Last night was fantastic, I was out on the river walk with a small group. We started out at the Discovery Anniversary event which was a zoo, but had great food and drinks. In an effort to be somewhere quieter, we moved on down to meet some others at an Irish Pub that had singing. I know that doesn’t sound like it would be quieter, but we were outside, and it was.

An interesting point was made about “well known” edubloggers, and how being out of the classroom affects your perspective. Someone who had moved from classroom, to resource, and back-and-forth between them shared that they thought moving out of the classroom was when their blogging really grew, and they started getting on the whole “change” bandwagon, but they began to forget some essential parts of classroom teaching that can make that difficult and still need to be addressed. Another member piped in that they felt leaving the self-contained elementary class for a P.E./Computer position made going back like starting over from scratch as a teacher. That made me think, have I lost some essential truths of teaching by moving to the lab? Do I need to try to get back in a self-contained class at some point to keep that perspective?

We left some folks behind and moved onto a place for dinner. I had some really stellar conversations there. The question was asked, about who you have in your reader that you disagree with. I shared that some edubloggers do NOT understand why practicing elementary teachers have no patience with some Web 2.0/constructivist/collaborative “critics” because of our experiences with them on discussions around Reading First/What Works, etc. and that this is where we live, in the curriculum areas, and a lot of this has been really problematic for us (there are some really great bloggers like Doug Noon who know those folks and read them thoughtfully, if critically). I’m going to be taking a diet and sculpting my RSS feed soon, so I will need to keep this in mind.

The party added some more folks via twitter, and we moved on for drinks at a bar (I was sticking to soda at this point, in case you were wondering). One member of the party asked me what I was going to use in the classroom, and what I had learned. I told them honestly, I’m still processing my school year, and what I need to change from how I did it. I have to tell you that in talking to all sorts of folks from newbies, to established “names”, the thing I’m hearing is that they are getting a lot socially from this conference, but not so much about pedagogy. I hear things like, the session were mostly already at the level I’m at, but it was nice to see that I’m on the right track, and, this has been the best conference I’ve attend from a social networking perspective, but the worst for learning.

There was a discussion at one point that night about a session in particular, School 2.0: Combining Progressive Pedagogy and 21st-Century Tools, where someone pointed out how a lot of the attendees are not aware of the theory and learning theory, and that we need to be out at the curriculum conferences (like NCTE, etc.) discussing these tools, but there also needs to be more about learning, and theory, and less about tools in the sessions here. We really need to bring them both together. I think this would help edubloggers understand the real boundaries that we live in, in our classrooms. I was discussing that with a primary teacher at a Title One school like my own. There is a very real concern about how to fit things in given the curriculum demands. I didn’t point that person to David Warlick, or Will Richardson for answers, but instead suggested peers like Brian Crosby, Mathew Needleman, and Doug Noon, the first two of whom are working in scripted curriculum schools, but still doing projects. No knock on the first two, but that’s not where the answer to her question is going to be. Who do I rely on for my answers? Are they practioners? Who do I rely on for my ideas? Are they both thinks and practioners?

I spent a lot of time that night in various places talking about my perspective. Now part of it is nice to have people listening to me, but when I have that discussion with “famous” blogger/Web 2.0 personality, it’s for a reason. I am an ambassador for my kids, and my school. That is why I started In Practice, because we need to talk about the specific context of teaching in this environment. I want them to know that. So when I saw someone who is well known and found out that their school is a Title One school I asked them if someone there would be willing to join us at In Practice. I didn’t do it just to have a “famous” name on the author list, but because that name will mean something, and may carry some weight. It’s about being the New Yorker, not People magazine.

This ties into another interesting discussion I had on politics and edublogging. We were discussing the whole Will Richardson teleconference with Lamar Alexander. I discussed my own background which involved a lot of work on politics and especially lobbying and campaigning for libraries, etc. and how I found some efforts that are made in edublogging to be naïve, and that was an example. I was not surprised that Will experienced was used, what I was disappointed about was that he and we were not able to “use” the Senator back, and THAT is what you need to do. Yeah, they are getting your “name” in their conference, but how do you leverage that to get your message out?

Finally, there has been a lot of discussion about social politics and hierarchy here at NECC and in the virtual NECC that I’ve been out of the loop on for a variety of reasons (like attending sessions, and meeting people, hey it’s a convention folks). Let me go back to another discussion I had last night. It was about anonymous blogging, and there was a strong position against it. They said that there were only limited circumstances where that type of blogging is acceptable, when you understand that eventually, names might be revealed, and you have a specific purpose. This is not an anonymous blog, but I’ve left ALL the names out from these conversations for a couple reasons. If I put them in, I would be name dropping, and the focus would be on the personalities, NOT the interesting discussion points. If you recognize yourself in these conversations, thank you. If you don’t like what I said, or have a correction, drop a comment.

My school serves a population of students who have many needs; linguistic, financial, emotional, etc. Obviously, as a school we can’t fill in all these gaps. However, we do try to help out where we can. We offer English language classes to parents and other community members during the school day and in the evenings. Teachers have driven students to school for evening events and home afterward. Teachers or other staff members have driven students and/or parents to see a doctor, dentist, or mental health professional to help with paperwork, especially when there is no insurance.

I’m wondering about the role and limitation of the school. What should a school be doing? Where does it end?

Obviously, our responsibility is the education of the students. It is easy to simply draw a line that divides educational duties apart from everything else. I believe our students deserve better from us. I’m unwilling to abdicate responsibility simply because something is not clearly related to my educational duty. My students deserve every opportunity to be successful and sometimes that requires more from me or from my school.

But a school can’t be everything to everyone. At some point we can’t or shouldn’t be involved. Where is that line? Does the line differ at different schools? Should I be doing more at my Title I school than a teacher at a school in a middle-class neighborhood? How do we help students whose parents can’t or won’t care for them properly? What is the role of a school in our society?

Alex, thank you very much for comment, you bring up some excellent points.

First, the answer is in part of your question,

growing up bilingual (which usually meant one of your parents was British, and the other from the continent) was definitely a GOOD THING

There is a theory on the social value of languages. I’ve heard a bit about it as an instructor of language learners, so if others know more, please chip in. Some language have more value than others. Usually, economic power has a big influence. Those continental languages (French, German, etc.) had and have value, others do not. So in the U.S., English is more valuable than Spanish. In Canada, French is trumped by English (in spite of good intentions, and a lot of policy interventions). I and most proponents of this theory are not arguing in favor of this hierarchy of language, just pointing out that it exists. Based on this, I would guess that in Britain, Urdu, Pashto, and variants of Persian and Arabic are not looked on as a desirable to acquire language when compared to German and French. Please correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption.

Because of this “low” value, part of why students in those lower value languages do poorly is self-perception. Another part is that if you come to the U.S. from Germany or France, you have had a solid education in your home language. If you come the U.S. from Mexico, your education was probably more spotty. If you came from a Thai refugee camp and are Hmong, you may have had no education, and your home language may have an alphabet, but that is recent innovation. Your culture is wise in many ways, but essentially pre-literate. As you point out, if your parents are not literate, educated, etc. and helping you to learn language acquisition in your home language, that will further contribute to starting out “behind”.

The traditional way to deal with this was to give academic instruction in the student’s home language at school, to give them a solid basis that you could then base your English instruction off of. This is still seen as the most desirable method of instruction in the U.S. by experts, but not by the general public.

Now for some context, this “value” of languages has had a big influence on language instruction in the California. Keep in mind we exceed the size, population, and economic power of most countries in this state. We have the largest school population in the U.S., and ~40% of those students are classified as language learners. That means their parents said they speak a language other than English at home. In 1998 California voters passed Proposition 227, which limited instruction in the state to English only.

Now, to comply with federal law parents must have the option to request bi-lingual instruction. Most parents don’t do this. Based on my anecdotal conversations, parents put a higher value on English, and want their child’s instruction in that language to begin as soon as possible. They don’t understand that kids can transition better to English on a solid base of their home language. So both the White/English speaking population and parents have largely eliminated bi-lingual instruction in the state for most language learners. There is still bi-lingual instruction, but most kids are taught by teachers with a specialty emphasis to teach English immersion such as what I have.

Many schools are loathe to have the programs because although you have long-term gains, their scores suffer in the short term. Elementary bi-lingual programs usually have a dip in their third grade (8 yo) scores, but climb after that. Also, cluster of language learners can hurt a sites scores (see story here: http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/998583.html). So, testing exacerbates this problem. The reality is that we are teaching language learners English more rapidly, and better than at any point in the past, but it’s just not good enough, especially with the numbers we have in my state.

Thank you for making me explain this, and for bringing up an important point.

I was having a brief discussion on Skype today with Scott McLeod where I shared some things that are going down at my school site, and he ended up asking me a hard, but good questions about it. Here is the background…

Next year, my school site will be getting “help” from outsiders. There is displeasure with our test scores (although as I pointed out to Scott, results from this Spring’s tests will not be in until August, and the last Benchmark scores may not be in yet, and do not always match the state test scores). I told him I was working with three great administrators this year: an assistant principal, a school principal, and a retired principal who runs the SES tutoring program that I am the site coordinator for.

First up, the SES tutoring. This is tutoring mandated by NCLB for schools in successive years of program improvement. Scott asked if the tutoring was helping kids test scores. I said I wasn’t sure because they aren’t in yet, but the admin had run a program at a school that exited program improvement last year. I imagine the question came up because of this article, Mandated Tutoring Not Helping Md., Va. Scores - washingtonpost.com, which points out many of the problems that SES programs can suffer from. My own experience prior to this with SES was NOT good. The money is great, for example the pay rate is $50 an hour for tutoring in my district, and in the program I help run we have very small groups (our break-even is at about 2 or 3 students so groups are only 4-6 students and some smaller — I worked one-on-one with one kid at the end of the year). Previous experience with a district/site run program had 15-20 students in groups. THAT is not tutoring, that’s an extended school day. That $50 does not come without strings. You have to fill out paperwork with standards based goals to try to ensure that student are being remediated in a way that will increase their test scores, and not just randomly. I also like that this particular program encourages tutors to not just have the kids doing release questions, and sitting and getting. So one teacher had students moving around and doing kinesthetic stuff. I will be sharing a project from another where students made a movie showing graphing of functions at NECC Unplugged/EduBloggerCon.

Next, because our administrators have have done a fantastic job of building partnerships in the community, we have a ton of tutors from a local church, a local high school, a local community college, and AmeriCorps members. Just looking at these efforts casually, these resources have not always been used to the best effect and I’m part of an effort to rationalize this whole process so that the activities are clearly tied to a remediation goal, and communicated to tutors effectively (and vice-versa).

But how do you know scientifically if the tutoring has made the difference? That was the conundrum when RAND did a study on class-size reduction in primary grades in California (twenty-to-one). Basically, so many things were changing in teaching in the state simultaneously due to wholesale education reform, that to pick out one thing that made test scores go up was impossible. It was part of a larger whole. Still, we don’t even know how things are going, until August when scores come in.

This still begs the question, have our scores gone up, down, or flat, and if it’s the two later, what should we be doing about it? I’m in a funny place with regards to this. I’m not teaching one class, and I’m not assigned to a core subject (although I certainly teach them), BUT I’m in a central position working on the SES tutoring, and being on the site SST (Student Study Team, might be Child Study Team or some other acronym where you are). Maybe we are failing, but having someone come on campus and tell us what we’re doing wrong, when we have many active processes to analyze our practice, and improve how we do things (ex., we have a recently formed teacher run Site Improvement Committee) feels like a hindrance. Some things I’m doing now to analyze our tutoring/instruction goals and how they are communicated to the myriad different outsiders who come to our campus to help will probably make a huge difference, but that will be next year, not two months ago when students were tested.

I appreciate Scott’s call for accountability, but the frustration I have is that the school I left did get out of Program Improvement, but in a way that Scott would not approve of. They taught to the test. This year, in their first year out of PI, I’ve heard they have volunteered to testing of first graders. Their test scores improved, but…

Are we doing a bad job? Well, there have been some heated (but professional) discussions on my campus this year. There are some changes in grade-level assignment (and some hard self-assessment that led to this), but is this just about teaching? Eduwonkette has been writing a lot about this, and a new post this week provides a nice summation about the achievement gap and the origins of it which can pre-date entry into school:

Now, this is discussing black/white gaps, but I’ve got to think that being a language learner (~40+% of our school’s students) would add more to the challenges to overcome. In my newspaper this week comes this information about another huge part of our school population, SE Asian refugees:

photo: puzzle pieces

A good teacher….:

… does not have a whip as part of his/her professional “toolkit.”

… respects his/her student’s cultural background and doesn’t smash or abuse it, and doesn’t use it as a blunt force weapon against someone, especially not against their head.

… doesn’t necessarily hate snakes, but might feel that way about standardized tests.

… juggles a lot of balls in the air, but avoids having a humongous one that tries to roll him/her over.

… always keeps his/her eyes open to what’s going on (even if it might mean being turned to dust by malevolent forces)

… is willing to take risks, but isn’t reckless. Examples of being reckless might include jumping out of an airplane with an inflatable raft as a parachute, clinging to the top of a moving submarine for a thousand miles, or doing a science experiment that might result in an unhealthy explosion.

… believes that knowledge is gained through hard work, and not from beings from another dimension.

… hangs out with people who want to put their heart into what they believe, not take it out….

Other ideas?

My school started this program several years ago in order to keep our GT students from leaving to attend a center program at another school. The GT classes include students who qualify for the center program, the highest level of services, as well as students who qualify for school-based GT services and young scholars (talented students from underrepresented populations who show great potential). As a result, there is still a wide range of abilities and needs among my students.

That said, I have found that teaching this class has been eye opening for me. I believe that prior to this experience I held high expectations for my students and pushed them academically. And yet, these students have shown me how much more they are capable of doing.

In schools like mine, with lots of students living in poverty, lots of students who are learning English, lots of students who do not have much support at home, it is easy to focus on those students who are struggling and the effort to help them reach grade level expectations. It is easy to focus on the weaknesses and miss the strengths. Sadly, I think the emphasis on standardized testing has only increased this trend.

Teaching the GT class has shown me opportunities I missed with my students in the past. I have been willing to take risks with these two groups that intimidated me before. I have given them more freedom as learners and have been amazed. They have stretched themselves and pushed me as a teacher.

For years now I have been frustrated by hearing comments like, “My kids couldn’t possibly do that,” or “That’s way beyond my students.” Our students can’t do anything we don’t allow them the opportunity to try. We’ll never know how talented they might be if we continue to focus on what they can’t do.

I don’t want to suggest that we should ignore their needs. It is important that we continue to work as hard as possible to help all our students reach, and possibly exceed, grade level benchmarks. But the fact that they are performing below grade level in one or more areas shouldn’t mean that we restrict their access to higher level thinking activities, technology, collaboration, and other activities or tools we would want our own children to have.

Now here is the message from the school district where I live:
Superintendent’s Message (NUSD)
This is a district in what has been a growing area, where lots of new homes were built, lots of new schools are opening, and lots of developer fees were coming in. Now, it has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the area (a metro area already making the national top ten list for this). He’s talking about the achievement gap (the district has had an influx of black and Latino students as those families have moved out the central cities. Times are not great here, but that superintendent has opted to not give any pink slips to teachers. He feels that it is divisive, and is too harmful to morale.

Two schools of thought. I think Dr. Farrar is correct that it is very divisive. We have 5 teachers who were pink slipped and one who is on a one-year contract (with no hope of having the position renewed). That is out of a classroom teaching staff of 22. Six out of 22 teachers. That’s between 1/3 and 1/4th of our teachers.

Look at Dr. Meija’s letter. She is not happy about the cuts, and is trying to use them to motivate the community (teachers, parents, etc.) to oppose the budget cuts coming down. Pink slips are a way to do that, but at what cost?

Is Dr. Farrar being irresponsible by insisting he will never issue pink slips? Does this just invite those above to keep cutting his budget because he’ll try to have his district make do somehow? Is he perhaps cutting essential programs, when it might be better to cut teaching positions?

My own sense is that there are not a lot of easy answers to these questions. I understand the power of the pink slips. It’s getting me to go to some district meetings next week, and I’ll happily march down to the Capitol to have my say there as well. We’re 45th out of 50 in per pupil spending (accounting for the higher cost of living in this state and other factors). That’s pathetic for a state that has a GDP ranking that would make us the 7th, 8th, or 10th largest economy in the world.

Leave a note at Gail Desler’s Week in a Sentence Voice Thread about Pink Slips:

Bill writes about Carl Chew, the teacher in Washington state who recently was suspended for two weeks for refusing to give his students a standardized test. In his blog, The Tempered Radical, Bill makes a number of very good points questioning Mr. Chew’s decision. I won’t repeat a lot of what Bill says (his post is definitely worth reading), and agree with much of it.

I don’t believe, though, that his final comment that “teachers like Chew show disregard for the values of the communities that they serve” is either fair or accurate.

I’m a veteran of civil disobedience from my seven years in the Catholic Worker Movement prior to my community organizing career (which both preceded my move into public school teaching five years ago).  I can say from experience that what is often called “prophetic witness” or “speaking truth to power” is a key part of our democratic history. I’d certainly include Mr. Chew’s action in that tradition.

At the same time, I think civil disobedience (as I’ve described educational technology) has a place, but also has to be kept in its place.

I think performing civil disobedience outside of the context of a strategic campaign is indeed often, to use the words in Bill’s post, “arrogant” and “egocentric.”  At the risk of sounding too harsh, I think it’s much easier to refuse to give a standardized test then to do the day-to-day and face-to-face organizing of listening and agitating people to develop an effective campaign for more accurate and just student assessments.

From my knowledge and experience, historically, civil disobedience has only been effective in making social change when done as a specific tactic in a well-organized and thought-out campaign where many people have been involved in its planning (nothing I’ve read about Mr. Chew’s actions indicate it was in his case, but, of course, it is possible that I don’t have all the information).

Which is not to say that there have also been important times in history, and there will be additional important moments, when individuals just feel that it’s critical to their own conscience just to say “no.”

Do I think Mr. Chew’s actions were or will be effective in making any sort of change in how students are assessed anywhere?  No.  Do I think they were probably arrogant and egocentric? Yes.

Do I think his action showed disregard for his communities’ values?  Definitely not.  In fact,   I’d say they might have been an extraordinarily accurate representation of the best values in our community traditions.

 ”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.