The Problems of Housing Discontinuity

A few weeks ago I came across a local newspaper entitled Word on the Street which “aims to educate the community and expose the underlying causes of homelessness.” The front page story of the issue was titled “Lack of affordable housing key to homelessness and poverty”.  It explored the history of budget allocations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and how they have attributed to a stark increase in homelessness in Baltimore. In particular, the article mentions the effects of the HOPE VI program initiated in the 1990s. HOPE VI manifested itself in Baltimore with the demolition of existing housing projects and replaced them with mixed-income developments, which displaced over 20,000 residents, of which only a small fraction of would end up living in the HOPE VI sites.

As a proponent of the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) and community schools, I couldn’t help but see homelessness and/or frequent relocation as significant obstacle that would have to be addressed. Not only does this affect children’s ability to focus one getting to school and to focus in school, but it also compromises the continuity of a child’s education. Part of the allure of what Geoffrey Canada has been able to set up so successfully in Harlem is that there is sustained support for children and their families. These supports, from parenting information to test prep to healthcare access, are able to have a compounding effect for the children and families in the neighborhood, but what if you have to move out of the neighborhood? In my opinion, what is so critical about the HCZ and the concept of community schools is that they provide the stability to build up positive momentum over a long period of time. Unfortunately, families that move in and out would have a difficult time building up enough momentum to see significant educational outcomes.

For community schools or HCZ-like endeavors to be successful in Baltimore, I believe ensuring that students have stable living accommodations must be a priority. While this may not be an issue in some communities, in others this is sure to be a significant challenge. Although the HUD programs of the past may not have been helpful in this area, this agency could be a very strong ally for school and community leaders. After all, the Department of Education shouldn’t be the only one looking out for the best interests of children.

You can find more information about Word on the Street at http://wordonthestreetbaltimore.wordpress.com/

Rewinding a Year

Just one year ago today, everybody in our class was surviving the intensive Teach for America summer training program called Institute. I thought back to that time, when I was so full of hope, so full of inspiration, and so full of the belief that students everywhere can achieve. Fast-forward a year, to this School Reform class, and I hear on a daily basis the same complaints that cynics everywhere shower upon our inner-city children. If it isn’t being short on resources, it’s having an under qualified administration, a central office that makes poor decisions, or a curriculum that doesn’t make sense. What happened to the belief that our children can achieve?

I stumbled on this story earlier, about a woman named Dr. Camika Royal, who was a TFA Baltimore member in 1999, and gave the speech at the opening ceremony of induction recently in Philadelphia. Speaking of school reform, Dr. Royal has kept a close eye on the happenings in Philadelphia, where they are completely eliminating the school district in favor of charter management organizations. Her point is that, as teachers, we are the ones who, in her words, “control the weather.” Educators, she says, and I agree with, are not bad, but they are tired and reform weary. And our students are more than test scores, subgroups, and graduation rates- they are human beings, who want the best for themselves and for the people around them.

A year later, I feel that a part of me forgot that simple truth.  The simple truth that, despite the challenges we face as educators on a daily basis, we are here because we believe that our students can do well for themselves and for the world. Maybe there are some things that schools or school districts can change along the way to make our jobs easier, such as creating smaller schools, supplying us with more resources, etc. But, in the end, our job is to teach. Whatever reform the school districts have in store for us shouldn’t effect our simple ability to teach to our fullest.  

Why Higher Order Thinking Should be Abolished (according to GOP Texans)

 While I was home in Dallas, Texas,  I came across an article on the Huffington Post that stated that the 2012 GOP platform opposes "higher order thinking skills." Naturally, I guffawed. Isn't this what we want to happen in classrooms across the country? Apparently, Texas Republicans think not.

The GOP platform believes that higher order thinking skills and critical thinking skills challenge "students fixed beliefs" and, ultimately, undermine "parental authority." At the heart of the matter are parents' roles in their child's education. If students are taught to think critically, then they must eventually challenge what their parents have taught them, Republicans believe. What is more frightening to me, though, is the notion that we should not challenge students' fixed beliefs. I'm sure some of us can imagine what would happen if we didn't challenge some of their beliefs, or if some of our beliefs were not challenged when we were students. As teachers, and as future parents, we must begin to question what our roles in our children's education might be. Will we be the primary source of not only knowledge, but also beliefs, in our children's lives? To what extent should our children question what they have been taught by parents and teachers?

What was interesting to me, though, was perusing what other items made it onto the section "Educating our Children" on the platform document. If you would like to see the platform document, it is linked here. Along with opposing higher order thinking, Texas GOPs opposes any "sex education other than abstinence," advocates for corporal punishment, and believes that the "Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished."

I recommend reading the full document to understand the entire position from which the GOP is coming. It was not until I read it completely that I found their other recommendations. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is crucial that as educators we understand the platforms of political parties, especially in an election year. It is our duty to know the education platform of these parties and vote for who we think will fight for the best for our students.

David Brooks is one among many journalists to recently lament America’s divided future. Though the divide to which he refers to in his most recent New York Times article is an educational one, and not a political one.  In his article, “The Opportunity Gap”, Brooks reviews recent research completed by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam.  Putnam attributes the discrepancy in opportunity to social factors that affect children at young ages.  He frames the opportunity gap in terms of two additional gaps: an attention gap and a behavior gap.

Affluent parents spend more time reading to their children when they are young, and have the money, time, and resources to be more involved in their children’s lives.  These days, college-educated parents spend an hour more a day with their kids than non-college educated parents (a gap that has grown over the past 40 years).  The attention gap may also be attributed to a shift in social norms.  More and more children are born in single-parent households.  With the current job market, many working-class parents are too stressed and have less time, money, and resources to dedicate to their children.  This fact puts working-class children at a sad disadvantage, as upper-income parents are spending increasingly more money on their kids’ extracurricular activities.  This last difference has contributed to the behavior gap in students.

Putnam notes that poorer children who are not are not involved in extracurricular activities are more pessimistic and detached than their affluent counterparts.  These attitudes are attributed to the fact that the majority of our social institutions – family, friends, school, and community – have failed working-class youths.  It is no surprise that failed children consequently lack a sense of purpose and responsibility, thus causing a behavior gap.

Brooks ends the article by writing: “Equal opportunity, once core to the nation’s identity, is now a tertiary concern.”  If Americans want to change that, then “…people are going to have to make some pretty uncomfortable decisions.”  Brooks mentions three such decisions to remedy the opportunity gap:

1. Liberals should prioritize marriage over childrearing in order to provide children with two parents and adequate attention in a home environment.
2. Conservatives need reconcile that tax increases and benefit cuts are necessary steps to provide funding for programs that benefit the working class.
3. Politicians need to spend their time trying to remedy class divides instead of exploiting them and making the divide even wider. 

Are such concessions necessary to close the attention and behavior gaps, and ultimately the opportunity gap?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/brooks-the-opportunity-gap.html?ref=davidbrooks

Education Behind Bars

Over the weekend, I read an article about how Missouri rehabilitates juvenile offenders. In many of the "schools" in detention facilities across the united states students attend classes for only a few hours a week in classrooms overcrowded with behavioral problems and special needs. These "schools" often causes juvenile offenders to fall further behind their peers academically, socially, and emotionally. 

The new approach of the Missouri's Division of Youth Services (DYS) has helped thousands of juveniles rehabilitate. Students are taught in small groups fostering communal trust. Students then attend group therapy to develop positive ways of creating relationships with others and positive anger management. 

This article highlights the amazing results that are possible if people are willing to truly be revolutionary. I strongly believe that if a child internalizes an identity of a criminal or a failure, that is most likely what they will become. This new model in Missouri gives students a chance to positively reflect on their poor decisions in the past and use their mistakes and the mistake of their peers to help them make better decisions in the future. This model should not be confined to Missouri. While juvenile crime rates in Baltimore have declined since 2007, the number of youth who would benefit from this therapeutic model is enormous. The students we see or the students that commit crimes and are then committed to detention facilities are not acting out because they want to fail. They have unmet needs and they are doing the best they can with the resources available to them, often using inappropriate methods to meet their needs. By addressing the whole student, their strengths, their weaknesses and transforming the prison educational system from that of a punitive model to that of a therapeutic model, the Missouri DYS is giving these students the best chance for achievement in the future. Their success merits attention from school districts nation wide. This revolutionary shift in educational philosophy could transform the way the youth in Baltimore and other cities are educated. 

If you would like to read the article, here is a link to the PDF of the journal:

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2012/ae_summer2012_sml.pdf

NCLB Left Behind

        Today, the Department of Education announced that it has granted waivers releasing two more states – Washington and Wisconsin – from key provisions of the decade-old No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). With these waivers, Secretary Duncan has now relieved 26 states from meeting NCLB’s goal of making all students proficient in math and reading by 2014. To earn a waiver, states are required to set new targets aimed at preparing students for colleges and careers and base teacher evaluations, in part, on test scores.

        Maryland earned a NCLB waiver earlier this year by setting annual measurable objectives (AMOs) for the coming six years. By 2017, all schools are expected to cut their percentage of non-proficient students, overall and by subgroup, in half. Additionally, a new School Performance Index takes into account achievement, gap, and growth measures, an improvement from NCLB’s exclusive emphasis on proficiency. Maryland’s agreement also rewards schools that make progress. Whether the incentives motivate schools to improve remains to be seen, but any positive reinforcement seems to be a welcome departure from NCLB’s emphasis on what’s not working.

        Though these waivers represent a bold maneuver to advance the administration’s education agenda, something had to be done. For the 2010-11 school year, nearly half of schools across the nation failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). And that rate was even higher in states like Virginia (61%) and Massachusetts (80%). When AYP status becomes meaningless and Congress fails to re-authorize NCLB, the policy needs to be adjusted, and that is exactly what Duncan has done. Though House Republicans are calling the waivers an abuse of executive power, many of the states they represent have applied for one.

        Montgomery County Schools Superintendent Joshua Starr doesn’t believe waivers do much to shift education reform, but I question the notion that a major policy shift is what we need. The law certainly needs tweaking, but much of NCLB’s failure has been attributed to flawed implementation. States have set standards too low and written poor assessments, causing a narrowing of the curriculum. Teachers and school leaders – some right here in Baltimore – have cheated on tests. But despite flawed implementation, the ‘big idea’ behind NCLB – accountability for results from our public schools – is tremendously important. Let’s not forget that NCLB’s requirement to disaggregate achievement data holds schools more accountable for the education of the poor and minority children we teach. And let’s not step back from testing accountability altogether just because it’s put pressure on the system. We need to sustain this push for accountability over time and maintain bold expectations for our schools.

        Duncan’s waivers may force some real progress here in Baltimore. The administration’s Blueprint for Reform focuses the most attention on the bottom five percent of low-performing schools, some of which are here in Baltimore. Though this will relax some of the sanctions our schools faced under NCLB, these schools will still be expected to meet annual performance objectives. If our high-poverty schools see real rewards for results, perhaps leaving NCLB behind in favor of fresh accountability measures can close gaps for Baltimore's students.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/education/no-child-left-behind-whittled-down-under-obama.html?_r=1&ref=education

DOES SIZE MATTER?

Does Size Matter?

In the readings that we’ve discussed in class, there has been much debate on the importance of class size for student achievement. In summary, research seems to show that it does not have much of an effect on the student success, with the exception of elementary school-age students, mainly kindergarteners. And while that may be true, it does not really take into account the differences in learning atmosphere between small and large classes.

Last year, Baltimore County eliminated nearly 200 teaching positions in an effort to cut budget costs. This decision has resulted in the increasing of class size on the high school level. Most schools have between 25% and 36% of classes with 30 or more students, and average class-sizes have increased from about 25 to 28 students. The exception is however, lower performing schools, which have maintained very low increases in class size throughout the transition. The justification for this is that students come into school on different levels and struggling schools can benefit from the extra attention from teachers. This does mean however, that gifted and talented classes, as well as other important core-classes performing on higher levels are experiencing greater increases in class size.

The question becomes, does size really make a difference? Some teachers welcome the increase, stating that they are able to do more group work and have richer discussions than they were with smaller classes. Other teachers, students, and even parents have been complaining that the class size increases make students less likely to speak up in class and cause teachers to spend more time dealing with discipline problems. Teachers also say that the increases inhibit them from being able to give specialized attention to students, stay on top of grading, and give timely feedback.

Also, if schools are already making precautions to keep small classes in struggling schools, is it fair to not offer this option to schools that have routinely been performing well? Shouldn’t we be ensuring that all students have what they need to be successful, whether they are high performing or struggling students? And yes, if teachers are more creative and able to adjust to the larger class sizes, then this change will not make much difference, but what if the teacher is new or less experienced, are not able to make those adjustments effectively? Are schools taking this is account when they arrange student placement?

Baltimore County high schools see class sizes grow School system cut 200 teaching positions; struggling schools protected

Under Our Roof

According to a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, the U.S. Department of Education recently reported that there are more than 1 million homeless students in the United States.  This number is up 57 percent since 2007.  In Maryland there are 14,117 homeless students, which is drastically higher than 6,721 five years ago. 

These shocking numbers made me stop and think about our role as teachers in a district where many of our students come to our classrooms with the weights of difficult home lives on their backs.  Teaching a child who is hungry or worried about where he is is going to sleep tonight, no matter how engaging the lesson, is an uphill battle.  This article quickly reminded me of the importance of creating a classroom culture that feels like home for our students.  For some of them, school may be the closest thing to home that they have.

Education reform cannot take place in a bubble – welfare reform and health care reform are just some of the other hugely politicized issues that must be addressed for students in the United States to have the opportunities they deserve.  Teach for America tells us that the problems of poverty don’t have to be fixed before we can give students an excellent education – and I wholeheartedly agree.  But, I do think that the answer to school reform – whatever that looks like – will find a way to improve the communities that urban children are living in so that we can stop telling them that an education is their “ticket out” of the poverty-stricken areas where they were raised.  Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone is one example of what that could look like.

Advocating For What Our Students Deserve.

     After reflecting on all that happened during my first year teaching, I found myself puzzled as to why I did not incite more change in my school. Yes, it was my first year; I was learning the curriculum and figuring out how to teach at the same time, but I questioned why I spent so much time noticing the problems that existed within the walls of my school and very little time changing them. Because of this, I was intrigued to be thinking about the teacher's direct role in school reform. 

     I was thinking about my experience and how there are so many things at my school that I would be interested in changing. Yet, do I even have the power to do that? What if no one will listen to me, and what if they don't like what I have to say? Will I eventually be hurting my own career as an educator by trying to advocate for change for the good of my students? These are all questions that I had as I sought to improve upon all of the structures that were put in place for my students to "succeed." Yet, I never stirred the pot. I voiced my opinion in a submissive way that never really encouraged change. Reform needs to start somewhere, but if the people who are working most directly with the students don't do it, who will?

     This is why I believe KIPP has been able to find so much success. Both David Levin and Mike Feinberg, the founders of the Knowledge is Power Program, fought for their students. They went over people's heads to get what they wanted, and they were not backing down from anyone...all in the name of advocating for their students. In order to incite change, you have to be willing to take risks. This is something that the KIPP founders are famous for, and their grit and determination has enabled so many students to now have the quality education that they deserve. 

     So, as I think about all that Levin and Feinberg did, I start to think about what I could do, what my co-workers could do to improve the situation for all of the students in my school. I'm not suggesting that we start going over people's heads and going straight to Dr. Alonso for what we want, but demanding a better education for our students is not only our job, but it is our duty as educators. Everything that we are trying to instill in our students - resilience, persistence, drive - needs to first be engrained in teachers. If there is something at your school that needs reform, make it known. If we do not advocate for the changes in our schools that our kids deserve, who will?

It Takes So Much More

     As my first year of teaching drew to a close during the second week of June, I inevitably began to think about everything that had happened over the course of year.  Good, bad and everything in between, there are definitely things that I hope to change in my classroom and there are also things on a school level that I hope will change before the beginning of my second year.  After talking about the numerous issues that surround the topic of school reform in this class, I began to think about the place that the teacher-student relationship has in all of this, even the school-student relationship.  We can talk about reform efforts like vouchers, charter schools and small class sizes until we are blue in the face, but I wonder if any of that really matters if the personal support is not there.  After reading Whatever it Takes by Paul Tough, my mind travelled back to that second week in June when I also happened to read an incredibly emotional yet eye-opening article about one young woman in particular who overcame extreme adversity to fulfill her dreams, but not without the help of her school.  Let me just preface what I am about to reflect on by saying that, while not a structured aspect of school reform, the type of behavior reflected in this article as well as what I saw to be the most important aspect of Geoffrey Canada's work as chronicled in Whatever it Takes are in my opinion directly related to our students and what it would take to "reform" our schools.
     The article, linked here, tells the story of a homeless teenager.  Abandoned by her parents, she was taken in by one of the school's custodians and given the opportunity to finish out her last year at her high school.  The school community banded together to help her- she had somewhere to live, food to eat, a job as a custodian when she was not in school.  And, you can read for yourself everything in between.  In the face of all of the challenges that met this young lady as she was homeless and struggling to complete high school, she eventually completed her studies as a straight-A student.  In the end, she wound up getting accepted to Harvard.  While this may seem like "fluff" in terms of the topics of school reform that we have been discussing, what struck me while reading the article was how similar this young lady is to some of my students in terms of the challenges that she faces on a daily basis.  She was born into a family that did not give her the opportunity to be successful, but that is really what she wanted.
     I thought about how the principles of what her school did for her relate to Canada's quest to change Harlem.  While a story like this young lady's is not something you see everyday, it is clear that her adversity is not unlike the adversity of others.  The only difference was the support that she was given.  In the case of the Harlem Children's Zone, Canada sought to put students on a different trajectory than the one they were born to follow.  He established programs that allowed students and parents to make the changes necessary to be successful both inside and outside of school.  Now, this may be the humanitarian in me, but I firmly believe that this aspect of school reform, building a community that supports students and parents 100%, is just as important as the conversations about vouchers and charters.  I honestly do not think that we can ever successfully reform schools if the personal aspect of schools that Canada painstakingly etched into the HCZ and that the school community in the article showed is not an integral part of reform.  In truth, we should all have that "Whatever it Takes" mentality and know that it actually takes so much more.

Dealing with Trauma

The vast majority if not all of us have at one point or another experienced some form of behavioral issue in our classroom. From my own personal experience, one of the most common points of commiseration among teachers, and one faced widely by those of us in urban school systems in particular (such as Baltimore City and County) that have high rates of minority students, is that of behavioral challenges in school. As a chronic issue, it is one that deserves to be considered under the lens of school reform. If we use suspension rates as a proxy for behavior, we see that urban districts have higher than average amounts of “misbehavior.” While the average suspension rate in counties across Maryland is 6.8% of students (46% persons of color statewide), with Montgomery County and Howard County coming in at lows of 2.6% and 3.3% respectively, Baltimore City’s 2010-2011 year showed a rate of 9.1% of students suspended at one point or another (72% persons of color citywide) (Baltimore Sun - Suspensions)(Maryland Demographics). And, to be frank, not all of the students that I personally might have recommended for suspension were ultimately suspended, and I know that the case was similar for many others.

But why is it that students are suspended, or “misbehave,” at higher rates in metropolitan areas, and where there are higher rates of minority students? The National Child Traumatic Stress Network reports that one out of four children in the United States will experience a traumatic event before the age of 16 (Curtin, 2008). However, Parson (1994 - link to pdf) found that black children in the inner city experience traumatic events at more than 3 times the rate of children nationally, with 84% of elementary students saying that they had seen someone physically assaulted.

There may be a correlation between trauma and suspension rates, but then the question of how effective suspensions are in actually decreasing “misbehavior” in schools and classrooms is asked. The answer is disheartening. Jane Ellen Stevens, in a recent article on the Huffington Post, reports that one suspension triples the likelihood of a child becoming involved with the juvenile justice system, and doubles that child's likelihood of repeating a grade. And then when it comes to the classroom, it was rarely my experience that students were better behaved, motivated, or adjusted when they returned from their suspension.

So what is an acceptable alternative to suspending chronically “misbehaved” students who may be dealing with some form of trauma?

Trauma-informed improved plans are a new way of addressing these issues. School districts in Massachusetts, Washington, and other states have begun to adopt such plans which include courses for teachers on how to teach traumatized children; whole-community involvement in informing schools about and responding to students who have experienced trauma; and the positive behavior interventions program.

As communities continue to change, it is impossible for students to learn and for teachers to teach if the students’ basic needs are not met. Providing outlets and productive alternatives to punishing “misbehaved” children should ever be towards the top of the school reform agenda. 

Links:

Main Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-ellen-stevens/traumasensitive-schools-part-two_b_1632126.html?utm_hp_ref=education 

PBIS: http://www.pbis.org/school/default.aspx

Trauma-Sensitive Schools: http://www.istss.org/source/stresspoints/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newsletter.showThisIssue&Issue_ID=80&Article_ID=1353

Inner City Children of Trauma Report PDF: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGcQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giftfromwithin.org%2Fpdf%2Fparson.pdf&ei=1u3wT9nvKKGC6QGwvvG6Bg&usg=AFQjCNFexXFOKaSLAUc_fV44nIYOyUDphQ&sig2=1PSiMfzwO_pRXmF0tHSOmw

Demographics: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24510.html

Baltimore Sun- Suspensions: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-25/news/bs-md-co-school-suspensions-20111225_1_suspension-issue-suspension-rate-stricter-discipline-codes

"More Kool Aid Please"

Is TFA making transformational change within the students or are those that participate in TFA are the ones that are transforming. The simple fact that most who transforming and making student academic gains, are few in number. It is one due to the lack of training to be an effective teacher. Secondly, it is the fact that most are just trying to improve self for their resume and not really in it for the cause and most leave after their two year commitment. Third, is that even though those that are TFA participants are great at being a student and learning does not mean that their academic success will transpire into the classroom with students that most do not relate to because are not from or have not experienced at least few of the hardships that the students they are required to teach have and are going through. Lastly,  is that there is a strong emphasis on leading adolescents and those that we are putting in the classroom have for the majority never had major responsibility of taking care of children, or being a leader outside of peers and are yet thrown into a situation that requires them to be an ADULT with students that are close to their own age, when most are still young themselves. I can imagine it being hard as a student to see such young teachers and have to look up to them as a role model and learn how to be an adult when there is only ten years difference in age between them. I mean people get married with ten years between the two of them.  I am not saying that makes a person less effective as a teacher, but some of the things that administrators look for is a leader or someone they can entrust to discipline and educate their students. To be honest most coming out of college just do not have it and actually have a hard time with the management piece of teaching and are not effective in their instruction. The key to first being able to make transformational change is to have command of the classroom and most are still figuring out themselves as adults, let alone becoming a disciplinarian, and just can’t completely do it. Not only that teachers actually have to be provided a solid educational foundation towards how to teach and in developing their teaching style, and that is not something that can happen after two years where most TFA step out of teaching; and furthermore, can not be done with the summer training for month and a half at institute.  From speaking to veteran teachers it really takes 3-5 years to figure out a management style that works for you followed by instruction that will make a teacher effective. TFA teachers mostly do not stay around long enough to learn how to be an effective teacher but a leader and commander of the classroom to be transformational. These school invest money in their training and the turnover or costs of helping these corp members are more then what the schools actually get out of those teaching. Not saying the TFA corp members are not motivated and not want to do well, but not most are in it for a career.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/04/deepening_the_debate_over_teac.html

http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Heilig_TeachForAmerica.pdf

Eventhough, teaching always requires much reflection in practice and being flexible and making changes, which can bring some changes it is hard to say it will be transformational. With most corp members leaving after their two years and a new set of teachers coming in, the system of change is still not healthy for students because there is no consistency with the people around them and since most of them leave, I am sure that transfers into negative thoughts for the students who were in their classrooms and return negatively affect their scores academically. With nearly 15 – 23% of the incoming corp members not completing their two year commitment and nearly 60% leaving after the two year commitment. When looking at the numbers only 23% stay after 5 years. Which these would be just classified as becoming effective teachers.  Yet, the experience gained by the corp member they are transforming into better adults by learning responsibility and gaining experience in planning and data analysis, they are mainly transforming themselves and not the students that are in their classroom, which was the main goal of TFA to provide a quality education to those students where the need is great in efforts of closing the achievement gap between students in affluent and low income areas.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-04-27/story/low-teach-america-retention-rate-examined-duval-embraces-program

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-indialogue/2012/04/deepening_the_debate_over_teac.html

The Charter School Debate Continues..

Many charter schools have impressively raised test scores and student acheivement in low-income neighborhoods traditionally served by failing schools. Charter schools (the good and the bad) are innovative. And, with all innovations, come with a handful of critiques.

In an article in The New York Times on June 25th, writer Michael Powell criticized a particular charter school in New York City, Harlem Success Academy 2. The Harlem Success Academy 2 is part of the larger network of Success Academy Charter Schools run by chief executive Eva S. Moskowitz. HSA has had many successes, risen test scores, and created a culture of success for its students. The public school that HSA shares a building with, PS 30, has failed to do this consistently. The two schools have been in conflict over receiving funds for a new playground. Moskowitz believe that the funds, and the playground, rightfully belong to HSA2. After all, that is the school that is achieving, and she is the one who raised the funds.

The article is decent, but it isn't a strikingly new or fascinating article. We have seen these stories before, where charter schools take away from the public school system. What struck me as interesting were the 59 and counting comments written by parents of students at HSA2, donors, community members, and people who genuinely dislike the system of charter schools developing in New York. I encourage you to read the comments. Skip the article; you've read many like it. The comments are genuine.

The majority of the bloggers wrote outcries in support of Moskowitz, and the culture of acheivement that she has created at HSA2. One parent wrote that they didn't have the time to leave a lengthy argument against Powell, because they were too busy helping their student complete the summer packet she wanted to do. Another parent wrote about how her student has developed into a critical thinker and has found their love for learning. Other bloggers did not share the same enthusiasm. They felt left out, angry, and frustrated because their students were not accepted into HSA.

The comments reflected the discussions we had in class about charter schools. Are charter schools a useful reform if they only improve the lives of a handful of students? Isn't it worth it for those students? Or, are charter schools a waste of public funds that could be used to improve the conditions of the public school system? Is there a way to make successful public charter schools accessible for all children? Or, would that diminish the glam factor of charter schools, making them less appealing?

 I would love to hear you opinions after reading some of the comments posted by parents of students at HSA2.

Here is the article, and the comments.

"It Takes A Village..."

“It takes a village to raise a child.” –African proverb

            After reading Whatever it Takes by Paul Tough and an article in The Washington Post entitled, “Does the NAACP think its okay to hit your kids?,” almost nothing is more clear to me than the proverb above. Children are products of their environment. When I say that I do not mean that they are passive sponges, but rather, they have the potential to rise or sink to the expectations and the norms with which become customary.  That is a main reason why Geoffrey Canada believes the best way to change the life outcomes for children is to revamp and restructure the entire environment so that it becomes “contaminated” with positive choices and behaviors. The hope is that the child has no other option, but to follow suit and jump on the productive life-path trail. This citywide transformation model confronts the fact that it is impossible for a single positive influencer to be in the presence of a child for every second of every day. Therefore, parents, teachers, caregivers, and community members as a whole, must be able to rely on everyone “in the village” to support the child in his or her journey to a prolific and healthy adulthood.

            Canada’s first solution to creating this safety net started with the parents in Baby College. In these classes he presented information, grounded in research, concerning parenting techniques that best promote social, emotional, and academic development. These practices were discovered to be advantageous for children in school and throughout their lives. The Baby College teachers promoted strategies that did not involve any type of corporal punishment. These strategies favored time-outs and taking away privileges over spankings, and beatings. As relayed by Tough, many parents had a hard time coming to terms with this knowledge, partly because violent punishments were the most feared and had the greatest impact on them during their respective childhoods. Yet, Canada felt that it was part of the responsibility of the Baby College to provide disciplinary instruction to parents in Harlem in the hopes that they will abandon physical punishments in favor of other methods.

            Does the NAACP have the power to demand the employment of these same disciplinary tactics across the nation, or is telling parents how to raise their children an issue outside of public authority? On Sunday, Stacey Patton reported a story in The Washington Post about a 15-year-old girl who called 911 on her father (a pastor) for choking and slapping her, and, as a result, he was arrested. The violence was orchestrated due to the disrespectful act of disobedience that the daughter executed by “arguing about attending a party that the father deemed off-limits.”  Does a legal governing body have the right to pass judgment on how a parent disciplines his or her child, or can we as a society draw a line on violent punishment because research has proven this is not beneficial to a child’s development? The verdict is up in the air for this particular case. Generally speaking, I am personally unsure where to draw the line. I think it is important to consider the effects that a community’s laws and norms have on the children and consequently the adults those children grow to be, but yet appreciate the privacy that parents desire. However, if, like Canada, the national aspiration is to create opportunities for all children to develop the best futures possible, maybe governing bodies and outside authorities should influence the techniques of parents, considering how large their role is in our village.

Number Zombies

When I was a child I assigned a number to everything.  I kept notes on how much fruit and how many vegetables I ate each day.  I created charts for different activities and skills.  Most importantly, I tracked play time with my peers.

Did I obtain 80% mastery on my daily nutrition chart? Check.

Was the way I swung on the swing proficient? Check.

Did I spend enough time running around with Billy, Susie and Betty? Check. Check. Check.

I was making AYP before it was in vogue.

Does this not seem awesome? On any day a kid was collecting purposeful data in a bid to rise up out of a living biography and claim his global inheritance of fulfillment in life.  Fulfillment of course being defined here as a series of numbers that seems to be leading to something so that I could move on and do something else.

Caught the sarcasm yet?

As a young teacher in the classroom I have made a few observations.  Of these observations, one really continues to draw my mental attention.  My students are constantly wondering if what they are learning is going to be on a quiz or test.  If I say no, which I never would, students relax and zone out.  If I say yes, they complain about the amount of information they need to learn and with uneasy looks on their faces attempt to plea with me for free time.  This is what educators before me have cultivated:  number zombies. Students care about the grade they achieve on a test and not so much about what they are learning or the process required to get there.

In education we play this huge numbers game.  Lately, this game has been fully focused on attaining AYP and having students pass the MSAs and HSAs in Maryland.  We track how students are progressing and what they are learning (though notably the focus tends to stay on reading and math).  This quantitative way of thinking is great – but is it making an excuse for educators to stop caring about the qualitative learning that should also be occurring?  

Think about it.  We ask our kids to learn the same, think the same, and test the same.  This past year I had class sizes of 32, 22, 29, 24, and 37 in the high school I teach at.  I do my best to follow the instructional model expected of me while also implementing partner and group activities, but the reality of  the situation is that students are stuck on a teacher-teaches, student-does model.  I bring up this point because it then becomes difficult to ensure that when I am not being a monolith in front of the class, I am constantly circling the room to put students on task.  I have grown, at times, frustrated with the pattern into which I have fallen.

I feel as if I am merely teaching so that students can prove themselves on the day-to-day objectives and therefore I have to assess them as such.  I struggle with this because it leaves me handcuffed to the curriculum and unable to craft lessons around many topics that I believe would be worth exploring in the classroom.  

This is not to be taken as a negative view of having a curriculum or of assessing the curriculum, but rather a commentary on how education in general is failing to view our students as humans.  I fear that we have become so obsessed with results and instant (read: superficial) gain that we ignore the humanistic elements in education.

According to the work of theorists like Maslow and Rogers, the idea of humanism concentrates on the development of students’ self-concepts.  If a student feels good about what they are learning and is feeling good about themselves (affective needs), then that student is starting off on the right page.  This allows a child to discern their own strengths and weaknesses and how to play on one’s strengths to improve overall.  Maslow terms this “self-actualization,” in which a student does not recognize learning as an end in itself, but rather as a means to progress towards the apex of self-development.  This cannot occur for every student at the same time, and yet that is what we expect.  We determine when students will take tests and when they will learn this or that.  When students are not as quick as their peers, we rush in an attempt to see if they require an IEP or 504 plan.  BUT - humans develop at different paces, we always have.

Therefore, what I am proposing is that we move towards an open –classroom system and an ecological methodology of learning.  (For more on the ecological systems theory, see The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design by Urie Bronfenbrenner.‎ (1979) or just read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Systems_Theory).

An open-classroom system is one in which a teacher is more of a facilitator while a student is a researcher, creator, writer, thinker, doer, etc...  Let’s give students the opportunity to discover their own human worth, individuality, and the freedom to determine their own personal actions.  An open-classroom would remove the emphasis on attaining material goals and increase the skill set a student needs to be a productive contributor to an ever changing global society.

According to the philosopher Kirschenbaum, an open-classroom would have these traits:
                -Students exercise choice and control over activities   
                -Curriculum focuses on what the children are concerned about
                - Focus on life skills - thinking skills combined with social skills (e.g. sharing and communicating)
                -Co-operative learning
                - Self-evaluation and self-monitoring
                - Teacher becomes a facilitator

We cannot allow society to apply it’s zombiefication of adults to children in schools.  So let’s reclaim our brains and drop the emphasis on teaching and put the emphasis back on learning.