I haven't broached the subject of teaching and education for awhile, so perhaps this is a good time to provide an update on some recent conversations relative to learning.
I have heard of a school that is currently in the process of eliminating their track of classes for students who do not plan to follow a post-secondary path. The logic of such a course is defensible, despite what many front line teachers think. After all, the purpose of the education system is to prepare young people for the rest of their lives. The current requisite skill set for adults who wish to be contributing citizens - read, gainfully employed - includes abilities that have not historically been part of the non-college-preparatory track.
For clarity, the 'general' track, which is also often called the 'applied' track, or the 'work-readiness' track remained focused on the three R's. Students in this track were presumed to need basic, lower level skills in reading, writing, and math. After all, the employment opportunities afforded this group of people was usually comprised of the established trades: cooks, mechanics, laborers, builders, as well as the service trades: gardeners, maids, custodians, retail sales clerks, and the like. However, now, if we are to believe the employment forecasts, even those jobs are soon to be rarer, less lucrative, and/or altered to the point where higher level skills are required to perform them.
Consequently, the idea to raise the bar for everyone is not necessarily a bad one. Yet the district in question has undertaken some strange methodologies for eliminating the track. For instnace, though a percnetage of the student population is adamantly disinclined to do the work necessary to acquire college readiness skills, these students are being placed in academic courses. Simultaneously, the courses themselves are being revised to accommodate the change in clientele.
The change in mission and objective in these courses is predicated on the belief that heterogenous grouping - that is, placing these students in courses with students who may pursue a college education - will encourage these students to acquire the knowledge and skills they may need to perform tasks that are growing increasingly more complex, but which do not require a four year matriculation at a college.
The problem is that the adjustment of mission and abjective has a side effect that hasn't been considered. In changing these courses to reflect a skill set that is challenging, but which may not lead to college, has displaced the students who do plan to go to college.
The math is simple. If I attempt to train a group of students motivated to prepare themselves for college, but I build in accommodations for students who might not want to go to college, I will be spending precious time on skills and knowledge that the college prep students do not need or want. Furthermore, since the clientele has been diminished in terms of motivation, capacity, and prior knowledge to begin with, I will be subjecting the college bound students to a slower pace, one that accommodates the learning styles and abilities of the former 'general' students.
So the former college prep students will be encouraged to enroll in Honors, IB, and AP courses. Some of these transplanted students will be similarly ill-equipped for their new placement, and the pace and depth of learning in these upper level courses will be compromised.
Eradicating the courses that served the non-college bound students may not be a bad idea, but forcing them into courses that do not meet their needs is not smart. Moreover, failing to account for the inevitable learning differences that accompany a change in clientele in the uppper level courses is really foolish.
I promise to propose a solution to the dilemma in a series of entries to follow. This is getting too long.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Obama's State of the Union Dilemma
Obama can deliver a speech. Seriously. Though I am admittedly not a fan of his political prespective, and though I think in the end his speech doesn't mean much, I must give him credit for the strategic approach employed in the address.
I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.
Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.
For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.
Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.
How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.
The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.
So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.
ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.
I think for the first time, the president cast himself as a citizen of America first, and an ideologue second. Of course, it is just a speech, and plenty of pens and minds collaborated to bring it to life. The delivery, though, was excellent.
Ideologically, the presentation stayed true to democratic principles, as the proposed solution to many problems is believed to be government intervention, especially in terms of allocation of money. What stood out to me was that the president spoke in glowing terms of the traits that Americans believe serve as the backbone of the country.
For instance, the focus seemed to be almost Reaganesque in its optimism and praise of self-sufficiency. Entrpreneurial spirit was mentioned in one way or another on many occasions. When the president says that Americans do big things, and when he suggests that improving productivity and prosperity in American manufacturing, I was reeminded of the Gipper.
Where I maintain concern is often the ideological chasm between Obama and me. The plan seems to be to throw money at education, for example. As a career educator, I like the idea of supporting public education. However, as the worst elements of NCLB have shown, federal involvement in education isn't necessarily a great thing. Once the federal governemnt sends money to schools, they understandably want a say in how schools are run. In the broadest sense, that is fine. In practical terms, however, the result is unfunded mandates that actually make schools more expensive, in my opinion.
How does this happen, you might ask? Well, NCLB in broad strokes has been a significant catalyst for change. Educators are being held more accountable for producing results. Because teachers are generally resourceful, imaginative, and hard-working, the call to accountability has driven many schools to improve. The cost to the taxpayer, though, and the cost to the relative health of the teaching staff, has been huge. Federal money has not paid for the increase in teachers that followed the call to action. Likewise, federal money has not paid in full for the increase in money spent for special education teachers and programs, increases that have been necessitated by the programs that demand similar achievement for students with identified barriers to education and the rest of the student population.
The principle and the dynamic replicates itself with all governemnt controlled programs. I know the left-leaning people aren't as sure of this as I am, but in very few cases does a large, unwieldy government agency produce results that aren't much more expensive than they could be.
So the speech, in its call to a blending of private innovation supported with governemnt dollars, might be a positive thing, if the innovators are allowed to profit from their innovations in some way. I like the call to do these things for the good of America, but if the plan is to have the federal officials' oversight and supervision to squelch the spirit, none of the impetus will last.
ADDENDUM: A reader asked why the headline mentions Obama's dilemma? I thought it had been implied. Government intervention and control are at odds with entreprenurial spirit and innovation. A bureaucracy can support those rogue, cowboy type efforts, but it can never create them itself. The two forces are mutually exclusive.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
To Hell In A Handbasket...
Two students in LA are shot when a loaded gun is dropped and goes off. A psychopath shoots a congresswoman and many others, including a nine-year-old girl too young to have ever hurt anyone significantly. The list goes on.
Is American culture going to hell in a handbasket? I never truly understood the source or full implication of that phrase, but I think the present answer might be yes. The constant violence, much of which occurs mostly because it can, is not new. In fact, the history of the country is fraught with violence. The difference, I think, is the effect and the response that we have to it.
In the violent early years, and even up to the 20th century, people were outraged, and then braced for the inevitable vengeance that followed. Such a response wasn't necessarily the right way to handle the outrage, but at least the offender knew his actions would provoke repercussions. Society at large responded forcefully to the events.
Fast forward to the present reaction. When the students at Columbine wreaked carnage on a system that they felt had served them poorly, cultural response was strong, yet often misguided. Schools ratcheted up the faux security measures to create a lie that told parents their children were safer. They weren't and aren't. Fortunately, schools are still among the safest places in the country, but that safety is not because of improved security measures. Instead, schools remain relatively safe because they rarely provoke the rath of our depressed and mentally ill.
Fast forward to the incidents mentioned at the start of this piece. The focal point of public response to the events in Arizona devolved into fruitless finger pointing. For three days, at least, the most often heard message was that the psycho had been inspired by the vitriolic political environment. Only after the boy had been questioned did the false message die out. In the meantime, Sarah Palin and others had spent energy defending themselves.
The point of this is not to defend Palin, the tenor of the political dialogue, or the irresponsible media who manufactured a catalyst for the violence before they knew anything. Instead, I am convinced that the public largely doesn't care. If they really wanted genuine answers to the questions, they would not be so easily sidetracked into baseless discussions. They wouldn't be so quick to adjust their focus.
I maintain that the fundamental goodness that has usually been omnipressent in the country is no longer so evident. Culturally, we want someone or soemthing to blame, quickly, so we can get back to Jersy Shore, or Celebrity Rehab. Only late in the game did any media outlets start asking the why's and how's of the incident. I can't pinpoint proof, but I also feel that when they did so, they were doing it reluctantly.
Don Henley wrote a song, in the late '80's I believe, where he drew an analogy between a young girl's loss of innocence, and the loss of innocence that citizens in America were experiencing. I loved the song, but wasn't so sure that his contention, that the Reagan era was father to disillusionment, was very accurate. I thought the end of the innocence had to have come during the Vietnam era. Regardless, innocnece, and buoyant optimism certainly was compromised.
Now, however, we aren't talking about innocence. I think the loss we are witnessing is a loss of empathy, of altruism, of humanity. Sure, individuals have exhibited a dearth of these traits, but the culture - society at large - usually responded with at least a modicum of caring. We have become inured to the violence, and to the bankruptcy of values.
Maybe it's me, my age, my inevitable slide into the ranks of the older generation. I don't know. I don't think this is just a personal perception. I am concerned that it's pervasive and ubiquitous. And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
Is American culture going to hell in a handbasket? I never truly understood the source or full implication of that phrase, but I think the present answer might be yes. The constant violence, much of which occurs mostly because it can, is not new. In fact, the history of the country is fraught with violence. The difference, I think, is the effect and the response that we have to it.
In the violent early years, and even up to the 20th century, people were outraged, and then braced for the inevitable vengeance that followed. Such a response wasn't necessarily the right way to handle the outrage, but at least the offender knew his actions would provoke repercussions. Society at large responded forcefully to the events.
Fast forward to the present reaction. When the students at Columbine wreaked carnage on a system that they felt had served them poorly, cultural response was strong, yet often misguided. Schools ratcheted up the faux security measures to create a lie that told parents their children were safer. They weren't and aren't. Fortunately, schools are still among the safest places in the country, but that safety is not because of improved security measures. Instead, schools remain relatively safe because they rarely provoke the rath of our depressed and mentally ill.
Fast forward to the incidents mentioned at the start of this piece. The focal point of public response to the events in Arizona devolved into fruitless finger pointing. For three days, at least, the most often heard message was that the psycho had been inspired by the vitriolic political environment. Only after the boy had been questioned did the false message die out. In the meantime, Sarah Palin and others had spent energy defending themselves.
The point of this is not to defend Palin, the tenor of the political dialogue, or the irresponsible media who manufactured a catalyst for the violence before they knew anything. Instead, I am convinced that the public largely doesn't care. If they really wanted genuine answers to the questions, they would not be so easily sidetracked into baseless discussions. They wouldn't be so quick to adjust their focus.
I maintain that the fundamental goodness that has usually been omnipressent in the country is no longer so evident. Culturally, we want someone or soemthing to blame, quickly, so we can get back to Jersy Shore, or Celebrity Rehab. Only late in the game did any media outlets start asking the why's and how's of the incident. I can't pinpoint proof, but I also feel that when they did so, they were doing it reluctantly.
Don Henley wrote a song, in the late '80's I believe, where he drew an analogy between a young girl's loss of innocence, and the loss of innocence that citizens in America were experiencing. I loved the song, but wasn't so sure that his contention, that the Reagan era was father to disillusionment, was very accurate. I thought the end of the innocence had to have come during the Vietnam era. Regardless, innocnece, and buoyant optimism certainly was compromised.
Now, however, we aren't talking about innocence. I think the loss we are witnessing is a loss of empathy, of altruism, of humanity. Sure, individuals have exhibited a dearth of these traits, but the culture - society at large - usually responded with at least a modicum of caring. We have become inured to the violence, and to the bankruptcy of values.
Maybe it's me, my age, my inevitable slide into the ranks of the older generation. I don't know. I don't think this is just a personal perception. I am concerned that it's pervasive and ubiquitous. And quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
Monday, January 10, 2011
A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations... [Harry Callahan]
With open eyes, engaged,
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.
Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.
Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.
In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.
we travel through our younger days,
oblivion prevailing
in our narrow passageways.
Acuity is not the blind
as what we see is clear in mind.
Periphery recedes
and limits what we have to find.
Side streets and alleyways
become the vortex of a maze,
Epiphanies abounding
while we shuffle off the daze.
Our cognizance is not the core
of anything we struggle for,
our sentience expanding
as we come of age - unsure.
Then up to, through, our middle age
our certainty turns back the page.
internalization
bars us from objective gaze.
No time for what we do not know,
we hasten where we think we go.
scope degeneration
makes us puppets in the show.
In time, an empty feathered nest,
alerts to where we are bereft.
cumbersome omission
highlights everything that's left.
Thus only once we've run the race
comes consciousness of what we've faced,
illuminating ignorance
teaches Wisdom, Hope, and Faith.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Bipartisanship? Can the Gap be Bridged?
Over the past week, I happened upon a column by a local left leaner that bemoaned the recent Republican power play on tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the columnist, the Republicans agreed to the lifting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision, as well as other concessions, only after tax cuts were extended for the richest Americans. The implication of the column was that the right has no other motivation than in keeping the top 1% of the population obscenely wealthy. The upshot of that sentiment is that the right has no soul, no conviction. How could they abandon their narrow-minded hatred of homosexuals so casually or quickly, so long as the rich got richer.
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.
Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.
What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.
I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.
The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.
What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.
The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.
So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
I have grown tired of the various shibboleths regarding the extended tax cuts and the Republican platform for limiting the taxes that people pay. People need to understand that the wealthiest Americans and the taxes they pay are sgnificant. In fact, the sliding tax rates guarantee that the wealthy pay more in taxes, individually, than the middle class people. The annoyance that I have concerns what has become the general consensus and popular opinion that the Right is motivated by indifference to the plight of lower income people. In fact, the stance that I take is that taxes need to be lower for everyone, including the wealthy.
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
I happen to fit into that middle class category, so I will pick a nice round number to illustrate my point. For the illustration of the wealthy example, I will pick a similarly round number, though excessivly high in fact, to make the picture clear, I hope.
If I start with a gross income of $100,000, and I usually have 20% discretionary income, then the increased tax burden hits that $20,000 directly. That disretionary income may go toward investments, college funds or costs for children, or large purchases such as cars and vacations. In short, I will spend less on some things than I would normally.
For a very wealthy person who faces a higher increase in tax burden, the cost cutting will not likely influence his personal spending habit. Instead, the cost cutting that must take place will involve finacnial investments, property purchases, or in the cases of self-employed business owners, capital expenditures or business expansions.
Let's say the the income for the very wealthy is $1,000,000. The discretionary income for this person is likely in the area of $400,000. Consequently, the personal effect of the tax increase on daily life is negligible. Instead, the response of the wealthy person will likely take plaace in the investment arena. Using the oft-mentioned 4.9% increase, which I will round off to 5%, we are talking about 5% of $400,000 or $20,000. The point is that the tax infringement will change the wealthy man's spending habits a bit, but the larger suppression will take place in the area of personal finance that affect the larger economy. When these larger sums of money are invested in money markets, stocks, bonds, and other areas, the effect is enormous, especially when people realize just how many millionaires there are out there.
In the case of the middle class effect, a higher volume or population means that a tax increase will suppress consumer spending. In the case of the increase for the wealthy, the effect will be a suppression of available money for business expansion. However, if no one is buying, then the businessman will have no impetus to expand anyway. Decreased expansion and investment in new business opportunities means the jobless rates will remain stagnant.
Republicans want less government and lower taxes. Of course, such is not a prescription for guaranteed success. The principle is that individual people, unburdened by taxes that suppress their ability to choose, will do things that benefit everybody. The Right believes that the concept extends to businesses and everybody else, regardless of income.
In summation, tax cuts for the wealthy MAY result in outcomes that effect everyone positively, the same way that tax cuts for everyone else has the potential to effect everyone else positively. The tax burden on the weatlhy is already higher, and has been for a long time. Why, during an economic crisis, would the government want to risk suppressing the expansion of and investment in businees?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
For Parents of School Children...
A conversation with an old friend who has a daughter in 9th grade, and a similar conversation with a teacher and parent has given birth to this monologue.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
First, I will attempt to limit the educational jargon that is part of this discussion. I will not, however, apologize for educational jargon, though I have often made great fun of it. All jargons, regardless of the field or discipline that has coazed them into existence, are viable things. Medical professionals, for example, discuss a greater range of things with more clarity when they use appropriate jargon. The problem begins when the audience cannot possibly find the jargon clear or useful. In fact, the outsider is inhibited from understanding when he is ignorant of the jargon, and especially when he understands the jargon inaccurately.
The friend and parent complained about his daughter's geometry teacher. She has historically been an A student, they say, but now she is really struggling with geometry. Correspondence with the teacher has been non-productive. The teacher's primary - indeed, only - response to the parent's request for help has been to advise the student to attend a tutoring session that takes place after school. This session has been somewhat effective, but it has not helped the student to do any better at learning the material when it is initially taught.
The parents have also told me that the teacher explicitly told them that s/he doesn't teach. Instead, s/he described an inquiry-based (I will clarify later) approach that works as follows. Students are organized into groups and presented with a problem, which they are charged with solving. Relying on prior knowledge and creative thinking skills, the groups achieve consensus on a workable solution which is then presented to the whole class. [I am assuming that discussions/corrections which ensue during the presentation period provide a mechanism by which the teacher can remediate stragglers, clarify strategies, and identify critical concepts that are 'discovered' by the group problem solvers.]
Inquiry based learning is a great way to structure a lesson, but, like all strategies, it falls short when implemented poorly. Essentially, inquiry based learning presents the students with an issue or problem, provides access to resources by which the issue or problem can be attacked, then allows the teacher to define, identify, explain, and clarify the principles that students have used to achieve their solution. Done well, inquiry based learning is very efficient; done poorly, it almost guarantees that less learning is taking place.
How can parents know whether the situation is good or bad? This account isn't really meant to choose any presentational or instructional strategy over another. What parents need to know, in my opinion, is rather simple.
Every lesson should have a few major components, and parents can determine whether things are being done well regardless of the teacher's approach.
First, every lesson should have a clear objective that the instructor should clarify at some point in the lesson. That objective can be introduced at the beginning of the lesson, and the teacher can explain how the students are going to tackle the objective. In the inquiry approach mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the lesson objective may be revealed as late as the last few minutes of class.
Second, every lesson should have an activity that forces the student to employ the skill (practice problems?) or evaluate the information (discussion, lab report, written statement) that is at the center of the day's objective.
Third, every lesson must have a mechanism by which the teacher can monitor student progress and adjust instruction if necessary to provide remediation or enrichment. The translation for the last statement is simple: the teacher should have a way to respond to the discovery that the students haven't learned or have learned very well. If they haven't acquired what they ought, the teacher must have a way to try again. If they have grasped the material well, the teacher needs to have a way to challenge them further.
Unfortunately for parents, the means by which teachers can create lessons that meet these requirements are almost limitless. Gurus have written books that try to provide a manageable spectrum of possibilities, but the variability of clientele and teacher skill make it almost impossible to provide a range of approaches that really, truly covers all the possibilities.
In the case of the teacher mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I hypothesize two possibilities. The teacher is doing a competent to excellent job of using inquiry based learning but the student is not being responsible about asking for help in class, or isn't doing the work necessary to acquire the objective. The other possibility is that the teacher is doing a less than adequate job, and the parents need to find out why their daughter isn't learning the material in class.
I don't like the answer from the teacher, if it's true, that the student must attend a daily or regular tutoring session in order to function in the class. I certainly don't like the teacher saying, even in jest, that s/he doesn't teach. As a parent, I want to know how the teacher is monitoring the student's progress during the lesson. I want to know why, as reported by the teacher on conference night, students are not regularly asking questions during the lesson? If material is challenging and appropriate, students are going to have questions. If they are not comfortable asking questions, for whatever reason, the teacher needs to find out why.
The parents with whom I was talking need to be certain that their respective children are doing what they are supposed to be doing in the class. If the children are being responsible, and are still not learning, the parents need to urge school leaders to facilitate the necessary adjustments. Learning needs to take place every day, and teachers should have a good idea of individual student progress at all times. Of course, some students are going to learn at a faster pace than others, but none of the students who aren't learning at an appropriate pace should be allowed to coast on through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)