Monthly Archives: February 2010

Feb 20 2010

Success in the Classroom

For me, my success in the classroom will be in two parts.

First, I would like to leave every student with a love of education and a solid grasp of how learning and life interconnect. I would like to teach some of the timeless literature to illustrate the human condition; its choices and challenges. I’d like to teach the arts to give texture and color and sound and rhythm and rhyme to their understanding of being human. I would like to give them a sense of history and how we have come to this place. I would particularly like to leave them literate and fluent in math and science. We are living in a hard science world and to know the gentle parts of life and that hard science is a powerful combination.

At the same time, I am determined to leave my students competent in the standards and capable of demonstrating this in assessments. To do this, my intent is to out ‘essentialist’ the essentialists. If competence is defined as answering questions correctly on an exam then, by golly, that’s exactly, precisely what I will teach them to do. Teach the standard, assess, teach what’s not retained, repeat. No doubt, this will take more time than I have, especially folded on top of top of the progressive/perennial education described above. I think education is important enough to be generous with my time before and after school and to expect students in need of extra help to be generous with their own time as well. With luck, sacrifice and cooperation, we’ll fit it all in and leave the students more than ready for the next step of their life.

Feb 20 2010

Success

I believe that success is learning who you are and who you aren’t. More narrowly, success is learning what you were born to do and doing it. For some people, this involves education. For others, it involves making money. For still others, being with people is what it’s all about. But callings come in all different shapes and sizes; music, plants, teaching, healing, loving, traveling, cooking, the list goes on and on… In our society, the big three indulgences are power, money and sensation. Lots of people pursue those thinking they are worth having for themselves. But, of course, they’re not. They may come with a calling (for Obama, for Steve Jobs, for Hannah Teter), but they are not worth a damn on their own.

If we are really lucky, success includes love, companionship, parenthood and community too. For some people, one of these might be a calling. For others, this trip around doesn’t include some or all of them. Most of us have access to all of them. It’s usually a question of what we make important and whether can we open our hearts and our lives to love. One of the odd things about our society is that being fulfilled frequently comes second, in discussions and in life, to things that won’t mean a thing in our moment of passing.

Feb 19 2010

Discipline, Part Two

I am looking forward to learning more about classroom discipline. It seems like an essential part of maintaining an optimal learning environment. It also seems like a far more subtle art than it sometimes appears to be. 

So far, I have seen two systems in action. One, in kindergarten, involved turning the Childrens’ behavior cards from green to yellow to orange to red over successive behavior violations. The second, in 1st grade, involves a lot of positive reinforcement for positive behavior and occasional expressions of disappointment and disapproval for disruptive behaviors.

There are clear developmental differences between first graders and kindergartners. Also, both teachers are caring and experienced, suggesting that they have wisely chosen their discipline strategies. It may well be, most likely is, that different developmental stages require very different tactics.

The card system probably succeeded in damping down unwanted behavior. However, in functioned it more like speeding tickets in effectiveness. This is to say, it restrained behavior but didn’t intervene much in the desire to repeat the behavior. The more cognitive positive reinforcement strategy probably effects the child’s core behavior more profoundly. It does, however, lack the crispness of a good stiff threat.

I have also noticed in both systems that some children on some days seem bent on maximizing their punishment. I don’t mean that they have particularly unruly days. I mean there is a clear sense that they’re pursuing some self-destructive agenda by deliberately racking up the violations. I’m sure it’s some psychological tick I haven’t yet read about, but it’s there from time to time and unpleasant to watch. The rules are there to set boundaries on behavior, not to become the rocks the children break themselves upon.

One final note related to my prior post on gender, the vast, overwhelming majority of infractions belong to boys. Probably eight of ten girls in kindergarten never once got on yellow. Two or three of the boys probably never had a day where they didn’t get to yellow and only getting to yellow was a very good day indeed for them.

Feb 19 2010

Boys, Part One

There is a problem with boys in our educational system.

Among other disturbing statistics, males enrolled in college as a percentage of the total has dropped steadily from 70% to 42% between 1949 and 2006 (Sax, 2007), boys receive 70 percent of the D’s and F’s on report cards (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005, p. 97), 73.4% of children diagnosed with a learning disability are boys (I Teach I Learn, n.d.), and boys make up 80% of discipline problems (Gurian & Stevens, 2005, p. 22). In the state of California, from 2003 to 2009, consistently across all grades and years, 8% fewer boys than girls scored proficient or better on their California Standards Test English Language Arts exam (California Department of Education, 2010).

Michael Gurian said it very well, “Boys get unfairly labeled as morally defective, hyperactive, undisciplined, or ‘problem children,’ when quite often the problem is not with the boys but with the families, extended families, or social environments, which do not understand their specific needs as human beings and as boys” (Gurian, 1999).

What are those specific needs? That is a subject much larger than the scope of this post. However, in general, boys have more need for physical movement and are interested in different subject matter than girls. Developmentally, they tend to be slower and/or different in many regards, especially as it relates to lateralization and language and emotional processing.

We cannot and should not change our learning expectations. There is much room, however, to change the classroom environment and add new teaching tools to our inventory to better accommodate the way boys learn.

References

California Department of Education. (2010). Standardized testing and reporting (STAR) results. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/

Gurian, M. (1999). The good son: A complete parenting plan. East Rutherford, NJ: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2005). The Minds of Boys. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

I Teach I Learn. (n.d.). Gender as a factor in special education eligibility, services, and results . Retrieved February 19, 2010, from http://www.iteachilearn.com/uh/meisgeier/statsgov20gender.htm

Kauchak, P., & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional  (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Sax, L. (2007). Boys adrift: The five factors driving the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys and underachieving young men . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Feb 18 2010

Peer Learning and 1st Grade

Peer learning is a very attractive option in getting both the most advanced and weakest learners extra learning. First, there simply are not enough adults in a classroom (at least not in my school) to give small group attention without underserving at least some other children. Two, this actually solves two issues in one. It keeps the most and least advanced children learning together at the same time, freeing the adult(s) to work intensely with the remaining children. Finally, there is a lovely cooperative aspect to such a design. I like the classroom culture and the ethos it represents.

The one thing that concerns me is whether it would work in 1st grade. I have noticed the behavior our book calls “horizontal decalage” and specifically the tendency that “any given child may have a whole variety of strategies and may use some or all of them on different problems” (Bee & Boyd, 2007, p. 166-167). In particular, on any given day or problem even the most accomplished students may employ an incorrect strategy out of his or her “wide variety of strategies.” We do math contests with groups at the end of the day for fun and learning. It is always fascinating to watch the children work in a group setting. Fascinating, but it is not terribly reassuring about how information transfers from the one with the most skill to the one with the least skill. Having said that, I would very much like to try this strategy and would love if it succeeds.

Reference

Bee, H., & Boyd, B. (2007). The developing child (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Feb 18 2010

Human Development and Footballs

What do you think influences a child’s/adolescent’s development?

There are three major factors that influence human development.

The first is the common genetic inheritance of the species Homo sapiens. The general outline of development is contained in every human being’s DNA. From conception through birth and beyond, physiological development happens according to a common human blueprint. Synaptic development, myelination, and lateralization all occur on a schedule programmed into our common DNA (Bee & Boyd, 2007, p. 93-99). While experts cannot trace the exact physiological roots of behavioral development, it is clear that the increasing capacity of children parallels the increasing sophistication of the physiology of the body and brain.

The second factor is the specific genetic inheritance of individual human beings. The forty-six chromosomes Influence everything from appearance to physical abilities to personality to mental abilities. This unique individual genetic inheritance creates and defines each living entity in its raw form.

However, neither our common or specific genetic inheritance is determinant. The third influence is environment. As described by Aslin’s Models of Development (Bee & Boyd, 2007, p. 9), different aspects of development are differently sensitive to environment. Some, like vision or language, have critical or at least highly sensitive periods where some base level of stimulus is essential to proper future functioning. Other aspects, like IQ, result from a complex interaction of different genetic and environmental influences. However, it is clear that proper diet, positive stimulation, loving attention, and emotional and physical safety provide significant modifiers to the core genetic programming.

Imagine that a human baby is a football thrown for a deep pass. The common genetic inheritance is the physical laws operating on the football: gravity, friction, rotational forces, etc. The specific inheritance is the football itself: the shape, the weight, the color, the material, the stitches, the individual variations of this particular football. The environment is its passage through the air to its reception: humidity, wind, temperature and, most importantly, the human(s) at the far end, adjusting their behavior to the flight of the ball to provide a safe landing into loving arms.

Reference

Bee, H., & Boyd, B. (2007). The developing child (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Feb 17 2010

IQ and Tiering Classes

Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests produce highly variable results. Do you think it is reasonable to base the placement of children in special classes, such as for the gifted, on the single score? Support your opinion.

Almost without exception, I do not support differentiating people based on any single measure. Human beings are simply too complex and measures of human attributes too unreliable to make such single factor decision making prudent. 

Having said that, there are definitely areas where IQ scores could reasonably be used as a significant factor in decision-making. To the extent that tiering students by ability in school is a goal (ignoring the question of whether such tiering is itself a good idea), IQ is most likely a useful tool. In the first place, it was designed to predict academic success and studies indicate that it does this reasonably well. As Bee & Boyd (2007) say, “Children with high IQ scores are more likely than their peers with average and low scores to be among the high achievers in school” (p. 191). Therefore, it should be clear that for this purpose, IQ scores are “valid.” Further, if IQ scores were to be used in this fashion, they would need to be “reliable,” which is to say that individuals’ results must be stable over time. According to Bee & Boyd, “IQ scores are, in fact, very stable” (p. 189). Finally, I would have ethical qualms if IQ were somehow misrepresenting predictive outcomes across social or ethnic groups. Not so, say Bee & Boyd: “These predictive relationships hold within each social class and ethnic group in the United States” (p. 192). Therefore, to the extent that faculty is attempting to differentiate students by likely educational performance, IQ can morally and practically be reasonably used as one consideration.

However, it is important to understand what IQ scores are not. They are not the sole determinant of likely success. Many factors influence educational outcomes, from culture to heredity to birth order to early childhood environment. As Bee & Boyd (2007) say, “Some children with high IQ scores don’t shine in school while some children with lower scores do” (p. 191). A much strong tool to use in placing students in gifted class would be actual prior educational outcomes, particularly those in the subject in question. IQ tests are also predictors of very specific measures of performance, academic performance. So depending on the type of class, IQ could be very misleading. For example, it would be unwise to use them to populate varsity sports team or the honors drama classes.

Finally, there are troubling correlations between IQ scores, ethnicity, and social class, among others. It is true that these factors correlate across the entire gamut of student achievement. However, given this, I would much prefer direct measures of capability (i.e. grades in prior similar classes) to be the main determinant in tiering classes.

Reference 

Bee, H., & Boyd, B. (2007). The developing child (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Feb 13 2010

Technology in the Classroom, Part I

I have a very elaborate vision of how a technology centered classroom might work. This is one of part of the vision.

Imagine that the students have individual wireless buzzers like on a game show. These buzzers would be linked to special software running on a SMARTboard. To answer a question, students buzz. The software randomly selects a student to answer from those who buzzed in. This eliminates unconscious gender bias and favoritism (two oft proven pitfalls of calling on students). The software would keep track of who’s buzzed in to speak in a day and who’s actually spoken. Every child needs their chance to speak so the teacher has a choice of options to address this. The software could select children to answer some questions (or all questions) randomly. Or each student might be required to buzz in a specified number of times (perhaps linked to the total opportunities in a given day). As the day goes on, pressure to speak mounts and the students learn to make wise choices in how they choose to buzz in.

Other aspects of the Q&A could be tracked. Possibly the teacher could set it to track whether students’ answers were correct. Essentialists would love that, though I would reserve that option for special situations. If the buzzer had several buttons, it could be used for impromptu quizzes. There are many possibilities.

I’m kind of a geek. It’d be fascinating for me to have this as a tool to see where it’d lead. Unfortunately, I don’t see any simply way to jury rig one and I haven’t heard of anything like it on the market. But I’m sure it’ll be available one day as technology grinds it’s way inexorably forward.

Feb 13 2010

PowerPoint in the Classroom

Being a child of a different generation, I have no experience with PowerPoint in the classroom. High tech for us was blackboard and chalk. However, I recently read a book called Beyond Bullet Points which gave me some vision of how interesting and powerful PowerPoint can be. The author’s argument was that a presentation should be structured from the elements of story: heroes, desires, and obstacles. Each slide, according to this book, should have just one sentence with one idea and a simple graphic related to all the other graphics to locate the idea in the arc of the story. That kind of PowerPoint might well be amazing in the classroom! I can imagine each lesson having a ‘story’ with the students eager to overcome obstacles to resolve the tension. They might be asked to put themselves in John Adam’s shoes or Charles Darwin’s or Odysseus’ or to solve a complex math-based real world problem working in groups. There is a fascinating story behind every lesson and PowerPoint might well be a fantastic tool to not only tell the story but to do so in a memorable, multi-media, multi-learning-style format.

Atkinson, C. (2008). Beyond Bullet Points. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

Feb 13 2010

Teaching to the Highest Ideal

It seems to me that a teacher’s goal should be to teach to what an ‘ideal’ child of that grade level should achieve. This will rapidly expose where each child is relative to that goal. What I wrestle with is where to find the bandwidth (student time plus teacher time) to remediate children below target levels. The class days I observe are full to the brim with academics, the arts & PE, recess, and lunch.If I assume, as I think is true, that each of these activities is essential, I run out of hours in the school day. My role model, Rafe Esquith, runs before school and Saturday study sessions. I am prepared to do the same, though I don’t know if these sessions should be mandatory (or if that’s even allowed) and what to do with children who won’t or can’t participate.

The next option is to run remediation during the non-academic school day. I really hesitate to do this. The school day is already rigorous to the reasonable limit or beyond. Additionally, there is more to be learned at school than academics. Taking the slower achievers out of the social pool might well create a negative cascade for them. On the other hand, it might be possible to do it in a way that being in this ‘study group’ might become a sort of badge of pride (pride of achievement).

Finally, it is possible to remediate during the day’s academic time. This could be done by tiering students, having each group doing work appropriate to their level. I could work with the students most in need of help while other groups could work with other adults or independently. Clearly, this is a necessary part of the solution. But unless the faster children aren’t working on academics, I don’t see how substantial catching up happens.

To conclude, it seems to me that the best way to go is to expect each child to achieve ‘ideal’ learning and to remediate with a combination of out of school time, free time and academic time to ensure each child gets the time and attention to achieve expectations.

References

Esquith, R. (2003). There are no shortcuts. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Esquith, R. (2007). Teach like your hair’s on fire: The methods and madness inside room 56. New York, NY: Viking.

Esquith, R. (2009). Lighting their fires: Raising extraordinary children in a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world. New York, NY: Viking Adult.