Concern was recently expressed regarding allowing students to elect to take high-ability classes at the high school level. Throughout elementary and middle school years, students are required to meet test-based criteria to qualify for high-ability classes. However, when students enter the high school, the opportunity to take a high-ability class becomes a matter of choice. Test results and teacher recommendations are still used to assist students in making course selections, but students are encouraged to try the more rigorous courses. Such a policy leads to questions regarding the level of expectations in the high-ability class and the responsibility of the teacher to the success of her students.
The level of expectations in the high-ability class are genuinely higher than in other classes. This is generally a consequence of the syllabus and subject being taught. At the high school level, for instance, many high-ability classes are either Advanced Placement classes or dual credit classes, both designed to meet college-level rigor. Allowing more students to elect to take these courses suggests that some students will enter the class lacking the skills or background knowledge needed to achieve at a high level. In other classes, the teacher would differentiate instruction to allow students to work from their ability level. Teachers often see the differentiation as a means of lowering the bar, when it is really more a matter of helping students learn from a different perspective. The bar cannot be lowered in the high-ability class (and should not be lowered in any class). Students need to know the expectations and be held to those expectations. This is the student responsibility to his or her learning: meet the expectations.
The teacher, however, also has a responsibility to the success of her students. Students should never be written off as lacking the necessary skills and knowledge. Students should always be given the support they need to learn the material--even if the material is in some way beyond them at the given moment. Sometimes a teacher of a high-ability class will make the first few weeks of the class so difficult that the struggling students will rush to their counselor to drop the class. In the teacher's mind, the students did not belong in the class; her classroom is for the elite and not democratically open to the masses. Such a teacher misunderstands her profession, for the students she is left with can learn without her and not because she has empowered them. She needs to work with the struggling students as well, helping them to find a way to be successful.
Stating that students are responsible for their successes and their failures is a good thing, but the statement does not absolve the teacher of her responsibility. Whether working with struggling students in lower-level classes or working with high-ability students in high-ability classes, the teacher's first priority is to help her students learn and to grow intellectually.
Some will scoff at my thoughts as too idealistic--"all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." But I believe there is truth to these words, and dismissing the thoughts contained here does not absolve us of our responsibilities as educators.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The New Educational Utopia of 21st Century Learning
Today's EdWeek newsletter led me to an article entitled "Backers of '21st-Century Skills' Take Flak." The article identifies 21st century skills as "a push for schools to teach critical-thinking, analytical, and technology skills, in addition to the “soft skills” of creativity, collaboration, and communication that some experts argue will be in high demand as the world increasingly shifts to a global, entrepreneurial, and service-based workplace." The leading group making this push is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Another group that also promotes 21st century skills and learning is the Metiri Group with the enGuage 21st Century Skills. There are similarities between what each presents. I have long preferred the enGuage presentation of the skills, but the Partnership group have begun to attract the greater attention. (I believe the Partnership for 21st Century Skills signed an agreement to work with ASCD--the Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development in March of '08--giving that group a real boost in credibility, whether deserved or not.)
What struck me most about the EdWeek article was the opposition to 21st century skills. Could it be that project-based learning, collaboration, and other such "soft skills" are not as essential as we are being led to believe? The article made reference to Diane Ravitch. I had never heard of her but she was speaking out, so I googled her and found her associated with a group called Common Core. She is more importantly an educational historian at New York University. On the Common Core site, Dr. Ravitch has posted a blog that sheds considerable light on the opposition to the touting of 21st century skills as the new way to utopia. She begins with:
In the land of American pedagogy, innovation is frequently confused with progress, and whatever is thought to be new is always embraced more readily than what is known to be true. Thus, pedagogues, policymakers, thought leaders, facilitators, and elected officials are rushing to get aboard the 21st century skills express train, lest they appear to be old-fashioned or traditional, these terms being the worst sort of opprobrium that can be hurled at any educator.
From there, Dr. Ravitch outlines decades of school reform methods that parallel the 21st century skills movement with the conviction that such efforts ultimatel seek to devalue solid academic learning.
So maybe I agree with Dr. Ravitch; maybe I disagree. Either way, what she has to say is important and worth reading, and I hope that if you have taken the time to read my drivel that you will take the time to read her blog. Then, please, come back and post a response.
I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.
What struck me most about the EdWeek article was the opposition to 21st century skills. Could it be that project-based learning, collaboration, and other such "soft skills" are not as essential as we are being led to believe? The article made reference to Diane Ravitch. I had never heard of her but she was speaking out, so I googled her and found her associated with a group called Common Core. She is more importantly an educational historian at New York University. On the Common Core site, Dr. Ravitch has posted a blog that sheds considerable light on the opposition to the touting of 21st century skills as the new way to utopia. She begins with:
In the land of American pedagogy, innovation is frequently confused with progress, and whatever is thought to be new is always embraced more readily than what is known to be true. Thus, pedagogues, policymakers, thought leaders, facilitators, and elected officials are rushing to get aboard the 21st century skills express train, lest they appear to be old-fashioned or traditional, these terms being the worst sort of opprobrium that can be hurled at any educator.
From there, Dr. Ravitch outlines decades of school reform methods that parallel the 21st century skills movement with the conviction that such efforts ultimatel seek to devalue solid academic learning.
So maybe I agree with Dr. Ravitch; maybe I disagree. Either way, what she has to say is important and worth reading, and I hope that if you have taken the time to read my drivel that you will take the time to read her blog. Then, please, come back and post a response.
I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Critical Thinking and the Intentional Non-Learner
In the fall of 2008 I attended the CELL conference in Indianapolis and was privileged to hear Katy Haycock, of the Education Trust, (The link will take you where you can hear Haycock's keynote.) speak about student achievement. Among many gems that I tried to capture with my cell phone keypad, I recorded Haycock as saying that the United States is the only country that believes kids can catch up by slowing down. She was speaking about the importance of providing a rigorous curricula for every student. I've been thinking about what that means.
Many schools are guilty of slowing down the learning of the struggling learners in a well-meaning effort to improve learning. There is sound reasoning in doing this, to some extent. Students learn at different rates, some faster and others slower. It is reasonable to allow more time for those who need more time, if it results in learning. But I don't believe that such is the problem with the "remedial" learning that is provided for the struggling students. Often, the struggling student is assigned to an education of low-level thinking. Recognizing that the student struggles with knowledge, comprehension, and application, we educators determine that the student needs more work with the same. When the student shows proficiency in the low-level thinking, we'll give him a shot at some higher-order thinking.
Every student needs the opportunity to engage in higher-order thinking--in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Through critical thinking a student is able to experience greater engagement in the learning experience and perhaps the joy of learning. Through engaging in higher-order thinking the student sees a reason to know, comprehend, and apply the other learning--lower-order thinking--that to this point has been meaningless.
Before I became an administrator I taught English to resistant freshmen and sophomores. I engaged these students in Socratic Seminars. When I wrote quizzes over something they were to have read, I wrote six questions: one from each of the six levels of the taxonomy of knowledge attributed to Bloom. I found that my students did well on the higher-order thinking questions but struggled on the lower-order thinking questions. However, as the semester progressed, students began to answer all questions better. Now, this only leads to a hypothesis and I do not suggest this to be anything more. But it does lead me to suggest that students will benefit from a more rigorous curriculum focused on challenging students to engage in higher-order thinking.
If we believe our students are not capable of higher-order thinking, we are right. And if we believe our students are capable of higher-order thinking, we will find this also to be true.
Why not give a kid a chance?
Many schools are guilty of slowing down the learning of the struggling learners in a well-meaning effort to improve learning. There is sound reasoning in doing this, to some extent. Students learn at different rates, some faster and others slower. It is reasonable to allow more time for those who need more time, if it results in learning. But I don't believe that such is the problem with the "remedial" learning that is provided for the struggling students. Often, the struggling student is assigned to an education of low-level thinking. Recognizing that the student struggles with knowledge, comprehension, and application, we educators determine that the student needs more work with the same. When the student shows proficiency in the low-level thinking, we'll give him a shot at some higher-order thinking.
Every student needs the opportunity to engage in higher-order thinking--in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Through critical thinking a student is able to experience greater engagement in the learning experience and perhaps the joy of learning. Through engaging in higher-order thinking the student sees a reason to know, comprehend, and apply the other learning--lower-order thinking--that to this point has been meaningless.
Before I became an administrator I taught English to resistant freshmen and sophomores. I engaged these students in Socratic Seminars. When I wrote quizzes over something they were to have read, I wrote six questions: one from each of the six levels of the taxonomy of knowledge attributed to Bloom. I found that my students did well on the higher-order thinking questions but struggled on the lower-order thinking questions. However, as the semester progressed, students began to answer all questions better. Now, this only leads to a hypothesis and I do not suggest this to be anything more. But it does lead me to suggest that students will benefit from a more rigorous curriculum focused on challenging students to engage in higher-order thinking.
If we believe our students are not capable of higher-order thinking, we are right. And if we believe our students are capable of higher-order thinking, we will find this also to be true.
Why not give a kid a chance?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Smoke on the Water and Pseudo-learning
My son plays guitar. (I do as well but not nearly as well as he. Indulging in father-pride, I've provided a Youtube video of my son playing "My One and Only Love." Enjoy it.)
He also gives guitar lessons. Teaching is teaching is teaching is teaching, and the frustrations that my son has as a guitar instructor are the same experienced by the classroom teacher: a lack of commitment, a reluctance to practice, and a tendency to be impressed with having done only a part of the lesson. These points are well illustrated by my son's having taught a student "Smoke on the Water."
When my son comes home from a day of teaching guitar, his mother and I always ask him how the lessons went. On this day my son told us how he had taught a student "Smoke on the Water" and how that was the end of the lesson, because that was all the student wanted to play. The half hour slipped by with my son listening to the kid play. I thought to ask my son if he had taught the kid the chorus. My son said he had never taught any student that part of the song because they never asked to learn it.
I now have this vision of perhaps thousands of kids with guitars (not because my son has taught thousands but because I surmise that the experience repeats itself all across the nation) with kids playing memorable licks from songs, grinning, then playing others and never playing a full song. We have all been to a party and seen this happen. The guitar guy plays the opening of "Stairway to Heaven" and people are amazed. Then he plays the opening of "Sweet Home Alabama" and everyone goes wild. Then he plays the opening of "Stranglehold" to show his diversity and people are so impressed that they are shaking their heads. But the guy never plays a complete song.
It sometimes seems that everyone plays guitar--or says that they play guitar. But my son and I will both tell you that there is a difference between playing guitar and being a guitar player. A guitar player practices scales, works to learn new chord progressions and to understand how they work, and learns to play songs in their entirety, if not for public performance then for self-satisfaction and awareness. Real learning requires commitment, requires risking monotony, and rewards deferred gratification. But kids learning guitar don't want that. They want to impress their friends now.
And that is part of what is wrong with education. Okay, I've identified a problem. Let me suggest a solution: teach not only subject but also values. We can pass on through our teaching those things that we value as a society. Through doing so, we will not only improve the minds of our students, but also improve our society.
He also gives guitar lessons. Teaching is teaching is teaching is teaching, and the frustrations that my son has as a guitar instructor are the same experienced by the classroom teacher: a lack of commitment, a reluctance to practice, and a tendency to be impressed with having done only a part of the lesson. These points are well illustrated by my son's having taught a student "Smoke on the Water."
When my son comes home from a day of teaching guitar, his mother and I always ask him how the lessons went. On this day my son told us how he had taught a student "Smoke on the Water" and how that was the end of the lesson, because that was all the student wanted to play. The half hour slipped by with my son listening to the kid play. I thought to ask my son if he had taught the kid the chorus. My son said he had never taught any student that part of the song because they never asked to learn it.
I now have this vision of perhaps thousands of kids with guitars (not because my son has taught thousands but because I surmise that the experience repeats itself all across the nation) with kids playing memorable licks from songs, grinning, then playing others and never playing a full song. We have all been to a party and seen this happen. The guitar guy plays the opening of "Stairway to Heaven" and people are amazed. Then he plays the opening of "Sweet Home Alabama" and everyone goes wild. Then he plays the opening of "Stranglehold" to show his diversity and people are so impressed that they are shaking their heads. But the guy never plays a complete song.
It sometimes seems that everyone plays guitar--or says that they play guitar. But my son and I will both tell you that there is a difference between playing guitar and being a guitar player. A guitar player practices scales, works to learn new chord progressions and to understand how they work, and learns to play songs in their entirety, if not for public performance then for self-satisfaction and awareness. Real learning requires commitment, requires risking monotony, and rewards deferred gratification. But kids learning guitar don't want that. They want to impress their friends now.
And that is part of what is wrong with education. Okay, I've identified a problem. Let me suggest a solution: teach not only subject but also values. We can pass on through our teaching those things that we value as a society. Through doing so, we will not only improve the minds of our students, but also improve our society.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
School Climate
Creating and maintaining a positive school climate is at the heart of having a great school. A school with a positive climate is one in which students feel safe, not only from the physical or mental harm or abuse, but also to take risks in learning. As such, a key to promoting a positive school environment where people are allowed to be people and are treated with the respect that everyone wants and deserves. In other words, follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I used to phrase it this way when I was in the classroom: Was I the kind of teacher today that I would want my own children to have every day? What did I want for my own children?
I've got much to say on this and will edit this blog over the next couple of days. But I wanted to get a start. I'd certainly appreciate any thoughts you, the reader, might share.
- I wanted them to be encouraged to take risks and to pursue their natural curiosity.
- I wanted them to be held to high standards and to be challenged to meet high expectations.
- I wanted them to be supported in their efforts to meet those high standards and expectations.
- I wanted them to be encouraged to ask questions and to find the answers, as opposed to leaving questioning to the teacher and waiting to parrot what they had been told.
- I expected that if their behavior was inappropriate that they would be reprimanded in a respectful and professional manner. (I believe one can be stern without being mean.)
- I expected their teachers to demonstrate high morals, strong ethics, and admirable character.
I've got much to say on this and will edit this blog over the next couple of days. But I wanted to get a start. I'd certainly appreciate any thoughts you, the reader, might share.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Reaching the Intentional Non-Learner
I've sometimes said that we Americans are very good at identifying problems; we are less proficient at finding solutions. That seems to be what I did in my last blog. I identified that there are students who are intentional non-learners, those whom the education system has failed, and that we cannot afford to fail any students. (I'm not talking about the policy in Grand Rapids where students no longer receive an F.) So what do we do? How do we motivate underachieving students.
I found this information, credited to Mike Muir (I haven't had time to research much on Muir, but I found this to be good.) Muir suggests there are nine essential elements to motivating underachieving students:
I found this information, credited to Mike Muir (I haven't had time to research much on Muir, but I found this to be good.) Muir suggests there are nine essential elements to motivating underachieving students:
- Positive relationships & school climate
- Feedback and helping students succeed
- Hands-on, active work
- Variety and attention to learning styles
- Tying learning into interests and making it interesting
- Avoiding bribery rewards
- Giving students voice and choice
- Making connections and higher order thinking
- Putting learning into context and making real world connections
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Three Types of Students
First, I apologize. There are certainly more types of students than those that fit neatly into the three categories that I will suggest. However, it is, to some extent, beneficial to classify, to categorize students for the sake of considering what best affects student learning.
I often speak of there being three types of students. The first group of students are those who really do not need teachers and schools. These students are driven by curiosity and a desire to learn. They will learn in spite of all that we do as teachers. These students are not always the highest achievers in a school, because they may not be interested in learning what we are teaching. But without a doubt, these students will be learning.
The second type of student is the one who needs teachers only to do their jobs--prepare engaging lessons, provide challenging assignments that allow the students to use what they are learning, and provide an assessment of the students' work--feedback and praise. These students may be teacher pleasers and high-achievers, or they may be quite average. These students do not tend to be driven by their own curiosity as much as their need to please, their desire for rewards and accolades, or the fact that it is easier just to follow along.
The third type of student is the one who needs the teachers most desperately. These students often resist every effort of every teacher. They have often rejected school--perhaps because school has rejected them. Many of these teachers are what are referred to as intentional non-learners. It is not that these students cannot learn but that they are not interested in what we are teaching or have encountered too much negativity to risk trying. Often these students have learned that when they try, they fail. Therefore, if they do not try, they may still receive a failing grade, but they did not earn the grade. The teacher merely gave it to them. Sometimes the failing grade is their "badge of honor," for they set out to earn an F and the teacher's giving them the F is validation that they should not try. These students need us desperately to break the cycle, to give them a reason to try, to let them believe in themselves.
I often get ridiculed for being idealistic. I hope more teachers will be idealistic and we might help more of the students who need us.
I often speak of there being three types of students. The first group of students are those who really do not need teachers and schools. These students are driven by curiosity and a desire to learn. They will learn in spite of all that we do as teachers. These students are not always the highest achievers in a school, because they may not be interested in learning what we are teaching. But without a doubt, these students will be learning.
The second type of student is the one who needs teachers only to do their jobs--prepare engaging lessons, provide challenging assignments that allow the students to use what they are learning, and provide an assessment of the students' work--feedback and praise. These students may be teacher pleasers and high-achievers, or they may be quite average. These students do not tend to be driven by their own curiosity as much as their need to please, their desire for rewards and accolades, or the fact that it is easier just to follow along.
The third type of student is the one who needs the teachers most desperately. These students often resist every effort of every teacher. They have often rejected school--perhaps because school has rejected them. Many of these teachers are what are referred to as intentional non-learners. It is not that these students cannot learn but that they are not interested in what we are teaching or have encountered too much negativity to risk trying. Often these students have learned that when they try, they fail. Therefore, if they do not try, they may still receive a failing grade, but they did not earn the grade. The teacher merely gave it to them. Sometimes the failing grade is their "badge of honor," for they set out to earn an F and the teacher's giving them the F is validation that they should not try. These students need us desperately to break the cycle, to give them a reason to try, to let them believe in themselves.
I often get ridiculed for being idealistic. I hope more teachers will be idealistic and we might help more of the students who need us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)