I read an excellent post yesterday, written by a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools, explaining why Chicago teachers are striking, and the Los Angeles Times had a very thoughtful editorial on the same subject, discussing the problems with using tests for purposes for which they were not designed, and also explaining some of the issues relating to the seniority provisions. Take a look at the LA Times editorial if you have a chance -- it's very thoughtful and informative.
I do think that many of today's "education reformers" do not understand schools and teachers very well, and I thought I'd also offer my own two cents on a couple of the most important misunderstandings.
First of all, most of the proposed "reforms" only make sense if you assume that most teachers are only doing the bare minimum and if they were just motivated using things like pay and punishments tied to student test scores they would all work harder and do a better job. In my experience, and as noted in the LA Times editorial, this is an assumption for which there is no evidence. After college, I went to Harvard Law School and then worked as a corporate lawyer in a big firm in Boston for 10 years, and when I became a teacher I found that it required just as many hours, if not more. In my time in education, I have met very few teachers who were not also working incredibly hard, spending long hours before school, after school, at home, and on weekends, and the teachers that I know and have known are passionate and caring about their work and doing the best they can to make it work for their students. Attaching rewards and punishments will not help people work any harder if they are already working as hard as they can -- it will simply demoralize them and make it more difficult for them to do a good job.
Second, the whole issue of provisions such as seniority in teacher contracts is a difficult and complicated issue -- much more complicated than it may seem, and it's clear that there is much misunderstanding about it. For example, as the Times editorial also noted, one of the problems for schools is that there is huge pressure to reduce costs. In the absence of contractual protections for teachers, such as seniority, there would be irresistible pressure to keep only newer, less experienced, and cheaper teachers, which would eventually lead to teaching becoming not a profession but a form of public service in which young people would engage for two or three years after college, to the detriment of our children's education. Most well-done teacher contracts, such as ours, are not entirely based on seniority, but have a number of factors, including evaluations, that are taken into consideration with respect to layoffs and the like, in order to balance these interests.
Finally, I want to say again that the characterization of the American educational system as underperforming is incorrect, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The truth is that there are huge differences between and among schools and districts in this country -- U.S. schools with low poverty rates score at or above the level of the top countries in the world, but U.S. schools with high poverty rates are performing at the level of Third World countries. Many of the current "reforms" have been shown to be not helpful and some are actually harming our children's education. Those of us in schools are still working as hard as we can to make it work for the kids, but are becoming increasingly demoralized by the broad brush attacks on schools and teachers. I hope that the Chicago teachers' action will help to foster more conversation about the issues and that we will be able to make appropriate changes before it's too late.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Education is Not a Zero-Sum Game!
Education is not -- or should not be -- a zero-sum game. In a zero-sum game, anything gained by one participant has to be lost by another participant or participants and the net change is zero. For example, in an election, when two people are running for the same office, the total number of votes cannot exceed the number of voters so an increase in votes for one candidate results in a decrease in votes for the other candidate. There are many situations in life where that is the case. If you and I both interview for the same job and you get the job, I do not. If we both bid on the same house and your bid is accepted, mine will not be. Competitive situations are often zero-sum games.
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
There is no need, however, for education to be a zero-sum game. If I study hard and learn to speak fluent French, there is nothing that prevents you -- or a hundred other people -- from learning to speak French equally fluently. If the students in our school all achieve at a very high level on the state math exam, there is no reason why the students in any or all other schools cannot achieve at the same level. In fact, we would like them to! Unfortunately, though, our current state testing system, the MCAS, which was originally intended to be a "criterion-referenced assessment" (an assessment which measures achievement against fixed standards with no limits on how many students can meet those standards), is being changed by the use of student growth percentiles into a zero-sum game. Student growth percentiles (SGPs) compare a student's change in score from one year to the next to the changes in score of his/her "academic peers," so, for example, if a student receives an SGP of 65 that means that his score grew more than 65% of his "academic peers." If his peers do better, he receives a lower SGP -- a zero-sum game. The state, in its information on this topic, indicates that students with SGPs of less than 40 are considered to have "low growth," students with SGPs between 40 and 60 "moderate growth," and students with SGPs of 60 or better "high growth." The problem, of course, is that no matter how high the actual achievement of Massachusetts students, there will always be 40% of students who will be labeled "low growth," and their schools and teachers will be penalized.
The Massachusetts DESE has taken this even further in its recommendations for district assessments, by suggesting that districts do pre- and post-assessments, calculate the difference in scores for each student, order the results from highest to lowest, and divide the results into thirds, with the bottom third being labeled "low growth." Once again, no matter how well a district's students do -- and they could all be achieving at high levels -- one-third of them will be labeled as achieving "low growth." It's also important to note that if a student in that lowest third moves up into the middle third, that will automatically push a student in the middle third down to the lowest third -- a zero-sum game.
This type of system has very real negative consequences for schools and for our children's education. Particularly in Massachusetts, which had overall math and science achievement at the level of the top countries in the world on the 2009 international math and science assessment, and was the highest state in the nation on the past two national educational assessments, why are we deciding to automatically label 40% of our students (on the MCAS) or one-third of our students (on district assessments) as low achievers? I cannot think of any purpose for labeling students this way other than to make sure that some students and schools appear to be failing even though their absolute level of achievement is high. Is this really what we want to do to our children or our schools? Couldn't we just use set standards, celebrate the students and schools that meet those standards, and help those that don't?
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Evaluating Public Education: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes
Remember the story of the Emperor's new clothes? The story put out to the public was that the Emperor was wearing wonderful suit of new clothes, glorious to behold. Actually, the Emperor was naked, but only one child was brave enough or confident enough in his perceptions to say it.
Unfortunately, most of the publicity around "education reform" these days is very similar. Recently I was reading one of the latest publications from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the "DESE") regarding how to determine whether a teacher's students have achieved "high growth," "moderate growth," or "low growth," and was appalled at what I learned about the DESE's approach to this measurement.
First of all, with respect to reading and math, which are subjects with MCAS tests, the DESE produces a number known as the "Student Growth Percentile" (or "SGP"), which purports to measure a child's growth as compared to his/her peers. There are two problems with this number, both of them significant. First of all, although the DESE believes that its formula takes into consideration students with disabilities or students who are just learning English, in fact when you look at correlations those students generally have significantly lower SGP numbers than students without disabilities and students whose first language is English. Second, in my analysis of the SGPs for the past two years, I have found correlations between lower SGPs and other kinds of student difficulties, such as a death in the student's family, parents divorcing, behavioral or social issues, and other kinds of problems, and have not found any correlations by teacher. Aside from these two problems, though, there is a larger problem -- the DESE defines low growth as anything less than 40*, but since these are percentiles that means that no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing (and remember that Massachusetts students scored 1st in the nation on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress and 1st in the world on the most recent international math and science assessment), 40% of Massachusetts students will be deemed low achieving. Let me say that again -- no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing or how much they have achieved, the bottom 40% will always be labeled as "low growth."
Second, the DESE's advice to districts on other subjects not measured by MCAS is that districts should develop tests, measure growth on those tests from the beginning to the end of the year, and divide the growth scores into thirds, the lowest third being defined as low growth, the middle third as moderate, and the top third as high growth*. This means that no matter how well students in a particular district such as Southborough are doing, one-third of students will be deemed low achieving. On these measures, high achievers would also be penalized, as the assessments will not measure the extra challenges provided for high achievers and thus they will show little "growth." (It also means that in a struggling district, no matter how much difficulty students are having, one-third will be deemed high achieving.)
As far as I know, only in Lake Wobegon can all students be above average! I truly do not understand why, if the idea is to "leave no child behind," we are using percentiles and other comparative measurements rather than setting standards and working toward having as many students as possible meet those standards. Education should not be a zero-sum game; there is no limit on how many students can meet the standards. The Emperor truly has no clothes, and I am hoping that people will realize that soon, before we destroy an excellent public education system.**
________________________________
*Information from Part VII of the Massachusetts Model Educator Evaluation System, released this August and found on the DESE website.
**Another resource you may be interested in is this blog post entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," on the Washington Post website.
Unfortunately, most of the publicity around "education reform" these days is very similar. Recently I was reading one of the latest publications from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the "DESE") regarding how to determine whether a teacher's students have achieved "high growth," "moderate growth," or "low growth," and was appalled at what I learned about the DESE's approach to this measurement.
First of all, with respect to reading and math, which are subjects with MCAS tests, the DESE produces a number known as the "Student Growth Percentile" (or "SGP"), which purports to measure a child's growth as compared to his/her peers. There are two problems with this number, both of them significant. First of all, although the DESE believes that its formula takes into consideration students with disabilities or students who are just learning English, in fact when you look at correlations those students generally have significantly lower SGP numbers than students without disabilities and students whose first language is English. Second, in my analysis of the SGPs for the past two years, I have found correlations between lower SGPs and other kinds of student difficulties, such as a death in the student's family, parents divorcing, behavioral or social issues, and other kinds of problems, and have not found any correlations by teacher. Aside from these two problems, though, there is a larger problem -- the DESE defines low growth as anything less than 40*, but since these are percentiles that means that no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing (and remember that Massachusetts students scored 1st in the nation on the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress and 1st in the world on the most recent international math and science assessment), 40% of Massachusetts students will be deemed low achieving. Let me say that again -- no matter how well Massachusetts students are doing or how much they have achieved, the bottom 40% will always be labeled as "low growth."
Second, the DESE's advice to districts on other subjects not measured by MCAS is that districts should develop tests, measure growth on those tests from the beginning to the end of the year, and divide the growth scores into thirds, the lowest third being defined as low growth, the middle third as moderate, and the top third as high growth*. This means that no matter how well students in a particular district such as Southborough are doing, one-third of students will be deemed low achieving. On these measures, high achievers would also be penalized, as the assessments will not measure the extra challenges provided for high achievers and thus they will show little "growth." (It also means that in a struggling district, no matter how much difficulty students are having, one-third will be deemed high achieving.)
As far as I know, only in Lake Wobegon can all students be above average! I truly do not understand why, if the idea is to "leave no child behind," we are using percentiles and other comparative measurements rather than setting standards and working toward having as many students as possible meet those standards. Education should not be a zero-sum game; there is no limit on how many students can meet the standards. The Emperor truly has no clothes, and I am hoping that people will realize that soon, before we destroy an excellent public education system.**
________________________________
*Information from Part VII of the Massachusetts Model Educator Evaluation System, released this August and found on the DESE website.
**Another resource you may be interested in is this blog post entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," on the Washington Post website.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Back to School!
It's my favorite time of the year again -- fall! And with fall comes back-to-school time, which I've always thought of as the real beginning of the year and the best time for new year's resolutions. (That was true even when I wasn't an educator, but a lawyer working in the world of big business -- fall is always the new year for me.) In any event, one of my resolutions this year is to do a better job of posting on this blog, as one way of communicating and engendering some dialogue about education.
Interestingly, most people don't seem to differ much about education on the local level, either about the purposes of education or the type of school they want for their children. My own belief is that there are two essential pillars of a good school -- a warm, welcoming, safe climate that encourages growth for both children and adults, and stimulating, challenging academics -- and from what I hear it seems that many people agree. As we head into the new year, those two aspects are again our focus at Neary, and we have initiatives underway in both areas. We will be spending our opening professional day looking at the new Common Core curriculum and ways of providing students with the academic challenge they need, and we will also be working on a new section for our progress reports and report card that will help us work with parents on the habits of mind and work habits and skills that students need to be successful. Next Wednesday, as the students return, we have plans for both -- assemblies and activities that are welcoming, fun, and engaging, and beginning work that is exciting and challenging. I'm looking forward to the year!
In my recent reading, I found an interesting blog post and a useful article that I would recommend. The blog post was written by Carol Burris, a New York principal, and appeared in one of the Washington Post blogs, "The Answer Sheet," last Thursday. It's entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," and is an excellent analysis of some of the more damaging trends in education legislation and regulation with which parents should be concerned. It's well worth reading!
The article is more of a practical set of tips for parents for helping their children have a great year. It appeared in the most recent issue of Parents magazine and is entitled "Classroom Confidential." The article provides tips and thoughts on many topics, from talking with teachers, to helping students with homework, to helping children fit in. I think it's crucially important for kids' success to have a good partnership between parents and teachers and this article provides some ideas on how to do that successfully. (I would add -- please do contact us if you're concerned about something. We can usually work together to resolve the problem.) We have this issue of the magazine in our office if you'd like to look through it. (Our outer office also has a library of books relating to child development, parenting, and education -- you can browse through them and borrow one if you'd like. Just sign it out with one of the secretaries.)
Here's to a great school year 2012-13 for all our students and families!
Interestingly, most people don't seem to differ much about education on the local level, either about the purposes of education or the type of school they want for their children. My own belief is that there are two essential pillars of a good school -- a warm, welcoming, safe climate that encourages growth for both children and adults, and stimulating, challenging academics -- and from what I hear it seems that many people agree. As we head into the new year, those two aspects are again our focus at Neary, and we have initiatives underway in both areas. We will be spending our opening professional day looking at the new Common Core curriculum and ways of providing students with the academic challenge they need, and we will also be working on a new section for our progress reports and report card that will help us work with parents on the habits of mind and work habits and skills that students need to be successful. Next Wednesday, as the students return, we have plans for both -- assemblies and activities that are welcoming, fun, and engaging, and beginning work that is exciting and challenging. I'm looking forward to the year!
In my recent reading, I found an interesting blog post and a useful article that I would recommend. The blog post was written by Carol Burris, a New York principal, and appeared in one of the Washington Post blogs, "The Answer Sheet," last Thursday. It's entitled "Three Ed Reforms Parents Should Worry About Most," and is an excellent analysis of some of the more damaging trends in education legislation and regulation with which parents should be concerned. It's well worth reading!
The article is more of a practical set of tips for parents for helping their children have a great year. It appeared in the most recent issue of Parents magazine and is entitled "Classroom Confidential." The article provides tips and thoughts on many topics, from talking with teachers, to helping students with homework, to helping children fit in. I think it's crucially important for kids' success to have a good partnership between parents and teachers and this article provides some ideas on how to do that successfully. (I would add -- please do contact us if you're concerned about something. We can usually work together to resolve the problem.) We have this issue of the magazine in our office if you'd like to look through it. (Our outer office also has a library of books relating to child development, parenting, and education -- you can browse through them and borrow one if you'd like. Just sign it out with one of the secretaries.)
Here's to a great school year 2012-13 for all our students and families!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Standardized Testing Pressure and the Endangered Curriculum
Recently I have read much commentary in the news and on various blogs about a principal who was fired from her position in Dallas as a result of false grades on report cards. Apparently, according to the news stories, she was obsessed with making sure that her school scored high on the Texas state tests, so she eliminated music, art, science, and social studies in her school and focused only on test preparation, but she insisted that teachers put grades for music, art, science, and social studies on student report cards anyway. As a result, her school's test scores did indeed go up, and her school was lauded as an exemplary school for two years, until the problem was discovered. (This all came up in connection with the Washington, D.C. public schools hiring her as a principal -- see "The Answer Sheet," one of the blogs from The Washington Post, for more information.) What interests me about this situation is that of course what this Dallas principal did was clearly blatant cheating, but schools and districts all over the country are eliminating music and art, and reducing time spent on science and social studies, in order to greatly increase time on math and reading, in order to score higher on the tests. One way of scoring higher on the tests is to eliminate or reduce everything else but focus on preparation for the tests -- this shortchanges the kids, but makes the school look good. In our own state, many Massachusetts schools are doing exactly this -- not cheating, we hope, but certainly many schools are reducing or eliminating their art and music programs and reducing the time allocated to science and social studies, and greatly increasing the time spent on test preparation in order to achieve high MCAS scores. As a result, some of the schools that are being congratulated publicly for their excellent test scores may or may not be providing their students with the kind of well-rounded, thoughtful education needed in this day and age -- and, conversely, many schools that are providing their students with an excellent education are under pressure to change what they are doing in order to increase their MCAS scores.
In our district, we believe that student success is much more than achievement on the MCAS tests. As indicated by the Texas "example," the huge risk in NCLB and MCAS testing has always been the narrowing of the curriculum to test preparation and the elimination or reduction of non-tested subjects, with a consequent “dumbing down” of the curriculum in the better school districts. Southborough has been consistent in resisting that narrowing of the curriculum, in ways that we believe are crucially important (for example, maintaining our social studies curriculum and maintaining the discussion of government and current events within the social studies curriculum). Because of this, comparisons among schools based on MCAS results do not provide a complete picture of our results with our students.
Student Achievement:
So -- how should student achievement be defined? And how can we measure it in order to track our progress?
As defined in our district, student success is much more than high scores on the MCAS tests. Our district’s mission is “to maximize academic achievement, social responsibility and lifelong learning by attending to the intellectual and developmental needs of individual students in supportive classroom environments.”
Unfortunately, many important goals cannot be precisely measured. For example, our goals for our students, include, among other things (and in addition to competence in math and reading):
> Excellence in the 4 C’s of 21st century learning: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity;
> Understanding and knowledge of history and government (becoming thoughtful citizens of our democracy)
> Understanding and knowledge of scientific concepts
> Ability to investigate and learn on their own
> Appreciation of music and art, and skills enough in these areas to be able to enjoy them in their own lives
> Fluency in another language
How can we assess our success in achieving these goals? Indicators of success include the following (MCAS test results are only one indicator):
> District assessments, including both common end-of-course assessments, and teacher-made assessments
> Feedback from parents and students
> Private school acceptances & feedback from those schools (e.g., Trottier students’ acceptances at private high schools and continuing positive feedback from those schools and from parents about the students’ preparation)
> MCAS results
> High school graduation rate
> College acceptance rate, and colleges attended by our graduates
> SAT scores
> AP testing results
> Student success on national exams in different subjects (e.g., world languages)
Our students do, of course, need to pass the MCAS, and they all do. But our goals for them go way beyond that.
Current Data:
2011 MCAS scores:
> Southborough, K-8: Scores range from a high of 92% advanced & proficient in 8th
grade ELA to a low of 51% advanced & proficient in 8th grade science
> Algonquin Regional High School:
> 10th grade ELA: 96% advanced & proficient
> 10th grade math: 91% advanced & proficient
> 10th grade science: 91% advanced & proficient
Southborough’s scores put us mostly in the top 20% or 25% in the state, with last year’s 3rd grade scores in the top 3% and Algonquin’s scores in the top 10% or 15%. Since Massachusetts’ average scores on the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress, a.k.a. “The Nation’s Report Card”) reading and math testing are first in the nation, and Massachusetts’ most recent scores on the PISA (“Programme for International Student Assessment”) reading and TIMSS (“Trends in International Math and Science Study”) math and science testing are up with the top nations in the world, this means that the math and reading achievement of Southborough students is excellent.
Other Current Data:
The following are some other recent metrics that give an indication of the achievement of the students in our district.
Algonquin's AP Test scores (2009-10):
> 598 tests taken, in 22 different areas
> The average percentage of students scoring in the 3-5 range was 94.3%
> Algonquin’s percentage of students scoring in the 3-5 range was tied for 7thin the state
Algonquin's Average SAT scores (2009-10):
> Reading: 557 (39th of 292 districts)
> Writing: 563 (29th of 292 districts)
> Math: 580 (26th of 292 districts)
Algonquin's Graduation rate (2009-10):
> 98.1% (tied for 6th in the state)
Could we increase our MCAS scores without harming everything else?
This year, we have experienced a fair amount of pressure about trying to increase our scores on the MCAS testing; even though our scores are in the top 20-25% in the state, people have asked why we couldn't be in the top 10% or top 5% in the state. I believe that the answer is that we probably could be at that level, but not without injury to student achievement in other areas. If we narrowed our goals for our students and simply pursued a high ranking on one indicator (MCAS tests), we would probably do many things differently:
> As many Massachusetts schools have done, we would probably eliminate or greatly reduce subjects such as music and art;
> We might reduce the time allocated to social studies, since it is not tested, and eliminate the study of government and current events;
> We might eliminate many of the hands-on investigations in science and other experiential activities in other subjects and just focus on material that will be on the tests;
> As many other schools do, we would spend significantly more time on preparing for the tests;
> As some Massachusetts schools do, we might divide students into groups based on test scores as early as 4th grade and focus much time on extra test preparation for those who are doing less well rather than providing all students with rich learning opportunities.
As stated previously, one of the biggest detrimental results of NCLB and MCAS testing has been the narrowing of the curriculum to test preparation and the elimination or reduction of non-tested subjects, with a consequent dumbing down of the curriculum, other than in the better school districts that have succeeded in resisting the pressure. With more and more pressure for higher rankings on the MCAS, we could drop everything else that we think is important and pursue a higher ranking, but it would be to the detriment of our students (and could also result in lower SAT scores, and lower student performance on AP tests, both of which would be harmful to our students).
Currently, we provide our students with a full, well-rounded curriculum. They all pass the MCAS in high school, as they need to do, and in addition, are as well-prepared for college and for life as we can make them. In addition, while accomplishing all of this with our students, our MCAS scores are in the top 25% of scores in Massachusetts, which is first in the nation on the NAEP testing and up with the top countries in the world on the most recent TIMMS tests. Dumbing down our curriculum to pursue a higher rank on the MCAS math and reading tests does not seem worth it. We want more for our kids than that.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Children and Sports
The other day I was talking to a student who was heard by a teacher swearing during a recess game. I asked him why he was swearing, and he said, "Because I got out." I pointed out that getting out was part of the game, and asked again why he was so angry. As we talked, it became clear to me that he thought getting angry and swearing was an appropriate response to getting out and didn't understand why I thought there was a problem.
This incident made me think again about the modeling that our children are getting from the adult world. Obviously, as one of our teachers pointed out to his class, most of the professional athletes are behaving appropriately, congratulating the winners at the end of a game, respecting the referees and the other players, and generally showing good sportsmanship. Unfortunately, the media choose to highlight the bad examples, and the result is more and more children who think the only important thing is winning, who think it's appropriate to get angry when you don't win, and who don't respect the decisions of a game ref. (A physical education teacher I talked to told me that more and more kids are arguing and questioning her decisions during games.)
Earlier this week, I used the following quote (from Project Wisdom) as our quote of the day and asked students to think about it:
You may have heard the story of Armando Galarraga (GAL-a-RAGA), the Detroit Tigers’ pitcher who threw a perfect baseball game but was denied that recognition because of an umpire’s bad call. Armando showed strong character and good sportsmanship by accepting the call with respect and dignity. The umpire later acknowledged his mistake and apologized to the pitcher. We can all learn a lesson from the good sportsmanship of both men.
Listen to this:
When circumstances are unfair, you can show good character by continuing to do the best you can do.*
We don’t have to be athletes, though, to show good sportsmanship. Whether we’re competing in the science fair or playing a board game with our brother, we can play fairly and show respect for our competitors. And if we lose, even unfairly, we can still win by showing strong character and knowing that we’ve done our best.
If you can, it might be a great idea to talk with your children about good sportsmanship, about enjoying a game but not making it into more than a game, about losing gracefully and appreciating your competitors. Not only will this help our children grow into mature adults able to handle things well, but it will also improve our world.
This incident made me think again about the modeling that our children are getting from the adult world. Obviously, as one of our teachers pointed out to his class, most of the professional athletes are behaving appropriately, congratulating the winners at the end of a game, respecting the referees and the other players, and generally showing good sportsmanship. Unfortunately, the media choose to highlight the bad examples, and the result is more and more children who think the only important thing is winning, who think it's appropriate to get angry when you don't win, and who don't respect the decisions of a game ref. (A physical education teacher I talked to told me that more and more kids are arguing and questioning her decisions during games.)
Earlier this week, I used the following quote (from Project Wisdom) as our quote of the day and asked students to think about it:
You may have heard the story of Armando Galarraga (GAL-a-RAGA), the Detroit Tigers’ pitcher who threw a perfect baseball game but was denied that recognition because of an umpire’s bad call. Armando showed strong character and good sportsmanship by accepting the call with respect and dignity. The umpire later acknowledged his mistake and apologized to the pitcher. We can all learn a lesson from the good sportsmanship of both men.
Listen to this:
When circumstances are unfair, you can show good character by continuing to do the best you can do.*
We don’t have to be athletes, though, to show good sportsmanship. Whether we’re competing in the science fair or playing a board game with our brother, we can play fairly and show respect for our competitors. And if we lose, even unfairly, we can still win by showing strong character and knowing that we’ve done our best.
If you can, it might be a great idea to talk with your children about good sportsmanship, about enjoying a game but not making it into more than a game, about losing gracefully and appreciating your competitors. Not only will this help our children grow into mature adults able to handle things well, but it will also improve our world.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Deep and Rich Learning
One of the things I always notice when observing excellent teaching (something I fortunately have lots of opportunities to do) is the skillful interweaving of multiple strands of learning. This creates a rich and varied learning experience that engages students and allows for success and challenge at all levels. Recent examples of this kind of learning experience in the context of a major project include the 4th grade Invention Convention and the 5th grade Colonial Day projects.
In 4th grade, a student working on a project for the Invention Convention first learned about simple machines and participated in locating the simple machines in the school and making a video describing their use. The student then learned about innovation and participated in it by creating an invention which incorporated a simple machine and met an identified need. Students also documented their inventions, and developed business cards, brochures, and other marketing materials. This is a project with obvious real-world connections that incorporates science and technology concepts, literacy work, and business and economics, and is certainly one the students won't soon forget!
In 5th grade, the Colonial Day projects incorporate historical learning, reading, writing, and research skills, artwork, and critical thinking. I was particularly impressed by the "flip books" describing particular historical characters because the thinking and analysis went way beyond the factual. Each one was different and showed good critical thinking on the part of the student. Art and music were also incorporated into the experience, and on the day itself students were immersed in Colonial times, engaging in hand sewing, tinsmithing, butter-making, and a variety of Colonial games. Again, a rich learning experience, and one that students won't forget!
During the course of working on these projects, students also learn planning and time management skills, as well as the patience and persistence to pursue a long-term goal, all of which are important life skills. Now, of course, although I intended to write a simple post describing my excitement about these projects, I just have to ask -- how can any standardized test measure these things or measure the skill of a teacher who makes a difference for a child by helping him/her to develop these life skills or discover a passion or a new motivation? Children learn many different things from these projects -- for one, it may be finding a new confidence in her artistic skills; for another, it could be discovering his passion for history; for yet another child, it could be learning how to plan and complete a large project and feeling the pride of accomplishing that.
The best and most accomplished teachers consistently weave multiple strands of learning into their teaching -- learning about content, learning skills, learning attitudes, learning confidence, persistence and competence. This is learning that no child should miss. I am delighted to see this happening throughout our school, and hope we can continue to provide and value these rich learning experiences for our students.
In 4th grade, a student working on a project for the Invention Convention first learned about simple machines and participated in locating the simple machines in the school and making a video describing their use. The student then learned about innovation and participated in it by creating an invention which incorporated a simple machine and met an identified need. Students also documented their inventions, and developed business cards, brochures, and other marketing materials. This is a project with obvious real-world connections that incorporates science and technology concepts, literacy work, and business and economics, and is certainly one the students won't soon forget!
In 5th grade, the Colonial Day projects incorporate historical learning, reading, writing, and research skills, artwork, and critical thinking. I was particularly impressed by the "flip books" describing particular historical characters because the thinking and analysis went way beyond the factual. Each one was different and showed good critical thinking on the part of the student. Art and music were also incorporated into the experience, and on the day itself students were immersed in Colonial times, engaging in hand sewing, tinsmithing, butter-making, and a variety of Colonial games. Again, a rich learning experience, and one that students won't forget!
During the course of working on these projects, students also learn planning and time management skills, as well as the patience and persistence to pursue a long-term goal, all of which are important life skills. Now, of course, although I intended to write a simple post describing my excitement about these projects, I just have to ask -- how can any standardized test measure these things or measure the skill of a teacher who makes a difference for a child by helping him/her to develop these life skills or discover a passion or a new motivation? Children learn many different things from these projects -- for one, it may be finding a new confidence in her artistic skills; for another, it could be discovering his passion for history; for yet another child, it could be learning how to plan and complete a large project and feeling the pride of accomplishing that.
The best and most accomplished teachers consistently weave multiple strands of learning into their teaching -- learning about content, learning skills, learning attitudes, learning confidence, persistence and competence. This is learning that no child should miss. I am delighted to see this happening throughout our school, and hope we can continue to provide and value these rich learning experiences for our students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
