Can one student threaten the stability of an entire classroom and prevent a teacher from being effective?

Is it possible to bridge the gap for EVERY child?

How can teachers and students keep from drowning in the sea of distractions that compromise learning each day?

These were the questions I was wrestling with during the four-hour drive to Orlando last month for the 2009 ASCD conference. A special group of students were weighing heavily on my heart…the ones who just can’t seem to experience a consistent measure of success in any area. Even though it’s springtime, adhering to the well-established group norms has proven too great a challenge because of the extensive issues these children bring into the classroom: learning disabilities, emotional impairments, social difficulties resulting from bizarre and dangerous home situations, and personal wounds that run far too deep for my comprehension.

Every teacher has these students, and those in high-poverty schools usually have the most. The neediness of these children wears us down, their lack of progress causes burn out, and their unresponsiveness to traditional teaching methods makes us feel like educational failures.

I kept these children—and their loving, frustrated teachers—in the forefront of my mind as I chose conference sessions. Sure, I’d love to attend a workshop on 25 new strategies for teaching vocabulary, but I don’t NEED that. What I need is strategies for helping special needs students (diagnosed or not) attend to my present variety of otherwise effective lessons instead of constantly sabotaging them. What can I do to keep ‘Jose’ from banging his head on his desk and sobbing every time he gets a wrong answer? How can I help ‘Sara’ compromise when doing cooperative work, instead of resorting to violence or a string of four letter words whenever her partner expresses disagreement? Is there some way I can convince ‘Deshaun’ that he’s a capable reader so he’ll stop defiantly tuning out before I can even explain the assignments?

An outside observer might have noticed only the slightest continuity between my session choices: neuroscience and its implications for learning, personal efficacy, strategies for challenging students, successful traits of high-poverty schools, using rap to teach literacy skills, alternatives to suspension, and incorporating humor in the classroom. However, each session I attended was a deliberate choice that brought me one step closer to answering my own essential question: How can we as teachers have the fortitude to continue reaching out for the unreachable?

I mulled over several important understandings garnered from my conversations, studies, and reflections during the conference weekend and the weeks that followed:

-The opportunity for students to actively construct knowledge MUST take precedence over the need to cover curriculum. Not in theory, in DAILY practice. Learning takes place through personal involvement and discussion, and attending this conference shamed me into realizing that I simply MUST let my students TALK. Conversing with other conference attendees (and synthesizing what I learned via the internet for those who weren’t present) made the greatest lasting impact on my own learning: why would this not hold true for students? As a teacher, I cannot afford to skip this step, cutting off children’s discussions in an attempt to impart a few more facts before the hour is up. I am now focused on going narrow and deep rather than wide and shallow, and I am consciously slowing down my instruction so that kids can share more. I am choosing to forgo the whirlwind review of an entire page of problems so I can allow my students to actively reflect on the strategies they used for the first few. I’ve always known this is best practice, but allowed myself to be intimidated by the sheer amount of curriculum I’m expected to teach. The increased student involvement I’m seeing confirms that I should have prioritized my kids’ need to interact many years ago. I’m also establishing a deeper personal connection with my most challenging students, and forging a greater bond with those children that I simply had not listened to enough.

-It seems like teaching is getting harder because it IS: we’re attempting to reach more kids than we used to, and address a wider variety of issues and needs. It’s critical for educators to understand the magnitude of what we’re attempting without letting the results overwhelm us. Low-performing students from ‘the wrong side of the tracks’ and those with learning problems are no longer siphoned off into special education classrooms while we wait for them to drop out. As much as we bemoan the pitfalls of NCLB, in our daily practice we are in fact attempting to leave no child behind—not even the ones who WANT to be left to their own devices, or who don’t have the cognitive or emotional capabilities to try. And the 3 R’s are just the tip of the 21st century iceberg: we want our kids to graduate with technological and communication skills, well-developed creativity, interactive problem-solving abilities, financial savvy, an applied understanding of personal health and nutrition, environmental awareness…and the list is growing every year. We are trying to do it all, and we’re expected to succeed. Yet we cannot become discouraged when our students, our administrators, or we ourselves fail to achieve an increasingly impossible mission. When teachers become overwhelmed, the cycle of learning and growth is stopped cold.

-Students from impoverished backgrounds and those with other learning challenges can be reached, but their success is most dependent upon the fostering of a personal and collective vision within the school community. Are high behavioral expectations and consistently-enforced disciplinary actions important? Yes. Should there be strong administrative leadership with substantial teacher input? Definitely. Do we need ongoing school-wide activities that build a sense of pride and accountability in students? Of course. Other measures such as school uniforms and single gender classrooms also frequently contribute to success. But there must be a pervasive shift in perception amongst faculty and students if significant and lasting improvement is to take hold. Everyone involved must develop both the desire and plan for mastery and personal efficacy. Without a vision, the sense of purpose becomes lost among the innumerable day-to-day problems that exist in a high-poverty school.

All of the other issues on the table pale in comparison to this single truth. The commitment to a personal vision is what ensures success and brings both the teacher and student back into the classroom each day. And while it’s critical to create buy-in among students, the concept of a personal vision must originate within the teacher. It is the teacher who creates the classroom environment and community, and so it is the teacher who holds real power for systemic change.

I am convinced that the key to personal efficacy, effectiveness, and longevity in the classroom has more to do with a teacher’s internal state of mind than any outside attribute. Efficacy is impossible when a teacher is distracted by personal issues, taking offense at student misbehavior, holding onto grudges against administration, and constantly judging parents for the way students are raised. These poisonous attitudes will slowly destroy a teacher’s vision…and the phenomenon is pervasive. Even the most self-aware amongst us fall prey.

There are certain internal attributes–a mindset for successful teaching–that must be developed for a teacher to be effective for any sustained amount of time. Now more than ever, I attribute my own success to these unarticulated traits and trace my shortcomings back to the attributes that I have not sufficiently developed. This visionary mindset is the key to avoiding burn out and staying motivated…and of course, to getting even the most challenging students to become motivated and engaged in the learning process.

My time at the ASCD conference reinforced the inestimable value of interaction and discussion that makes every in-class moment dedicated to those activities worthy of the investment. And it solidified my belief that social media tools are astoundingly powerful and almost fundamentally important ways for educators to connect with one another and extend their learning. To an increasing extent, this holds true for students as well. But most importantly, attending this conference caused me to reflect on personal efficacy. It has triggered a desire to learn more about the mindset of successful teachers and to help other educators find and sustain their personal vision.

What IS the mindset of a successful teacher? How can educators create a personal vision? What keeps you going back in the classroom day after day even when faced with insurmountable odds? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

More of my reflections on the 2009 ASCD conference, including notes from 3 of my favorite sessions:
ASCD Summary Part 1: Observations and Analysis
Notes on Pushing the Effects of Poverty Out of the Classroom
Notes on Maintaining Efficacy in Difficult Situations
Notes on Teaching Strategies That Reach Challenging Students
My notes from all sessions

I have a sister post to this going out on my own blog at Miz Mercer.

Lots of mostly unpleasant conversations about folks resisting the lure of technology in the classroom. This round of the conversation started on with a blogger and blog I greatly admire, Scott McLeod’s Dangerously Irrelevant. Scott questioned why teachers seemed to be able to refuse to adopt technology, when workers in other professions had to deal with “automation”. It found its way around to Larry Ferlazzo in » Teachers Who Won’t Embrace Technology on In Practice. Larry is good at focusing on the pertinent (the bottom line is making sure students are taught and technology is a tool, not an end). He linked to a great post at The Tempered Radical: Barkin’ Dawgs and Miserably Poor Policy. . . that shows there is plenty of blame to go around, that leaders cannot expect teachers to embrace these new ways if they do not support the effort with more time and resources, and that teachers have to be willing to update skills.

Next up, via Dy/Dan, comes Dina Strasser with » The Skeptic’s Seven Questions About Technology The Line, which lists the points that even a teacher with tech knowledge will likely want answered before embracing these new technologies

Here are some closing observations. Riffing from Bill Ferriter and some earlier posts from Larry about the importance of personal relationships, I once worked in a really toxic school site. The management was demeaning and cruel. One of the teachers was really being picked on and very defensive. She was a technophobe, and hated change. The Administrator’s approach was to beat her down. I built trust with this teacher, and so she was willing to go to a blog training I held. I don’t know if she will ever be 2.0 (which may be more a comment on my training than her resistance), but she was willing to take the chance because of the personal relationship we had.

I commented on Scott’s post that I am amazed at the number of co-workers I have in my technology trainings because all the technology tools in the school have been concentrated in my lab. I could NEVER tell them that they need to use technology more when there are only 3 overhead projectors in a school with 17 teachers, and they have no lap tops. My first priority is to settle into my job, then work on getting more tools to these teachers.

I think that Dina is right to say we need to stress how technology ties into core (or other subject matter) standards, and to not have the tail wagging the dog so to speak. I’ve been in PI (Program Improvement under NCLB) schools, so I MUST be standards focused.

Here are some things I do to build relationships with my peers. I am constantly working to communicate about what I’m doing, and to incorporate their requests for instruction (especially when it involves key concepts or standards they are working on). I can’t always provide a tech solution, but they know that if it’s possible I will do it. I still do some projects that are more tech, than standards based, but they appreciate my efforts to work with them and their curriculum. Frankly, I’m in a blessed position, so I would not want to get on my high horse about what other teachers should be doing.

I have a sister post going out to address a particular concern I do have with some folks questioning the efficacy of some 2.0 applications/projects because I feel that some folks are not recognizing all of the standards, and are dismissing some technologies that hit some that are critical for language learners, but that will be elsewhere as I’ve gone on long enough.

1. They don’t catch everything
2. When the kids are motivated, they will sometimes find ways around the firewall. I have yet to see an elementary student who knew about proxy servers (but I’m sure that is just down the road), but simple things like going further down the tree of the URL name so they get to something that’s not blocked is definitely in the skill level of your average fifth or sixth graders and some fourth graders who are especially precocious.
3. These are automated systems, and can best be analogized as an axe, rather than a surgical knife. The particular service my district (and Larry’s) has more than a passing resemblance to a cudgel.

So at a recent district technology meeting I had an interesting discussion about the blocking software companies.  I’d like to find out more information about this to confirm what I’ve learned, so if you are a district technology administrator, or you know one, ask them this…

• Since CIPA started, have the number of vendors offering blocking services declined?
• What has happened to the pricing levels over time? 

If your answer is similar to what I’m starting to hear (and I will be looking into this more myself), words like the name of a popular children’s game involving real estate transactions are coming to mind.

Leave a comment with your findings and thoughts.

All of this exploration has me wondering: while being online and just a point and click away from the world, how can we as teachers best advocate what we might feel are the most appropriate uses for the worlds available on the web? Students come to us with different computer and internet literacies and experiences, so we have a wide range of reactions to work with when it comes to sitting students down in front of a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Some students point and click with kid-in-a-candy-store abandon, while others, more seasoned, nonchalantly cruise through with been-there, done-that resolve, quickly maneuvering their way to where THEY want to be, where their teachers want them to be, or some combination of both. With so many teachers upset about web filters that limit their teaching resources at school, and yet others grateful that game and social networking sites are unavailable during school hours, how do we find the best way to equalize our students’ resources while also teaching them that there are both public and private ways to use the computer?

Not every student has computer access at home, and not all of those students who do will view the internet as an all-encompassing resource tool. Some use the keyboard, monitor and internet connection as a quick way to keep in touch with friends and family, utilizing mail programs and possibly photo hosting sites exclusively. Some students might have parents who work from home, and only get computer time when they need to use it for school as a giant reference book, akin to the encyclopedias and journals that were the primary (and sometimes sole) references found in libraries. Many students find computers more enjoyable as a form of social exploration and entertainment, watching funny videos, sharing gossip, becoming emotionally tethered to the whims, dramas, and misinterpretations that can happen at their age and with this medium. Others view the internet and computer use the way their parents do, as a way to do online banking, with a touch of web site shopping thrown in for good measure, with “real life” experiences regarded as the most valuable contributor to learning. What about students from cultures or upbringings that haven’t had and don’t expect to develop such a pervasive dependency upon technology? Exposure to web sites deemed dangerous, inappropriate, or emotionally threatening is an additional issue to deal with.

What are many teachers telling students? “How you use a computer at home may be different from how you will be using it here at school.” And out in ChatterLand, what message do many teachers NOT want to be given by school administrators? “How you use a computer at home may be different from how you will be using it here at school.” Sigh.