DaveShearon

Reading, Homework, Engagement, and Learning

We do a pretty good job of teaching students to read and a lousy job of getting them to read to learn.  Knowing how to read is just not enough; it is the habit of reading for the pleasure of the story and the tingle of new learning that matters.  (Buy the print here!)

E.D. Hirsh, Jr. writes here about the importance of knowledge to reading comprehension.  He notes:

"According to the latest scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the reading achievement of eighth-graders has declined since the law was passed in 2001, and the large reading gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children -- "the achievement gap" -- has stayed where it was. Today's eighth-graders had recorded gains in fourth grade, but these have not led to improvements in later grades -- when reading scores actually count for a student's future."

He argues that the focus in K-4 on teaching kids to read works, but that the continued focus on that same topic in 5-8 produces diminishing returns.  Thus, reading in middle school needs to move from "how" to "why" -- from teaching to leading.

So, why should kids read and how can we get them to read?  For some, it's easy.  Their character strengths of curiosity or love of learning make it easy to get them started reading to learn and they take it from there.  Others may require different approaches.  The principle, however, is the same.  As kids find out that reading helps them gain knowledge and experience that turn their talents into strengths, they will want to read more.  Twenty-five books per year, or more. Or the equivalent in news articles, magazines, etc.  The key is that reading builds knowledge, and knowledge enables reading.  Again, from Dr. Hirsch:

[Hmmm... those are my beliefs, but I think I've just put forth what could serve as hypotheses for research.  For example, are students for whom curiosity and love of learning are top character strengths more likely to be prolific readers?  Does helping students connect to reading material that enhances their strengths increase the likelihood that they will read significant amounts?]

As Dr. Hirsch points out, it is not just the ability to read that matters.  It is reading!  Lots of reading. 

"Studies of reading comprehension show that knowing something of the topic you're reading about is the most important variable in comprehension. After a child learns to sound out words, comprehension is mostly knowledge. Many technical studies support the assertion that after students can fluently sound out words, relevant knowledge is the crucial difference between students who are good or poor readers."

So who's going to lead the effort to re-direct more time and attention in middle school to reading for knowledge and learning?  Teachers, if anyone.  Some will focus on making time available for students to read.  Others will defend reading against ill-informed attacks.  Overall, however, it's teacher led instructional improvement that offers a realistic path to sustained superior performance.

And how schools are NOT run like a professional consulting firm!

The Education Wonks picked up on a story from New York about another on-its-way-to-failing, rolled-out-from-the-central-office pedagogy, complete with public denials that its mandatory and pretty clear communications with teachers that they had better get with the program.  This one is based on making classes mostly group work, a technique developed by, well I'll be ... the current "Deputy Chancellor for Instruction." 

Amazing.  She developed it, it worked, so now if everybody will just implement it, all will be well.  How many times are administrators going to keep making this mistake?  The answer isn't a program!  The answer is teacher engagement!  Quit thinking you're the only ones who can develop (or identify) a successful approach.  Get the **** out of the way.  Develop a system to encourage teachers to engage with their own teaching.  I like lesson study, but there are other good approaches.  Then support them and WORK ON IT!

I can understand the deputy chancellor making this mistake, but, jiminy crickets, Joel Klein was brought in as chancellor because he was supposed to bring some outside insight.  Get with it Joel!  You wouldn't manage a top-tier law firm this way -- you know it wouldn't work.  Why do you think it's going to work with the professional teaching force you now manage?  Quit listening to your top deputies and get out there with teachers.  Find the ones who have and are developing their own successful approaches and figure out how to get more teachers doing that next year, and doing it better.  Then more and better the next.  And the next.  Get the picture?

Bad Math

As I've written about often, rolling out programs from the top is bad policy for school systems, even when the programs are good educationally.  When the program promotes lousy education approaches, the result is disastrous.   And I thought I had a great post about this using a story about "anti-racist math" from Michael_the_Archangel installed by the superintendent of Newton, MA, schools between 1999 and 2001. 

Between 1999 and 2001 the district superintendent 'redesigned' the math cirriculum to an "anti-racist multicultural math". What does that exactly mean? Well, it means that division, multiplication, fractions and decimals is no longer the first priority in math class. No, to quote from the article, the new priority in a math class is "...Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of 'Respect for Human Differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors." It continues, "Students will: Consistently analyze their experiences and the curriculum for bias and discrimination; Take effective anti-bias action when bias or discrimination is identified; Work with people of different backgrounds and tell how the experience affected them; Demonstrate how their membership in different groups has advantages and disadvantages that affect how they see the world and the way they are perceived by others..." It goes on and on."

However, this particular story has gotten extensive coverage in the blogosphere.  Tangoman at GeneExpression has hit it twice, here and here.  (The latter includes a 3,119-word riff on political correctness in pedagogy, complete with extensive quotes, AFTER he finishes with the Newton story!)  Chris Correa responded to Tangoman's first post and has visited the subject again here.  Not only the posts, but the comments are good.

What to make of all this?  I've run into Connected Math before.  My best guess is that this is a case of a teaching approach that, done well creates excellent learning gains, but, done poorly, falls much below other approaches that have less top-end potential.  That's been my overall conclusion on a lot of the "constructivist" pedagogy argument.  This could raise a question about the approach of getting poorer performing teachers to emulate their higher-performing peers.  It could well be that "almost" teaching like a top-tier teacher will get far worse learning gains from students than teaching in a safer, if ultimately lower-potential manner.

asyb on disrespect in budgeting

Here's another portion of asyb's post I'd like to comment on:

On another note, it seems that our teaching staff next year might be ten teachers rather than the twelve we believed we could hire. This is brand new information, I don't know for sure or any details, and I am really trying not to freak out. But it seems like every time we finally think we've got our staffing issues sorted out, someone changes everything on us. I don't know whether my administration is being naive in how they interpret budget information, or whether the region is screwing us, or both. Ultimately, blaming is not that useful, but I have to admit my first thought is "Why do we ALWAYS have the wrong information?!?" And given how much this raises MY blood pressure, I can only imagine how my colleagues must feel who just - just - finished doing all the programming for next year.

Administrators and board members often evidence a belief that teachers cannot be trusted to take ownership of the goals of teaching and learning. The implication is always that they have to be "in-serviced" and "managed" into doing the job. Yet those same administrators and board members seem to take no notice of how they repeatedly make it difficult for teachers to take the ownership we'd all like to see. Like by restructuring a faculty in the summer, or switching a teacher from the grade he's prepared for to another grade at the last moment. All these actions send a clear message about what's really important: and it ain't teaching and learning!

asyb on Fizzle's planning

asyb has a long, multi-topic post with some really good stuff in it. I'm going to respond to it in pieces.

First this:

Look at Ms. Frizzles post on her summer planning. Imagine that she was being paid to do this planning and all the other teachers in her school were right there with her. I would guess that between them, and because there is no topic on this earth that is not connected to every other in some way, they could see to it that all 67 weeks of ideas could be fit handily into a school year if they decided this was wise. Imagine what they might do it they had the time and opportunity to mix and match across subject areas. But sadly, that does not fit our compartmentalized vision of the classroom. It surely must qualify as an alternative school idea. Not rigorous enough. Not enough structure. Parents would complain. How would we do the paperwork. The computer won’t schedule anything but forty-five minute periods or one-on-one-off block schedules. No money the computer scheduler cost too much. Read about Ms. Frizzle’s learning experience this summer and remember that she did this on her own – so she can be a better teacher. I haven’t seen anyone thank her yet.

Why don't we give teachers time to work together and plan? Because we neither respect nor trust them. As far as I'm concerned, this should be the acid test for school board members. They all claim to support teachers, but it's in planning, not salaries, that the mouth meets the vote. (NOTE: I am NOT saying ignore salaries -- just that Board discretion is limited here and that salaries are not what teachers report as most significant when surveyed. I'll leave the rest of my thinking on this for another post.)

School lunch

Had lunch today with a principal here in Nashville who is a close friend. I'm always charged by his energy and enthusiasm for kids. He led the committee that implemented Lesson Study after I got it passed on the Board. Tom, of course, is smart enough to keep his mouth shut, but I always think about what we almost had when he and I get together. Our new administration killed Lesson Study as they walked in the door, and now are seeking to take away the planning days that helped make it possible. Not much I can say, but when I see what the Bellevue, WA, school system is doing, I wonder why our Board can't see what they have allowed to happen. And I wonder at how so many educational leaders can miss the clear message that's emerging from so many areas: Lesson Study, value-added, organizational theory, cognitive science, adult learning theory. They all point to the importance of engagement and the role of small teams, ownership, and community in achieving that. There are no magic answers. No programs that can "fix" schools. Teachers and a good principal can create a great school, engage students, draw in parents, build community support, etc. Not every school will be great in the same way, and no school will be great for every kid. But greatness in a system of schools cannot develop while the central office focuses on handing out answers and "training" teachers to perform them.

Why public schools have trouble competing

Joanne Jacobs notes a Christian Science Monitor article on public schools in Minneapolis trying to respond to competition for the students they thought were "theirs" -- poor blacks. She summarizes the district's response:

To attract students, the district is trying to expand pre-school and all-day kindergarten programs and add "gender- and culture-specific schools, performing arts specialities, and dual-immersion language programs." The district is looking for ways to narrow a huge achievement gap between black and white students.

Note the programmatic nature of this response. If you've read much of my stuff, you know I don't believe in programs -- they don't consistently improve teaching, and teaching is the "stuff" of quality education. So, why doesn't Milwaukee focus on teaching?

#1. The administration doesn't know how.
#2. They don't think teachers can improve.
#3. They wouldn't get the credit.