More About School 2.0

Back in April, I first wrote about School 2.0.  This summer, I’ve had time to check out what’s trendy on the internet, and the disparity between the web and the classroom could not be greater.The internet has become all about interaction and user control.  The surfer wants and expects the power to change/create/say something when he visits a website.  As a result, blogs, message boards, and social networking sites tend to do very well. 

Sites like Cafepress.com, which enable you to make your own products, do well. 

Mygame.com, which just went online in the past couple of days, allows you to create and play your own online games, either using a template or by submitting your own brand-new creation.  It, too, will be popular. 

Twitter.com is the ultimate in microblogging (basically online text messaging) for a generation that wants to live life in the public arena.  It’s already the 285th most visited website in the U.S. and improving each day.

Lulu.com is another site that epitomizes Web 2.0.  It allows anyone to publish their own books, CDs, DVDs, and more.  You can turn your writing into a published book for somewhere between about $5 and $20, and you can purchase any number of copies that you want.  Only want 5 copies?  Not a problem.  You’re still a published author.

As a result of all this, your students are going to come to you in the fall expecting to be able to interact with and take control of their own learning, since they will have had such control throughout the summer.  They’ll expect to be able to set their own pace, decide what they’re interested in learning, and produce an authentic finished product to demonstrate their knowledge.

(On a side note, remember the big self-esteem push of the late 90s and early 00s?  Well, it worked.  Today’s youth feel completely qualified to be authors, musicians, and web designers.  Their new motto seems to be: “Experts?  What are those?  I can do it better myself.”)

The million-dollar question is this: What are you going to do about it?  Will the students feel like they’ve entered a time warp (back a generation or two) when they step into your classroom, or will you do something to make their learning more like the rest of their lives?  If you’re going to teach in “Web 2.0″ fashion, how are you going to make that happen?  Or is School 2.0 not something you find desirable at all?

Next week, I’ll offer my answers to these questions; in the meantime, please add your thoughts to the comments section of this entry.  If they’re interesting, I’ll include your comments/suggestions in my next post.

Privatization and Public Schools

In 2005, 35.5% of the school districts in my home state (Michigan) privatized at least one of the three major noninstructional services most districts offer — custodial, transportation, or food services.  This, of course, is met with much hand-wringing from state and national educational unions.But why?  If we can save $200,000 to have our custodial services taken care of by a private company, why wouldn’t we?  If we can hire a company to provide our school’s lunches, saving another $100,000 in the process, why would we refuse to do so? 

That money would be better used for supplies, to reduce class sizes, to pay for a reading specialist, and in any other number of ways that directly impact classroom instruction and student achievement.

Some educators and union leaders say that these professional companies will cut corners, or that they won’t have a positive impact on the students that they serve.  The opposite is more likely to be true.  Because these private companies know that they are on a short leash (it is much easier to fire such a company than to fire a district employee), they are actually likely to be MORE responsive to the needs of the school district they serve.

When the unions (and some educators) start to entrench themselves in battle against these forces of privatization, they are battling against their own districts.  I call on all educators to think twice about supporting the NEA on this front.

Talk About Zero Tolerance: Students Touching Each Other Completely Banned

From CNN.com:“A rule against physical contact at Kilmer Middle School, about 10 miles west of Washington, is so strict that students can be sent to the principal’s office for hugging, holding hands, or even high-fiving…

Unlike some schools, which ban fighting or inappropriate touching, Kilmer Middle School bans all touching.”

OK, I can see the purpose of restricting the public displays of affection.  But high-fiving?  Handshakes?  Perhaps the principal of this school can explain:

“You get into shades of gray,” Kilmer Principal Deborah Hernandez said. “The kids say, ‘If he can high-five, then I can do this.’ “

Ah.  The old slippery slope argument.  My favorite logical fallacy.

I understand what led up to this rule being implemented (high-fives probably led to a fight; a hug probably led to making out), but it is still a mistake.  Ban only the actual misconduct.

Banning all touching would be like banning all liquids from airplanes just because someone once used something liquid in a malevolent fashion.  Or forcing parents to sit in complete silence at their kids’ soccer games because a few parents have been yelling rudely during the games.  Or scripting all teaching because some teachers are so bad that it’s an improvement for them to do just do what they’re told rather than allowing them to think for themselves. 

Speaking of scripted teaching, if you read my June 3rd post on scripted teaching right away and never looked back at it, check out the interesting comments now found there.  One thoughtful commentor called scripted teaching an “imperfect-but-better” fix; this “no touching” rule may fit in that same category. 

“Imperfect-but-better” is fine as a temporary fix.  If the principal of this school stated that due to a lot of student conflict, this rule was needed for one month, during which a better plan could be created for the future, that would be great.  But permanently banning all student contact smacks of being too lazy to figure out what really needs to be done.

The NCLB Effect: Mediocrity Is More Important Than Excellence

There are a lot of disconcerting things about No Child Left Behind, but here’s one that I find particularly troubling.  We spend a ton of time measuring many subgroups of students to make sure that they are making adequate yearly progress: special ed. students, students of all different races, low-income students, and so on.What about gifted students?  Who is making sure that they are maximizing their potential?

Let’s be honest.  Which group of people is likely to have more of a positive impact on the world for generations to come (for example, by designing new inventions, finding cures for diseases, or coming up with innovative entrepreneurial ideas that alter the way we do business): the top 1% of students or the bottom 1%? 

Why don’t we spend time agonizing over why Johnny used to be in the 99th percentile in both reading and math but two years later is lagging in the 81st percentile in reading and the 83rd percentile in math?

Why is it that all NCLB cares about is that no child is left behind?  What about creating a new endeavor, such as ”One Million Students Forging Ahead” that focuses on maximizing the talents of the best 1-3% of students in America?

“No Child Left Behind” has a nice ring to it.  But “More Children Further Ahead” is just as important.  Excellence matters.

Rafe Esquith and Isolated Greatness

Rafe Esquith is a 5th grade teacher in Los Angeles, CA.  He has won many extremely prestigious awards throughout his nearly quarter-century of teaching, and his recent book, Teach Like Your Hair’s On Fire (pictured below), talks about the “methods and madness” inside his classroom.

I chose to read this book just as summer break began, hoping for inspiration for my own classroom for next fall.  I found that Esquith is extremely dedicated: he lets his students enter the classroom at 6:30 in the morning, begins an optional math team at 7:00, runs the typical school day from 8:00-3:00, leads a Shakespeare club from 3:00-4:30, and allows students to continue studying in his classroom until 6:00 or later each evening.

Amidst all of the dedication that Esquith shows for his students, however, it became clear in reading the book that his methods, although they may be effective, are not duplicable on a wide scale.  First, his hours are “insane” by his own admission.  Second, he also acknowledges that he has a “Messiah Complex.”  He also scorns his teaching colleagues and school administrators and states that in a typical day, he talks to no other adults at his school.

The good thing about Esquith is that he cares deeply about his students.  The bad thing is that his work, largely because of his own antisocial behavior, is not going to be contagious.

I think Rafe has fallen into a trap that we all would do well to avoid, where he cares only for the twenty-some kids in his class.  He has lost site of one simple fact: They’re ALL our students.  The best schools are the ones where the school’s most inspiring and talented teachers work collaboratively with others to help them achieve similar greatness.

Until he learns that, Mr. Esquith’s career will be defined as one of isolated greatness; he will not be the agent of change that he could have been.

Education Blog Carnival

If you’re looking for some other great education posts, you can find them through yesterday’s “blog carnival” on education found over at The Education Wonks.  I particularly enjoyed this post about teaching to a test. 

“This Year Felt More Real”

So my school year ends tomorrow, and I just got one of the most touching compliments I could ever receive.  When I asked my students to complete a survey asking them to critique different aspects of my teaching this year, one student summed up her feelings about our time together by saying, “This year felt more real.”

Mission accomplished.

Suggested Resource: Timez Attack

Here’s a great resource for your students to have fun with over the summer: Timez Attack.

Timez Attack is a free downloadable role-playing game that helps students work on their basic multiplication facts while having a great time.  Great for second graders who want to get ahead or for third through fifth grade students who haven’t yet managed to memorize the basic facts.

Poor Minority Kids Need Scripted Teaching; Everyone Else Deserves Something Better

Last month, an interesting article was published in The Oregonian describing how scripted curricula had made their way into the poorer schools within the Portland school district.  Here’s an excerpt:

“Portland Public Schools students, especially low-income ones, are spending more time with their heads buried in books, learning to read in kindergarten, deciphering math and cramming in still more with evening homework.

Zeroing in on the basics has paid off: Low-income elementary students are doing better than ever. Who could argue with what it takes to make that happen?

Parents, that’s who.

Specifically, middle-income parents whose children will enter kindergarten already reading, thanks to stellar preschools and evening story time. They look at the worksheets and the phonics drills and wonder: How could my child possibly enjoy this?”

Notably, Portland has not introduced this in all of its schools, just the poorest ones:

“King’s staff grappled with low test scores for years. The school has the district’s second-highest poverty rate, with 92 percent of students qualifying for subsidized school lunch. Now the school uses the federally funded Reading First program in kindergarten through third grade.

Not all Portland schools use the program, says Judy Elliott, the district’s chief of teaching and learning, and the curriculum adoption won’t extend it to those that don’t.”

This quote from a parent says it all:

The grapevine carried word of King’s program to Daniel Sullivan. The Portland State University sociology professor lives four blocks from King. But his son will start kindergarten next year at the Metropolitan Learning Center, a K-12 alternative public school that follows the philosophy of his son’s preschool.

‘For kids who don’t come from households where they’re learning how to read and probably with parents who aren’t highly educated, they said (King’s) can be a very successful program,’ Sullivan says. ‘But I have a Ph.D., and my wife has a Ph.D. He’s a high-energy kid. I don’t want him sitting in a desk all the time.’ “

So, to summarize, apparently it’s OK for the poor (and disproportionately minority) students to suffer through drill-and-kill reading instruction, but children from middle-class and upper-class families deserve something more stimulating?  Interesting. 

At least those inner-city students don’t have to deal with bad facilities, less money allotted per student than in rich neighborhoods, and less experienced teachers, or we might think this is outright discrimination. 

The NEA Mission: No Lousy Teacher Left Behind

A few months ago, I got this email from the NEA:

Dear Team NEA: This is an urgent appeal and I need your help!

On Tuesday , the Aspen Institute’s NCLB Commission issued its report proposing changes to the so-called No Child Left Behind Act. The Commission, co-chaired by former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, has spent the past year gathering information about NCLB and preparing a detailed series of recommendations for changes to the law.

While the Commission’s report makes some positive recommendations in areas such as using growth models in the NCLB accountability system, unfortunately, many of the commission’s proposals are ill-conceived, and one in particular represents A SLAP AT EVERY TEACHER WHO HAS ALREADY ACHIEVED HIGHLY QUALIFIED STATUS UNDER NCLB.

The Commission would add on top of the current requirements a new Highly Qualified Effective Teacher” (HQET) requirement. This new mandate would apply to all reading, math, and science teachers. Such teachers would be evaluated in large part based on student learning gains as measured by standardized test scores. Another part of the rating would be based on a principal’s evaluation. It is only a matter of time before this could be imposed on all teachers!

Teachers in each state would be ranked and those in the top 75 percent each year would be considered a “highly qualified effective teacher.” Those who do not meet this HQET requirement would have three additional years to meet the mandate and would also receive individualized professional development. If they continue to not meet this mandate, their principal would send a letter to their students’ parents informing them their child’s teacher was not effective. If after two more years they still do not meet this mandate, they would not be allowed to teach in a Title I school.

As you know, the current NCLB law requires all teachers to meet a federally-mandated “highly qualified teacher” (HQT) definition, which requires all teachers to be fully licensed and certified plus demonstrate competency on each subject taught by either having a college major in that subject, passing an academic content test in that subject, or meeting their state’s High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation.

Even though this current HQT requirement has caused teachers over the last five years to spend a lot of time filing paperwork and jumping through other hoops to meet this mandate, the Commission proposes adding more hoops for most of you to jump through!

I believe this is an ill-conceived proposal that sets teachers up for failure!  For a summary of the proposal, NEA’s five reasons to oppose it, and our policies to improve teacher quality, please go to: www.nea.org/lac

Together we can stop these dangerous plans and instead convince Congress to provide teachers with the tools and resources they need to be successful. Here are two things you can do to help us stop this madness:

1. Immediately email your members of Congress (both your Representative and two U.S. Senators) and tell them to reject the NCLB Commission’s ill-conceived “highly qualified effective teacher” mandate. Ask them instead to support NEA’s Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization. Go to our Legislative Action Center to send your email messages and for additional information on the HQET proposal.

2. Contribute in the next 24 hours to the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education to expand our efforts to block these proposals and advance our Positive Agenda. Collectively, the 3.2 million members of NEA can make a difference! Together we can reach our goal of ensuring that every child has a great public school. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, please email eseainfo@nea.org 

So, to summarize, teachers get ranked based on student improvement (not just raw test scores, which would be unfair) and also with an administrator review. 

The top 75% of teachers are considered effective.  Wonderful!

The remaining 25% of teachers are given three years to improve, and they are given individualized professional development to help them do so.  Fantastic! 

Despite this assistance, if the teacher fails to improve after three years, the parents are warned about this teacher’s poor performance.  If the teacher fails to improve after five years (meaning that he never once managed to escape being in the worst 25% of the teachers in his state), he can no longer teach in most public schools.  Sounds great!  Why should a teacher who persists in performing miserably year after year be given the right to teach any longer? 

I particularly love the line about the Commission “proposing more hoops for most of us to jump through.”  First of all, most of us will be effective.  Second, I hardly think getting your students’ achievement up to par would be considered a mere hoop to jump through; it is the essence of what we are paid to do!

So why exactly is the NEA so supportive of lousy teachers?  Because they pay dues too?