End of Term Exhaustion

One of the buzzwords this year has been "grit." In the reading I've done, I've heard it explained that students who take responsibility for their achievements are more likely to be successful than students who attribute their success or failure to external factors. This makes sense on the surface, but when I was reading my students' reflective essays, I noticed something interesting.

I had asked them to write about a standard they had mastered and a standard they still needed to work on. And for quite a few of the students, they claimed that the standard they mastered was because of their own skill and hard work... then went on to give all sorts of excuses I mean reasons that they'd been less successful. There were very few students who took responsibility for both their successes AND their failures. Needless to say, this was enlightening for me, but also somewhat discouraging. According to my students, any learning that happens is apparently in spite of me, not because of me.

Grit is variously defined as a mixture of determination, resilience, motivation, and courage. Here are some recent articles and blog posts that discuss it:

• Got Grit
• Grit Plus Talent Equals Student Success
• The Best Measure of Success
• The Grit Test
• Does Teaching Kids to Get Gritty Help Them

But while these all exalt the value of getting back up after failing (and in fairness, students who don't do that won't succeed) the truth is that simply trying again, or even trying harder, may not be enough to ensure success. Because if you did something that didn't get you the desired result, if you just do the same thing again, you're likely to get the same less-than-desirable result you did the first time. Perseverance alone isn't enough.

One of the skills that I don't see mentioned in the articles that talk about grit is reflection. After experiencing failure, but before charging back into the fray, it's important to take a good look at what led up to that failure. What were the factors that caused it? Which can I influence directly? What can I do to compensate for the factors that I cannot change? But while we practice this on a regular basis, I'm not entirely sure how I can break it down into smaller steps or try it at an easier level or provide support to help students who are struggling with it. (A lot of my students seem to equate "helping them" with "giving them the answer.")

How do you teach effective reflection? Do you teach it? If not, how do you encourage students to look for ways to improve?

Continue...

Moneyball and Education

A claim that I hear a lot -- and one that invariably raises my hackles -- is that "everyone 'knows' who the good teachers and the bad teachers are." I was reading a post over at The Learning Nation, and Cale neatly summed up my thoughts:

When we visit a classroom, we might observe the teacher and their students for a few minutes and walk out saying "That was good teaching!".  Someone could walk into a school and chat with an Administrator for a half hour and say "She really has it going on, what a great Principal."  But how do we REALLY know?

The point, obviously, is that always relying on your gut means you're not always going to get the best result. That's not to discount professional instinct, but it should be weighted in with other useful information -- including data like student test scores.

But thinking about that in terms of Moneyball and using stats to build a better baseball team got me thinking about the way that baseball teams and schools are very, very different…

• With baseball, it's entirely competitive. It only matters how good your team is because you need to be better than the other teams.
• Schools involve competition for two reasons: fun, which can also be used to increase student engagement, thereby also hopefully increasing student achievement as well; and limited resources. We can't offer university scholarships to everyone (or, more accurately, we choose to allocate our resources in different ways), so we give them to the students who have excelled the most in academics, athletics, or other endeavors.


• Baseball is competitive between players in training, but a player may be called upon to make a personal sacrifice for the good of the team in a game. (Bunting?) The player's stats suffer, but the team succeeds. At least, I've heard of this; to be honest, I don't really watch that much baseball.
• Schools don't typically ask students to make sacrifices like that. Can you imagine seniors being asked to tank some of their classes to avoid having the graduation rate rise so high this year that we can't maintain the rate of improvement next year?


• In baseball, how each player does matters because it affects the success of the team as a whole.
• In school, how each student does matters because that IS the success of the school as a whole.

A totally different way of thinking about teacher achievement

I've also been influenced by reading Young Classroom Conquests, a blog by a brand-new teacher. In one of his first posts, he writes about beginning to "understand that I’m not going to be the perfect teacher when I first get into the classroom."

Well, T, let me reveal one of the worst-kept secrets in education to you: you're not going to be the perfect teacher EVER. Doesn't matter how many years of experience you get, how many conferences you attend, how many additional degrees or certifications or awards you attain. It's not gonna happen, because there ain't no such thing.

Each student is an individual, and has his or her own unique areas of strength, struggle, and style. And as a result, even someone who is a truly great teacher in a general sense will not - CAN not - be a great teacher for every student.

The goal of a school should not be to hire the best teachers. A good school should hire a diverse group of excellent teachers (which isn't easy!), and then match each student with the teachers whose styles of instruction and management best suit that student's individual needs (which, of course, is even LESS easy).

It's time to stop pretending that education is about the "big picture." We can't risk losing sight of all the little pictures - because they are what truly matters.

Image thanks to http://www.boston.com/community/

Continue...

On (Not) Teaching Values

Over on the EC Ning, Michaeld asked me 'is a reluctance to teach others your values some sort of value you hold? Do you try to pass it along?'

He followed it up with another comment in which he asked 'Are values merely "mine" or "yours" and not "correct" or "incorrect" (or "good" or "bad")?'

In short - no, I don't try to teach my values. But I will explain them if I'm asked. Or if someone asks me to do something that goes against my values, I'll explain why I've declined.

And I think it's wrong for public schools (or their employees) to teach values directly. This goes for liberal values as well. Teaching about what recycling is and how it works? Fine. Telling students that THEY should recycle? Not so fine. Schools do have a responsibility to teach students how they should behave within the context of being at school. So "we don't throw rocks at recess" is okay, as is "we don't chew gum in class." But "nice people don't ever play with guns" is NOT okay.

Now, that's not to say that I'm going to peach on a colleague for doing something like this. But I will think less of that person as a professional, even if they happen to be teaching a value I espouse.

OTOH, I think it's impossible to avoid having your values influence your instruction indirectly. And I don't think that's a bad thing, either; they're a part of who you are, and who you are should affect how you teach.

I haven't the foggiest idea where I developed this. It definitely bears more thought.

Now, none of this actually bears much connection to my disdain for abstinence-only education (I support abstinence-plus). I'm against abstinence-only because it's pro-ignorance: those who teach it have decided to avoid giving students information because it's "unnecessary." Of course, every high school health program I've ever heard of teaches the effects alcohol has on the body. How is that any more "necessary" than information about contraception? After all, drinking is illegal if you're under 21! And if we're telling them what to do if they suspect a friend has alcohol poisoning (or is high) aren't we promoting illegal activities?!

Protecting people by encouraging them to be ignorant smacks of indoctrination, and it turns my stomach.

Image thanks to http://mooreslore.corante.com/

Continue...

Placing My Foot Further Into My Mouth?

Hey Bill, this is just for you! :)

Before I go too much farther, I want to say that this is kind of off-the-cuff, so ... I hope it doesn't suck too much. Anyway.

First of all, I really am kinda annoyed by the implication that I don't think for myself - that I am just blithely happy to follow the indoctrination of professors who had a bone to pick with Shakespeare and other literary Gods. Seriously? That's insulting.

But it's also not my point. I want to kind of ... temper my previous post, I guess. Clarify, maybe.

I think Shakespeare was a brilliant writer. I think the literature he left us is a treasure (even as sexist and classist as it is, and from me, that's saying SOMETHING). With that said, however, I still think it's possible to go off the deep end in venerating him.

Hemingway, OTOH? I think he was a brilliant writer as well, and I think he was immensely influential. Decisive, even, in turning the tide away from the purple prose of the Victorian/Edwardian era. It probably would've happened without him, but fortunately, he helped things along quite a bit.

But I don't like his work itself. I find it tiresome in its puffery - which may be the vestiges of Victorian preachiness. Dunno. We are all, to some extent, shaped by our environment and the experiences that come from it (which is part of why I say we shouldn't ditch Shakespeare even if he IS sexist and classist). Then again, theoretically, we can choose how we respond to those experiences, like Hemingway did.

Anyway, point on H. is that I think later writers take what he started (crisp, evocative prose - yum!) and produce a better overall result. Hemingway was experimenting. Later writers were able to go through and build greater works using some of the techniques he popularized. Standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were.

So, to sum up: I don't think Shakespeare sucks. My point was more that you CAN have too much of a good thing.

Image thanks to http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lah

Continue...

Ooga-Chaka

In Nomine Shakespiri, Amen...

I am going to risk being burned at the stake (or, if folks are feeling generous, simply poisoned) and say it:

Shakespeare is usually overrated.

People? We are talking about a HUMAN BEING here. Not a late arrival to the Greek pantheon. Not the savior of the human race. Not even the savior of the English language!

(What's really creepy is that there are probably people who would honest-to-Will try to debate that last one with me.)

I'm not saying that Shakespeare's work is either insignificant or shoddy. Quite the contrary. In fact, given the two genres in which he worked, it would be theoretically possible to structure my entire course around his works and still meet all the state standards.

Hm. That would be a really interesting challenge. However, it's not one I'm prepared to tackle right now ... maybe over spring break or at the start of next summer...

But it's like ... I mean, it's worse than dealing with the Bible. Most people are willing to agree that English translations are a good thing (don't get me started on the KJV-only crowd; that's a whole 'nother... ugh). And there's definitely a lot of debate about how closely you have to follow the words of the Hebrew or Greek, and how much you can kind of work with it to achieve what you believe was the intended meaning.

For example, IIRC the Gospel of John begins en arche kai ton logos which translates directly as in longago was the word, and I doubt you'll find that in any English Bible. But "In the beginning was the Word" is absolutely fine by the very strictest standards.

But when you're working with Shakespeare, YOU MUST NOT CHANGE ONE JOT OMG YOU PHILISTINE!!!

There are several excellent discussions over at the EC Ning that do a really good job of showing diverse viewpoints, mostly without getting hairy. That was kind of what brought all of this from the back of my mind up to the front.

See, there are lots of great reasons for teaching Shakespeare's work. But any time you choose to focus on one particular work, you are by definition also choosing to exclude every other work out there for as long as you focus on that one. Mostly? That's okay. It's a good trade-off; you sacrifice some breadth for some depth. I've deliberately gone that way with my English II course schedule, and I'm ... content with it. Maybe even happy with it. (We'll see.)

But I think that at our school - and probably at many others - Shakespeare takes up more instructional time than is reasonable. We study sonnets and a play in both ninth and tenth grade. Junior year gets a pass because it's American lit, but the senior curriculum more than makes up for it because they study more sonnets and Hamlet AND Macbeth and sometimes also Othello!

There is a whole WORLD of literature out there beyond Shakespeare. And it's a little disappointing to realize that there's no way I can do an intensive unit on Antigone, because I have to teach Julius Caesar. And even if other students are exposed to it with another teacher, there's no way there will be time to do it justice.

What other works are we willing to sacrifice on Shakespeare's altar?

Image thanks to http://learn.swancoll.ac.uk/

Continue...

Knowledge vs Skills?

It takes very little to delight me.

Back while we were at Dragon*Con, I decided I wanted to get a mask, because they kept the lights all the way up at drum circle this year and I was really uncomfortable with everyone taking pictures. And I saw this GORGEOUS black-and-gold creation on one of the back shelves.

$230.

Worth every cent, but definitely a significant purchase. So I put it back and let the guy at the booth know I'd come back after I found a spot with free wireless so that I could check our bank account. As we were leaving the booth, the Hunk nudges me and says, "hey, look." I look over at the masks, thinking I've missed one, and he says, "No. Isn't that Charisma Carpenter?"

When I went back (just to look - I'd decided that while the mask was worth that much, it wasn't worth that much to me) the Gorgeous Creation was gone. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if she'd bought it.

Anyway, long story short (too late), that's about as close as I come to fame. I happened to ride a shuttle with Wil Wheaton after sitting in on one of his panels at Comic-Con a few years ago and after listening to the people across the aisle whisper about whether or not that was Really Him I finally went up and said, "Hey, I really enjoyed your panel," and we talked for a little bit and he had some copies of Dancing Barefoot, so I bought one.

So imagine my delighted surprise when I saw not just a link but, like, a link AND AN ADJECTIVE over at Joanne Jacobs, which, like, EVERYBODY reads. (If you're not reading it, shame on you. Go now. I command it. Current educational news and issues galore. The comments are a treasure trove of often-ranting that make me feel incredibly smart by comparison, plus occasional good plain sense.) !! In this case it's not that I happened across fame, it actually reached out and tapped my shoulder!

I am a Special Snowflake.

Anyway (I really do have a point to get to eventually, I swear), Joanne's guest blogger, Diana Senechal, posted about an article by Diane Ravitch that I take serious exception to (behind the link).

Ravitch writes, “we do not start the world anew with each generation.” We need the experience, knowledge, and wisdom of those who came before us.

But every individual discovers the world anew. I'm not saying that we can't use or don't need what others have learned. But let's face it: countless generations of parents hope that their children will learn from others' mistakes, and we find time and again that the mistakes of others aren't always enough to keep us from making our own - sometimes repeating the mistakes we were warned about.

Knowledge is NOT "what matters most." It is important; I don't want to "downplay it" or ignore it. But Ravitch is going too far in the other direction. Knowledge matters, but not necessarily The Most.

And even so, knowledge seems to stick better when it's learned through first-hand experience.

Further disagreement with the statement "a great deal of knowledge is necessary before one can begin to reflect on its meaning and look for alternative explanations." In fact, I believe exactly the opposite - you don't have to have a lot of information before you start thinking about what it means and looking for other possibilities. In fact, looking for other possibilities should then lead you to new knowledge!

Learning is not a zero-sum game. While finding an appropriate balance can be tricky, teachers shouldn't diminish the importance of either knowledge or metacognition.

Image thanks to movies.sulekha.com

Continue...

Why I Hate Foreshadowing

Okay, so that's a bit misleading. I don't hate foreshadowing as a literary technique; what I hate is our forced dependence (as English teachers) on certain terms to the exclusion of others that, IMO, are more descriptive of what we actually SEE in stories.

Part of this is that it's hard to define some of the traditional literary terms. For instance, a character saying "I've got a bad feeling about this" is foreshadowing, but a character saying "I'm going to stop by the grocery store on the way home from work" isn't, nor is it when a character says "That's interesting." There is this nebulous gray area of Three Bears-ish 'too clear/too unclear/just right' when it comes to defining just what constitutes a "hint."

What got me thinking about this was Portia's suicide in Julius Caesar. Looking back, we can see that there is some kind of similarity between that action and when she stabs herself in an attempt to get Brutus to open up to her. The same cause leads to both actions, but I don't think you can say that it's foreshadowing.

A better option might be setup and payoff. It's a broader set of terms, encompassing the creation of both clear, conscious expectations from the audience, as well as subconscious expectations that aren't realized until the payoff is delivered, neglected, or compromised.

Another example is simile; its definition feels awkward and arbitrary. Take a look at the following figures of speech:

It was dark, like a cave at midnight.
It was as dark as a cave at midnight.
It was darker than a cave at midnight.

Now if we were to play the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other game, MY pick would be the first one! But, no, the first two are similes, and the third one is not. Why? Because it doesn't use "like" or "as."

Wot. Evar.

Image thanks to http://www.incredibleandy.blogspot.com/

Continue...

Remediate Me

Yet another post with no picture, alas. This has to be quick, because I only have a few minutes before the students begin to invade!

So. According to the research that I've read and can't recall where I read it, social promotion (with or without remediation) doesn't work. (My response: "Well duh!") Students who are sent to the next level of a course without having mastered the material from the previous level have greater difficulty at the higher level and are likely to fall even further behind. Again: Duh.

However, apparently, retention is even worse. Students who are retained do not benefit from the additional YEAR of instruction, and fall behind even their NEW classmates.

Okay, so, what now?

I think the problem is with remediation - sort of the same way we have issues with tracking. Tracks should be flexible, with students moving in and out on a fairly regular basis. Students who've been really sick and out for weeks could drop to a remedial track for a short period and receive more intense instruction until they have caught up to their peer group, for example, and then moved back into the regular class. Sort of like that. However, what ends up happening is that students placed in a lower track simply stay there.

I guess I see the issue as limited supply. There will always be some teachers that are better than others. So who should get the best teachers? Who "needs" them the most? The students who are struggling more - or the excellent students, who need a "greater challenge?" Or the ones stuck in the middle?

Anyway, the POINT of this was to ask if anyone knows of any GOOD remediation strategies - ones that won't simply perpetuate the cycle.

Continue...

Five Things...

Education Policymakers
Need To Know

This meme comes originally from Nancy Flanagan via the Science Goddess, and I'm very honored to be tagged, though I'm not sure it's fair of her to ask me to do extra thinking when we've only just gotten back to school!

Okay, so I started this the DAY I got it, and have barely touched it since. School is nuts! I'm giving myself 20 minutes to finish this and then I'm posting it no matter how dumb I sound.

5. Not all students need to go on to college; those who do not would probably not need most of the specific academic skills they practice in college preparatory courses, except that many of us who went through a four-year ordeal had a "liberal education" foisted on us (that's another soapbox, though). There SHOULD be separate curriculums that help to prepare students either for college, technical/vocational school, or the workforce. But they need to be introduced later, perhaps junior year, with sophomore students having the opportunity to sit in on classes during the spring. They should also be more intense. Vocational/workforce prep classes should not have the reputation of being the "easy" choice, and college prep classes need to PREPARE the students for college.

4. It is incredibly difficult to be a truly great teacher. Somewhere in Losing My Faculties, Brendan Halpin says something like "it is unbelievably easy to be a poor teacher, but it is unbelievably hard to be a good teacher." (Work with me - my dad's got the book at the moment!) Yes, we are professionals, but we are not miracle workers! Even doctors cannot keep their patients healthy when those patients ignore the doctor's advice (neglect exercise, smoke, eat too much junk food and not enough fruitsinveggies, etc.) or take the wrong medication.(Tangent: Do youuu have leftover prescription medicines in your cabinet?) Schools are not hospitals. We will always be dealing with outpatients - and stubborn ones, at that!

3. I have never seen the movie or read the book, but Erin Gruwell's story creeps me out! Do you really want some obsessively driven maniac instructing your kids? I wouldn't. Teachers have lives - or they should! As much as I love teaching, I would hate to be married to Rafe Esquith. (Plus the Hunk is way cuter.) Requiring - or even merely encouraging - teachers to be martyrs without a balanced life creates a poor model for students to follow.

2. In Shelley's response, she mentions a weak reader who is upset because of being transferred out of chorus and into another reading class. However, unless you're just going "la la la," singing involves reading! I have learned songs in French, German, Italian, Russian, Slovak, Latin, Swahili, and Spanish before I formally studied any of those languages, and my experiences with the languages I did get a chance to study were richer as a result. Plus, the intonation of the song really helps you understand words and phrases in ways you just don't get from memorizing definitions. We need to find a way to connect what students need to do with what they love to do.

1. LISTEN TO US! I'm not much of a fan of anecdotal evidence. I think that research, when done properly, is much more reliable (although it should be used as a guide, not a rule - there are always exceptions and complications). But listening to someone allows you to hear not only the text, but the subtext. A teacher who says "that won't work in my classroom!" may actually be concerned about a perceived loss of status as she fumbles through trying to learn a new skill, or that there won't be enough administrative support, or that there's been so much program turnover that the only way to provide stability for the students is to resist all of it - or any of a number of other alternatives. Or a combination!

More importantly, listening is an incredibly effective (and COST-effective!) way of showing people that they matter. And I know very few people who don't care about that.

Image thanks to http://www.homeroomteacher.com/suppliesforschool.html

Continue...

Art vs Science

There's a leftover Friday Five that I didn't do from day before yesterday, and I was going to post that. But when I pulled it up, I noticed I hadn't answered the questions about dirt and sand and stuff... mostly because I don't get THAT involved in the outdoors. It's nice for walking through or watching, but that's about it for me. Plus I've already got two of 'em! I think I'm Fived out.

Over at the Teacher's Corner, there's a thread asking "what made you become a teacher?" Some of the posts bring up 'destiny' or the idea of teaching as a "calling" rather than a "career." (The Faculty Room also has a good series on the topic.) Anyway, in my small group at church today we got to talking about this as they asked how teaching was going and whether I was done for the year and so on. So it's something that's been on the back burner of my mind for awhile, simmering away, with the occasional noisy bubbling. Rafe Esquith and Emily of New Moon and William Goldman and supply/demand and dancing and public service...

So, while I'll try to systematize this as much as I can, please forgive me if I ramble.

First of all, teaching is both a calling and a career, and the two (career/calling) aren't always a package deal, though we often think of them that way. Teaching is as much an attitude for me as it is my job.

Today in small group, we were discussing the beginning of Philippians. Because I'm up here visiting family and I haven't been to this church in awhile, I try to avoid going into "teacher-mode." The group HAS a teacher, and it's not me, and I don't want to steamroller things. But sometimes it's stinkin' HARD! I just seem to fall naturally into taking it piece by piece, thinking about how the part relates to the whole, making connections to other parts of scripture, and asking others about what they've experienced along those lines.

I've really enjoyed the dance lessons that I started taking - back in March, I think. And I've joked that it's my "backup career plan" in case I tick off the administration and get myself fired. I didn't notice it at first, but after someone else said, "So you'd still be teaching, then," I realized I'd phrased it as "dance teacher," not "choreographer" or "professional dancer." (Not 'exotic', mind - I might enjoy it, but I don't think the Hunk would approve!)

At the same time, teaching is also a career. It involves a set of skills and practices that can be learned and, over time, refined to mastery. I'm reminded of the beginning of a book I read about screenwriting - and unfortunately, that book is at home! - in which the author imagines a heated argument discussion between two students about writing as craft/process/science and writing as inspiration/muse/art. Each made viable (if predictable) points, about talent and training.

But I think there's something beyond either talent or training - drive. I don't have my copy of Emily of New Moon here, either, but at the end, where she's letting her teacher read her poems to find out if there is Any Hope At All, at some point afterward he says something like, "If you knew you'd never 'make it' as a poet, if you knew you'd never get published, would you still write poetry?" And she says, "Yes - I don't know why I do it, but I have to." And he kind of shrugs and says, "Well then, you might as well keep doing it, since you can't stop." (Only he's not quite so heartless, although he tries to be!)

William Goldman on Robin Wright:

     I thought she was going to be the biggest lady star in the world.
     Hasn't happened. I don't know her, have seen her once in five years, we have no friends in common. Still, I think I know why. She doesn't want it.
     To be a star, yes, you have to have talent, and my God, do you ever have to be lucky, but riding alongside is this: desire. One so consuming that you are willing to piss away everything else in life. Stars have no friends, they have business acquaintances and serfs. They can only fake love on screen.
     But they get the good table at Spago's...
     [Wright] was to be the lead opposite Kevin Costner in Robin Hood. But she had to drop out because she was having a baby.
     I remember, when I read that, thinking: Barbra Streisand does not get pregnant at such a time...

                                                                 - from Which Lie Did I Tell?

And I think teaching is like that for some people. Rafe Esquith - sweet Jeebus, while he may produce amazing results, I would HATE to be married to him. I really don't understand how he does it year after year after year without completely burning out. I think it may just be that he's wired that way. Erin Gruwell seems a much more likely outcome. Hm... This was my third year of teaching...

Anyway, this is summer, and school is supposed to be "off limits." But I can't help it. I brought two bags with me on my trip, plus my purse. The bag of planning materials for next year weighs almost twice as much as my bag of clothes for the month.

(It's not my fault. Books are just heavier than clothes! At least the books are in the smaller bag?)

Continue...