A NATIONAL EDUCATION PLAN

I believe there should be a national information bank of lesson plans and
units in all content areas.  Communities could then use these units as-is or
modify them as they see fit.  The units should cover all content areas and
incorporate best practices.  Such an initiative would head-off the political
infighting that would inevitably occur if the Dept. of Education were to
impose a national curriculum on the populace; yet it would also allow
districts around the country to quickly and easily adopt an array of units
that would fit their students’ needs.  

I recommend that the US Dept. of Education form curriculum writing
committees for early childhood curricula, upper elementary curricula, middle
school curricula, high school curricula, and college preparatory curricula.  
I also recommend the formation of an alignment committee to interface with
all the others.  This committee would ensure that the content and critical
thinking strategies of each curriculum builds upon those taught at previous
levels.  This will allow communities to adopt(should they choose to do so) a
complete soup-to-nuts, grade-by-grade curriculum.  We would have, thus, a
National Curriculum that is available but not imposed on individual
communities.  

As for No Child Left Behind: We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the
bathwater.  I’m no fan of 24/7 test prep; but NCLB has led communities to
identify research-based intervention programs that have a track record of
success. Some of these programs have effective systems of data collection,
allowing for meaningful differentiation of instruction. This is much better
than the blind and hysterical test preparation now plaguing the nation.  The
Dept. of Education should find a way to enable every state to purchase some
of these programs at very low cost–or at no cost.  Additionally, the Summer
2008 edition of the Journal of Adult and Adolescent Literacy (JAAL) provides
a review of several reading interventions.  The interventions outlined in
this edition should be included in the programs made available across the
country.

AN EDUCATIONAL DOG-AND-PONY SHOW

The New York Daily News reports that NYC’s Department of Education is spending $350 million per year on the Chancellor’s great dog-and-pony show, his so-called “accountability” system.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/11/14/2008-11-14_desp…

Chancellor Joel Klein is quoted as saying, “The dollars we’ve invested in this work are some of the smartest dollars we’ve spent.” This is nonsense. His multi-million dollar computerized system is a waste of taxpayer money. Why spend millions to invent a system when there are already several field-tested, time-tested and highly successful reading and math programs already in existence? All of these programs include student performance data that enable schools to demonstrate accountability. This is do-able because these programs include procedures for adjusting instruction based on the data generated through their assessments.

When Klein became Chancellor, the nationally renowned Chancellor’s District was already using, with great success, one of these programs—Success for All. Instead of spreading this program, which had demonstrated measurable improvements in under-performing schools around the city, Klein trashed it for an unproven “approach” to teaching literacy. “We’ll give you the guidelines,” the trainers told us, “and you can go and write the curriculum.” Lucy Calkins of Teachers College told us: “These Units of Study are not finished products. Think of them as gifts.” (You can’t make this stuff up.)

Instead of Success for All or any of a half-dozen other proven programs, we had Lucy Calkins and her staff (some of whom had little classroom experience and seemed barely beyond puberty) flying by the seat of their pants writing curriculum guidelines. And this was done only after lots of complaints from teachers. Lucy’s trainers began their new initiative by stating flatly that they don’t write curricula.

To this day, we still don’t have a citywide curriculum. We have experimentation and a lot of schools stumbling around in the dark—which is sometimes called entrepreneurialism. And now we have an “accountability” system instead of tried-and-true programs. It is unethical to make teachers accountable for results when they have not been given proven resources.

I have said before that I am in favor of value-added accountability systems, but they have to be managed wisely. In tough economic times, it would be wiser to incorporate existing, effective programs into a value-added approach to school accountability. If the millions being spent by the DOE are the “smartest dollars” they’ve ever spent then I pray that Klein and company never get their hands on my checkbook.

OBAMA’S FIRST MISTAKE?

The Huffington Post reports that NYC’s Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein, is rumored to be on the President-elect’s short-list for Secretary of Education. Blogger “godrummer” speaks most eloquently on the topic:

Joel Klein has single-handedly–well, with Bloomberg’s help–made a bad system much worse. His complete dependence on high stakes tests, his manipulation of school principals, his packing the schools with unprepared teachers, his Draconian approach to budget making, his consistent lies about serious matters like the NYC drop our rate (close to 70% for African Americans and Latino’s according to the best respected expert–Gary Orfield), and his utter disrespect of parents by excluding them completely is a partial list of why making him Secretary of Education is the worst possible move for Obama on education. I suggest Linda Darling Hammond or almost any other talented educator–we don’t need a lawyer.

>>>>>

It is also to be noted that under Klein’s watch, the NYC Department of Education:

>>Adopted an unproven literacy program that ran contrary to federal guidelines;

>>Set up new bus routes in midwinter that left children stranded;

>>Failed to prevent schools from lying to parents who were told (falsely) that their children had to transfer to GED programs because the youngsters hadn’t accumulated sufficient credits in high school;

>>Set up an accountability system that failed to articulate with Federal and State standards;

>>Spent millions on a data-analysis system that is so overloaded that most teachers can’t access data unless they get online in the middle of the night;

>>Continues to hire new, inexperienced teachers while forcing experienced, skilled and highly-paid senior teachers to serve as substitutes and hall-monitors;

>>Spends five-million dollars a year on couriers;

>>Failed to keep tabs on a Deputy Chancellor who pressured a school district into giving her unqualified husband a high-paying job.

Last week, the City’s Comptroller charged the DOE of submitting misleading numbers when reporting cost-cutting efforts.

Chancellor Klein’s leadership is questionable, to say the least. I’ve never heard a teacher speak well of him. President-elect Obama won the election because he is an inspirational leader. Joel Klein has drawn the ire of teachers and parents alike. Choosing him as Secretary of Education would be a provocative move.

LIBRARIAN FINED FOR BEING A LOVING FATHER

In New York City, being a loving parent is now an ethics violation.  Recently, a Brooklyn school librarian attracted the wrath of the Department of Education’s Conflict of Interest Board.  What did he do?  Robert Grandt, a longtime educator put up a library display that included a book illustrated by his daughter. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/nyregion/22ethics.html 

 

How much did the Grandt family earn from this display?  Nothing.  How many books did they sell in school?  Actually, Grandt gave them away free to anyone who asked.  What did the conflict of Interest Board do?  They fined Grandt five-hundred dollars and made him sign a statement “admitting” he had violated the conflict of interest rules.  At one point, they even threatened Grandt will possible termination. 

 

Considering all the no-bid contracts settled by the NYC Department of Education over the past few years, they have some nerve fining a parent who earned nothing.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102008/news/regionalnews/ed__dept__no_bid_mess_123867.htm 

 

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.  

LOSE WEIGHT FAST! READ A BOOK!!

A recent study out of Duke Hospital offers evidence that reading books can help obese girls lose weight.  Yes, I said reading books!  How is this possible?  Working with pediatric specialists, the publisher of Lake Rescue produced a book that provided girls, ages 9-13, with a character who overcomes her self-esteem issues and learns how to follow a healthy lifestyle.  Even though the character is fictional, she managed to exert positive peer pressure, encouraging the girls in the Duke study to take control of their lives and to lose weight. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081004080918.htm

 

The implications of the study are powerful.  If this approach works for obese, preadolescent girls, it could work for preteens dealing with other issues.  Think of it.  The gay teen dealing with internalized homophobia, the young woman or man trying to recover from abuse, the kid with alcoholic parents, the boy who is trying to resist pressure to join a gang, even the math-phobic child who doesn’t think she can succeed in school; all of them might find their lives improved through a combination of support services and good reading.

 

I hope publishers, authors, mental health experts and educators begin working together to develop books that teach young people how to manage life’s complicated issues.  Right now, this is most likely to happen in fantasy novels, like the Harry Potter series.  Such novels often center on the adventures of “nerdy” kids who discover their own inner resources.  What a blessing it would be to flood the market with realistic YA fiction featuring young characters who learn how to negotiate life’s vicissitudes. 

 

Authors and publishers:  Take note!

Banned Books & Captain Underpants

Banned Books Week is coming!  September 27^th-October 4^th marks the celebration of the American Library Association’s annual celebration of the freedom of expression.  I prefer to call it Get a Life Week.  I can understand why some books upset conservatives; but there are others that make one wonder:  “Why do you care?  Honey, get a life!”   Chief among these is that great hero of the toddler set:  Captain Underpants.  Yes, Captain Underpants is listed by the ALA as one of the most banned or challenged series of the twenty-first century.

 

In the April 2008 edition of The American Educator, Gary D. Askins writes:

There is an incredible wealth of literature written for young people that is life affirming, humorous and fun to read. I do not include the writings of Dav Pilkey among them. His body of work is largely built on the lowest common denominator: the humor of bodily functions and frat-boy disrespect toward teachers, parents and adults in general.

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/apr08/speakout.htm

 

There may be lots of books that Askins thinks are “fun to read,” but there’s a problem.  Boys aren’t reading them.  Most boys don’t think the approved canon of children’s books is fun at all.  So, boys don’t read:  not for pleasure, not for higher grades, not even if you threaten them. 

 

If we are to turn boys into willing readers, we must start with their interests.  Boys like gross humor, action, adventure.  Boys like antiheroes.  Such characters have been favorites for centuries.  If we ban Captain Underpants, should we ban Shakespeare’s Puck?  The coyote tales of the American Southwest?  Aristophanes?  Peter Pan?  What about Gulliver’s Travels or The Wife of Bath’s Tale? 

 

Let’s face it, the Captain Underpants series falls squarely into the tradition of world literature.  If boys like the series, more power to them.  If we kick the Captain in his pants, we’re kicking world literature, too.  So, to those who would ban Captain Underpants (and there are a lot of you out there), I say again:  “Honey, get a life.”  I also say, “Sweetie, reread the Western canon.  You’ve missed a few things.” 

WILL LOWERING CLASS SIZES IMPROVE YOUR CHILD’S EDUCATION? MAYBE NOT

Here’s a modern myth: lowering class sizes will improve your child’s education.  This is supported by the American Federation of Teachers.  The A.F.T., one of the nation’s largest teachers’ unions, quotes a research study in support of lowering class sizes:

http://www.aft.org/topics/classsize/index.htm

 

Reducing class sizes, the A.F.T. claims, will give teachers a chance to know the children better and will reduce the number of disciplinary problems.  The problem is, there’s no guarantee that the teachers will make the effort to know individual children better; and many teachers are lousy classroom managers.  There’d be pandemonium in their classrooms even if the class size was reduced to ten.

 

Now I’m not opposed to reducing class sizes, but this alone won’t improve children’s education.  And the STAR Project, the study quoted on the A.F.T.’s website is flawed.  There have been many criticisms of its imperfections.  Among these is the fact that some parents put extreme pressure on the district to place their kids in the smaller classes.  The teachers who conducted these classes were often those considered strongest by the district.  Additionally, class sizes seem to matter less beyond the third grade.  Some educators recommend (rightly, I believe) that the quality of instruction is as important as the size of the class.  Here’s where the canker gnaws. 

 

The A.F.T., while supporting smaller classes, has also elected Randi Weingarten, an apologist for incompetent teachers, as its new president.  In her last job as president of the U.F.T., New York City’s union, Weingarten staged mass demonstrations against the city when it tried to standardize the quality of instruction.  I’m not saying that New York’s Department of Education managed the changes well (they didn’t), but Weingarten’s response was telling.  “Let teachers teach!” she would stridently shout as demonstrators took up the chant.  “Let teachers teach,” was Weingarten’s clever way of demanding that accountability be rolled back. 

 

I personally heard Weingarten urge teachers to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid because: “We have to get rid of No Child Left Behind.”  NCLB, while flawed and poorly funded, is still our government’s greatest attempt to improve the quality of instruction nationwide.  Weingarten didn’t call for the government to refine NCLB.  She wanted it GONE.  Her job, along with improving teachers’ benefits is to shield them from accountability.  The A.F.T.’s demand that class sizes be reduced is a joke unless our nation also does the following:

 

Ø      Eliminate lifelong tenure

Ø      Develop nationwide guidelines for assessing teachers in each grade.

Ø      Develop national guidelines for due process: When should a teacher get fired?

Ø      Lower class sizes in grades K-3 and buy EVERY SCHOOL one of the well-researched reading programs.  Demand that teachers learn these programs well or be fired.

Ø      Lower class sizes in grades K-3 and buy EVERY SCHOOL one of the well-researched math programs.  Demand that teachers learn these programs well or be fired.

Ø      Require that every teacher spend longer hours learning these new programs, but pay them well for their time.

Ø      Pay for short term individualized tutoring FOR EVERY CHILD WHO NEEDS IT.

Ø      Buy every secondary school the best researched programs in reading and math.  Demand that teachers learn these programs well or be fired.

Ø      Require that every secondary-level teacher spend longer hours learning these new programs, but pay them well for their time.

Ø      Do not hire someone as a principal or assistant (vice) principal until they’ve spent a year, under close scrutiny, demonstrating their ability to teach using the reading and math programs their district has chosen. 

 

Teachers should be highly paid and receive incredible benefits packages, but they must prove their worth every year or be fired.  As long as education is held hostage by teachers’ unions, we’ll continue to hear a phrase that I’ve heard scores of times: “I have tenure; you can’t make me do this.”  As long as this is allowed to continue, lowering class sizes won’t mean a damn. 

BARACK OBAMA: “THE HARRY POTTER PARENT”

The American Library Association calculates that from 1999-2004, J.K. Rowling was the number four most banned or challenged author in the country. http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/authors19902004.cfm

 

We all know the complaints.  The Harry Potter books are evil.  They teach witchcraft and corrupt the children of good churchgoing people.  Recently, however, Harry and his friends have gained an illustrious champion, none other than Barack Obama.  In an interview with Michelle Obama, the senator’s wife referred to him as the “Harry Potter parent.”  Obama has read the entire series with his older daughter; and the senator, lest we forget, is a Christian.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/18/politics/p150814D75.DTL&type=politics 

 

What does Obama know that some churchgoers do not?  It’s simply this: Reading makes kids smarter.  And here’s another fact: most kids, unless they’re psychotic, can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.  Harry Potter fans are no more likely to lose their minds and start worshipping Satan, than they are to jump off the roof after watching old episodes of Superman. 

 

Fantasy has fallen into disrepute and not just with evangelicals.  Lots of parents and teachers have condemned the reading of fantasy literature, be it Goosebumps or the Potter books.  While fears of witchcraft constitute an extreme version of fantasy-phobia, many adults see fantasy books as trivial and mind-polluting.  They try to steer kids away from them.  What a terrible mistake.

 

Literacy experts tell us that one way to turn kids into great readers is to give them high-interest books.  What do they find interesting?  Fantasy, sci-fi, mysteries and adventure stories are all very popular.  When we put “proper” books into children’s hands, thinking they’ll learn important life lessons, what they take away from the experience is: reading is boring.  Children will resist reading if they see it as a chore.

 

The only activities we repeat willingly are those that are pleasurable.  Pleasure isn’t a sin; it’s a survival skill.  Children who have fun reading books, including fantasy novels develop:

 

Ø      Critical thinking skills

Ø      Communication skills

Ø      A broader vocabulary

Ø      Empathy

 

Yes, I said empathy.  Novels in all genres take us inside the characters’ heads and help us to feel emotions along with them.  This is a transferable skill.  Children who read fantasy and other literary genres learn to get inside other people’s heads.  This helps them understand real people in the real world.  If you know Harry Potter, for example, you know what it feels like to be a maltreated outsider.  What a great starting point to teaching children about bullying and racism!  One expert believes that reading novels generates greater interest in human rights. 

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/april17/hunt-417.html 

 

Senator Obama, who has risen to the top of the Democratic Party by the sheer force of his intellect, has pointed the way.  Harry Potter can prepare our children for their future lives by building-up their cognitive and social-emotional skills.  If we want our children to do well in life (and maybe even run for president some day), then we should all become Harry Potter parents. 

SECRETARY SPELLINGS’ “GROWTH MODELS”

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is experimenting with a new and (potentially) promising model of accountability: the Growth Model.  Some states are experimenting with this model in order to meet the NCLB requirement that all children be proficient in reading and math by 2014.  What is the model?

 

Simply put, each child’s progress is tracked from year to year.  The idea is to assess whether individual kids’ skills are advancing, and to implement strategies for improving their skills if sufficient movement hasn’t occurred.  On paper, it’s a great idea.  I hope that some of the states that are piloting the model succeed and show the rest of us the way.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/index.html

 

I do, however, have concerns.  I’m most assuredly in favor of the Growth Model but I wouldn’t want to see the same results that I’ve seen, thus far, in my hometown: NYC.  This year, a Growth Model was implemented—sort of.  There was a big announcement in the media and the chancellor and mayor spent a lot of time before the cameras patting themselves on the back.  And then…

 

Those of us on the front lines discovered that the program wouldn’t come online on time in all schools.  The start-of-the year assessments never appeared.  In the high schools we received them at the end of the year: just a tad late. 

 

There was another problem.  Those who did have student data on the system couldn’t always retrieve it.  Why?  The system couldn’t handle the volume of individuals trying to retrieve data.  Try the system at off-peak hours, we were told.  4 AM might be a good time.  (You can’t make this stuff up.)

 

As always, the teachers’ union added to the problem:

 

United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said that the money might be better spent elsewhere. “You can lower a lot of class sizes with that money – or buy a lot of supplies,” she said.  

http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2007/0316/news/017.html

 

Weingarten, a master at defending teacher mediocrity while appearing to support children, didn’t like the proposed system.  Of course she didn’t, because her real problem was that:

 

Some of the data may be used to evaluate Principals’ performance and to determine if Teachers get tenure.

http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2007/0316/news/017.html

 

While the system has lots of glitches, if NYC or any of the states involved in Secretary Spellings’ pilot program succeed in developing an efficient Growth Model, teachers unions will have fewer excuses when defending incompetent teachers.

 

So while we’re experimenting with Growth Models, here are my concerns:

 

Ø      How will we ensure that these systems are developed and implemented in an efficient and cost effective manner?

 

Ø      If Growth Models are used to evaluate teachers and principals (a move I do not oppose) how can we ensure that we are measuring all teachers equally?  How can we factor-in differences in student populations when evaluating teachers, since research shows us that children from poor and transient environments consistently do worse than middle class kids?  And will we provide re-training for struggling teachers before we take the costly (though sometimes necessary) step of casting them adrift?

 

Ø      How can we ensure that the training of teachers and principals is sufficient?   

 

Ø      How can we ensure that school teams are given time and paid for the use of their time when they retrieve and analyze data?

 

Ø      If students are struggling, will the Growth Model then link them to well-researched, field-tested programs to improve their skills?  Will funding be made available to all schools across the country so that they can buy these programs? 

 

Ø      If individual tutoring is needed, will the money and manpower be available to provide it?

 

Ø      Will the nation be able to put a muzzle on the teachers unions as they balk at the increased level of accountability?

 

Unless these questions are addressed, the Growth Model of accountability will quickly degenerate into the latest costly and meaningless fad.  Time will tell which way it will go.  Meanwhile, I’m crossing my fingers.  If it’s managed well, it’s a great idea. 

Are Standardized Tests Infallible?

I finally got around to reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.  Chapter 2 is disturbing, to say the least.  Gladwell cites a study conducted by two psychologists, Claude Steele and Joshua Aaronson.  They gave black students a series of sample questions from the Graduate Record Exam, a test that can either be a gateway or a barrier to higher education.  The students were given a questionnaire prior to testing.  Some questionnaires included one particular question and others did not.  The question?  What is your race?   Those who were given that question answered half as many test questions correctly.

The mind is like a pinball game, it seems.  Throw in one experience and it bounces off a series of psychological associations.  Growing up in America, we are constantly bombarded with racist images.  These get embedded in the unconscious mind.  Just asking a black student to name their ethnicity, it seems, is enough to aggravate these unconscious wounds.  And it was enough to taint the test results.

So many factors can influence the performance of black students and give their teachers, their parents, and the students themselves a falsely negative image of their capabilities.  This is functional racism, a situation where students of color are discriminated against because the testing conditions are unfair even if the test-makers and test-administrators didn’t consciously plan to implement discriminatory practices.

I’m not against testing; but I am opposed to using a single, standardized test as the sole judge of a student’s capabilities.  Tests should be part of an array of tools used to judge students and to help guide their progress.  Test-makers will often claim that their tests are culturally unbiased–but our society isn’t.  And societal conditions have as much influence on test results as the tests themselves.

Are standardized tests infallible?  No!