Just found out my school district’s policy has become, if even 1 student in a school gets H1N1 flu the whole school goes home for 5 to 7 days. I think they get the implications.

Extra time IS a bad idea, a really bad idea,  if it is just more time and intensity of what is being done now. (David’s main point)

As I’ve said over and over,  the lack of experience with sports, the arts (including dance, drama and music), scouting and other outdoor education, attending camp, and the like have major detrimental effects on the overall education of students of poverty.

So if the extra time Duncan refers to is spent on these areas (and a few others) then I believe he is on the right track and I would support him.

After-school activities like sports and arts programs started to be whittled away from budgets 30 years ago (and cut almost completely from elementary school). The upshot is that parents have had to spend more money and time enrolling their kids in these programs elsewhere … guess whose kids DON’T get enrolled and aren’t driven all over town to practices and  special clinics and tournaments? And think about all the wasted gas and time and extra air pollution caused by all those miles when kids could have just stayed after-school, and participated there.

Students in our primary grades are well schooled in phonics, word attack skills and other required reading skills. However when they reach upper elementary and are required to be independent readers they are so lacking in schema that reading is boring and they struggle to engage with it and fall behind again … worse they learn reading is not relevant to them.

My students go home right after school each day and because they live in an area of poverty and high crime they spend little or no time outside even playing games like tag and dodge ball … so sportsmanship and being a member of a team and an emphasis on physical fitness are not in their experience.

The kinds of “language intense” activities technology has allowed my students to participate in that are highly engaging (usually), is one huge step in the right direction. Since our schools tend to be severely segregated still by socio-economics, technology is one way to get kids exposed and collaborating with students from other experiences across the city, state, country and world.

At Risk students come to us woefully behind in language, math and learning skills the moment they hit kindergarten. We often hear the “2,000 hours” statistic … students require about 2,000 hours of quality language experience BEFORE kindergarten to be successful readers. Activities such as being read to, storytelling about family history, experiences and just … well.. stories .. and having conversations about how things work and why they are and a base vocabulary. The problem is making up that 2,000 hours AFTER a student hits kindergarten. Our current system assumes those hours are in place and so doesn’t leave any room to make them up in the regular school day, especially the way it is structured now. Spend more time on these endeavors, especially in K – 2 years and I’m for that extra time again.

If this “extra-time” in school included more time and funding for field trips and field trips that come to you … like when someone brings their collection of snakes or a science show or activity in your auditorium,  and art experiences and a strong PE program starting in Kindergarten, well then I’m for it again, because for my students I don’t know where else they would or could get those experiences. The elementary schools tend to be neighborhood schools more than middle or high schools are so transportation is much less an issue.

If the extra time included regular science and social studies and art classes, since for years now I “break the rules” to teach those subjects outside of embedding them in Reading (which is OK if you are integrating, but not good if that IS your science and social studies program), I’m for it too.

Extra time in and at school? If done well … sign me up!!!

Exercise Improves Kids’ Academics, by Dan Peterson, LiveScience’s Sports Columnist

I’ll let the article mostly speak for itself but will post this one telling quote:

“Ironically, one of the solutions proposed for raising test scores, the federal No Child Left Behind program, encourages schools to focus more of the school day on the core academic subjects while reducing class time in peripheral subjects, like art, music, and physical education. In fact, only 6 percent of American high schools offer a daily gym class. Yet a 2002 Virginia Tech study showed no relationship between reduced class time in those subjects and higher overall standardized tests.”

I told you so! : )

But something else has been happening that “snuck” up on us and has now become the same kind of issue. Instead of having a big overarching program that drives our day, we have slowly over the years been picking up little ones. Accelerated Math, Read 180, Soar to Success … programs that don’t take much time, that you can sort of fold into the little corners of your daily schedule … the 20 minutes after music right before lunch, as a beginning of the day activity as attendance and lunch counts and announcements are made … and they are more of an annoyance than a major obstacle … until this year.

Now we have RTI – Response To Intervention – and along with some of our other little programs and other issues, we are right back to a programmed school day. There are little evaluations that need to be taken often on some students, data to turn into various people for their reports and more. But maybe the worst part is what has happened to the non-teaching part of the day.

All these programs, and especially RTI, are driven by data. Now gathering data to drive your instruction is a good thing. So good a thing in fact that each of our little programs generates its own set of data and we get to compile and organize it all – whether it is important data as far as informing our teaching or not. And some even have a place you go on the net and get your data, or input your data to get your data back in various forms AIMSweb or Edusoft for example. Now much of this is being done on computers, so therefore its been decided that it takes little time … its easy to input and output the data … and here’s a chart to write all the data down in columns so we have all the data in one place. So much so that it is taking a lot of what we used to use as planning time to do all this bookkeeping of data.

Teachers are therefore cutting back on other aspects of their jobs that require time. Like planning. Hmmm, I have less time to plan and I’m feeling very stressed. So to cut down on stress I’ll use a program that tells me what to do … does most of the planning for me. Many of our old big programs have little optional programs or pieces that go with them that we already have. So guess what is happening?

We are running back to the safety of programs. If I do the program there is less planning and the materials are easier to prep because you don’t develop them yourself … just run them off or put up the ready made chart. AND the program is sacrosanct. The program is supposed to be good … proven to be effective by research … “research based” … so if I am doing the program I can’t be questioned about my instruction or my choices of materials or pacing … because hey, I’m following this approved program.

Programs have become a place of refuge. So guess what isn’t happening much … again?

 ”Poverty can have negative effects on child and adolescent brain development, a report out today concludes.Those effects, in turn, can lead to learning disabilities, behavior problems and other psychological and emotional problems, the report says.”     

Yeah, I know, this is not totally new information, but some haven’t gotten this message. Part of this research comes out of Harvard and maybe that will get more people to listen. (?) This is a short piece, so follow the link to learn more. 

“It’s no cop-out to acknowledge the effects of socioeconomic disparities on student learning. Rather, it’s a vital step to closing the achievement gap.”

 So begins the article on the ASCD web site:Whose Problem Is Poverty? by Richard Rothstein  This might be a “must read” for teachers in Title 1 schools. Mr. Rothstein explains why students from low socio-economic groups have lower average acheivement:  

“Because low-income children often have no health insurance and therefore no routine preventive medical and dental care, leading to more school absences as a result of illness. Children in low-income families are more prone to asthma, resulting in more sleeplessness, irritability, and lack of exercise. They experience lower birth weight as well as more lead poisoning and iron-deficiency anemia, each of which leads to diminished cognitive ability and more behavior problems. Their families frequently fall behind in rent and move, so children switch schools more often, losing continuity of instruction.   

Poor children are, in general, not read to aloud as often or exposed to complex language and large vocabularies. Their parents have low-wage jobs and are more frequently laid off, causing family stress and more arbitrary discipline. The neighborhoods through which these children walk to school and in which they play have more crime and drugs and fewer adult role models with professional careers. Such children are more often in single-parent families and so get less adult attention. They have fewer cross-country trips, visits to museums and zoos, music or dance lessons, and organized sports leagues to develop their ambition, cultural awareness, and self-confidence.

Each of these disadvantages makes only a small contribution to the achievement gap, but cumulatively, they explain a lot.” 

One quote I especially liked was this one:

“Some critics cite schools that enroll disadvantaged students but still get high standardized test scores as proof that greater socioeconomic equality is not essential for closing achievement gaps—because good schools have shown they can do it on their own. And some critics are so single-mindedly committed to a schools-only approach that they can’t believe anyone could seriously advocate pursuing both school and socioeconomic improvement simultaneously.”  

And this one:

 ”And yes, we should also call on housing, health, and antipoverty advocates to take a broader view that integrates school improvement into their advocacy of greater economic and social equality. Instead, however, critical voices for reform have been silenced, told they should stick to their knitting, fearing an accusation that denouncing inequality is tantamount to “making excuses.”"  

There is much more … follow the link.

“You can teach a lesson effectively without technology, and students can learn without it.”

Agreed … I teach some effective lessons without it and I learned things in school without it and so did my parents and their parents. Einstein was pretty smart I’ve heard, and he didn’t have the technology available to him that we do now (although I wonder how he would have reveled in the connections to learning he could have made outside of school if he had web 2.0 tools? Didn’t he have issues in school? Edison too). I bet a student could start kindergarten this year and go all the way through high school and maybe even college without using very much technology (but none? I don’t think so) and even get good grades and seemingly have received a good education. Would you want to be that student with few technology skills entering the job market? Or how about your own kids … would you want that for them? And remember we are looking 12 to 16 or so years out for this kinder to graduate. And if you are looking at students from Title 1 schools, remember they don’t always acquire all the same cell phone skills as their more well off contemporaries much less other technology skills.

The same could be said I’m sure when the transition was made from the quill pen to cartridge ink so you didn’t have to stop and dip your quill in ink after every few letters. If you were in business or a writer at the time would you have wanted to be stuck with the quill as your only option? You could still write your book or letter or paper, but how much faster and neater could your work be? Did many hang on to the quill for very long if they wrote a lot if they had access to cartridge pens?

So yes, it could be said that Title 1 students can be taught and learn without easy access to technology … but is that in their best interest? They don’t have access at home to training in the skills that would help them be good readers either and look at how that affects their learning and life.

So is technology really optional? Is there some “level” of tech savvy that is “good enough” for students? What if a student would make a better connection to learning through technology access (or music or sports or the arts or ?), are language and math skills really THE most important skills for EVERYONE? Are students guaranteed equal access to schools or learning by the constitution? If so then shouldn’t schools have to make different pathways to learning available so all students have an equal chance to learn? If you don’t think that students have equal access guaranteed, would more options still give more students a better chance of doing well in school? Would that pay for itself in less crime and prisons?

Lots to think about.

As in many “At Risk” or Title 1 schools, my school (with the exception of a few teachers) stopped teaching Science and Social Studies and made art only something you do on special occasions like Christmas or Valentines Day – to focus entirely on “Literacy” and math. This was pretty much universally true in the primary grades (and mostly still is).

This week we kicked off our study of the solar system and space by using Wednesday’s lunar eclipse as a reason to go out at night and look at the sky. We learned about eclipses and then my students received a homework assignment to observe the eclipse at different times, write down some observations, and write a blog post about their experience. I gave each one of them a copy of a chart put out by NASA showing the timing and phases of the event.

Wednesday after school my classroom was used by our after school program for the third graders. As I was putting things away one of the teachers saw some of our eclipse pages and commented aloud, “Oh yeah, the eclipse is tonight. That should be cool to see.”

There was silence for a moment and then a young voice asked, “An eclipse … what’s that?”

The teacher tried to find the words but then nodded in my direction and wondered aloud, “Maybe Mr. Crosby can explain it.”

So I gave a brief explanation that the Earth would move between the Sun and the Moon and its shadow would cover the Moon. As soon as the last words left my mouth the 3^rd graders in the room raised their hands to their mouths and began to stomp their feet and say, “We’re all gonna die!!!” and some put their faces down on the tabletops.

At first I thought they were just being silly … but no, they were scared.

I asked incredulously, “What does the Earth’s shadow covering the Moon have to do with dying? How would that cause anyone to die?”

And the teachers-aide added, “Guys, I’ve seen eclipses before and I’m still alive. Nothing’s going to happen.”

This seemed to mollify the kids and they got back to doing homework immediately like nothing had happened.

Less than a minute later a student wondered, “So if that’s all an eclipse is … what’s so cool about them?”

I answered, “Good question. Well during a lunar eclipse the Earth blocks most of the light from getting to the Moon, but the red light bends around the Moon and makes the Moon take on a reddish color because…” and before I could finish hands were covering mouths again and feet were stomping and students were moaning and talking about dying again. It was just eerie and not at all what you would expect as a reaction from 8 year olds.

I again asked what about what I had said made them think they were going to die? Just asking that got them to quiet and sit up. No one said it, but the looks on their faces said, “You mean it doesn’t mean that?” And now everything was OK again. I looked up and the other 2 adults were shaking their heads with the most puzzled looks on their faces … they didn’t get this reaction either – and one of them announced, “OK no more talk about the eclipse …  let’s get some of our homework done.” That ended the conversation.

I’m making some good decisions about what and how we are doing this, but how much better a job would I be doing if even one other teacher at my site were doing this along with me? I do have my online collaborators … through Twitter and blogs and Skype and the like, and that is great … but they don’t replace face-to-face, sit-down-at-the-end-of-the-day comrades that are experiencing this with you. People to bounce ideas off of and share the ups and downs with. Tech savvy isn’t as important as making the journey with you in this case. Quality, effective teaching knowledge is more important. Having others to remind you when maybe you’re doing something just for the sake of doing it when a different, perhaps tried-and-true less complicated approach may have achieved the same or better results … or at least to raise and discuss that issue. On the other hand to remind others that this approach isn’t about doing the same thing, the same lessons, but this time just use technology as a tool to do it isn’t what we’re about either … using a different approach is as important as using a different tool I believe. This is one of the reasons I argue with those that say tech and/or project based has been tried and failed … I have seen so many initiatives that are done poorly for a variety of reasons crash and burn … or are not supported well over a long enough period to draw that conclusion. Not enough tweaking or training has been the death knell for many such trials. So we’ll continue on with our pilot and do more great things and learn much along the way … but there will also be the nagging “what ifs” that will crop up in the back of my mind.

There has been discussion of late about the value of technology integration in schools, especially 1:1 laptop initiatives. Since I have had laptops in my classroom for the last 7 years, and the last year my students have each had a laptop at their disposal all day (but not to take home), I thought I’d weigh-in with my take-aways.

Having taught upper elementary at a “Title” school all through the implementation of NCLB (you know that would come up here) one of the downsides of math and literacy instruction only, pretty much at the expense of art, science, social studies … you know the list … has been that the schema students bring to upper elementary has gotten worse not better. If you think schema is not that important an element of reading try it! Read a technical or scientific journal on a subject you have limited background and schema in and see how long you can stay awake – much less stay with the meaning.

One of the benefits of having the internet available is the speed at which you can find pictures, video and other information about a topic to help build the schema students are missing so that reading is more comprehensible and interesting. Last year when I had a projector mounted in the ceiling of my classroom, attached to an internet connected computer I found out just how big a benefit it is.

“How many of you have seen a kangaroo hop or jump? …. Uh 2? (4th graders) well while you are reading the introduction to the story let me see what I can find.” In 1 minute I found 3 online videos showing kangaroos hopping around – one was shot from a helicopter showing a large kangaroo at full speed covering ground in huge chunks. I didn’t have to wait until the next day and then spend time looking – I found it immediately. The result? My students couldn’t wait to read the story to find out how the kangaroo got its legs. They were more focused – noted more of the vocabulary and what it meant – they were interested in reading. Just from having the access at MY fingertips.

Based from that experience, and a few others, we started using the net on their laptops to prepare them for reading more often. I would spend 10 to 20 minutes looking for web pages that would build their schema for reading and put them on our class wiki page, and then give them 10 to 20 minutes of class time to read and watch and learn and build at least some schema … and it paid off. Students would raise their hands and ask if they could read the story now (before time was up) … they were more focused during reading, and their answers to comprehension questions improved. More importantly, they enjoyed reading more, and when we went to the library they wanted books on those topics. Did that raise their test scores? I can’t say. I didn’t have a control group – but test scores or not they have improved.

Research on computer use and its impact on student writing goes back 20 years or more. Early on it was noted that when students word process their writing using a computer they write more, write more thoughtfully and spend more time editing. Students that are in my current class that were also in my class last year (I rolled my class from 4th to 5th) have word processed about 10 blog posts, several stories of 4 pages or more – journals, and other daily classwork. They still are more focused and thoughtful about their writing … it isn’t just the newness of using the laptops … they’ve been doing this for over a year (which is forever to a 9 year old).

So why does technology continue to engage them? Can’t say for sure. But from my experience – their work is more organized, harder to lose. Handwriting is taken out of the equation – students with poor handwriting love word processing – now their work is as neat as anyone’s. They get feedback from spell check quickly, so they can interact with the work without having to wait for the teacher or someone else to look at it. Editing is quicker, neater – their work looks better and better through the editing process instead of messier and messier. They can work at their own pace more easily. If you are slower you still saw and learned about kangaroos in the 10 minutes, if you are quicker you just saw more. Any other ideas you’ve experienced?

Blogging all by itself would be just about worth going 1:1. I remember 20 years ago IBM had ads on TV about a program they had called something like “Writing to Read.” Someone had noticed there was a direct connection about what you learned about language from writing and what you learned about language from learning to read – vocabulary, the “nut and bolts” of language, how sentences are put together and the reasons for punctuation become more obvious when you are writing them yourself and that carries into learning about reading.

Well that becomes so obvious when students are writing consistently and publishing that writing constantly like they do when you can blog easily. Because we have our laptops and no one has to wait until someone else finishes or we go to the school computer lab on Friday – we write all the time. There seems to be a huge payoff to that. When students get work done early and you tell them if they want they can work on their writing piece and they say, “all right!” something is happening that we should take note of.

So why do they have to blog? Why not just write all the time in some other way? A blog is published worldwide and you get comments about your writing. Think about how much kids like to IM and text message each other and you’ll get a clue. Most of the comments my students get are from each other … and they can’t wait to get and give those – but sometimes they get comments from students or parents or teachers they don’t even know, sometimes from other countries and continents. They can’t wait to write their next piece (is that good?).

There is so much I haven’t gone into yet about 1:1, but this post is too long already so I’ll end with this point. Technology is another area where the have nots are getting left behind. My wife is contemplating blogging with her students later this year. She has no laptops … but her students ALL have access at home. She can have them blog from home and they have parents that can help with any tech issues the students may have. Not my students. If we didn’t have EASY access through our laptops the consistency and constancy would be gone … it would happen occasionally and kids that were absent on “lab day” would be a problem and then it would be a struggle and probably get dropped.

“At Risk” students have as much a right to have access to and learn from and about these tools as anyone. Having them use these tools is imperative even if it doesn’t raise test scores. As Mark Ahlness said on his blog recently:
“These tools can’t be used as add ons. They have to replace existing practices.”