A Present Wrapped in Poop

Respect. Teachers deserve it. Most folks think so. But it seems to be lip service a lot of the time, even by our employers.

As teachers, we are often told by the public what an important job we do - that we are valued and loved. But the reality is that for the amount of education we have, and the hours we spend - when you look at professions with equal demands on their time and education levels, teaching is not valued at all.

But that is not the point here. That is all well documented in many other places. My point is the disrespect we receive from within our own profession. From those in the district office. From those who make wonderful speeches at meetings and professional development trainings. From those who say one thing, but whose actions communicate something else entirely.

There are so many examples....... where should I begin? How about claiming to value questions and pushing back, but being reprimanded when doing so? To be told it's not about test scores, to teach and value the whole child, while in the meantime your principal is ripped a new one when those scores are not high enough. To be asked to be an honored member of a "special committee," only to find out it is nothing but a thankless job requiring many grueling hours of your time. Grunt work so someone at the district office doesn't have to do it.

Then of course there are those "presents wrapped in poop." Gifts that seem amazing, but disrespect you in so many ways. For example, being allowed to attend a conference - all expenses paid. Sounds amazing, right? Excepts for the parts where you don't arrive until 1:00 in the morning and have to be up at the crack of dawn, have to share a bed with a total stranger because the district didn't bother to get rooms with two beds, and schedule your flight home so that you do not even have a little bit of time to enjoy the location where you are staying. And let's not forget flying in and out of the most inconvenient airport possible. Now, this isn't true for everyone who attends. District and other select folks received earlier flights in and later flights out at more local airports, rooms where each person had their own bed, and time to enjoy themselves a bit in the location.

My teacher friends who have worked in other professions are always shocked by how crappy we are treated. They always tell me how this wouldn't stand in other professions. But we teachers just suck it up. We are just grateful for what we get I suppose. Grateful for those presents wrapped in poop.

The Demonization of Curriculum... This Time It's STEM

Anyone read Fareed Zakaria's article warning of the demon known as STEM?  If not, you can read it here.  Normally I enjoy Zakaria's take on things.  But as usual, someone outside of education, who feels he is an expert because he went to school, thinks he can weigh in.  Sigh.  It's a freakin' epidemic.

Stick with me if you think I am missing the point of the article.  It may seem that way.  But just hang in there, OK?

So, a few glaring issues here.  First off, no one, and I mean NO ONE in education thinks STEM is all that any student needs, and that liberal arts and the humanities should be abandoned.  You would be hard-pressed to find one educator that believes that nonsense.  Rick Scott?  He doesn't exactly reflect America, and he certainly doesn't reflect educators in America.  The only other evidence given is one mistake made by President Obama, and two other crazy Republican governors. Hardly evidence that the sky is falling.

The emphasis in recent years on STEM partially comes from a lack of emphasis on these areas in the past.  Specifically, many teachers teach science without the hands-on component, and many do not teach engineering at all.  Many teachers deliver math instruction with an emphasis on "drill and kill."  And regarding technology, well, see, there's this thing called The Digital Divide that we must narrow.  In addition, we must ensure technology is used as a tool for creation rather than consumption in ALL subject areas, including the humanities and liberal arts.  I realize this is a rather simplistic synopsis, and obviously there are other economic and global factors.  But being an elementary teacher, I chose to stick to some basic classroom aspects of STEM.  I will say this though, there is no doubt we have been lacking in preparing our students for careers in STEM-based fields.  For example, Broadcom, the nation's largest producer of chips for wireless communications, must hire a large number of engineers from outside the U.S. because the company cannot find enough qualified candidates at home.  Paula Golden, executive director of Broadcom Foundation, which promotes science education, states, "At Broadcom, it's painfully apparent that the talent we need to inspire and innovate is coming from elsewhere.  It's not a cost-effective way of doing business," she said.  "But it's difficult to find other alternatives."  I am sure Broadcom isn't the only company in this predicament.  Again, STEM is working to fulfill a clear need.

Looking at coding and programming in particular, which has received a great deal of attention recently with the "Hour of Code," Software Developer and Coding Instructor Brent Kollmansberger makes some excellent points regarding K-12 education.  "Code.org is the main organization that has been successfully promoting teaching coding in the school system.  They have never suggested deemphasizing the humanities - nor have I heard others doing so.  If anything, coding, animation, image editing, and film making are all technical fields that are also forms of artistic expression."  Kollmansberger goes on to remind us, "Besides, a bachelor's degree in the humanities does not preclude a master's or a doctorate in a more technical field should one be desired."  No one in this field is arguing for deemphasizing the humanities or the liberal arts.  If anything, STEM fields and the humanities and liberal arts need each other in a large number of careers.

I almost stopped reading Zakaria's article when I got to the part about international standardized test comparisons.  It is a commonly known and widely researched fact that when you remove poverty from the equation, American students fare as well or better than other countries in international comparisons.  The fact that this is left out makes me question Zakaria's intentions.  He certainly knows about the poverty issue.  He wrote an article about it back in 2012.  Was this information intentionally left out?  Or have those final dots not been connected?  I doubt that.  Again, it's not a matter of what our students can do, it's a question of improving instruction, and ensuring all students receive the best instruction.  We can always improve, and we had some holes that STEM is working to fill.

When one looks at the actual numbers, well, get ready to breathe a sigh of relief.  The sky isn't falling.  According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the humanities are doing just fine.  A few key findings:

• While there were fluctuations in the percentages of students completing humanities majors between the 1940s and 1970s, it seems safe to say those numbers are pre-STEM.  We can't blame STEM on those drops.
• Current data indicate the percentage of humanities degrees increased through the 1980s and 90s, with a slight decline in the 2000s, then rising again, with a slight drop again during the Great Recession.  Overall the numbers have been steady.
• And even though humanities have decreased as a percentage of all degrees, there has been an increase in the percentage of Americans with humanities degrees.

What is especially interesting in the AACU report relates to the last point.  It is this finding by Nate Silver: "Nate Silver has noted that the same pattern applies not only to the humanities, but also to many social science and STEM fields.  Between 1971 and 2011, the percentage of degrees in mathematics, engineering, and history all declined as shares of all college degrees even as the percentage of college-age students earning these degrees increased - a phenomenon Silver attributes to rising enrollments in occupational fields such as health and criminal justice that had not previously offered or required college degrees."  It seems the landscape is very complex indeed.

Zakaria writes, "No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write."  Of course you do.  All I could think of when I read this was, "Did you even talk to any teachers before you wrote this article?"  I mean, seriously.  Who is arguing otherwise?  Besides crazy governors?  Certainly not teachers.

And that's my issue.  Why do people like Fareed Zakaria listen to the likes of Rick Scott, Patrick McCrory, and Rick Perry?  Why is anyone listening to these people when it comes to educational policy?  I'll tell you why.  Because teachers do not have a seat at the table.  And just like everyone else, Zakaria didn't talk to one teacher when he wrote this article.  Not one.  He's just as bad as they are.  He is part of the problem.  He is listening to these people, and giving them power.  By highlighting and responding to their commentary in his article, Zakaria gives their message credence, as if what they have to say about education is even worth listening to at all.  I know that wasn't the intent, but such a response certainly gives that impression.  What if we all just stopped listening to people like Scott, McCrory, and Perry, and started listening to TEACHERS?  Newsflash: If Zakaria had spoken to teachers, he would have found out the future of the liberal arts and humanities is safe and sound.  If you look at the numbers and facts, you can see its present certainly is.  Teachers may get stepped on a lot, but we would never let STEM take over to the detriment of the humanities and liberal arts.  Does Zakaria really think we would stand for that?  Thanks for the vote of confidence.

It's all getting so tiresome, isn't it?

(Note: After I wrote this, I realized the article probably contains the highlights of Zakaria's latest book, and I wondered.  Did he talk to any teachers during the writing of his book?  If he did, that's great.  Too bad they didn't make the cut for the article.  They clearly didn't influence it; there seems to be an agenda there.  If he didn't speak to any teachers, shame on him.)

Works Cited

"Humanities by the Numbers." Association of American Colleges & Universities. N.p., 07 Aug. 2013. Web. 02 May 2015.
Leal, Fermin. "Science, Tech Preparation Lagging in U.S. Schools." The Orange County Register. N.p., 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 04 May 2015.

Silver, Nate. "As More Attend College, Majors Become More Career-Focused." FiveThirtyEight. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 02 May 2015. 

Zakaria, Fareed. "Why America's Obsession with STEM Education Is Dangerous." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Apr. 2015. Web. 02 May 2015. 

Zakaria, Fareed. "Zakaria: Mitt, You Need to Worry about the Very Poor." Global Public Square RSS. N.p., 12 Feb. 2012. Web. 02 May 2015.

Why Test Scores Don't Mean Jack...... Cristina's Story

State test scores became available to us this week.  I always get mixed feelings - my kids work SO HARD on the CSTs (California Standards Test) every year, and I always think, "They are going to do well.  They worked so hard and really tried.  They knew the information.  This is the year."  Every year I get my hopes up.  Then my hopes come crashing down when I see the results.  It is a mixed bag - the scores range from amazing to holy-crap-how-did-that-happen?  But this year what stands out for me is one story - the story of Cristina.

Cristina is an English learner who was in my class for two years.  She came to my class at the beginning of her third grade year.  The following year I had a third and fourth grade combination class, and she was one of the many students I looped.  What a gift!

I conduct IRIs (Individualized Reading Inventory) with every one of my students three times throughout the year.  I have done this for as long as I can remember, but it became especially important when NCLB and high stakes testing really kicked into gear.  (More on that later.)  Two years ago, Cristina, along with a few other students, could not pass the pre-primer IRI.  Further assessment revealed she had major gaps in her reading skills in all areas, but especially decoding/phonics.  After parent-teacher conferences, it was clear why.  Cristina had missed a great deal of school her first few years.  I had my work cut out for me.

By the end of her third grade year, Cristina passed the pre-primer, primer, and first grade IRIs.  She also improved in all of the other assessments that I use to assess reading skills.  I was so proud of her!  When she returned for fourth grade, she was the only one of my "loopers" who showed increased reading scores over the summer.  She told me, "My mom worked really hard with me."  It showed.  (Even more impressive?  Her mother is a beginning English learner herself.)  Cristina was still at the first grade level, but had increases in her accuracy, comprehension, and fluency.  Yet the second grade IRI was just out of her grasp.  Still lots of work to do.

By the end of her fourth grade year, Cristina passed the third grade IRI with flying colors.  Her scores on all other assessments had increased as well.  She had made phenomenal growth over the past two years - she moved up five levels!  Again, I was so proud of her.  In addition, over the course of the two years Cristina went from a Beginning level EL to an Intermediate, bypassing the Early Intermediate level completely.

That brings us to the CSTs.  Cristina's third grade ELA score earned her a "Below Basic" rating.  Not surprising.  In fourth grade, she scored one point higher than the previous year, but due to increased cut-offs, she is now labeled "Far Below Basic."  Heart-breaking.

If Cristina is to be judged solely by these numbers, one might think a host of things.  Maybe she has a learning disability?  Maybe she doesn't try?  Maybe she doesn't have support at home?  Of course, all of these assumptions are false.  This kid works her tail off and gives her best every single day, and so does her mother.  How else could she have made such amazing growth?

Is it fair that I be judged by these numbers?  Of course not.  This is the problem with high stakes testing - it tells you NOTHING about what students know, or what teachers have done.  It tells you nothing about how far students have come.  These numbers tell you nothing about my instruction as a teacher.  These numbers tell nothing about all of the small group instruction and interventions this child received.  The numbers do not tell how hard this kid has worked, or how hard I have worked.  This child made AMAZING growth.  But you would never know that from the test scores.  Test scores do not tell you each child's story.

If standardized testing is going to be a part of what we look at when assessing student and teacher performance, fine.  (Well, not really.)  But it sure as hell shouldn't be the only thing.  And it definitely does not deserve much weight.  Authentic measures, such as IRIs, are what is needed.  Measures that show growth.  Measures that paint a more accurate picture.  Measures that actually work to inform instruction.  Measures that mean something.  It is time for this madness to stop.  The Cristinas in our classrooms deserve better.  And so do we.

Focus, Daniel-San, Focus!

So, CST scores are out.  Ugh.  While my math scores are the best they have ever been, my language arts scores are the worst ever.  This is so frustrating given all the time spent on preparing students for these tests.  I expected the "third grade dip" that our state experiences, but I was at least hoping for some growth.

Luckily, I have been reading Focus by Mike Schmoker.  This book plainly states, with all of the research to back it up, what I have known all along.  The "inch-deep mile-wide" approach works to hurt our students, creating an artificial need for what Schmoker calls "expensive, time-gobbling remediation mechanisms."  I certainly have seen this in action.  As students' scores "decline" due to the unachievable goals of NCLB, more and more remediation is thrown at them.  Sickening.  As Schmoker puts it, "Educators continue to be diverted toward new methods and programs, even as the most important aspects of curriculum, teaching, and literacy are ignored almost entirely."  So what is the result?  Students continue to fall behind.

I have definitely felt this effect in my own classroom over the past few years.  As my schedule is encroached upon by interventions and remediation, I have less and less time for authentic literacy experiences.  Maybe THIS is why language arts scores are not going up?  Maybe.

So far I have learned a few other key points from Focus:

1.  New initiatives and programs cannot succeed in the absence of decent curriculum, lessons, and authentic literacy activities.
2.  Less is more.  Content standards should be reduced by about 50%, and even more in language arts.  (Singapore, Japan, and China teach to about a third as many math and science standards - about 15 per grade level compared to our 50.)
3. Guided practice and constant checking for understanding are essential and often overlooked.  (Research tidbit: Effective formative assessment and checking for understanding add six to nine months of additional learning growth per year.)
4. NOT MORE THAN 20% OF COMMON ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE MULTIPLE CHOICE!!!  HELLO?  IS THIS THING ON?????  20%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5.  No more than five minutes of 'teacher talk' before giving opportunities to process information.  This is in contrast to the ten minutes I learned.

I am halfway through this book and have not only learned a great deal, but feel so validated.  I am looking forward to reading the rest!