Sounds to me like you did it just right, Baron. Saturday evening, December 17th, ice skating rink in Central Park, New York City, and you arranged for the rink to play a special CD comprised of appropriate music, you arranged to have the staff clear the ice, then escorted our precious daughter Lacey to the center of the rink. There, on one knee, you asked her to marry you. New York City, Central Park, ice rink, Christmas time, proposal. Nicely done.
She said "yes" and you placed a ring on her finger. My daughter has a fiance and I have a future son-in-law. Love her always.
Welcome to the family, Baron!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
SNAFU: EOC
Perhaps you are not familiar with the acronym SNAFU. And, perhaps you are aghast that I would juxtapose such an acronym with an educational acronym, EOC. To be blunt, however, what we have here is a snafu called EOC.
End of Course Exams, or EOC, sound so reasonable on paper: At the end of each of 12 major core high school subjects students take a standardized test on that subject. These tests are called End of Course Exams, and are a component of the newly implemented STAAR High Stakes Standardized Testing program in Texas. (If you like acronyms, you know we are moving from TAKS to STAAR having already finished with TAAS, TEAMS and TABS.) In truth, the TAKS test was tough on high school teachers and students because the 9th grade Math TAKS test, for instance, not only tested students on some algebraic concepts, it also covered some 8th and 7th grade content as well. Made it tough to teach algebra and prepare kids for a 9th grade math test. Now we have an Algebra EOC and that makes much more sense, theoretically.
The snafu is that the Legislature and now TEA and the State Board of Ed. are all in the grading game. Because those groups do not understand high schools, grades, GPA, graduation requirements, etc., they have created a real mess. We are required to count the EOC as 15% of the student's final grade in a course. Sounds simple. Not. Students are required to pass the EOCs for Algebra II and English III . Students are required to have cumulative average on all 12 EOCs to graduate. Further, the state allows students to re-take EOC exams if they so choose. All that sounds pretty good until we get to the ground level where we are trying to implement these policies.
Let's say I am a highly competitive, high achieving student and my ambition is to graduate in the top 10% of my class. (Or, at least that is what my parents want for me.) I take Algebra in 9th grade. I have an A average on all my homework, tests, finals, etc. Now I take the EOC. I do not do well and score in the mid 60's. That becomes 15% of my grade so my final average for the course drops from say a 93 to a 88 and I make a B in Algebra. I can re-take the Algebra EOC to help my cumulative EOC score, but when I do, should the new score count on my Algebra grade and my GPA? If so, is there a limit to the number of times I can take it? If not, why not? Why can't I simply wait until I have taken Algebra II my junior year then come back and take the Algebra I EOC. I should really ace it then!
On the other hand, let's say I'm a bright kid, but I hate going to class, doing homework, etc. I get zeros on all my classwork, but when tests roll around I knock the top off. Going into my Algebra EOC I have a failing average, but I score at the top of the curve on the EOC test. I am in the superior achievement category! But, my score is not high enough at 15% to pull my regular course grade up to passing. Should I be given credit for Algebra? Why not? I have more than demonstrated mastery. Should my EOC count more than 15%? Should I be allowed to opt for my EOC to count 100%? State law says it should count 15%, but says nothing about it counting more.
Add to all of the above the fact that we will have seniors who take an EOC in May and must await outcomes that will not be returned until sometime late June or July, and those outcomes determine whether they actually graduate or not. Shall we simply allow all seniors who complete their coursework to participate in graduation? Or, should we say you must have passed everything, including your EOCs to graduate? If so, do we bump graduation to July? Snafu.
There are a host of other issues. What do we do with 1/2 credits? What do we do if parents want to double up their child's math and/or science in a lower grade so they do not have EOCs their senior year and by so doing we kill elective programs and have to re-staff our teaching core? Etc., etc. What do we do with athletic eligibility if a student's cumulative EOC score is not high enough to graduate? The problem for school systems is to implement policies in a way that will be fair and equitable for all and still comply with state mandates. The requirement that EOCs count toward a grade, the reality that grades counts toward GPA, and the student opportunity to re-take the test multiple times creates more and more confusion.
We could say that if you get a top score on the EOC your 15% is "100." Pass and your score is "95." Fail, regardless of grade, and your score is "69." If we do that, most students will be helped and we minimize the impact of the EOC on the grading process. Perhaps, however, that makes too much sense and the state will require us to use an actual translation of the raw or scaled score to a grade that can be used as 15% of the final.
We get it that the state in its current philosophical iteration believes that high stakes standardized tests are the way to promote improved academic success. (I do not believe that, and there is virtually no evidence to support that philosophical belief, but if I am going to be an educator in Texas I must play by the rules.) The snafu in this new accountability measure is that the state went too deep into micro management and created a host of problems that will be resolved differently in every system in the state. No matter what we do it will be perceived as unfair to someone. Sadly, one way or another, it will be students who suffer, not Legislators. They do not have to pass an EOC to remain in office.
End of Course Exams, or EOC, sound so reasonable on paper: At the end of each of 12 major core high school subjects students take a standardized test on that subject. These tests are called End of Course Exams, and are a component of the newly implemented STAAR High Stakes Standardized Testing program in Texas. (If you like acronyms, you know we are moving from TAKS to STAAR having already finished with TAAS, TEAMS and TABS.) In truth, the TAKS test was tough on high school teachers and students because the 9th grade Math TAKS test, for instance, not only tested students on some algebraic concepts, it also covered some 8th and 7th grade content as well. Made it tough to teach algebra and prepare kids for a 9th grade math test. Now we have an Algebra EOC and that makes much more sense, theoretically.
The snafu is that the Legislature and now TEA and the State Board of Ed. are all in the grading game. Because those groups do not understand high schools, grades, GPA, graduation requirements, etc., they have created a real mess. We are required to count the EOC as 15% of the student's final grade in a course. Sounds simple. Not. Students are required to pass the EOCs for Algebra II and English III . Students are required to have cumulative average on all 12 EOCs to graduate. Further, the state allows students to re-take EOC exams if they so choose. All that sounds pretty good until we get to the ground level where we are trying to implement these policies.
Let's say I am a highly competitive, high achieving student and my ambition is to graduate in the top 10% of my class. (Or, at least that is what my parents want for me.) I take Algebra in 9th grade. I have an A average on all my homework, tests, finals, etc. Now I take the EOC. I do not do well and score in the mid 60's. That becomes 15% of my grade so my final average for the course drops from say a 93 to a 88 and I make a B in Algebra. I can re-take the Algebra EOC to help my cumulative EOC score, but when I do, should the new score count on my Algebra grade and my GPA? If so, is there a limit to the number of times I can take it? If not, why not? Why can't I simply wait until I have taken Algebra II my junior year then come back and take the Algebra I EOC. I should really ace it then!
On the other hand, let's say I'm a bright kid, but I hate going to class, doing homework, etc. I get zeros on all my classwork, but when tests roll around I knock the top off. Going into my Algebra EOC I have a failing average, but I score at the top of the curve on the EOC test. I am in the superior achievement category! But, my score is not high enough at 15% to pull my regular course grade up to passing. Should I be given credit for Algebra? Why not? I have more than demonstrated mastery. Should my EOC count more than 15%? Should I be allowed to opt for my EOC to count 100%? State law says it should count 15%, but says nothing about it counting more.
Add to all of the above the fact that we will have seniors who take an EOC in May and must await outcomes that will not be returned until sometime late June or July, and those outcomes determine whether they actually graduate or not. Shall we simply allow all seniors who complete their coursework to participate in graduation? Or, should we say you must have passed everything, including your EOCs to graduate? If so, do we bump graduation to July? Snafu.
There are a host of other issues. What do we do with 1/2 credits? What do we do if parents want to double up their child's math and/or science in a lower grade so they do not have EOCs their senior year and by so doing we kill elective programs and have to re-staff our teaching core? Etc., etc. What do we do with athletic eligibility if a student's cumulative EOC score is not high enough to graduate? The problem for school systems is to implement policies in a way that will be fair and equitable for all and still comply with state mandates. The requirement that EOCs count toward a grade, the reality that grades counts toward GPA, and the student opportunity to re-take the test multiple times creates more and more confusion.
We could say that if you get a top score on the EOC your 15% is "100." Pass and your score is "95." Fail, regardless of grade, and your score is "69." If we do that, most students will be helped and we minimize the impact of the EOC on the grading process. Perhaps, however, that makes too much sense and the state will require us to use an actual translation of the raw or scaled score to a grade that can be used as 15% of the final.
We get it that the state in its current philosophical iteration believes that high stakes standardized tests are the way to promote improved academic success. (I do not believe that, and there is virtually no evidence to support that philosophical belief, but if I am going to be an educator in Texas I must play by the rules.) The snafu in this new accountability measure is that the state went too deep into micro management and created a host of problems that will be resolved differently in every system in the state. No matter what we do it will be perceived as unfair to someone. Sadly, one way or another, it will be students who suffer, not Legislators. They do not have to pass an EOC to remain in office.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Incentives and Charter Schools
I just finished completing a survey sent to us by the US Department of Education. Amazing. It asked a lot of questions about numbers of students, numbers of teachers, reductions this year compared to last, etc., etc. I was fine submitting all that data, (well, really, Jan and Beverly had to help me out with a lot of employee and enrollment numbers,) but I got through all that OK. Seemed to me like reasonable data to collect.
Then the survey took a turn. They asked if we had "choice", if we had charter schools, and if not, how we supported charter schools. They asked if we paid incentives to teachers for student performance on standardized tests. They wanted to know how many charters and how much we paid in incentives. Unlike the earlier questions where if you selected "None" as a response you were then directed to a later question, this section continued to ask the same thing over and over. The implication was clear, if we were not supporting charter schools and paying teachers incentives for TAKS or STAAR outcomes, we were somehow out of the loop, going against the flow, not with the program. My blood pressure rose. Hence, this post, tapping keys rather than popping pills.
Salary works but incentives do not. I do not know why that is so hard to explain to folks outside our profession, but it is true. We lose staff in the summer interim to other systems that pay teachers or administrators more than we pay. Once a school year begins, contracts are signed and staff is assigned, we are pretty much set personnel-wise for an entire year, barring medical, marital, or reproductive events. Teachers do not scan the vacancy postings in October and say, "Hey, there is a district in another city where I could earn $2,000 more per year. I think I'll quit here and go there!" Doesn't happen for a variety of reasons, but mostly because our staff signs a professional contract whereby they are committed to working with us for a school year, and we are loathe to let them escape that contract midstream. Summers are different. We have lost some good folks who are willing to move or commute to earn more money in another system.
Once signed up for a year, however, teachers and principals are going to do the best job they can possibly do. I have never, ever, experienced a staff member who drove to work in November thinking, "Today, I will work harder than usual because my kids might perform better on a test in April so I might get more money next September." The fallacy in the belief that someone might operate that way is so blatant to me I cannot fathom why anyone would support it, but it is the rage, the new assumption about one strategy to improve public education. Say to a teacher, "I will give you $100 extra if you will do bus duty today," and you may get a bunch of takers. (In fact, say to a teacher, "Will you cover bus duty today, I really need some help" and you will get even more takers. That is the nature of our profession.) Say to a teacher, "I will give you $1,000 one year from now if your 11 year old students do better on a standardized test 6 months from now," and most will simply look at you like you are nuts. Salary works, incentives do not. We all do the best we can do every day.
(The real underlying problem here, however, is basing all of this on high stakes standardized tests. It remains ludicrous to judge kids, teachers and schools on one standardized test, but that is fodder for another feast.)
The same mindset that supports teacher incentives supports charter schools. I do not have that mindset. Charter schools as I use the term here, are state-funded, taxpayer supported, alternative schools that are not based on school or district boundaries. They are optional schools, schools of choice, meaning that parents can opt to enroll their kids in these schools rather than the resident public school. By the same token, the charter does not have to take the kids and does not have to keep the kids for the duration of a school year. They take the same high stakes standardized tests we take, but they do not have to take the kids we have to take, or keep them. What taxpayers are doing is depleting the funds for public schools by supporting another "public" school that operates under a different set of rules and is held accountable in different ways.
Let's be candid: the kids who do the best on the high stakes test tend to be more affluent than the kids who do poorly. That is the consistent conclusion apparent from every analysis of test score outcomes. The other conclusion that is consistently true is that the schools that spend more money per kid have the highest outcomes. Got to admit that makes sense. (If it were based on teachers alone, then all we would have to do is move the teachers from high performing schools to low performing schools and the outcomes would change. I would argue that moving teachers from high performing schools to low performing schools would likely make the low performing schools more so.) It should come as no surprise that the highest performing schools have two attributes: wealthy kids and/or more money spent per kid. Charter schools drain both variables of import, that is, kids whose parents earn enough money to be able to provide transportation to and from the charter may enroll in the charter. There are no bus routes for charter schools. The very existence of the charter drains money from the public school because we are funded based on enrollment.
If you want to compare charter schools to public schools using the high stakes outcomes, you might conclude charters do better because they are an alternative to public schools and they do things better. No way. (In fact, the studies comparing outcomes have very mixed reviews. Recent studies tend to indicate that students in public schools are outperforming students in charter schools.) I argue that the very best teachers teach the kids who are most likely not to do well. Very bright, affluent kids are going to pass the standardized tests no matter who the teacher is. (That is not to say that the teacher of wealthy kids does not make a difference. They do. But the role of the teacher of wealthy kids is to promote extended success, not just mere passing.) The one thing charter schools have going for them is parental support. Clearly, if my kid can get kicked out of your school I am going to do all that I can to promote his or her success, ensure they do their homework, and back teacher expectations. Elsewise, you will be removed from the charter, and (gasp) returned to public schools.
Perhaps the real answer to these two programs is simply to ensure that all teachers are highly paid and that public schools have choices as well. Suppose we the public school could ask non-compliant, non-conforming kids to simply leave our system? Wouldn't that be interesting?
Meanwhile, I do not support incentives or charter schools. I deeply, deeply support public schools and the professionals that work therein. I believe public schools are the very best hope for the future of our democracy. Period.
Then the survey took a turn. They asked if we had "choice", if we had charter schools, and if not, how we supported charter schools. They asked if we paid incentives to teachers for student performance on standardized tests. They wanted to know how many charters and how much we paid in incentives. Unlike the earlier questions where if you selected "None" as a response you were then directed to a later question, this section continued to ask the same thing over and over. The implication was clear, if we were not supporting charter schools and paying teachers incentives for TAKS or STAAR outcomes, we were somehow out of the loop, going against the flow, not with the program. My blood pressure rose. Hence, this post, tapping keys rather than popping pills.
Salary works but incentives do not. I do not know why that is so hard to explain to folks outside our profession, but it is true. We lose staff in the summer interim to other systems that pay teachers or administrators more than we pay. Once a school year begins, contracts are signed and staff is assigned, we are pretty much set personnel-wise for an entire year, barring medical, marital, or reproductive events. Teachers do not scan the vacancy postings in October and say, "Hey, there is a district in another city where I could earn $2,000 more per year. I think I'll quit here and go there!" Doesn't happen for a variety of reasons, but mostly because our staff signs a professional contract whereby they are committed to working with us for a school year, and we are loathe to let them escape that contract midstream. Summers are different. We have lost some good folks who are willing to move or commute to earn more money in another system.
Once signed up for a year, however, teachers and principals are going to do the best job they can possibly do. I have never, ever, experienced a staff member who drove to work in November thinking, "Today, I will work harder than usual because my kids might perform better on a test in April so I might get more money next September." The fallacy in the belief that someone might operate that way is so blatant to me I cannot fathom why anyone would support it, but it is the rage, the new assumption about one strategy to improve public education. Say to a teacher, "I will give you $100 extra if you will do bus duty today," and you may get a bunch of takers. (In fact, say to a teacher, "Will you cover bus duty today, I really need some help" and you will get even more takers. That is the nature of our profession.) Say to a teacher, "I will give you $1,000 one year from now if your 11 year old students do better on a standardized test 6 months from now," and most will simply look at you like you are nuts. Salary works, incentives do not. We all do the best we can do every day.
(The real underlying problem here, however, is basing all of this on high stakes standardized tests. It remains ludicrous to judge kids, teachers and schools on one standardized test, but that is fodder for another feast.)
The same mindset that supports teacher incentives supports charter schools. I do not have that mindset. Charter schools as I use the term here, are state-funded, taxpayer supported, alternative schools that are not based on school or district boundaries. They are optional schools, schools of choice, meaning that parents can opt to enroll their kids in these schools rather than the resident public school. By the same token, the charter does not have to take the kids and does not have to keep the kids for the duration of a school year. They take the same high stakes standardized tests we take, but they do not have to take the kids we have to take, or keep them. What taxpayers are doing is depleting the funds for public schools by supporting another "public" school that operates under a different set of rules and is held accountable in different ways.
Let's be candid: the kids who do the best on the high stakes test tend to be more affluent than the kids who do poorly. That is the consistent conclusion apparent from every analysis of test score outcomes. The other conclusion that is consistently true is that the schools that spend more money per kid have the highest outcomes. Got to admit that makes sense. (If it were based on teachers alone, then all we would have to do is move the teachers from high performing schools to low performing schools and the outcomes would change. I would argue that moving teachers from high performing schools to low performing schools would likely make the low performing schools more so.) It should come as no surprise that the highest performing schools have two attributes: wealthy kids and/or more money spent per kid. Charter schools drain both variables of import, that is, kids whose parents earn enough money to be able to provide transportation to and from the charter may enroll in the charter. There are no bus routes for charter schools. The very existence of the charter drains money from the public school because we are funded based on enrollment.
If you want to compare charter schools to public schools using the high stakes outcomes, you might conclude charters do better because they are an alternative to public schools and they do things better. No way. (In fact, the studies comparing outcomes have very mixed reviews. Recent studies tend to indicate that students in public schools are outperforming students in charter schools.) I argue that the very best teachers teach the kids who are most likely not to do well. Very bright, affluent kids are going to pass the standardized tests no matter who the teacher is. (That is not to say that the teacher of wealthy kids does not make a difference. They do. But the role of the teacher of wealthy kids is to promote extended success, not just mere passing.) The one thing charter schools have going for them is parental support. Clearly, if my kid can get kicked out of your school I am going to do all that I can to promote his or her success, ensure they do their homework, and back teacher expectations. Elsewise, you will be removed from the charter, and (gasp) returned to public schools.
Perhaps the real answer to these two programs is simply to ensure that all teachers are highly paid and that public schools have choices as well. Suppose we the public school could ask non-compliant, non-conforming kids to simply leave our system? Wouldn't that be interesting?
Meanwhile, I do not support incentives or charter schools. I deeply, deeply support public schools and the professionals that work therein. I believe public schools are the very best hope for the future of our democracy. Period.
Hello, Brody!
Welcome to planet earth, my grandson! Born Friday, 12/2 and weighing 7.2 pounds and 19.25 inches long you are definitely a "keeper." I have great confidence in your future as you did a great job in choosing your parents, and I will do all that I can to support you as you mature. There's no telling what life will be like when you graduate from high school in 2029, but I have confidence that between the love of your family and the man you will become, you will be ready. No excuses, do your homework. In the meantime, rest and grow. Becoming verbal, mobile and housebroken are enough to tackle for a while.
(If people stopped having babies I would have to find another career. Special thanks to my son and daughter-in-law for keeping me and other educators employed.)
(If people stopped having babies I would have to find another career. Special thanks to my son and daughter-in-law for keeping me and other educators employed.)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Goodbye, Robbie
I was with you really only a handful of times in your 28 years, son of my brother. I loved you, but you probably have no evidence of that. You were my brother’s son and I loved you by definition. I cared about you, your life, your well-being, and know in my heart of hearts there is very little I would not have done for you. Yes, I feel guilt that I did not do more, did not reach out more, did not pay more attention. I know now you were wounded and I failed to see the wound. You were never worthless, you were never without charm and a winning smile, you were never without huge potential, you were never without the possibility of a great life ahead of you, and you were never un-loved.
And now, you will never be here to hear that. So, I guess I write this for me.
With God's help I will tend to those you leave behind. But, I miss you my nephew.
Goodbye, Robbie.
R.I.P.
11/24/11
Real Improvement
Debbie and I have lived in the same house for over 12 years now. That’s a record for us. And though it is the same house, it is in many ways very different. I am fascinated by the process that triggers then transforms our home. It usually happens this way:
I will be summoned into a room of our house where my wife stands looking reflective. Uh oh, she has had a vision. She has had a vision of what this room could be. Debbie begins to describe colors, flooring, furniture, finishing touches, etc., etc. As her vision is articulated I too see the room in a new way. The room wherein I have been comfortable, content; the room I could walk through in the dark without collision is now somehow less than it could be. I am discontent with the current state. I have seen the vision; in fact, I add to and embellish the vision with my own sense of what the room could be. We talk about it for a week or two, not doing anything but thinking and sharing. This for me is the creative tension stage wherein I sense things are going to change, am not sure exactly how they will change or how we will pay for it, but know I am growing more committed to the change and less content with the current state.
Next we start to shop, usually on-line, and begin to compile a list of what we will need to transform the room. As the bottom line grows, plans adjust. Perhaps we will do this in stages. We finalize our shopping list and head out to purchase. We never have enough resources to do everything we would like to do, but we do not wait for that or we would never do anything. This is the real commitment stage. If we are going to buy this stuff we sure as heck are going to do something with it.
We begin the actual transformation by making a mess. We move out the current stuff, now referred to as the “old stuff” and get down to the bare walls and floor. As we paint, re-floor, etc., we create even a bigger mess, but the vision of what the room could be keeps us going through the construction stage. We make mistakes, change our minds, swap this color for that, this texture for that, etc., but we keep going. After work and on weekends we eagerly tackle the project eventually reaching the point where we know we must finish soon, or declare war, or apply for federal disaster funds.
And then we are done! We haul off the old stuff. We clean up, move new stuff in, add the finishing touches and step back and look at our transformed room. We congratulate each other. We celebrate. We invite folks over to see what we have done. We are proud and pleased, know that it is not perfect, but it is work of our own hands. One room at a time, inside and outside, over 12 years we have gradually transformed our home. Once again I am content, I am at peace, and knowingly await another vision.
The process fascinates me because it works. It begins with a vision and/or a sense of discontent with the current state. The vision is shared and modified by those who have a sense of commitment and ownership in the outcome. Once articulated, the vision is acted on. Old stuff goes away, new stuff heads in. A mess is made during which time the re-visioned space is really not usable and looks worse. Commitment to the vision gets us through the mess and construction phase and plans are always modified. We conclude with a transformation and celebration.
This process would not work if our neighbors came over and criticized our current room and told us we should improve it. Nor would it work if the city mandated that every room must be transformed by a certain date and time meeting certain standards. It surely would not work if we did not have a sense of ownership, nor would it work if we had such a strong sense of commitment to the status quo that we were unable to have a vision or feel discontent. Real home improvement begins with the folks in the inside, not from folks on the outside. Those inside look outside for ideas, for inspiration, for research, but the motivation comes from inside. It involves the folks who have a sense of ownership in the place. It involves real commitment to improvement by people under the same roof.
That’s the part current school reformers do not get. Real improvement is inside-out, not outside-in. A memo, a law, a standard, a fiat does not result in inspired improvement but does result in mandated compliance. No one is excited or inspired by compliance. How simple it would be for Debbie and I to convene, look at Better Homes and Gardens, and send a letter to our grown children telling them that by September 1 they must transform their homes to meet these new standards and comply with our vision of what their homes should be; and, we are reducing their resources while we are making the requirements. We could even add sanctions if they did not comply.
We would never, ever do that.
So, the next time you hear a candidate, or an elected official, or an educational bureaucrat, or a billionaire discuss reform, mandate improvement, propose new standards, new tests, new outcomes, new processes, new evaluation tools, etc., etc., please stand up and say Poppycock and Balderdash. That is not how real improvement gets done. You may want to use language stronger than that if they propose such things and cut funding.
Please join those of us in the schools in our effort to transform and improve via our own visions. All voices that have a stake in the children of our community are welcome to share. The better the vision, the better the transformation.
One last thing: let’s help each other never to be too content with the way things are, too attached to the old stuff and too fearful to throw it away. That is the path that leads to outside-in reform.
I will be summoned into a room of our house where my wife stands looking reflective. Uh oh, she has had a vision. She has had a vision of what this room could be. Debbie begins to describe colors, flooring, furniture, finishing touches, etc., etc. As her vision is articulated I too see the room in a new way. The room wherein I have been comfortable, content; the room I could walk through in the dark without collision is now somehow less than it could be. I am discontent with the current state. I have seen the vision; in fact, I add to and embellish the vision with my own sense of what the room could be. We talk about it for a week or two, not doing anything but thinking and sharing. This for me is the creative tension stage wherein I sense things are going to change, am not sure exactly how they will change or how we will pay for it, but know I am growing more committed to the change and less content with the current state.
Next we start to shop, usually on-line, and begin to compile a list of what we will need to transform the room. As the bottom line grows, plans adjust. Perhaps we will do this in stages. We finalize our shopping list and head out to purchase. We never have enough resources to do everything we would like to do, but we do not wait for that or we would never do anything. This is the real commitment stage. If we are going to buy this stuff we sure as heck are going to do something with it.
We begin the actual transformation by making a mess. We move out the current stuff, now referred to as the “old stuff” and get down to the bare walls and floor. As we paint, re-floor, etc., we create even a bigger mess, but the vision of what the room could be keeps us going through the construction stage. We make mistakes, change our minds, swap this color for that, this texture for that, etc., but we keep going. After work and on weekends we eagerly tackle the project eventually reaching the point where we know we must finish soon, or declare war, or apply for federal disaster funds.
And then we are done! We haul off the old stuff. We clean up, move new stuff in, add the finishing touches and step back and look at our transformed room. We congratulate each other. We celebrate. We invite folks over to see what we have done. We are proud and pleased, know that it is not perfect, but it is work of our own hands. One room at a time, inside and outside, over 12 years we have gradually transformed our home. Once again I am content, I am at peace, and knowingly await another vision.
The process fascinates me because it works. It begins with a vision and/or a sense of discontent with the current state. The vision is shared and modified by those who have a sense of commitment and ownership in the outcome. Once articulated, the vision is acted on. Old stuff goes away, new stuff heads in. A mess is made during which time the re-visioned space is really not usable and looks worse. Commitment to the vision gets us through the mess and construction phase and plans are always modified. We conclude with a transformation and celebration.
This process would not work if our neighbors came over and criticized our current room and told us we should improve it. Nor would it work if the city mandated that every room must be transformed by a certain date and time meeting certain standards. It surely would not work if we did not have a sense of ownership, nor would it work if we had such a strong sense of commitment to the status quo that we were unable to have a vision or feel discontent. Real home improvement begins with the folks in the inside, not from folks on the outside. Those inside look outside for ideas, for inspiration, for research, but the motivation comes from inside. It involves the folks who have a sense of ownership in the place. It involves real commitment to improvement by people under the same roof.
That’s the part current school reformers do not get. Real improvement is inside-out, not outside-in. A memo, a law, a standard, a fiat does not result in inspired improvement but does result in mandated compliance. No one is excited or inspired by compliance. How simple it would be for Debbie and I to convene, look at Better Homes and Gardens, and send a letter to our grown children telling them that by September 1 they must transform their homes to meet these new standards and comply with our vision of what their homes should be; and, we are reducing their resources while we are making the requirements. We could even add sanctions if they did not comply.
We would never, ever do that.
So, the next time you hear a candidate, or an elected official, or an educational bureaucrat, or a billionaire discuss reform, mandate improvement, propose new standards, new tests, new outcomes, new processes, new evaluation tools, etc., etc., please stand up and say Poppycock and Balderdash. That is not how real improvement gets done. You may want to use language stronger than that if they propose such things and cut funding.
Please join those of us in the schools in our effort to transform and improve via our own visions. All voices that have a stake in the children of our community are welcome to share. The better the vision, the better the transformation.
One last thing: let’s help each other never to be too content with the way things are, too attached to the old stuff and too fearful to throw it away. That is the path that leads to outside-in reform.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Literacies
Our band, that is our directors and our kids, performed absolutely fantastically at the state marching band contest last week. I have seen the routine many times, but never with so much enthusiasm, with so much heart. And the stakes were high. The 19 best 2A bands in the state were assembled in the Alamodome in San Antonio for a grueling day alternating between adrenaline rush and boredom. As each band took the field, parents and supporters cheered and hollered. Edna was very well represented, and our group was more vocal than most waving home made pom-poms and yelling, "Go Big Blue" under the able leadership of our High School Principal. I am proud, and hope you are too.
On the long drive home from San Antonio I thought about all those kids and their parents. We did not win state, but for each band student we have won something much more important.
School folks spend a lot of time talking "literacy." In its most basic form we mean the ability to read, write and comprehend our language. We want our kids to be literate. We more recently have begun discussions around the concept of mathematical literacy. We want our kids to be fluent in math, number sense, problem solving, and operations. Computer literacy is a reasonably new term and many of our kids come to us now adept in that field. Foreign language literacy is something we also require to graduate from high school and I lament that I am monolingual. We require students to take science and social science courses as well, and those literacies become increasingly important in this century when we must continue to advance on the scientific front and we must make wise decisions in our democracy, ever mindful of our history, our sociology, our psychology, our economics and our rational form of government. We teach all these literacies.
We devote a lot of resources to psycho-motor literacy as well. Muscle memory and athletic prowess fall in this area, and we staff fully, practice faithfully, and compete strongly. Perhaps some will argue this is not a literacy, but the ability to read the rules, the plays, know defenses and offenses, keep score, and understand penalties deeply enrich both our participation and observation in this arena.
I would argue there exists at least one other literacy that is equally important. Fine arts literacy. We require students to get credits in the fine arts to graduate, and the most gifted in this area migrate to band, choir, art, theatre and dance. These arts touch the human spirit and the products and performances of these arts define us as a species. "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is a brag akin to saying, "I don't know the Internet ..., I don't know math ..., I don't know music, ....," etc. I find all these statements offensive as an educator and as one who is educated. I know that when archaeologists and historians describe our ancestors they do so in terms of the art, music, and cultures of the people. It will be the same for us someday, and that worries me.
Music literacy is particularly important to me. Learning to read music was a blessing for me and I wish that all mastered that skill. (OK, I like the movie "Sound of Music", especially the scene when Julie Andrews as Maria teaches the Von Trapp kids to sing using Do Re Me. Even more, I like August Rush, a movie you must see if you have not. It is to music what the "The Blind Side" is to football.) I began public school in Oklahoma where 3rd graders began playing instruments. I played the violin until my family moved to Texas and my elementary school here did not offer such an opportunity. I was in the band in junior high and choir in high school. (Yes, I was also in athletics.) Playing an instrument and/or singing in a choir is something everyone can do. Real excellence comes from quality coaching and hours of practice, but real enjoyment of the richness of music is almost immediately present once you know the score, as it were. I am very proud of our elementary music program, our band program, our guitar and keyboarding classes, and wish we could do more. Listening to music, even singing along, without understanding the structure of music is like hearing the 23rd Psalm and not being able to read it and study it.
As resources get tighter it becomes more and more challenging to maintain the programs we offer across the entire spectrum. Clearly, we will always offer literacy development in the core subjects. It is clear that our community wants and expects us to offer psycho-motor literacy programs, so we will do that too. I will do all that I can to maintain fine arts literacy and hope that you support that as well. As a nation we can ill afford to graduate a generation of students who are illiterate in any of these areas.
On the long drive home from San Antonio I thought about all those kids and their parents. We did not win state, but for each band student we have won something much more important.
School folks spend a lot of time talking "literacy." In its most basic form we mean the ability to read, write and comprehend our language. We want our kids to be literate. We more recently have begun discussions around the concept of mathematical literacy. We want our kids to be fluent in math, number sense, problem solving, and operations. Computer literacy is a reasonably new term and many of our kids come to us now adept in that field. Foreign language literacy is something we also require to graduate from high school and I lament that I am monolingual. We require students to take science and social science courses as well, and those literacies become increasingly important in this century when we must continue to advance on the scientific front and we must make wise decisions in our democracy, ever mindful of our history, our sociology, our psychology, our economics and our rational form of government. We teach all these literacies.
We devote a lot of resources to psycho-motor literacy as well. Muscle memory and athletic prowess fall in this area, and we staff fully, practice faithfully, and compete strongly. Perhaps some will argue this is not a literacy, but the ability to read the rules, the plays, know defenses and offenses, keep score, and understand penalties deeply enrich both our participation and observation in this arena.
I would argue there exists at least one other literacy that is equally important. Fine arts literacy. We require students to get credits in the fine arts to graduate, and the most gifted in this area migrate to band, choir, art, theatre and dance. These arts touch the human spirit and the products and performances of these arts define us as a species. "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is a brag akin to saying, "I don't know the Internet ..., I don't know math ..., I don't know music, ....," etc. I find all these statements offensive as an educator and as one who is educated. I know that when archaeologists and historians describe our ancestors they do so in terms of the art, music, and cultures of the people. It will be the same for us someday, and that worries me.
Music literacy is particularly important to me. Learning to read music was a blessing for me and I wish that all mastered that skill. (OK, I like the movie "Sound of Music", especially the scene when Julie Andrews as Maria teaches the Von Trapp kids to sing using Do Re Me. Even more, I like August Rush, a movie you must see if you have not. It is to music what the "The Blind Side" is to football.) I began public school in Oklahoma where 3rd graders began playing instruments. I played the violin until my family moved to Texas and my elementary school here did not offer such an opportunity. I was in the band in junior high and choir in high school. (Yes, I was also in athletics.) Playing an instrument and/or singing in a choir is something everyone can do. Real excellence comes from quality coaching and hours of practice, but real enjoyment of the richness of music is almost immediately present once you know the score, as it were. I am very proud of our elementary music program, our band program, our guitar and keyboarding classes, and wish we could do more. Listening to music, even singing along, without understanding the structure of music is like hearing the 23rd Psalm and not being able to read it and study it.
As resources get tighter it becomes more and more challenging to maintain the programs we offer across the entire spectrum. Clearly, we will always offer literacy development in the core subjects. It is clear that our community wants and expects us to offer psycho-motor literacy programs, so we will do that too. I will do all that I can to maintain fine arts literacy and hope that you support that as well. As a nation we can ill afford to graduate a generation of students who are illiterate in any of these areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)