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.

That Which Does Not Kill Us, Makes Us Drink

Well, today didn't make me drink.  Just cry.  Kids can be so mean.  We all know this.  And today several of my students made some very poor choices.  Choices that hurt others deeply...... emotionally.  And as I had to sit and explain those choices to the mother of one of the hurt children, I cried.  She cried.  I just kept thinking, "What if this had happened to my daughter?'  And I cried.

I don't think becoming a mother eight years ago has made me a better teacher.  But it has changed the way I look at my students.  I always think, "What if this happened to my child?"  And becoming a mother has REALLY changed the way I look at parents.  Today, as I called a parent of a child who said something very hurtful and derogatory to another student, I became absolutely enraged.  The mother replied, "What provoked him?"  As if such language would ever be justified!  Of course, this explains a lot, doesn't it?  And not that it matters, but the child was not provoked in any way whatsoever.  He was just being cruel.  There will be no consequences for this child.  In this parent's eyes, I am the enemy.  I am "out to get" her child.  But if he had been the victim today, I would have been crying there with her.  But he is never the victim.  (Well, if you ask her you will probably get a different opinion.)

Days like today suck the life out of you.  Your heart aches for the children that are hurt.  But your heart also aches for the children that are allowed to continue to behave in ways that harm others.  As teachers, we can only do so much during the six and a half hours, 180 days per year they are with us.  It's a losing battle much of the time.  I'm not saying it isn't worth trying - of course you always try.  Every once in a while you do make a dent.  But you can only take so much before you need to cry.  Or drink.  Or both.  ;-)

Seriously??!!!?

For the last two months I have been working on one blog post.  I had this hook about how I had always wanted to be an archaeologist..... you know, digging up great finds.  And how I still get to realize this dream - I still get to dig.  But all it is, well, is dirt.

The whole post was about Lexiles, SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory), CCSS, and the questionable connections and flimsy research between them.  I worked very hard on this post.  It had tons of charts, research citations..... it was pretty good if I do say so myself.  I had saved it and was waiting to post it.  I kept thinking it wasn't quite ready..... I needed to add a little bit more to make it just right.

About two weeks ago I logged in to add the finishing touches and finally post the blog entry.  When I logged in and took a look, over 75% of the post was GONE.  Vanished into cyberspace.  At first I didn't believe it.  I thought I needed to click somewhere, or maybe the scroll feature was malfunctioning.  But no, it was just GONE.

W.T.F.

I have been away from blogging for quite some time, and even when I was blogging, it wasn't all that often.  This kind of crap doesn't make it any easier.

Ugh.

I will try to get re-motivated.....

Musings from "The Flats"

My district is unofficially divided into "The Hills" and "The Flats."  As one might imagine, The Hills are where the more affluent homes are found, and The Flats are where the areas of poverty lie.  I have worked in the same school in The Flats for 26 years.  I love it and would never work anywhere else.

You would think after 26 years I would be used to it, but I am still not used to colleagues, my fellow teachers, talking trash about The Flat schools.  For some reason, many of these teachers actually think they are better than those of us who teach in The Flats.  Obviously, that is laughable.

Yet I am still blown away by what people say.  I suppose this comes with the territory.... something we in The Flats must accept.  But I must also remember, many of those same people wouldn't last a week in The Flats.  It's a tough gig at times.  So many teachers have left my school because they haven't felt successful.  They literally "run for the hills."  And of course they are more successful.  Who wouldn't be?

A quick look at the research shows turnover is high in schools like mine all over the country.  Many teachers do not stay in high poverty schools very long.  Maybe it's because they don't have what it takes?  I know I didn't have it when I first started.  And it is something I am always working to improve.

After all this time, I haven't learned to speak up when the digs happen.  I am still shocked by it.  I am still left speechless by the rude comments - the comments that insinuate or flat-out state that my wonderful school isn't as good.  The hell it isn't.  My school is awesome.  And so are the teachers.

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.

Vigor vs. Rigor

Over the weekend I joined the "Badass Teachers Association" on Facebook.  This page was started Friday night.  It is now Thursday, and the group has over 7,700 members.  It is clear from what I have seen thus far that teachers are fed up and, at least this group is, ready to take back their profession.

Someone in the group posted about the frustration with buzzwords such as "rigor."  Later on in the thread, another member wrote about how she tells folks she prefers "vigor."  As I thought about that, a few posts down, someone posted a link to the definition of rigor.  So I clicked on it.  Here is how rigor is defined according to Merriam-Webster:

rig•or  noun  
1 a (1): harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgement: severity  (2): the quality of being unyielding or inflexible: strictness  (3): severity of life: austerity
   b: an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty
2: a tremor caused by a chill
3: a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable; especially : extremity of cold
4: strict precision : exactness
5 a obsolete: rigidity, stiffness
   b: rigidness or torpor of organs or tissue that prevents response to stimuli
   c: rigor mortis

Wow.  Really?  Goodness!  I don't know about you, but this sure as heck is NOT how I would like anyone to describe my classroom!  So of course, this led me to look up vigor:

vig•or  noun
1: active bodily or mental strength or force
2: active healthy well-balanced growth especially of plants
3: intensity of action or effect: force
4: effective legal status

Now that's more like it!  My next move was to Google rigor vs. vigor.  Apparently many others in education have thought of this one before. Blogger Joe Bower asks us to consider the synonyms for both words.  For rigor, we have inflexibility, stringency, cruelty, and pain.  For vigor, we have drive, strength, force, flourish, and vitality.  Clearly we want our classrooms to reflect a vigorous curriculum rather than a rigorous one.  Don't we?

Joanne Yatvin wrote on this subject, and it was published in Valerie Strauss' The Answer Sheet in The Washington Post.  Joanne Yatvin is one of my heroes.  She was a member of the National Reading Panel in 1998 - the only teacher.  Dissatisfied with the rushed process and narrow definitions of literacy, she wrote a minority report expressing her concerns.  (Her story is told in the book Silent No More: Voices of Courage in American Schools.)  I cannot help but wonder if her story mirrors the acceptance of the word "rigor" to describe a goal we would like to achieve for our students.  Did this start somewhere in a small room with a group of policy makers trying to decide on the next silver bullet in education?  Or maybe a typo was made somewhere along the line?  Maybe the original word was vigor, and the policy makers were too embarrassed to admit the error?

In reading further, I found an article from 2008 by Tony Wagner in ASCD's Educational Leadership.  "Rigor Redefined" summarizes Wagner's seven survival skills - what people require in the new world of work.  These skills are:

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
2. Collaboration and Leadership
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism
5. Effective Oral and Written Communication
6. Accessing and Analyzing Information
7. Curiosity and Imagination

Of course these are not the skills emphasized in schools today.  Test prep is where it's at.  And this is where the change needs to occur.  A rigorous education, according to Wager, encompasses the skills listed above.  But it seems somewhere along the way, "rigor" has come to simply mean harder and more difficult, in larger quantities.

Now, could this be because too many people associate academic rigor with the actual meaning of the word rigor?  I mean, that makes sense, doesn't it?  Why do education theorists and policy makers choose terminology that does not accurately describe what we want to achieve in education?  WHY?  I still think it was supposed to be vigor.  Someone somewhere should be fired for this one.  Because, unfortunately, something that started out as a good thing for students and teachers has been disfigured and warped and convoluted to the point where the term "rigor" only brings about eye-rolling and heavy sighs from educators.  And that is a shame.  The intent was good.

Which brings me back to the Badass Teachers Association.  As this group continues to grow by the second, so does its power.  Maybe we will be able to come together as a cohesive unit and exercise some of that power.  Maybe even change "rigor" to "vigor."  You know, so we say-what-we-mean and mean-what-we-say.  So we are at least in agreement with the dictionary for crying out loud!

Hey, They're Not MY Kids.......

As we start the Back to School frenzy, I am seeing more and more posts on Facebook and in blogs about the frustrations this time of year brings - from parents and teachers alike.  But two topics were especially, well, let's say..... agitating.

Let's start with school supplies.  Yes, I work in public education, which is free for your child.  But here's the thing - I don't know if you've heard, but there is a MAJOR budget crisis.  And by major, I mean your kids are losing days off of their education.  They are losing learning opportunities.  And yeah, guess what?  Your kid's school cannot afford all of the supplies like it used to.  And if you live in California there is more doom and gloom to come.  If the governor's bill doesn't pass, public education will be raped and pillaged like never before.  Knowing how ridiculous and short-sighted voters can be, I am getting ready for the worst.  So yeah, we teachers are asking for donations.  DONATIONS.  You are not required to send in anything.  So quit complaining already.  I am sick of it.  (PS - If it doesn't get donated, guess who buys it?  THE TEACHER!!!!!)

Moving on to teachers requesting volunteers.....  This one is odd for me.  I will be starting my 24th year at a Title I school this week.  I have rarely had volunteers to help me with anything.  It's not their fault - they are usually working at least one full time job if not more and do not have the time.  I totally get that.  When I do get volunteers, they usually start off strong, but have to quit for one reason or another.  So I have stopped asking.  But guess what?  That means I do not have time to do a lot of the wonderful engaging and enriching activities that should occur in school.  You know why?  Because I HAVE A FAMILY TOO.  I have a life.  I spent the first ten-plus years of my career not having a life - it was all about other people's kids.  And even now, I still spend WAY too much of my own time on other people's kids.  Now don't get me wrong.  I love my job, and I love teaching.  But most people have NO CLUE how much time and energy it takes to run a classroom effectively.  All of the planning and prep happens before and after school, when your children are gone.  We cannot plan or prepare while your kids are in class.  We are busy teaching them.  So again, if a teacher asks for your help, you are not required to do so.  But don't get pissed off when your child's education isn't all you hoped it would be.  Your child's teacher has her own family to take care of.  Her students are NOT her children.  They are yours.