A teacher in my school recently talked with me about choosing a book for her students to read. These students had enjoyed reading Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men and she wanted something like that, something they would enjoy. There were a few of us in the discussion, throwing out titles with the hope that one of them might work.
This evening I was reading a chapter from Alfie Kohn's book Punished by Rewards about constructivism and allowing students choice. An idea struck me that I will pitch to the teacher. It might work.
The idea is to select five titles that the students might like. The teacher would narrow the field of books by choosing five. Without having done that, students would have to choose from millions of titles, some completely inappropriate for a public high school in a conservative community. So, the teacher chooses five titles. She then secures three or four or five copies of each title. The next step is to put the students in groups of three or four.
One student in each group would be designated the task leader or time keeper, making certain that the group completes their project on time. Another student would be the recorder, taking notes on everything that is important to the group's work. Another student would be designated the presenter, the one who will present the findings of the group. If there is a fourth student, he is fortunate to have to do no more than all the others have to do in fulfilling the requirements of the project.
The project is to determine which of the five books the class should read. Each group would be required to create a rubric with the criteria that the group decides is important in choosing a book. During the presentation, the presenter would be required to explain the criteria and to defend it as important and valid.
Then the group would assess each book according to the criteria and rank them according to preference, resulting in one book being that group's choice. During the presentation, the presenter would make a strong case for the group's choice book.
While the presentations were being made, the whole class would take notes as to which book they would like. It could be that the presentation of one group might sway a vote from members of another group.
The end result would come from a whole class, secret ballot vote, and the class would have chosen a book to read.
Through the lesson, students would have learned collaboration, how to create a rubric in making a decision, how to make a persuasive presentation, and how differing perspectives might sway a person's thinking. Oh, and they would also have learned how a representative democracy operates.
Not to mention, they would have decided on a book that most of the class would want to read.
This process could be repeated every time the class reads a book, allowing that the same students would not always get to choose the book and creating a genuine learning community where students have voice and choice.
It couldn't be too bad.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Grades, Huh, Yeh...What are they good for?
Okay...The title was my lame attempt at humor, calling on the well recognized phrasing from the song "War." Perhaps I wanted to go on to the next part of that phrasing..."absolutely nothing."
I'm not sure that I would say grades are worth nothing, but the reality is that grades are not a good indicator of what a student has learned. I know most teachers state that students have to earn the grades, like earning an allowance. What some students have learned all too well is that jumping through prescribed hoops in a prescribed manner gets them the grade they want. Taking that grade home and showing it to their parents results in smiles and hugs and dinners at their favorite restaurant and new video games. Grades have become the carrots that get kids to perform as we would have them perform. Grades are what we use to control kids. And they work for some kids and not for others. Those for whom grades do not work are considered failures.
So the purpose of grades is to control kids, to sort kids into categories of those we like and those we don't like, and to delude us into thinking that kids are actually learning what we want them to learn (which sounds like another mind-control objective). So, there are a lot of evils related to using the grading system that has defined education in America for over 100 years, but we seem to be stuck with it for the time being. (I stated that the grading system defines education. I think this is an important statement, for one would think that the grading system is only a part of education and that education defines the grading system. I am suggesting that it has been and is quite the other way around. I hope to address that topic at a later date.)
If we are to use the grading system, how might we use it best?
I will contend that the first step is to establish a clear understanding of the meaning of an A, B, etc. What are we saying about a student's work and learning when we award that student with a grade? After that, we have to consider the impact of giving a student a low grade or a high grade or an average grade. We cannot avoid the fact that awarding a student a grade is labeling that student. A student who earns an A is a star. A student who earns a C is just average, okay, nothing to write home about, but he'll do in a pinch. A student who earns a D is an annoyance. Why can't he work harder? Why doesn't he try to be like the other students? A student who earns an F is a failure--a failure as a child, as a student. We're likely to be paying his way through life forever. How can we avoid labeling students with grades?
The two questions posed here are deeply related, for it is the integrity of the grade that is in question. When a grade has integrity, it relates directly to how well a student was able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts posed to be learned. When a grade has integrity, it is also only an indicator of where the student's learning is at that given moment in time. A grade of integrity provides direction for the student. The student is directed to revisit concepts for which he failed to show proficiency. Therefore, a grade of integrity has the potential to change to show that the student has mastered at this time what he had not mastered earlier. A grade of integrity also relates to the learning of the student relative to where the student began as a learner, rather than relative to his classmates.
We all know that some students come into the classroom far ahead of their classmates. We want them to move to 100 yards of learning and they are starting on the 90 yard line. Other students come in having done all right. They are on the 50 yard line. Still others are on the 10 yard line. At the end of the semester, the stars and those average students have crossed the 100 yard line. But those who started the furthest from the goal only made it to the 80 yard line. They failed.
But let's consider the learning that took place. The stars moved 10 yards, and for that we heap the glory on them. The average kids moved 50 yards, which certainly seems like more of an accomplishment. But those failing kids, they moved 70 yards. They didn't meet the goal set by the teacher for the class, but they showed the greatest improvement. So, why did we give them an F?
There is a lot wrong with our grading system. Maybe we should start with something new.
I'm not sure that I would say grades are worth nothing, but the reality is that grades are not a good indicator of what a student has learned. I know most teachers state that students have to earn the grades, like earning an allowance. What some students have learned all too well is that jumping through prescribed hoops in a prescribed manner gets them the grade they want. Taking that grade home and showing it to their parents results in smiles and hugs and dinners at their favorite restaurant and new video games. Grades have become the carrots that get kids to perform as we would have them perform. Grades are what we use to control kids. And they work for some kids and not for others. Those for whom grades do not work are considered failures.
So the purpose of grades is to control kids, to sort kids into categories of those we like and those we don't like, and to delude us into thinking that kids are actually learning what we want them to learn (which sounds like another mind-control objective). So, there are a lot of evils related to using the grading system that has defined education in America for over 100 years, but we seem to be stuck with it for the time being. (I stated that the grading system defines education. I think this is an important statement, for one would think that the grading system is only a part of education and that education defines the grading system. I am suggesting that it has been and is quite the other way around. I hope to address that topic at a later date.)
If we are to use the grading system, how might we use it best?
I will contend that the first step is to establish a clear understanding of the meaning of an A, B, etc. What are we saying about a student's work and learning when we award that student with a grade? After that, we have to consider the impact of giving a student a low grade or a high grade or an average grade. We cannot avoid the fact that awarding a student a grade is labeling that student. A student who earns an A is a star. A student who earns a C is just average, okay, nothing to write home about, but he'll do in a pinch. A student who earns a D is an annoyance. Why can't he work harder? Why doesn't he try to be like the other students? A student who earns an F is a failure--a failure as a child, as a student. We're likely to be paying his way through life forever. How can we avoid labeling students with grades?
The two questions posed here are deeply related, for it is the integrity of the grade that is in question. When a grade has integrity, it relates directly to how well a student was able to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts posed to be learned. When a grade has integrity, it is also only an indicator of where the student's learning is at that given moment in time. A grade of integrity provides direction for the student. The student is directed to revisit concepts for which he failed to show proficiency. Therefore, a grade of integrity has the potential to change to show that the student has mastered at this time what he had not mastered earlier. A grade of integrity also relates to the learning of the student relative to where the student began as a learner, rather than relative to his classmates.
We all know that some students come into the classroom far ahead of their classmates. We want them to move to 100 yards of learning and they are starting on the 90 yard line. Other students come in having done all right. They are on the 50 yard line. Still others are on the 10 yard line. At the end of the semester, the stars and those average students have crossed the 100 yard line. But those who started the furthest from the goal only made it to the 80 yard line. They failed.
But let's consider the learning that took place. The stars moved 10 yards, and for that we heap the glory on them. The average kids moved 50 yards, which certainly seems like more of an accomplishment. But those failing kids, they moved 70 yards. They didn't meet the goal set by the teacher for the class, but they showed the greatest improvement. So, why did we give them an F?
There is a lot wrong with our grading system. Maybe we should start with something new.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Purpose of the American School System
I'm not and I am speaking of the purpose of education. Today, because of the political focus on education that has charged the American school system with negative energy bent on serving those seeking votes to secure their jobs, we are subjugated to talk of the purpose of the American school system apart from the purpose of education. When we talk of the purpose of the American school system, we are talking of our schools serving the corporate imperative, preparing students to be good citizens--which today varies according to which extreme you are enlisted to defend. When we talk of the purpose of education, we ignore the political structures and the corporate imperative, we ignore the economic status of the United States and the comparisons of state and national standardized, norm-referenced tests designed to classify every child based on a choice between A, B, C, or D. When we talk about the purpose of education, we have to talk about the human factor, the factor of one child, of one future with or without hope, for that is what education gives--HOPE!
Kids come into our schools with their minds bent and twisted by television and Facebook and video games and churches and politicians and moms and dads. I say bent and twisted as opposed to shaped because some of their minds have no discernible shape. Like a garden left unto itself, their minds have grown wild. Their minds have hundreds of bent and twisted branches all gnarled together--largely green, but with scars where one branch rubs against the other in the wind. Largely green, but faded underneath and showing signs of illness and weakness and decay. Suffering from the lack of care. Suffering from freedom that ignores responsibility. The kids come to our schools in this condition and our schools are charged by the corporate imperative to clean up those gardens, to make them all healthy and productive--to produce fruit from acidic soil and the undergrowth.
The best teachers know that they cannot serve the standardized tests. They cannot serve the corporate imperative. They serve their students. And they do this by caring first about the child. These teachers know that what they have to do is give this child the hope that he can grow straight and strong and be fruitful. People only learn when they have hope. I saw a poster that said something to the fact that wonder and awe were the foundation of learning. Yes, but hope is the foundation of wonder and awe. Without hope, one does not care to wonder and one cannot be in awe. To the hopeless, the awesome is one more reminder that he doesn't stand a chance.
The purpose of the American School System is to serve the corporate imperative. But the purpose of education is to give every child enduring hope. If a child has hope, then he will wonder and be in awe. A child with hope will have a reason to learn and want to learn. And we have never been able to stop a child from learning who wanted to learn. A child who wants to learn no longer needs his teacher, and that is the mark of a great teacher--When a child can learn without dependency on his teacher, the teacher has done his or her job well and deserves all the awards. If a child has a reason to learn, we don't have to worry about the corporate imperative, the corporate tests, measuring and comparing the status of the U.S. against any other country. When a child has a reason to learn, she will learn in spite of corporate America. She will learn in spite of No Child Left Behind. She will learn in spite of Democrats and Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Teachers have to give some attention to the expeditiously evil standardized, norm-referenced, corporate-sating tests. But I urge teachers to work first and foremost from the desire to give every child hope. Every child. Especially those who are most bent and twisted and have the least hope. Give every child hope.
Kids come into our schools with their minds bent and twisted by television and Facebook and video games and churches and politicians and moms and dads. I say bent and twisted as opposed to shaped because some of their minds have no discernible shape. Like a garden left unto itself, their minds have grown wild. Their minds have hundreds of bent and twisted branches all gnarled together--largely green, but with scars where one branch rubs against the other in the wind. Largely green, but faded underneath and showing signs of illness and weakness and decay. Suffering from the lack of care. Suffering from freedom that ignores responsibility. The kids come to our schools in this condition and our schools are charged by the corporate imperative to clean up those gardens, to make them all healthy and productive--to produce fruit from acidic soil and the undergrowth.
The best teachers know that they cannot serve the standardized tests. They cannot serve the corporate imperative. They serve their students. And they do this by caring first about the child. These teachers know that what they have to do is give this child the hope that he can grow straight and strong and be fruitful. People only learn when they have hope. I saw a poster that said something to the fact that wonder and awe were the foundation of learning. Yes, but hope is the foundation of wonder and awe. Without hope, one does not care to wonder and one cannot be in awe. To the hopeless, the awesome is one more reminder that he doesn't stand a chance.
The purpose of the American School System is to serve the corporate imperative. But the purpose of education is to give every child enduring hope. If a child has hope, then he will wonder and be in awe. A child with hope will have a reason to learn and want to learn. And we have never been able to stop a child from learning who wanted to learn. A child who wants to learn no longer needs his teacher, and that is the mark of a great teacher--When a child can learn without dependency on his teacher, the teacher has done his or her job well and deserves all the awards. If a child has a reason to learn, we don't have to worry about the corporate imperative, the corporate tests, measuring and comparing the status of the U.S. against any other country. When a child has a reason to learn, she will learn in spite of corporate America. She will learn in spite of No Child Left Behind. She will learn in spite of Democrats and Republicans and Tea Baggers.
Teachers have to give some attention to the expeditiously evil standardized, norm-referenced, corporate-sating tests. But I urge teachers to work first and foremost from the desire to give every child hope. Every child. Especially those who are most bent and twisted and have the least hope. Give every child hope.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Learning is an Act of Choice
Having my interest in the concept of the intentional non-learner renewed, I spent some time reviewing notes that I had taken from a presentation made by Larry Lazotte at the Model Schools Conference in June of 2006. In that presentation, he had stated that learning is an act of choice. I wish I knew more as to his thoughts about learning as an act of choice. Not having more on the topic, I decided to attempt some understanding.
Without a doubt, some of our students choose not to learn, or not to learn what it is that we want them to learn. This is to suggest that there are students who are at varying levels of compliance. Some will do whatever we ask of them and others won't. The question becomes, "why won't they do what we ask?" Why do students choose not to learn?
I think there are at least two answers to this question. First, the learning often involves effort and there are many of us--I am included--who would prefer to avoid effort, if possible. (I believe that I have resigned myself to the understanding that the harder I work, the better off my life is. Therefore, I do what I have to do.) So, the learning looks like work...some students decide they really would rather not do the work.
Other students have tried to do the work and failed. Failure is a hurtful thing. They eventually come to the conclusion that when they try, they fail. Therefore, if they do not try, they do not fail and they can feel better about themselves.
Yes, learning is an act of choice...but there must be more to this topic.
Without a doubt, some of our students choose not to learn, or not to learn what it is that we want them to learn. This is to suggest that there are students who are at varying levels of compliance. Some will do whatever we ask of them and others won't. The question becomes, "why won't they do what we ask?" Why do students choose not to learn?
I think there are at least two answers to this question. First, the learning often involves effort and there are many of us--I am included--who would prefer to avoid effort, if possible. (I believe that I have resigned myself to the understanding that the harder I work, the better off my life is. Therefore, I do what I have to do.) So, the learning looks like work...some students decide they really would rather not do the work.
Other students have tried to do the work and failed. Failure is a hurtful thing. They eventually come to the conclusion that when they try, they fail. Therefore, if they do not try, they do not fail and they can feel better about themselves.
Yes, learning is an act of choice...but there must be more to this topic.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Intentional Non-Learners Revisited
It has been a long time since I revisited this topic and a long time since I have posted an entry on my blog. There is so much to do every day that I've taken to placing more value on my down time. Probably a bad habit that I'm forming.
Anyway, I was researching Intentional Non-Learners and it led me back to my own blog...an entry from February, 2009. There I found a comment from a parent. His son's principal had told him that his son was a non-learner. I'm sure this made the father angry, although his comment on my blog does not come across as anger but certainly frustration and perhaps misunderstanding.
Let's be direct. If the principal actually said that the son was a non-learner, then the principal does not understand learning. The father talks about how his son asks so many questions that Dad has to ask the son to be quiet. This is indicative of an enthusiastic curiosity, which is the motivation to learn. If a kid is asking questions, he's a learner. Curiously, our schools often work to stop kids from asking questions. We kill the natural curiosity that students have, then we bemoan the fact that they don't want to learn what we want them to learn. Why do we do this? Because letting kids ask questions and make discoveries is messy business and we like everything neat and pretty and quiet and orderly. We don't really like kids that much. We would prefer that they all act like adults.
I'd prefer if adults would act more like kids from time to time.
Anyway...the term "intentional non-learner" does not mean that kids cannot learn. It means that some students choose not to learn what we want them to learn. They have decided that the system does not meet their needs, that they cannot function successfully in the system, that we don't really care about them, and that trying results in failure; therefore, why try? This is not a condemnation of the students. This is a statement against teaching practices in our schools. We not only allow students to become intentional non-learners, but we create the intentional non-learners.
This is why reform is so very important, and it begins with believing that every child can learn. From there, we begin to identify the students who are reluctant learners. We talk to the guidance counselor. We talk to the parents. Most importantly, we talk to the child. And we try to find out why the kid has decided not to do the work. Then we modify our lessons and differentiate the instruction in an attempt to engage the learner.
The desire to learn is something that we all share as human beings. It is one of the universal characteristics of the human experience that transcends all barriers and makes us able to relate to each other, to love one another. It is the responsibility of the school to nurture each student's desire to learn, not to kill it.
The Intentional Non-Learner label is not intended to dismiss students. It is intended to raise the awareness of educators so that we might better meet the needs of our students.
Anyway, I was researching Intentional Non-Learners and it led me back to my own blog...an entry from February, 2009. There I found a comment from a parent. His son's principal had told him that his son was a non-learner. I'm sure this made the father angry, although his comment on my blog does not come across as anger but certainly frustration and perhaps misunderstanding.
Let's be direct. If the principal actually said that the son was a non-learner, then the principal does not understand learning. The father talks about how his son asks so many questions that Dad has to ask the son to be quiet. This is indicative of an enthusiastic curiosity, which is the motivation to learn. If a kid is asking questions, he's a learner. Curiously, our schools often work to stop kids from asking questions. We kill the natural curiosity that students have, then we bemoan the fact that they don't want to learn what we want them to learn. Why do we do this? Because letting kids ask questions and make discoveries is messy business and we like everything neat and pretty and quiet and orderly. We don't really like kids that much. We would prefer that they all act like adults.
I'd prefer if adults would act more like kids from time to time.
Anyway...the term "intentional non-learner" does not mean that kids cannot learn. It means that some students choose not to learn what we want them to learn. They have decided that the system does not meet their needs, that they cannot function successfully in the system, that we don't really care about them, and that trying results in failure; therefore, why try? This is not a condemnation of the students. This is a statement against teaching practices in our schools. We not only allow students to become intentional non-learners, but we create the intentional non-learners.
This is why reform is so very important, and it begins with believing that every child can learn. From there, we begin to identify the students who are reluctant learners. We talk to the guidance counselor. We talk to the parents. Most importantly, we talk to the child. And we try to find out why the kid has decided not to do the work. Then we modify our lessons and differentiate the instruction in an attempt to engage the learner.
The desire to learn is something that we all share as human beings. It is one of the universal characteristics of the human experience that transcends all barriers and makes us able to relate to each other, to love one another. It is the responsibility of the school to nurture each student's desire to learn, not to kill it.
The Intentional Non-Learner label is not intended to dismiss students. It is intended to raise the awareness of educators so that we might better meet the needs of our students.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Don't Take It Personal
When a parent meets with a teacher to discuss issues related to the student-teacher relationship and the performance of the student in the classroom, it is difficult for the teacher not to take the concern as a personal affront. However, the teacher--as the professional--must do exactly that: not take the concern as a personal affront.
Taking a concern as being personal translates in to personal criticism: there is something wrong with me. From that point on, the teacher is no longer hearing the concern or focused on the better interest of the student. From that point on, the teacher can only hear in his mind, "Why don't these people like me?" "I'm doing the best I can." "Am I the only one here who realizes that I have to deal with 150 kids who don't want to learn what I'm teaching?" In other words, the issue has become not only a personal affront, but also a personal defense. The teacher is now so completely self-absorbed that he cannot do what is expected of him, concentrate on the issue as it relates to the student and try to find a way to get the student to work to his potential.
At this point, I would like to suggest that having a student work to his potential is something different from having a student work to the teacher's expectations. This does not mean that the teacher's expectations are not important or should be ignored. High expectations are important to the success of all students. However, when those expectations take into consideration the student's potential, then it may be possible to really stretch the student and to have the student learn more. Expectations alone will not do the job.
Back to the making it personal...
Sitting in a conference between a teacher and a parent, the teacher stated, "You make me feel bad when..." I don't know that I have heard a statement of more personal self-absorption. The teacher could not hear the concern of the parent. The teacher was not interested in the needs of the student. The teacher felt that he was under attack and that those attacking him were wrong and needed to know that. In other words, the teacher was not being a professional in that moment.
It is important to know that parents have a privilege of being emotional. Teachers, as professionals, are not afforded the same privilege. Teachers are required to listen to a parent's concern and to respond to the concern, without making the issue personal. That will communicate to the parents that the teacher is a professional, that the teacher places the concern for a student's well being and achievement first, and that the student is in competent hands. And that is what is expected of us, as professionals.
Taking a concern as being personal translates in to personal criticism: there is something wrong with me. From that point on, the teacher is no longer hearing the concern or focused on the better interest of the student. From that point on, the teacher can only hear in his mind, "Why don't these people like me?" "I'm doing the best I can." "Am I the only one here who realizes that I have to deal with 150 kids who don't want to learn what I'm teaching?" In other words, the issue has become not only a personal affront, but also a personal defense. The teacher is now so completely self-absorbed that he cannot do what is expected of him, concentrate on the issue as it relates to the student and try to find a way to get the student to work to his potential.
At this point, I would like to suggest that having a student work to his potential is something different from having a student work to the teacher's expectations. This does not mean that the teacher's expectations are not important or should be ignored. High expectations are important to the success of all students. However, when those expectations take into consideration the student's potential, then it may be possible to really stretch the student and to have the student learn more. Expectations alone will not do the job.
Back to the making it personal...
Sitting in a conference between a teacher and a parent, the teacher stated, "You make me feel bad when..." I don't know that I have heard a statement of more personal self-absorption. The teacher could not hear the concern of the parent. The teacher was not interested in the needs of the student. The teacher felt that he was under attack and that those attacking him were wrong and needed to know that. In other words, the teacher was not being a professional in that moment.
It is important to know that parents have a privilege of being emotional. Teachers, as professionals, are not afforded the same privilege. Teachers are required to listen to a parent's concern and to respond to the concern, without making the issue personal. That will communicate to the parents that the teacher is a professional, that the teacher places the concern for a student's well being and achievement first, and that the student is in competent hands. And that is what is expected of us, as professionals.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Grading, Assessment, and Feedback
Grading is an issue. It really probably shouldn't be an issue, but it is. I think much of the issue hinges upon a complete unawareness of the purpose of grading.
When I think back about my personal realization of grades, I believe I became distinctly aware that it was a rating system, designed to determine who was smart and who was not, before I ever thought that grading expressed how well I might know or understand a concept.
In a very real sense, these are the dominant reasons for grades: sorting students in such a way that a grade A student is better than a grade B student, and using grades to determine whether a student has mastered or learned a concept.
Of the two, I much prefer the latter. People get sorted enough, often of their own doing, without needing grades to mark the differences. Honestly, as one student may need more time to complete a task that another can do faster, the reality is that both students can complete the task and therefore have somewhat equal reasoning skills. It is only that one is faster.
Okay, faster is better in some situations. But slow and steady is also good. Sometimes, it is better to take one's time. But I'm way off the topic.
The topic is still, "What is the purpose of grades?" I believe this is an important question that every faculty of every school has to answer and agree upon, for then every practice regarding grading will be founded upon this belief. And that will be a good thing.
When I think back about my personal realization of grades, I believe I became distinctly aware that it was a rating system, designed to determine who was smart and who was not, before I ever thought that grading expressed how well I might know or understand a concept.
In a very real sense, these are the dominant reasons for grades: sorting students in such a way that a grade A student is better than a grade B student, and using grades to determine whether a student has mastered or learned a concept.
Of the two, I much prefer the latter. People get sorted enough, often of their own doing, without needing grades to mark the differences. Honestly, as one student may need more time to complete a task that another can do faster, the reality is that both students can complete the task and therefore have somewhat equal reasoning skills. It is only that one is faster.
Okay, faster is better in some situations. But slow and steady is also good. Sometimes, it is better to take one's time. But I'm way off the topic.
The topic is still, "What is the purpose of grades?" I believe this is an important question that every faculty of every school has to answer and agree upon, for then every practice regarding grading will be founded upon this belief. And that will be a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)