I call her Snodgrass, because it’s one of the silly things I do that gets her attention and makes her laugh. She has a more conventional name, of course, but for data privacy reasons we will call her Marcia in this article.
Marcia will be going into Grade 2 for the 2011-2012 academic year. She began studying with me as director and teacher of the New Salem Educational Initiative when she was in Grade K, continuing for a second year as a Grade 1 student during 2010-2011. Thus, this will be her third academic year of enrollment in the New Salem Educational Initiative. The New Salem Educational Initiative offers Marcia (and its 104 other students) the opportunity to attend weekly two-hour sessions of intense instruction in math, reading, and a broad course of study in the liberal arts. Students all come from impoverished homes and in school have fallen well below grade level. By the end of their first year of attendance, they have usually achieved grade level performance and by the end of their second year they are generally ready to proceed to an advanced track of college preparatory study.
Moving students from backgrounds of impoverishment and familial dysfunction to grade level performance and above takes a great deal of highly focused attention on the part of the student, and a great deal of adroit effort on the part of the teacher. The goal is attainable for all students. The task becomes much easier when we can get a student into the program at the young age at which Marcia entered. At this stage, students are wide open in their receptivity to information of all sorts, and they crave adult approval. In Marcia’s case, she had observed three other family members go off each week in transport to the New Salem Educational Initiative. She was primed and ready to have the rewarding experience that all of these students had enjoyed. Every Saturday morning she piled into my car (transportation is provided for all students) with a big smile, asking, “Hey, Gary, what are we going to learn today?”
In response, I would tell her, “Oh, we’re going to read a poem about ‘swinging up in the air so blue,’ then we’re going to read about Tigger coming to a forest for breakfast, then I’d like you to read about how Native Americans crossed a land bridge thousands of years ago. How does that sound to you?”
“Great!” she would say.
“And then we’re going to review carrying and borrowing--- you, know, regrouping--- in addition and subtraction. Okay?”
“Ooo, yea, that’s fun!” would be Marcia’s reply.
Midway through her Grade 1 year, Marcia had read an array of classical children’s literature, and she had fully mastered all math skills appropriate to her grade level. Then she had moved on in both reading and math material to tasks typical of the Grade 2 student. This summer I have continued to work with her, moving forward with instruction in multiplication. As she enters Grade 2, Marcia has fully mastered her multiplication tables for the factors 0 through 9, well ahead of the pace that holds this as a goal for Grade 3 students. Overhearing her older relatives working on advanced college preparatory items, she has even startled us all by picking up the proper definitions of words such as “jocular,” “quintessential,” and “malapropism.”
Herein we see the opportunity for teachers of students at the K-2 level. Students are eager for substantive education. They want to please adults, and they respond readily to a personality that conveys a love of children and willingness to be silly and funny while offering solid subject area material in natural science, history, literature, the fine arts, and math. These are years in which teachers should rush in and be sure and provide this education before devoting too much time to classroom parties, “free time,” DVDs, unfocused field trips, and school assemblies. Whatever value these latter sorts of activities may have, they should be far back in the list of priorities, relegated to unnecessary options paling in significance to the responsibility of offering a solid academic course of instruction to children when they are most receptive to information coming from adults.
If students come out of Grade 2 in full control of grade level skills in math and reading, with the latter put to service in an array of subject area material in natural science, history, and literature, they are on course for success. They yearn for the knowledge, and they deserve the success. Teachers of K-2 students should therefore be especially mindful of the responsibility that they bear. There is every reason to anticipate future academic and therefore life success for the students whom they properly prepare, even as there is the distinct possibility for disaster in the futures of students for whom a magnificent opportunity is squandered.
Aug 22, 2011
Aug 19, 2011
In Praise of No Child Left Behind
As we watch No Child Left Behind blow away in the political winds, we should do so with shame and lamentation. This has been the most hopeful piece of legislation in the history of American education, drifting away on adverse political currents not because it failed but because it succeeded so splendidly.
Let us examine the facts regarding, and counter all of the specious charges levied against, No Child Left Behind. The legislation was proposed by George W. Bush in June 2001 and signed into law in January 2002 after coauthors in the House of Representatives (Democrat George Miller and Republican John Boehner) and the United States Senate (Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Judd Gregg) oversaw overwhelming approval (384-45 in the House, 91-8 in the Senate). The law is the prevailing version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that first went into effect during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The essentials of the law are the requirements that data on student progress must be disaggregated to indicate performance of students according to ethnicity, gender, economic status, national origin, and special needs. If students in each category do not meet certain minimum academic standards, a school is put on notice that it is not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
If a school is not making AYP, it gets a year to improve its program. For each school that for the second year in a row does not make AYP, a school district must offer the opportunity for students to move to another school. A third year of failure to make AYP dictates that free tutoring must be offered. The fourth year of failure to make AYP requires that free tutoring must continue, and the school is notified that it will face restructuring if student performance does not improve. The fifth year of not making AYP results in restructuring or closing the school, with a restructuring plan or closing occurring in the sixth year.
No Child Left Behind grew out of a movement on the part of many reformers for standards-based education, whereby students at each grade level are tested to determine who is and who is not functioning at grade level, particularly in math and reading. Under the pressures exerted by No Child Left Behind, a few schools have succeeded in improving, but most have not. The latter situation is not surprising, given the mediocrity of so many teachers and the lack of a coherent curriculum throughout the K-12 years. All of this predictably makes teachers’ unions and other entities of the education establishment extremely uncomfortable, which is how they should feel when faced with public recognition of their failure to offer an education to all students worthy of a democracy.
One by one, we can dismiss the specious assertions regarding No Child Left Behind that have emanated from the education establishment:
Assertion #1: The law has brought too much emphasis on standardized testing.
The Reality: Standardized tests represent the most objective, reliable means of fairly judging a particular student’s knowledge or skill base. If teachers “teach to the test,” that is fine, because a properly constructed test features the key material to be learned at a given grade level, and teaching to the test assures that substantive academic content is offered at many schools that year after year have presented little academic content at all.
Assertion #2: No Child Left Behind has imposed unfunded mandates and federal intrusion into public school systems, which have thereby lost local control.
The Reality: In fact, the sort of training that teachers and administrators receive from education professors is highly similar across the country, so that local control has always been an illusion. The education establishment functions identically from one supposedly independent school system to another. Many of the mandates brought by No Child Left Behind are actually well-funded and more generous than they should be. Why should any additional funding really be necessary when the basic requirement is to provide grade level appropriate education to all students?
Assertion #3: Too much focus on reading and math results in a “narrowing of the curriculum.”
The Reality: In fact, there is little in the way of a curriculum at the K-5 level; teachers are generally free to teach what they want, and they generally do not teach much at all in history, government, economics, natural science, literature, and the fine arts. Educators at the middle school level devalue subject area content in favor of student socialization skills. Subject area courses at the typical high school are frequently poorly taught, but not narrowed by No Child Left Behind.
Assertion #4: The sanctions against schools imposed by No Child Left Behind are too punitive, penalizing even many good schools because a few students lag behind.
The Reality: In fact, the standards set forth by No Child Left Behind are applied to all schools fairly, holding them accountable for properly educating students of every economic and ethnic category. This is precisely what disaggregation of the data is supposed to do; any school that fails to educate students of all descriptors is not a good school, whatever its previous reputation.
No Child Left Behind is in political trouble because it is the most serious challenge in United States history to the failed K-12 schools run by the education establishment. That establishment is backed by powerful lobbies, and many politicians receive hefty campaign contributions by the education establishment that these lobbies represent.
So understand this: No Child Left Behind has been a splendid success in shining a bright spotlight on the shortcomings of K-12 schools in the United States. It is the education establishment that has failed in the challenge presented by No Child Left Behind, a challenge simply to bring all students in K-12 school systems throughout the United States up to grade level standards in math and reading. Such standards must be met, by all students, from the richest to the poorest of the poor, in any country that aspires to genuine democracy.
Let us examine the facts regarding, and counter all of the specious charges levied against, No Child Left Behind. The legislation was proposed by George W. Bush in June 2001 and signed into law in January 2002 after coauthors in the House of Representatives (Democrat George Miller and Republican John Boehner) and the United States Senate (Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Judd Gregg) oversaw overwhelming approval (384-45 in the House, 91-8 in the Senate). The law is the prevailing version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that first went into effect during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The essentials of the law are the requirements that data on student progress must be disaggregated to indicate performance of students according to ethnicity, gender, economic status, national origin, and special needs. If students in each category do not meet certain minimum academic standards, a school is put on notice that it is not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
If a school is not making AYP, it gets a year to improve its program. For each school that for the second year in a row does not make AYP, a school district must offer the opportunity for students to move to another school. A third year of failure to make AYP dictates that free tutoring must be offered. The fourth year of failure to make AYP requires that free tutoring must continue, and the school is notified that it will face restructuring if student performance does not improve. The fifth year of not making AYP results in restructuring or closing the school, with a restructuring plan or closing occurring in the sixth year.
No Child Left Behind grew out of a movement on the part of many reformers for standards-based education, whereby students at each grade level are tested to determine who is and who is not functioning at grade level, particularly in math and reading. Under the pressures exerted by No Child Left Behind, a few schools have succeeded in improving, but most have not. The latter situation is not surprising, given the mediocrity of so many teachers and the lack of a coherent curriculum throughout the K-12 years. All of this predictably makes teachers’ unions and other entities of the education establishment extremely uncomfortable, which is how they should feel when faced with public recognition of their failure to offer an education to all students worthy of a democracy.
One by one, we can dismiss the specious assertions regarding No Child Left Behind that have emanated from the education establishment:
Assertion #1: The law has brought too much emphasis on standardized testing.
The Reality: Standardized tests represent the most objective, reliable means of fairly judging a particular student’s knowledge or skill base. If teachers “teach to the test,” that is fine, because a properly constructed test features the key material to be learned at a given grade level, and teaching to the test assures that substantive academic content is offered at many schools that year after year have presented little academic content at all.
Assertion #2: No Child Left Behind has imposed unfunded mandates and federal intrusion into public school systems, which have thereby lost local control.
The Reality: In fact, the sort of training that teachers and administrators receive from education professors is highly similar across the country, so that local control has always been an illusion. The education establishment functions identically from one supposedly independent school system to another. Many of the mandates brought by No Child Left Behind are actually well-funded and more generous than they should be. Why should any additional funding really be necessary when the basic requirement is to provide grade level appropriate education to all students?
Assertion #3: Too much focus on reading and math results in a “narrowing of the curriculum.”
The Reality: In fact, there is little in the way of a curriculum at the K-5 level; teachers are generally free to teach what they want, and they generally do not teach much at all in history, government, economics, natural science, literature, and the fine arts. Educators at the middle school level devalue subject area content in favor of student socialization skills. Subject area courses at the typical high school are frequently poorly taught, but not narrowed by No Child Left Behind.
Assertion #4: The sanctions against schools imposed by No Child Left Behind are too punitive, penalizing even many good schools because a few students lag behind.
The Reality: In fact, the standards set forth by No Child Left Behind are applied to all schools fairly, holding them accountable for properly educating students of every economic and ethnic category. This is precisely what disaggregation of the data is supposed to do; any school that fails to educate students of all descriptors is not a good school, whatever its previous reputation.
No Child Left Behind is in political trouble because it is the most serious challenge in United States history to the failed K-12 schools run by the education establishment. That establishment is backed by powerful lobbies, and many politicians receive hefty campaign contributions by the education establishment that these lobbies represent.
So understand this: No Child Left Behind has been a splendid success in shining a bright spotlight on the shortcomings of K-12 schools in the United States. It is the education establishment that has failed in the challenge presented by No Child Left Behind, a challenge simply to bring all students in K-12 school systems throughout the United States up to grade level standards in math and reading. Such standards must be met, by all students, from the richest to the poorest of the poor, in any country that aspires to genuine democracy.
Aug 11, 2011
Treating Each Life as Precious and the Commitment as Permanent
Among the features of the New Salem Educational Initiative that secure the success of students enrolled in the program, two essential features are given emphasis in this article: 1) We treat each life as precious. 2) We signal from the beginning that the commitment to each precious young life is forever.
Any teacher worthy of the name embraces each student as if she or he is a rare treasure to be handled carefully and polished to its finest sheen. Each student is intelligent, each student is capable of grade level performance, and each student is then capable of rising above grade level performance to embark securely on a college-bound track. This is true for the Grade K (kindergarten) student who enters into a schedule of weekly two-hour academic sessions and thus has the benefit of the academically ambitious program of the New Salem Educational Initiative from the very beginning. It is also true of the Grade 7 student who comes to me functioning at, say, a Grade 4 math level and a Grade 3 reading level. Even with those severe deficits, the ascent to grade level is typically accomplished within an academic year or two, at which point there is still time to get on the track bound for success in college. If a student enters the program of the New Salem Educational Initiative at Grade 11 or 12, the task becomes much more difficult, but the challenge is still embraced. Great emphasis is placed on an aggressive program of skill remediation and intense training to pass the required high school Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments in writing, reading, and math. It is typically realistically too late to train that student for an acceptable performance on the ACT or SAT for four-year college matriculation; but, with continued support from the New Salem Educational Initiative, attendance for such a student at a community college is possible, and with two years of continued academic training achieved, enrollment in a good four-year college becomes a viable endeavor.
So each student's academic situation is different upon entrance into the New Slaedm Educational Initiative. This is true for the student's life circumstances, as well as her or his academic skills. The opportunity presents itself in each case to treat this precious young life as unique, worthy, something to be cherished. For indeed each life is a treasure that during childhood and adolescence is polished to a bright shine--- or effectively cast aside, forever looking dull and unappreciated. So any educator worthy of the name embraces the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the life of this young person, brimming with potential if the full array of talents are properly tapped. Each life matters. Each person deserves her or his chance for success in life. Education is critical to life success. In a democracy, therefore, full commitment to each K-12 student must be made.
And, consistent with the second feature of the New Salem Educational Initiative given emphasis today, the commitment must be forever. Eight years of the program's existence have now yielded several students who have graduated from the weekly two-hour small group program and are or will soon be matriculating at colleges and universities. I am in touch with them all, as I always told them that I would be. I have worked with each of these students in the summer to bring their skills to ever higher levels, as I always told them that I would do. These particular students all enrolled at relatively late stages in their K-12 experience, so getting them ready for success in college has required intense effort. But they are all on course to move forward successfully in their college programs, and all have much more magnified opportunities in life because of a commitment that 1) treated each life as unique and precious; and 2) was made in the context of permanence.
As a rule, children who enroll in the New Salem Educational Initiative as elementary (K-5) students have embarked on a program whereby attendance at an Ivy League or equivalent university is possible. Students who enroll at the middle school (6-8) level or the Grade 9 and 10 levels of high school have viable chances of attending good colleges and universities. Students who enroll at the Grade 11 or 12 level, assuming the typical academic deficits of Minneapolis Public Schools students from impoverished or familial dysfunctional backgrounds, have viable chances through intense skill remediation to attend two-year colleges with a vision of going on to earn a bachelor's degree at a four-year college or university.
In each case, the life prospects of the student has been enhanced because we
1)treated the young person as a precious being worth of great care and love; and
2) because the caring and love have been given throughout the relationship, enduring to the present and committed permanently into the future. As teachers fulfilling our mission in a democracy this is our obligation and our great privilege.
Any teacher worthy of the name embraces each student as if she or he is a rare treasure to be handled carefully and polished to its finest sheen. Each student is intelligent, each student is capable of grade level performance, and each student is then capable of rising above grade level performance to embark securely on a college-bound track. This is true for the Grade K (kindergarten) student who enters into a schedule of weekly two-hour academic sessions and thus has the benefit of the academically ambitious program of the New Salem Educational Initiative from the very beginning. It is also true of the Grade 7 student who comes to me functioning at, say, a Grade 4 math level and a Grade 3 reading level. Even with those severe deficits, the ascent to grade level is typically accomplished within an academic year or two, at which point there is still time to get on the track bound for success in college. If a student enters the program of the New Salem Educational Initiative at Grade 11 or 12, the task becomes much more difficult, but the challenge is still embraced. Great emphasis is placed on an aggressive program of skill remediation and intense training to pass the required high school Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments in writing, reading, and math. It is typically realistically too late to train that student for an acceptable performance on the ACT or SAT for four-year college matriculation; but, with continued support from the New Salem Educational Initiative, attendance for such a student at a community college is possible, and with two years of continued academic training achieved, enrollment in a good four-year college becomes a viable endeavor.
So each student's academic situation is different upon entrance into the New Slaedm Educational Initiative. This is true for the student's life circumstances, as well as her or his academic skills. The opportunity presents itself in each case to treat this precious young life as unique, worthy, something to be cherished. For indeed each life is a treasure that during childhood and adolescence is polished to a bright shine--- or effectively cast aside, forever looking dull and unappreciated. So any educator worthy of the name embraces the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the life of this young person, brimming with potential if the full array of talents are properly tapped. Each life matters. Each person deserves her or his chance for success in life. Education is critical to life success. In a democracy, therefore, full commitment to each K-12 student must be made.
And, consistent with the second feature of the New Salem Educational Initiative given emphasis today, the commitment must be forever. Eight years of the program's existence have now yielded several students who have graduated from the weekly two-hour small group program and are or will soon be matriculating at colleges and universities. I am in touch with them all, as I always told them that I would be. I have worked with each of these students in the summer to bring their skills to ever higher levels, as I always told them that I would do. These particular students all enrolled at relatively late stages in their K-12 experience, so getting them ready for success in college has required intense effort. But they are all on course to move forward successfully in their college programs, and all have much more magnified opportunities in life because of a commitment that 1) treated each life as unique and precious; and 2) was made in the context of permanence.
As a rule, children who enroll in the New Salem Educational Initiative as elementary (K-5) students have embarked on a program whereby attendance at an Ivy League or equivalent university is possible. Students who enroll at the middle school (6-8) level or the Grade 9 and 10 levels of high school have viable chances of attending good colleges and universities. Students who enroll at the Grade 11 or 12 level, assuming the typical academic deficits of Minneapolis Public Schools students from impoverished or familial dysfunctional backgrounds, have viable chances through intense skill remediation to attend two-year colleges with a vision of going on to earn a bachelor's degree at a four-year college or university.
In each case, the life prospects of the student has been enhanced because we
1)treated the young person as a precious being worth of great care and love; and
2) because the caring and love have been given throughout the relationship, enduring to the present and committed permanently into the future. As teachers fulfilling our mission in a democracy this is our obligation and our great privilege.
Aug 9, 2011
It's Education, Stupid
We pay all the time, in many ways, for our lack of a decent K-12 system of education in the United States. This is true in the full meaning of the latter federal entity, meaning all of the states in the nation, including Minnesota. We would do well to adapt an expression from the 1992 Clinton campaign and remind ourselves that while in electoral politics, "It's the economy, stupid," on a broader and even more important societal scale, "It's education, stupid."
When another young life is taken at 22nd and Dupont in North Minneapolis, "It's education, stupid." Almost certainly all of the young people involved have been poorly educated, have poor life prospects, may not really believe that they will live beyond the age of 21, and are adrift in wasted lives for lack of knowledge of the sort that can be applied productively in the world. "It's education, stupid."
When politicians cannot agree on a deficit and debt ceiling deal, even of the inconclusive sort, until the final hours before the deadline, "It's education, stupid." Too many of the politicians themselves never had much of an education in economics, so those on the left are beholden to Paul Kruger for their information, those of the Tea Party are beholden to right wing commentators and unexamined popular notions, and more old-line Republicans fall back on assumptions that have been expounded by the Wall Street Journal and won them favor with corporate political backers. In the public at large, there is considerable confusion over the distinction between deficit and debt, the difference between familial and governmental economics, the exact role of executive versus legislative branches in budgetary decision-making, the exact function of the Federal Reserve as an entity and as an actor for facililatating economic policy, or the exact roles of the Treasury Department versus the President's Council of Economic Advisers. So legislation is crafted in considerable ignorance and evaluated by the public and the electorate in woeful ignorance. "It's education, stupid."
When No Child Left Behind legislation gets to the point at which it is functioning magnificently, putting the uncomfortable spotlight on schools that have failed many students for decades, ill-educated journalists of no significant analytical and research capacity have little that they can do aside from repeating the unexamined shibboleths of the education establishment. And so we have another need to be reminded, "It's education, stupid." We hear and see repeated, as if mantras, empty-headed phrases such as "teaching to the test," "narrowing the curriculum," "unfairly punishing schools," and other such nonsense. Ill-educated and non-analytical journalists become dependent on the very people who have ill-served our students for so long. "It's education, stupid."
If we had even a good system of K-12 education in the United States and in the state of Minnesota, we would have fewer inner city young people living wasted lives, politicians and a body politic with some genuine understanding of basic economic principles and institutions, and journalists capable of being something other than the mouthpiece of vested interests. But we do not have a thoroughgoing sense of the importance of a well-balanced liberal arts education in the United States; we wander on forever claiming that we want an "excellent education" for our children without ever getting around to defining an "excellent education," much less constructing the kinds of institutions that would be capable of actually delivering high quality education. So in these and many other realms we suffer from a lack of knowledge and a paucity of clear thinking on matters relevant to the paramount issue of our time.
Because, to be sure, in the broad societal realm we suffer every day, in so many ways, for failing to understand that "It's education, stupid."
When another young life is taken at 22nd and Dupont in North Minneapolis, "It's education, stupid." Almost certainly all of the young people involved have been poorly educated, have poor life prospects, may not really believe that they will live beyond the age of 21, and are adrift in wasted lives for lack of knowledge of the sort that can be applied productively in the world. "It's education, stupid."
When politicians cannot agree on a deficit and debt ceiling deal, even of the inconclusive sort, until the final hours before the deadline, "It's education, stupid." Too many of the politicians themselves never had much of an education in economics, so those on the left are beholden to Paul Kruger for their information, those of the Tea Party are beholden to right wing commentators and unexamined popular notions, and more old-line Republicans fall back on assumptions that have been expounded by the Wall Street Journal and won them favor with corporate political backers. In the public at large, there is considerable confusion over the distinction between deficit and debt, the difference between familial and governmental economics, the exact role of executive versus legislative branches in budgetary decision-making, the exact function of the Federal Reserve as an entity and as an actor for facililatating economic policy, or the exact roles of the Treasury Department versus the President's Council of Economic Advisers. So legislation is crafted in considerable ignorance and evaluated by the public and the electorate in woeful ignorance. "It's education, stupid."
When No Child Left Behind legislation gets to the point at which it is functioning magnificently, putting the uncomfortable spotlight on schools that have failed many students for decades, ill-educated journalists of no significant analytical and research capacity have little that they can do aside from repeating the unexamined shibboleths of the education establishment. And so we have another need to be reminded, "It's education, stupid." We hear and see repeated, as if mantras, empty-headed phrases such as "teaching to the test," "narrowing the curriculum," "unfairly punishing schools," and other such nonsense. Ill-educated and non-analytical journalists become dependent on the very people who have ill-served our students for so long. "It's education, stupid."
If we had even a good system of K-12 education in the United States and in the state of Minnesota, we would have fewer inner city young people living wasted lives, politicians and a body politic with some genuine understanding of basic economic principles and institutions, and journalists capable of being something other than the mouthpiece of vested interests. But we do not have a thoroughgoing sense of the importance of a well-balanced liberal arts education in the United States; we wander on forever claiming that we want an "excellent education" for our children without ever getting around to defining an "excellent education," much less constructing the kinds of institutions that would be capable of actually delivering high quality education. So in these and many other realms we suffer from a lack of knowledge and a paucity of clear thinking on matters relevant to the paramount issue of our time.
Because, to be sure, in the broad societal realm we suffer every day, in so many ways, for failing to understand that "It's education, stupid."
Aug 5, 2011
Closing the Achievement Gap and Attaining Educational Excellence: Embracing the Challenge and Getting Students to the Excellent Teacher
The mission of K-12 public education holds no room for excuses. Children and adolescents from impoverished or dysfunctional families bring challenges to school that the genuine educator will embrace.
There is much in the design of the New Salem Educational Initiative from which the public schools can extrapolate for purposes of meeting the challenges. When eight years ago I started this program of total academic support for inner city young people, I knew that I would be providing transportation. I knew that I would go right up to the doorstep of the household wherein the student dwelled, talk with members of the family, get a sense of any current familial concerns, walk the student to the car, hold the academic session, then return the student in like manner--- checking in again with the family.
The advantages of proceeding in this way are multiple, most notably the high likelihood of near perfect attendance that this routine allows. The approach reduces the parental forgetfulness or distractedness factor in failing to get a student to a session. Even if the parent has forgotten that the day and time is that designated for the academic session, a relationship properly cultivated allows me to locate the student, articulate the reminder, and eventually transport the student to the session. In a significant number of cases, students may actually live or stay frequently in more than one household. So in many instances I have arrived at a designated address only to find that the student is currently staying somewhere else, so off I go to find the student at that place. This is the kind of on-the-ground, take no chances quality that pervades the approach of the New Salem Educational Initiative. In this instance it virtually guarantees perfect attendance; even if the rare instance occurs in which I don't get the student in the car for transport on the designated day, I reschedule on the spot and no session is missed. All of this is again abetted by the excellent relationships that I develop with the families of my students, so that one feature of the program strengthens another feature, and all features coalesce around the all-important objective of getting the student into a classroom wherein a teacher of excellence presides.
So two of these mutually reinforcing programmatic features are 1) the provision of transportation and 2) the development of strong relationships with the families of students. A third feature has to do with my knowledge of inner city communities in general and North Minneapolis in particular. I am comfortable with people of every walk of life and in many international outposts, and on one level I insist that my students eventually learn the linguistic conventions and mores of mainstream middle class society in the United States; but I am also able to converse and relate to children and adolescents in the vernacular of people living at the urban core, children often operating upon inner city African American linguistic conventions, or other ethnic groups heavily influenced by ebonics. But I also draw upon my experience in Hmong, Hispanic, and other cultures to make what other linguistic adjustments are necessasry.
And this ability to communicate across many cultures and ethnicities involves more than just words that are actually spoken. It also involves the tone and cadence of the voice, body language, and sheer comfort with the culture of reference. This is not easily taught; it is best acquired through deep experiences, across as many years as possible, on the ground and in the homes of people with mores similar to those from which a student population is drawn.
People write long tomes on what it takes academically to reach and teach inner city young people and thus close the achievement gap. But here again, the matter is best reduced to simply stated features that are difficult to achieve, but which require more in the way of action than discussion. The public schools very well may never go about the task of reaching the inner city child and adolescent in the exact same manner as I do, but the fundamental successful features are there for extrapolation and application by the public schools.
To fully embrace the challenges of reaching urban youth from impoverished or dysfunctional life circumstances, institutions of education must adapt the following interlocking features: 1) get students into the classroom by going with assertive transportational intent right where the student lives; 2) communicate with families about their own concerns, even as the importance of attendance to academic achievement is impressed upon them; 3) ensure that the teacher in the classroom to which the student is being transported has both command of the academic knowledge base and the cultural nuance to reach the student in her or his brain and heart.
The public education of K-12 students allows for no excuses. It is fundamental to a democracy. All students, from the many backgrounds that the word "all" suggests, must be provided with a high quality public education. Thus it is incumbent on public systems of education to adapt the principles that have proven so successful in imparting an excellent education to students from impoverished and dysfunctional familial situations.
There is much in the design of the New Salem Educational Initiative from which the public schools can extrapolate for purposes of meeting the challenges. When eight years ago I started this program of total academic support for inner city young people, I knew that I would be providing transportation. I knew that I would go right up to the doorstep of the household wherein the student dwelled, talk with members of the family, get a sense of any current familial concerns, walk the student to the car, hold the academic session, then return the student in like manner--- checking in again with the family.
The advantages of proceeding in this way are multiple, most notably the high likelihood of near perfect attendance that this routine allows. The approach reduces the parental forgetfulness or distractedness factor in failing to get a student to a session. Even if the parent has forgotten that the day and time is that designated for the academic session, a relationship properly cultivated allows me to locate the student, articulate the reminder, and eventually transport the student to the session. In a significant number of cases, students may actually live or stay frequently in more than one household. So in many instances I have arrived at a designated address only to find that the student is currently staying somewhere else, so off I go to find the student at that place. This is the kind of on-the-ground, take no chances quality that pervades the approach of the New Salem Educational Initiative. In this instance it virtually guarantees perfect attendance; even if the rare instance occurs in which I don't get the student in the car for transport on the designated day, I reschedule on the spot and no session is missed. All of this is again abetted by the excellent relationships that I develop with the families of my students, so that one feature of the program strengthens another feature, and all features coalesce around the all-important objective of getting the student into a classroom wherein a teacher of excellence presides.
So two of these mutually reinforcing programmatic features are 1) the provision of transportation and 2) the development of strong relationships with the families of students. A third feature has to do with my knowledge of inner city communities in general and North Minneapolis in particular. I am comfortable with people of every walk of life and in many international outposts, and on one level I insist that my students eventually learn the linguistic conventions and mores of mainstream middle class society in the United States; but I am also able to converse and relate to children and adolescents in the vernacular of people living at the urban core, children often operating upon inner city African American linguistic conventions, or other ethnic groups heavily influenced by ebonics. But I also draw upon my experience in Hmong, Hispanic, and other cultures to make what other linguistic adjustments are necessasry.
And this ability to communicate across many cultures and ethnicities involves more than just words that are actually spoken. It also involves the tone and cadence of the voice, body language, and sheer comfort with the culture of reference. This is not easily taught; it is best acquired through deep experiences, across as many years as possible, on the ground and in the homes of people with mores similar to those from which a student population is drawn.
People write long tomes on what it takes academically to reach and teach inner city young people and thus close the achievement gap. But here again, the matter is best reduced to simply stated features that are difficult to achieve, but which require more in the way of action than discussion. The public schools very well may never go about the task of reaching the inner city child and adolescent in the exact same manner as I do, but the fundamental successful features are there for extrapolation and application by the public schools.
To fully embrace the challenges of reaching urban youth from impoverished or dysfunctional life circumstances, institutions of education must adapt the following interlocking features: 1) get students into the classroom by going with assertive transportational intent right where the student lives; 2) communicate with families about their own concerns, even as the importance of attendance to academic achievement is impressed upon them; 3) ensure that the teacher in the classroom to which the student is being transported has both command of the academic knowledge base and the cultural nuance to reach the student in her or his brain and heart.
The public education of K-12 students allows for no excuses. It is fundamental to a democracy. All students, from the many backgrounds that the word "all" suggests, must be provided with a high quality public education. Thus it is incumbent on public systems of education to adapt the principles that have proven so successful in imparting an excellent education to students from impoverished and dysfunctional familial situations.
Aug 4, 2011
Closing the Achievement Gap and Delivering High Quality Education: The Need to Stop Talking and Just Get the Job Done
We overtalk the matter of education reform and the achievement gap, and we do too little. I increasingly observe that what we need to do is very clear, that we need to cut way back on the verbal exchanges about the key issues with regard to educational advancement in our K-12 schools, and that we need to start applying the elbow grease in much greater quantities. But that is an implicit problem. Adults tend to want to make themselves feel very smart by intellectualizing about matters of educational philosophy, rather than simply to sit down beside a child and teach her or him what that student needs to know at the relevant grade level.
Take math, for example. Math education professors and others tend to discuss approaches to math instruction as if such discussion involves some really perplexing issues. Often such discussion assumes that students need to be drawn to math through games and projects and activities that make math fun and engaging. Of course, this is one of many matters in which adults have vested interests in the education of K-12 young people, because math education professors (as opposed to professors of math as a legitimate discipline)would have no jobs if enough people realized what actually needs to be done rather than discussed.
At the kindergarten through Grade 2 level, students need to learn how to add and subtract, including eventually the knowledge of how to "regroup" (carry and borrow). Along the way they also should acquire knowledge of such things as calendars and time recognition (clocks and watches), but these latter things tend to fall into place when the strong number sense implied by addition and subtraction is acquired.
Most of my students in the New Salem Educational Initiative who begin studying with me as kindergarten or Grade 1 students tend to acquire all of the above skills by Grade 2 and to move on to multiplication. I have students as young as those at Grade 1 who have mastered their multiplication tables from 0 through 9, a skill that traditionally has been taught at Grade 3.
So my veteran students are ready at Grade 3 to move on to multi-digit multiplication and division. From there they progress as fast as time and care allow through a sequence of skills involving fractions, decimals, percents, proportions, ratios, and probability. They learn how to deal with increasingly sophisticated data, graphs, and tables. By Grade 6, my veteran students are ready for algebra and geometry of the sort that traditionally has been taught at Grades 9 and 10. So engaging in these subjects at such a young age, they gain the intellectual weight and ballast to thrive when they get to algebra and geometry in school, and they are laying the foundation for success in trigonometry and calculus.
Many employers would be thrilled if they had more applicants who know math at the level mastered by most of my students by Grade 6. How do I impart knowledge of math to my students? I just show them what to do. This is what would deeply disturb many math education professors and those who would like to discuss math instruction as if students do not like math and as if math instruction is some recondite matter for adult intellectualizing. It isn't. When I teach students addition and subtraction by sitting down beside them and sketching out problems on a yellow pad, they get it. They like it. Success builds on success, and they want more. No tricks or time-wastng projects are necessary. Well-selected word problems obviate the necessity for time-consuming projects, and my students get all the real-world application that they need. With addition and subtraction mastered, I proceed with multiplication along the lines detailed in another article. And so it goes on my yellow pad through division, fractions, decimals, percentages, proportions, ratios, probability, and tables and graphs; and from there to the skills relevant to algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus.
Similarly, as my students in the New Salem Educational Initiative learn to become better readers, they read a wide variety of material from fiction, poetry, history, government, economics, and the natural sciences. These subjects lead to interesting discussions in the classroom and in transport to and from the academic sessions, involving additional topics from such fields as geography, psychology, and philosophy.
So this is what it takes to impart high quality education to students: a well-educated teacher willing to apply the elbow grease in time-efficient applications, and comfortable discussing a wide variety of subjects.
The next time you are tempted to overintellectualize about matters of pedagogy and educational philosophy, save your breath. Instead, go sit down beside a child and start explaining. You'll then find out how much young people yearn for substantive knowledge, how appreciative they are, and how they don't need your tricks: They just need your knowledge, your time, and your love.
Take math, for example. Math education professors and others tend to discuss approaches to math instruction as if such discussion involves some really perplexing issues. Often such discussion assumes that students need to be drawn to math through games and projects and activities that make math fun and engaging. Of course, this is one of many matters in which adults have vested interests in the education of K-12 young people, because math education professors (as opposed to professors of math as a legitimate discipline)would have no jobs if enough people realized what actually needs to be done rather than discussed.
At the kindergarten through Grade 2 level, students need to learn how to add and subtract, including eventually the knowledge of how to "regroup" (carry and borrow). Along the way they also should acquire knowledge of such things as calendars and time recognition (clocks and watches), but these latter things tend to fall into place when the strong number sense implied by addition and subtraction is acquired.
Most of my students in the New Salem Educational Initiative who begin studying with me as kindergarten or Grade 1 students tend to acquire all of the above skills by Grade 2 and to move on to multiplication. I have students as young as those at Grade 1 who have mastered their multiplication tables from 0 through 9, a skill that traditionally has been taught at Grade 3.
So my veteran students are ready at Grade 3 to move on to multi-digit multiplication and division. From there they progress as fast as time and care allow through a sequence of skills involving fractions, decimals, percents, proportions, ratios, and probability. They learn how to deal with increasingly sophisticated data, graphs, and tables. By Grade 6, my veteran students are ready for algebra and geometry of the sort that traditionally has been taught at Grades 9 and 10. So engaging in these subjects at such a young age, they gain the intellectual weight and ballast to thrive when they get to algebra and geometry in school, and they are laying the foundation for success in trigonometry and calculus.
Many employers would be thrilled if they had more applicants who know math at the level mastered by most of my students by Grade 6. How do I impart knowledge of math to my students? I just show them what to do. This is what would deeply disturb many math education professors and those who would like to discuss math instruction as if students do not like math and as if math instruction is some recondite matter for adult intellectualizing. It isn't. When I teach students addition and subtraction by sitting down beside them and sketching out problems on a yellow pad, they get it. They like it. Success builds on success, and they want more. No tricks or time-wastng projects are necessary. Well-selected word problems obviate the necessity for time-consuming projects, and my students get all the real-world application that they need. With addition and subtraction mastered, I proceed with multiplication along the lines detailed in another article. And so it goes on my yellow pad through division, fractions, decimals, percentages, proportions, ratios, probability, and tables and graphs; and from there to the skills relevant to algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus.
Similarly, as my students in the New Salem Educational Initiative learn to become better readers, they read a wide variety of material from fiction, poetry, history, government, economics, and the natural sciences. These subjects lead to interesting discussions in the classroom and in transport to and from the academic sessions, involving additional topics from such fields as geography, psychology, and philosophy.
So this is what it takes to impart high quality education to students: a well-educated teacher willing to apply the elbow grease in time-efficient applications, and comfortable discussing a wide variety of subjects.
The next time you are tempted to overintellectualize about matters of pedagogy and educational philosophy, save your breath. Instead, go sit down beside a child and start explaining. You'll then find out how much young people yearn for substantive knowledge, how appreciative they are, and how they don't need your tricks: They just need your knowledge, your time, and your love.
Aug 3, 2011
Focusing LIke a Laser on Training Excellent Teachers
The reform of K-12 education in the United States remains a topic of considerable discusssion in the political ether of the nation of note, but much of the discussion is misaimed and peripheral to any effort that would attain the desired end. The painful truth about K-12 reform, as it is usually termed, is that what we really need is revolution (complete restructuring, or what Michelle Rhee euphemistically calls "transformative reform"), not mere reform. And the revolution, the needed overhaul, the total change that must ensue is simply stated but difficult to achieve. It really begins and ends with a higher quality of teacher, a classroom-tested bearer of at least a master's degree in a legitimate discipline (not attained in departments of education but in departments of natural science, social science, and the humanities), a true professional.
So there you have it. As with most important problems, the needed program is or should be simply stated, but it is difficult to achieve. And, as in those other cases, our chronic problem in addressing the issue at hand is that we do not address the issue at hand: Rather, we create countless distractions for ourselves, some of which are intellectually interesting and sometimes make people feel very smart through extensive discussion--- but constitute wasted effort contributive not one whit toward the solution of the truly important matter putatively under discussion.
Thus it is that in education we create many discussions, apparently very interesting to adults who like to haggle verbally, but which have no possibility of advancing a high quality education for children and adolescents. So, for example, if you have ever thought that better education will be attained through smaller schools, larger schools, classrooms with boys only, classrooms with girls only, exciting curricula focused on the arts or science or math, schools created by and run by parents or teachers or communities--- think again. Whatever virtues such educational initiatives may or may not have, they are not germane to the topic of attaining educational excellence.
Because if schools founded on such beliefs and strategems lack well-trained teachers, all founders. Excellent teachers are the key to attaining excellent education. I have in a previous article defined an excellent education as a rich liberal arts curriculum delivered by excellent teachers. Of the two main features of an excellent education, excellent teachers are by far the most important. Because truly excellent teachers who are experts in their fields of study could write their own curriculum and deliver meaningful subject area content in history, literature, natural science, economics, history, and the fine arts all as a matter of their own training and intellectual inclination.
Celebrate and despair. Achieving educational excellence is just that easy and just that hard. Almost everyone with whom I have discourse--- and I have lively discussions with people representative of many walks of life and strains of ethnicity--- are a long way from even grasping the advanced level of training of teachers for which I advocate (see previous articles, especially concerning the definition of an excellent teacher), much less being ready, willing, and able to apply the elbow grease needed to get the job done.
We would have to dismantle all current programs of teacher training to attain the quality of teaching that would be necessary to attain educational excellence. That would require enormous effort and cut against many entrenched polical interests. Then we would have to institute the program of teacher training for which I have advocated in previous articles. That would require more enormous effort. Thus it is that I cite the necessity of pursuing "transformative educational reform" (revolution) of a kind that we must have but have many miles to go before readying ourselves for the task.
But understand this: We will have no meaningful change in our K-12 system of education until we focus like a laser on improving teacher training. Any other discussions are intellectual pastimes for adults that will accomplish nothing at all for the students themselves, who want and are capable of so much more.
So there you have it. As with most important problems, the needed program is or should be simply stated, but it is difficult to achieve. And, as in those other cases, our chronic problem in addressing the issue at hand is that we do not address the issue at hand: Rather, we create countless distractions for ourselves, some of which are intellectually interesting and sometimes make people feel very smart through extensive discussion--- but constitute wasted effort contributive not one whit toward the solution of the truly important matter putatively under discussion.
Thus it is that in education we create many discussions, apparently very interesting to adults who like to haggle verbally, but which have no possibility of advancing a high quality education for children and adolescents. So, for example, if you have ever thought that better education will be attained through smaller schools, larger schools, classrooms with boys only, classrooms with girls only, exciting curricula focused on the arts or science or math, schools created by and run by parents or teachers or communities--- think again. Whatever virtues such educational initiatives may or may not have, they are not germane to the topic of attaining educational excellence.
Because if schools founded on such beliefs and strategems lack well-trained teachers, all founders. Excellent teachers are the key to attaining excellent education. I have in a previous article defined an excellent education as a rich liberal arts curriculum delivered by excellent teachers. Of the two main features of an excellent education, excellent teachers are by far the most important. Because truly excellent teachers who are experts in their fields of study could write their own curriculum and deliver meaningful subject area content in history, literature, natural science, economics, history, and the fine arts all as a matter of their own training and intellectual inclination.
Celebrate and despair. Achieving educational excellence is just that easy and just that hard. Almost everyone with whom I have discourse--- and I have lively discussions with people representative of many walks of life and strains of ethnicity--- are a long way from even grasping the advanced level of training of teachers for which I advocate (see previous articles, especially concerning the definition of an excellent teacher), much less being ready, willing, and able to apply the elbow grease needed to get the job done.
We would have to dismantle all current programs of teacher training to attain the quality of teaching that would be necessary to attain educational excellence. That would require enormous effort and cut against many entrenched polical interests. Then we would have to institute the program of teacher training for which I have advocated in previous articles. That would require more enormous effort. Thus it is that I cite the necessity of pursuing "transformative educational reform" (revolution) of a kind that we must have but have many miles to go before readying ourselves for the task.
But understand this: We will have no meaningful change in our K-12 system of education until we focus like a laser on improving teacher training. Any other discussions are intellectual pastimes for adults that will accomplish nothing at all for the students themselves, who want and are capable of so much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)