Stop the Bus!

After reading Joe Bower's post on covering the curriculum, I find myself conjuring up images of Eddie Murphy and his stand up routine where he talked about chasing the ice cream truck, screaming "ICE CREAM!" at the top of his lungs.  Only I'm yelling "STOP THE BUS!" and I'm the bus driver.  Not quite six weeks into the school year, and I have to figure out what I'm going to do about my route.

You see, clearly, a large portion of my students have failed to learn some key concepts.  With such a large number, the obvious answer is to reteach it.  But how many times?  Do I stop the bus or simply slow it down and leave the door open, hoping the kids will be able to jump on with minimal injury?  How do I use RtI?  Can it be the back up transportation plan or just an excuse I use to not stop the bus?

My heart says stop the bus.  My brain says stop the bus.  At least part of my brain does.  The other part sees the standard course of study mandated by the state.  That same part of my brain sees learning goals like the one prompting this post and thinks they SHOULD HAVE been learned before this year anyway.  Do I keep 80% of the kids from their destination because 20% are too slow?  How do I drive several different busses at once?

It really is a no-brainer - the bus HAS to be stopped.  But it is SOOOOO much easier to say than do.

Providing equal access - #edchat 6/29/2010

Tonight's #edchat asked the question "How do we ensure those without privilege have equal access to quality education?".  Interestingly, we dealt with a very similar, but more specific topic on 5/4/2010 - "How can we ensure that all students have equal access to technology?".  What's interesting is that one of the main threads running through tonight's discussion was specifically about technology.


Some of the comments that I reasonate with are:

Russ Goerend - "Access to the Internet = access to quality education"

Tim Furman - "access to books would go a long to help an impoverished child"

Mary Beth Hertz - "Equal access means that all students have the opportunity to learn from a teacher who is a lifelong learner and dedicated to his or her students"

I'm sure there were others, but I had to cut out early due to guests arriving at my home.  Looking back over the archive, I found this statement that probably best sums up my feelings.

Ms. Bethea "As long as the underlying system is broken, there will always be inequality in education regardless of access."

If we can fix the system, we will address the other comments and so many others. I going to try an avoid sounding like a broken record in this post.  Instead I'll point you to my vision for how school school should look in order to speak directly to these issues.


First of all, I think "equal access" goes beyond access to technology.  I take tonight's question at face value - how do we ensure equal access quality education, which is a much bigger issue.  I do think access to technology helps.  Access to technology and the web opens up access to a wide array of resources not available otherwise.  As I said earlier tonight, we can rearrange our budgets so that money being spent on textbooks can be spent on technology.  If the technology is integrated throughout the school, throughout the day, lack of access at home is not as big a factor as it once was.  Proper internet access opens the doors to open sourcing education.


Some of tonight's discussion dealt with the socioeconomic factors that are associated with access.  Being an idealist, I want to assume that the teachers of John Doe Impoverished Neighborhood School are just as good as the ones at Charles Moneybags Suburban Gated Community School.  I want to ideally assume that teachers will receive (and seek on their own) the necessary professional development to help them be quality teachers.  So don't comment on either of these issues.  They are for another time.  This is about a broken system.


By the way, I've taught at both schools and it is certainly is "easier" at the latter.  However, that can only go far in terms of providing excuse in unequal access.  As Will Richardson said earlier last week, you may not have caused the problem but now you own so do something about it.  We cannot control the environment from which our students come, at least not in a free state.  But there are lots of things we can do to deal with that environment - free and reduced lunch, parent outreach, parent engagement, before/after school programs, etc.


In order for any of this work, we have to change the system.  We can't just tweak it.  It needs serious overhaul.  I'm not saying that all textbooks are bad.  I am saying we need to seriously take at look at the money we are spending on those books.  What would be the net effect of using technology to provide the same (or better I would argue) access?  We have to look seriously at things like testing.  We must stop playing the role of cash cow for testing services and developers.  We must fight the conventional (yet contrary to what people actually in the know and in the trenches say) wisdom regarding the validity of these tests.  


We have to change what we measure and how we measure it.  If equal access means something different from equal treatment, why are we using the same metric for everyone?  Throw out promotion schedules and report cards.  Provide access to a guaranteed success at accomplishing learning goals without a stigma regarding how long it takes.  Providing equal access is not that hard.  But it requires changing the system, and that's really not that hard either.

Curriculum - Part 2 of "Does it really matter?"

Please, please, please comment on this post if you disagree or agree in any way.  This post is a work in progress as I process my thoughts on important issues like curriculum.  As I mentioned in part of "Does it really matter?" I am teaching earth science this summer.  I hate to admit this, but I can't think of a single good reason for kids to take this class.  When I examine the standard course of study (SCOS), there is not a single item that will ever be used again in their lives unless they enter a very specific career.

So on the first day, I'm looking at the class of students who are repeating the course and I'm trying to find an answer to the unasked question, "When am I EVER going to use this?"  There is always the standard answer of you will develop thinking skills that will used in other areas of your but honestly, that's a load of manure.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm all about learning something for the sake of learning it.  I love talking rocks, minerals, soil, weather, plate tectonics, etc. and how all these things are intricately linked together in systemic ways.  I teach with enthusiasm and passion about how cool all the connections are.  I look for real world, current events to illustrate each concept.  And students enjoy my class. . . . because I'm entertaining.

I know it is a bit idealistic to ask repeaters, especially those with historic problems in school, to suddenly become passionate about all this.  I don't expect them too.  I see my four and half this summer as an attempt to plant a seed, light a spark, redirect the ship only a single degree in order to avoid disaster . . .

All of this leads me to some serious thoughts about the place of curriculum.  Why have we dictated the courses a student must pass in order to earn a high school diploma?  What is the process whereby we determined A, B, and C must be mastered in order to move from middle to high school?

Here in NC, our State Board of Education has adopted a new set of guidelines for freshmen who entered high school this past year.  It's called the "Future Ready Core".  Besides requiring earth/environmental science, students must pass algebra 1 and 2, geometry, and a fourth math that is tailored to their post high school paths.  Excuse me for a moment, but as a math teacher, why would I require a future plumber or diesel mechanic (who make very good money by the way and are still much in need) need algebra 2?  What math do they they take next in the sequence?

I realize that my post is losing its coherency to singular topic because I'm beginning to move into rant mode.  So I'll wrap it up with a few questions that will perhaps frame it all for me.
- What is the purpose of school?
- Which is more important, content or skills?
- Why are trying to force everyone onto a college track?
- If high school is supposed to preparation for real life, shouldn't there be a little more freedom in the requirements?

Again, I state my plea.  Please comment because I'm really wondering if it matters.

Japanese Beetles

Yes, this post is about education, inspired by those annoying little bugs.  In the spring I become Matt Guthrie, Suburban Farmer.  This year I've finally planted the type of garden I've always wanted, although it's a little small. One day I'd like to have acres to farm, instead of just square feet.

Each year I battle a variety of pests.  Japanese beetles return every year to wreak havoc on my plants.  They have devastated several of my bean plants.  I bought a beetle trap and that has captured quite a few.  Problem is it has not captured all of them.  Every evening while I'm out watering, I still find quite a few ravaging the tender leaves of my crops.  I usually handle them one of two ways.  Sometimes I'll capture them by the handful then dump them into the trap.  Other times, if there is only one or two, I'll squish them on the spot and spread their remains on the leaves.  Like most creatures, japanese beetles don't like to be in the presence of their own dead.

Saturday night as I was dealing with the evening's infestation, I began to see parallels to our efforts in education.  So many times we find a sure fired way to solve the problems our students are facing.  It might be a remediation effort, a skills diagnostic assessment, an after school program, or a beetle trap.  It does a great job meeting the needs of  majority of our students.  When the program doesn't work for the minority, we have a couple of choices to make.  We can watch the minority struggle and just let the beetles not caught by the trap eat your plants, er, I mean write off those students as unreachable.  Or we can add a little more attention to the minority, combined with the efforts of the program and help these kids.  Think of it as catching the beetles and putting them into the trap by hand.

Sometimes the program has to be abandoned and a different approach taken.  Sometimes you have the seize the opportunity to squish an individual beetle or work deliberately in another fashion with a struggling student. 

What do you do when the specified method you have to use is a beetle trap the local school district will only pay for beetle traps?  Every system and school has it pet program or excitement about the latest idea.  Those are great and should be used.  But the reality is that it's all about the students.  You have to find a way or you'll go without beans.  Saving the crop of students is really what it's all about isn't it?

My Vision for Education

Prompted by Shelly Blake-Plock's post about revolution over at Teach Paperless, I've decided to try give shape to my vision for education.  Plus it will keep me from posting a War and Peace size comment on his blog.  If I ever get the opportunity to start my own school, it would look something like this: student centered, community driven, project/problem based, and 100% differentiated.

One key element is seeing this vision come to pass is the implementation of an apprenticeship model.  Grade levels where EVERY student has to move up at the end of a nine to ten month cycle do not exist.  Not to mention the fact that if a student isn't able to move up at the end of the cycle he has to wait another TWELVE months for the opportunity to move up again.  Instead of grade levels, students just move to the next topic or skill.

The activities (or lessons if you prefer) would center either on completion of a project or solving a problem that requires the use of the current skills and topics being studied.  People, like parents, with real live jobs relating to these issues can serve as mentors, guest speakers, and knowledge resources.  Students would be able to choose which problem or project they wish to complete based on their interests.

Gone also are the needs for standardized testing and the various abuses of the proficiency data relating to teacher and school evaluations.  Are students growing?  Are students moving forward?  If not, why?  What are the forces outside of school that either hinder or prevent movement?  If so, what are the important factors that need to be measured at the moment for that student?

How is such a vision community driven, beyond the use of guest speakers, etc.?  Community is built into the school.  Students help one another.  Collaboration is encouraged, in fact integrated into everything.  Projects and solving problems that benefit the community outside of school are the norm.  These projects don't have to meet curriculum goals either.  They can be done "just because".

Let's do it.

Doing something Different(iated) for a change - Part 1

This post was spawned by a retweet of @edteck sent out by @shannoninottawa. The quote was

A thought...What % of your class time is spent having every kid do the exact same thing?

This seed was further nurtured by an article called "The School of One". The article describes the exact type of classroom I've always wanted to have. If you read the article, you'll find a broad range of responses, both for and against this approach.

Honestly, despite the potential chaos and confusion in the classroom and tons of extra work, I would love to have a classroom where all 30 kids were doing something entirely different every single day. Twenty years ago when I taught high school math, I taught two sections of what was then called Competency Math. These students had not passed the NC Competency test for math. I had 12 to 15 students in each class. Each student worked at his or her own pace until a particular skill was mastered. So why don't I do that now? What's my excuse?

Let me list my excuses first so I can shoot 'em down when I'm done.

1. I don't have the time. I'd have to come up with all my lesson plans, activities, etc. all at once so my quicker students would have something to do as they speed through.
2. I can't effectively teach every child that way. Somebody's going to fall through the cracks. The slower kids will probably get all the attention while the smarter kids teach themselves because they are able to anyway while the middle of the road kids get minimal instruction. Or I'll focus on the average kid because there are more of them and the advanced/slower kids will get neglected. Or . . .
3. I don't have the necessary resources. Sure, I did it 20 years ago, but honestly, it was really a worksheet driven class. Everything is tech driven today. I only have 1 computer in my room. Lab time is hard to come by. Besides, if everyone is doing something different, I cannot necessarily take them all to the lab at one time.

There are probably some other excuses but I'm sure they are some derivative of the above three.

1. Not everything has to be done at once. It would be nice to have everything all tidied up in a box, ready to pull as we progress through the year. I don't have to teach the entire course like this. I know what the standard course of study is for the year. Look ahead, pick a couple of units far enough in advance. Plan them around this philosophy and see how it goes. Expand the offering each year until you are satisfied.
2. Move to a student centered/learning driven classroom. Face it. Everything we do as teachers tends to be teacher centered and teacher driven. The emphasis is on how we present things, how we lead activities, how we deliver content. It's not about me - it's about the student. If I focus on the essential standards of my course instead of the myriads of factoids found in the content, all sorts of activities and lessons can be implemented. Give students every opportunity to create their own content so they can demonstrate mastery via evaluation, analysis, and other higher order skills. This will keep ALL students moving and learning.
3. 21st Century does not equal technology. 21st Century skills are skills like collaboration and evaluation, the same sort of skills we taught in the 20th century. True, they are pushed via technology today, but they don't have to be. You use it whenever you can get your hands on it, but come up with the old-fashioned ways all the other times. Check out this article by @kellyhines for more about that.

Okay, so I've eliminated all my excuses for myself. The next step is to actually do it. Part 2 will address that. While we all wait to see what that looks like, what other excuses am I missing? What are valid objections to such an approach? What are possible solutions?