryland, where I taught, those tests were the state’s High School Assessments in tenth-grade English and algebra (which some of our more gifted pupils had taken as early as eighth grade). High schools are also forced to focus on preparing students for tests, and that leads to a narrowing of what we can accomplish in our classrooms."
Go read the whole thing.
Monday, February 4, 2013
You may be teaching, but they're not learning
People are forever saying that homework teaches kids to be responsible, or to manage responsibility.
Well, yesterday I asked my students what the word "responsibility" means. They said, "Something you need to do." So I asked them to list their responsibilities. Here's what they said:
Taking out the garbage and recycling
Walking the dog
Caring for a pet
Setting the table
Washing the dishes
Brushing your teeth
Cleaning my room
Picking up after myself
Not leaving my things lying around until my mother says she's going to throw it out if I don't put it away
Notice anything missing? I've been teaching this lesson for seven years, and not ONCE has a kid said homework unless I prompted them.
Not. Once.
Clearly my students ARE learning a sense of responsibility. They have heard the word enough to know what it means, and they associate it with real responsibilities that they have. But they don't associate that with homework. They're learning responsibility from chores around the house, from having pets, and from living with other people. They're not learning it from doing worksheets.
Here's my idea of homework that would actually teach something useful. Together, teacher and child set a goal. Then the child has to meet that goal in the allotted time or explain why she didn't. That's it.
So let's say the child sets a goal to knit a scarf. She says she can do it in a week. At the end of the week, she either comes to school with a scarf, or she explains that she worked on her knitting for half an hour each day but she made a lot of mistakes and had to start over a number of times so she wasn't able to complete the scarf. Assuming that her parents can verify the effort, the teacher and child would then set a more reasonable goal for the next week based on the child's skill level.
Or maybe the child sets a different kind of goal: I'm going to ride my bike around the park 100 times. She'd have to figure out how many times she'd have to ride each day, and how to keep track of her laps, and how to document her effort. If it rained all week, then she'd have to figure out how to deal with that setback. Will she ask for an extension? Ride all 100 laps when the sun comes out? Make a different goal for the week?
The goal could also be associated with a learning topic: make a comic book about the Revolutionary War (or a video, or a painting, or a story, or sew a costume.) But that will only work if the child is able to use his strengths when home. The hard, uncomfortable, muscle-flexing work should be done at school where there is a professional to help. If a child needs extra practice, he should get extra practice at school when he has the time and energy to dedicate to learning. Home should be for recharging, for pursuing other interests, and for spending time with family. But if a child's interests can be channeled into teaching responsibility, then a child will feel validated and will learn.
This kind of homework would allow children to learn real world skills about time management, negotiation and problem solving while sharing strengths with their teachers and classmates. It would also help them integrate their interests into school, so that they don't feel like learning stops at the classroom door.
Well, yesterday I asked my students what the word "responsibility" means. They said, "Something you need to do." So I asked them to list their responsibilities. Here's what they said:
Taking out the garbage and recycling
Walking the dog
Caring for a pet
Setting the table
Washing the dishes
Brushing your teeth
Cleaning my room
Picking up after myself
Not leaving my things lying around until my mother says she's going to throw it out if I don't put it away
Notice anything missing? I've been teaching this lesson for seven years, and not ONCE has a kid said homework unless I prompted them.
Not. Once.
Clearly my students ARE learning a sense of responsibility. They have heard the word enough to know what it means, and they associate it with real responsibilities that they have. But they don't associate that with homework. They're learning responsibility from chores around the house, from having pets, and from living with other people. They're not learning it from doing worksheets.
Here's my idea of homework that would actually teach something useful. Together, teacher and child set a goal. Then the child has to meet that goal in the allotted time or explain why she didn't. That's it.
So let's say the child sets a goal to knit a scarf. She says she can do it in a week. At the end of the week, she either comes to school with a scarf, or she explains that she worked on her knitting for half an hour each day but she made a lot of mistakes and had to start over a number of times so she wasn't able to complete the scarf. Assuming that her parents can verify the effort, the teacher and child would then set a more reasonable goal for the next week based on the child's skill level.
Or maybe the child sets a different kind of goal: I'm going to ride my bike around the park 100 times. She'd have to figure out how many times she'd have to ride each day, and how to keep track of her laps, and how to document her effort. If it rained all week, then she'd have to figure out how to deal with that setback. Will she ask for an extension? Ride all 100 laps when the sun comes out? Make a different goal for the week?
The goal could also be associated with a learning topic: make a comic book about the Revolutionary War (or a video, or a painting, or a story, or sew a costume.) But that will only work if the child is able to use his strengths when home. The hard, uncomfortable, muscle-flexing work should be done at school where there is a professional to help. If a child needs extra practice, he should get extra practice at school when he has the time and energy to dedicate to learning. Home should be for recharging, for pursuing other interests, and for spending time with family. But if a child's interests can be channeled into teaching responsibility, then a child will feel validated and will learn.
This kind of homework would allow children to learn real world skills about time management, negotiation and problem solving while sharing strengths with their teachers and classmates. It would also help them integrate their interests into school, so that they don't feel like learning stops at the classroom door.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)