Thoughts on Teaching in Public Schools

I am about to enter my second year as a teacher. Some in education believe that the idealism and motivation to succeed as a teacher dim after the first year. Not a surprising perspective, I might add. But while I am more realistic about what the job entails, and what the results will sometimes be, I feel neither my idealism or motivation about the job has dimmed. If anything, I am more prepared and motivated, and feel I will thus do a better job than my first year. I don't think I did a bad job my first year, but I feel that the quality of how I teach can only go up (it does for most teachers after their first year). To put it another way, I feel the quality of how I interact with my students can only go up. Relationships and interaction with students is what teaching is primarily about.

I find it interesting in today's debate about education reform how so many individuals believe that if we had greater experts in content areas in the classroom, students would be learning more and scoring higher on tests. I suppose it is natural to think that a person with a PhD in math would make a better math teacher than someone with a teaching degree. And certainly, we want math teachers to have a significant amount of knowledge on math, just as we want any teacher to have a significant amount of knowledge with the subject they teach. But one of the first things I learned when entering my teacher training program is that knowledge of and passion for a specific subject is only a small part teaching in public schools.

Teaching in public schools isn't like teaching at the college level. Unlike college students, there will be plenty of students in public schools who do not want to be there, and could care less about the subject they are learning. And if a college student doesn't feel like going, they can simply skip class, whereas a student in a public school has to be there or they will be considered truant. However smart a person may be when it comes to the knowledge of the subject, they will be lucky to teach one single student without a great understanding how to interact with students. Teaching in a public schools is not only about having good classroom management skills, but also getting to know what motivates students (ALL of them). Will you necessary reach all of the students? No, but you try your best. Otherwise, you are not doing your job.

Kenneth Bernstein has just written a really good post about teaching. Specifically, he gives quotes from different teachers about what it means teach. These quotes come from a book called Conversations with Great Teachers, by Bill Smoot. Looking over the quotes Bernstein publishes, they all one thing in common: none of them are about the knowledge or passion for the content area. My favorite quote is the one Bernstein leads his post off with from a special education teacher in Florida:

"One of my mottos is, 'There's nothing special about special education. It's just good education.' All the things that work in special education work in regular education. It's figuring out what works best for each child, how to motivate kids. And how to get them involved."

Cheating in Atlanta, Most Recent Update

Georgia's Governor says the state's Board of Education isn't doing a good enough job of investigating the cheating scandal. More on the scandal from an earlier post, and why such cheating should not be a surprise at all.

Support A National Social Studies Curriculum

In the video above is Sean Faircloth from the Secular Coalition for America. He is asking people to write their representatives in order to support H.R. 1593, which supports academically-based national social studies curriculum. The bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), is primarily in response to the Texas Board of Education's decision to dumb down the social studies curriculum in order tailor to their Christian worldview. This includes excluding Thomas Jefferson from history textbooks. As infuriating as this is, it is natural to think that it only affects students in Texas. The reality of it is that it will have an effect on students all over the country because of the way Texas works with national textbook makers. Mr. Faircloth goes into further detail in the video, but needless to say, this is an important issue.

I know what it is like to live in a state that is perceived as backwards because of the actions of religious extremists in charge of education and curriculum policy. Although I was not living in Kansas during the time that they banned evolution in the classrooms, I still see the effect that decision had on education officials in the state. To this day, and for years to come, Kansas will be viewed as the state that banned evolution (even though that is no longer the case today). I feel bad for the state of Texas, but not nearly as bad as I do for the rest of the country if we actually do start seeing history textbooks without Thomas Jefferson or references to the Enlightenment. This is not only an important issue for teaching U.S. History, but for education in general. You do not have to be an atheist or anti-religion to care about this issue. Contact your representatives today!

Changing "Mentally Retarded" to "Intellectual Disability"

One of the major discussions in American special education has been whether or not the term "Mentally Retarded" should be changed to "Intellectual Disability". In fact, the movement has been gaining more and more traction. It will eventually become reality in both IDEA and the new DSM (5th edition, due out in 2013). The CDC appears to have already made the switch. Make no mistake, "mentally retarded" will soon be a thing of the past in the worlds of psychology and education. To so many, the reasons to make this change seem so obvious. However, there are a large number of my fellow special education teachers who I have talked to about this subject and are actually against the change. Surprising as this may seem, there is a point to be made for their case.

To the parent of someone who is told that there son or daughter has been diagnosed with a disability, the reality of the news is often very tough to accept. This is especially true for someone whose kids are labeled MR. For starters, there is the stigma of the label. Terms such as "moron", "feeble-minded", "mongoloid" and "idiot" were at one time actual labels used for individuals with various levels of this disability by medical professionals, both in American and elsewhere. While most individuals in our society know better today than to actually use those terms, there are still people who can't help but feel such terms (or rather, ideas of what what such a person would look like) are apt for ID individuals, even if they don't say it out loud.

Parents of these children, upon learning of their child's disability, will also start envisioning a different type of future for their child than they perhaps had originally envisioned. Questions such as "will my child go to college?", and possible dreams about their child growing up to a doctor, lawyer, etc. are now being replaced by questions such as "will I have to support my child for the rest of their life?", and replaced by visions of a their grown up children not being able to work at a job. Although the reality of many grown up individuals with IDs are not always as predetermined or uniform as that, expectations about what that child's life will look like do narrow. Most parents would do just about anything to not have that label put on their child. No parent wants to deal with the stigma, or the realities that can accompany it.

The argument for keeping the MR-label goes that if a child with the disability is labeled as ID, then their parents might not accept the reality of their child's situation. Expectations for what their child can do become increasingly unrealistic. This, despite the fact that changing the name does not change the criteria for diagnosis, nor does it change the educational supports that go along with it, or the likely prospects for what that child's future holds.

Perhaps an outside observer, maybe even one with a loved one who has an ID, thinks I am being insensitive. Perhaps, I appear to feel as if most parents with ID students are naive about their child's situation. Let me make it clear that I do not feel most parents of such children are naive, and do understand their child's situation. Let me also make it clear that there are plenty of good options out there for ID students to have a quality post-secondary education, and go on to support themselves, especially if their disability is not as severe. Finally, I do feel there are flaws with the way we diagnose children with an ID, and that we should have better options for the way we diagnose and educate these students (I will save those views for another post).

But working primarily with ID students at the high school level, I also know there are plenty of parents who are not as realistic about their child's future. Some parents I work with still think their teenagers can go onto be doctors, lawyers, or even go into the military, despite the fact that they have an MR-label and function academically and/or cognitively well bellow age/grade level. It is not unreasonable to think that switching the label to ID might make more parents of such students feel that their child has a less severe disability than they do. To put it more bluntly, there will be some more parents who will not get what actually lies in store for their child because the "r-word" is not there.

With that argument out of the way, we should still change the label from "mentally retarded" to "intellectually disabled". Yes, this subject is about political correctness and catering to the sensitivities of others. However, political correctness is not always a bad thing, especially when we are talking about the language on official medical, psychological, and government documents and records. The reality is that the stigma of the MR label is real, and we as professionals should be willing to evolve in the language we use, just as we evolved when we stopped using terms like "idiot" and "moron". Similarly, we evolved when stopped calling individuals with physical disabilities "cripples" or "gimps". Why should this word be any different?

I have chewed out non-ID students who have called my students "retards", and have shown my disapproval at adults and non-adults alike who use the term with others as a joke or an insult. But with my disprovable comes the a slight feeling of hypocrisy due to the fact that it is still an official term that is used in my profession, even though I have no control over it. Granted, the individuals who use it (or rather, misuse it) in the way I just described are doing it in the wrong context. But the overwhelming belief out in non-education circles is that MR is actually not used anymore because it does have such a negative connotation. Even some individuals who use it as an insult/joke are amazed when they find out that it is still an official term. Changing the term is such an obvious decision to make that so many people outside of special education know it.

As for the issue of parents accepting the realities of having a child with an ID, it needs to be our responsibility as professionals to make sure parents know what the disability is, and what the realities of it are. No teacher wants to tell a parent that the expectations for their child are too high. Indeed, one of the reasons I became a special education teacher was to uplift and motivate students with disabilities, and that their options in life aren't limited simply because they have an IEP. As someone with both a learning disability and Attention Deficit Disorder, my parents and I often ran into teachers growing up who told me I would never go to college because I had an IEP. Well, this motivated me to work hard in school and prove them wrong (which I did).

However, an intellectual disability is significantly different than a learning disability, and we as special educators and professionals should do a better job of letting parents know the severity of their child's disability. We should do that by letting them know what an intellectual disability is, and what are the long-term realities are. After that, we let them know that everything will be o.k., and that there are options for their child to lead a happy, and "potentially" independent life. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.

Mayoral Control of Schools

Daine Ravitch is increasingly becoming my favorite person when it comes to writing on issues of education. Ravitch has spot on as she has been since she has seen the light on education reform and No Child Left Behind. In one of her most recent articles for Huffington Post, she criticizes Obama's Race To The Top. Toward the end of the article, she takes on another issue that is increasingly popular with so-called "education reformers": mayoral control of public schools. Ravitch writes:

"The latest test scores were especially startling for New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg staked his reputation on their meteoric rise. He was re-elected because of the supposedly historic increase in test scores and used them to win renewal of mayoral control. But now, the city's pass rate in reading for grades 3-8 fell from 68.8% to 42.4%, and the proficiency rate in math sunk from an incredible 81.8% to a dismal 54%.

When the mayor ran for office, he said that mayoral control would mean accountability. If things went wrong, the public would know whom to blame.

But now that the truth about score inflation is out, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein steadfastly insist that the gains recorded on their watch did not go up in smoke, that progress was real, and they have reiterated this message through their intermediaries in the tabloids. In other words, they are using every possible rationalization and excuse to avoid accountability for the collapse of their 'historic gains.'

Meanwhile Secretary Duncan travels the country urging districts to adopt mayoral control, so they can emulate New York City. He carefully avoids mentioning Cleveland, which has had mayoral control for years and remains one of the lowest performing districts in the nation. Nor does he mention that Detroit had mayoral control and ended it. And it is hard to imagine that anyone would think of Chicago, which has been controlled by Mayor Richard Daley for many years, would serve as a national model."

In doing research for this post, I also found another Huffington Post article where Ravitch wrote exclusively on this issue back in April.

For a fairly solid opposing viewpoint, the American Enterprise Institute's Frederick M. Hess wrote this position paper supporting more school districts having mayoral control over school boards and districts from 2008. It is well written, except for Hess's insistence that it was "Progressive" policies a century ago taking politics out of school control that caused lots of the problems in public education today.

I am with Ravitch on this subject, as I find I am with her on so many subjects. It is easy to think that if we just put one person in charge of public schools, it is more likely that they will clean up the schools because there are less hoops to jump through via an independently elected school board. This is not to say that there should never be mayoral control, but like charter schools and standardized tests, let's not pretend that it is a panacea. In my neck of the woods, neither the Kansas City Public Schools, nor the school district I work in have mayoral control of public schools. But as the ideas of the reformers become increasingly prevalent in our national education system, it is something to look out for.

Colbert Rips Laura Ingraham a New One

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are my two favorite shows on TV. Here is one of the reasons why:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Laura Ingraham
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Hidden Costs in Public Education

For the record, I am a major supporter of our national public schools system as a whole, and do think that charter schools (although beneficial) are not the panacea to closing the achievement gap or improving schools. To put it another way, I do not fit under the idea of an "education reformer" that is so trendy in policy circles these days.

Having said that, I do find this video highly informative. It is from the CATO Institute, and I discovered it via Joanne Jacobs.



I suppose I need to learn more about this issue, but to me, I don't think the backlash to actually publishing these hidden costs would be as significant at major public school districts would think. I could be wrong.

Cheating in Atlanta

Something like this was bound to eventually happen:

"More than 100 Atlanta educators may be sanctioned for suspiciously erasing wrong answers on elementary school students' standardized tests and replacing them with correct responses, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports."

Having worked in a public high school for only one year, I already know how No Child Left Behind has influenced our school system for the worse. I have sat in meetings where the principal breaks down the subgroups, where the names of specific students are put up onto a screen, and where we are told to focus primarily on these students when teaching because they are where the money is at. This is not to say we shouldn't ever be afraid to test students to measure for accountability, or look at how subgroups of students perform. But when you put the livelihoods of teachers and administrators into ONE TEST, I promise you, these things will happen.

Other info on this story:

"In a report released Monday, investigators wrote that widespread cheating seemed to be limited to 12 schools—far fewer than the nearly 50 initially flagged by state officials as suspicious. But more than a third of the educators deemed at fault are principals and other school administrators, indicating the possibility of inter-school collusion in the cheating scam."

I hope that the administrators and the people at the top are held more responsible than the teachers below. This is not to say that teachers shouldn't be held responsible (they should), but this story is greater than a few bad teachers. With something this big, it is the ones at the top that more likely pushed and pressured teachers to cheat. They are the ones in charge, and they set the tone for how the rest of the school tests their students.

It will be interesting to see where this story goes next. Here is one more bit of information:

"Though Atlanta may be sanctioned for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress—a measure used to determine if states are meeting standards set by Bush’s No Child Left Behind law—and federal funding may be withheld as a result, these cheating adults could get off scott-free, in spite of the investigators' reccomendations. In a 5-4 decision made late Monday night, the Atlanta Board of Education voted to formally decline the findings of the investigation it ordered. The report is now being sent to state education officials, who may still levy penalties against the teachers who have been implicated in the cheating scandal.?"

Legalize It!

I am a public school teacher that believes in the legalization of marijuana.

There are a whole host of arguments I could talk about for my position, and those who follow the debate on legalization already know those arguments. But as a school teacher, I feel there some specific issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, I suspect there are some questions/concerns one may ask themselves when reading my opening statement:

"What about the children? Do you really think it is acceptable to tell children it is OK to use drugs? Won't more children use marijuana if it is legal? Would you tell your students that it is OK to use marijuana?"

Probably the most irritating and overused arguments against legalization come whenever young people are brought into the equation. First, let me say that, like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana distribution and use should be limited to adults. Children and teenagers are still growing, both physically and mentally, and we understand that consumption of a substance like marijuana can be harmful to their growth. Not to mention that, as a society, we have basically accepted the fact there are certain vices that are legitimate for adults to participate in that young people are not allowed to. These include consumption of alcohol and nicotine, gambling, and viewing of pornography. Why can't use of marijuana be a part of that same understanding?

Yes, young people do often come into contact or participate in the vices above. That does not mean we prohibit their uses for everyone. The consequences of doing so only produces more harmful consequences, as we know form the prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs. And it doesn't stop individuals from getting a hold of their drug of choice, including young people. Marijuana has been illegal for a long time, and that certainly hasn't stopped children from getting a hold of it when they really want to. If anything, legalizing marijuana with appropriate regulations will decrease the chances of a young person getting a hold of it. The seller of the drug will be a distributor who could get into trouble for selling to minors, just as they would with alcohol and tobacco. A person who sells the drug illegally, as it currently is the case in our country, is less likely to care about the consequences of who they sell to because they have chosen to break the law to begin with.

As far as what I would say to my students goes, I would never say "you should smoke marijuana". Likewise, I would never say "you should drink alcohol" or "you should smoke cigarettes". It is not only morally irresponsible, but I would likely loose my job if an administrator ever found out that I had said any of those things. In addition, I am not opposed to drug education. Indeed, we should continue to inform youth about the dangers of drugs, just like we should about alcohol, nicotine, and anything else that can cause harm. We should prepare our youth for the fact that, when they become adults and are allowed to engage in vices, there are negative consequences to misuse and overuse of said vices (including marijuana). At the same time, let's not pretend that marijuana is the great evil that anti-drug crusaders claim it to be. Marijuana is not only safer than other drugs that are illegal, it actually safer than most drugs that are legal. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest, most teenagers know better, and of course, it doesn't stop them from using it.

If marijuana were legalized, I would tell my students the same thing that I tell them about consumption of alcohol or nicotine: "there are negative consequences to misuse (and I would explain what those are), but when you turn (18/21) years of age, you will have the right to use it. Just make sure to be safe and responsible."

However, since cannabis is illegal, I end up telling my students the negative consequences of misuse, and simply state that "it is against the law". It is the most appropriate response I can come up with given that it is against the law, and I would probably loose my job if I said anything to the contrary. I have actually had this conversation with one student who openly bragged about pot use in my class once, and I have a feeling, I will have this conversation again in the near future.

I imagine one more question a reader of this post might ask is whether or not I smoke marijuana give my passion about this subject. I will simply say that I have used the drug in the past, and that I may use it again if it ever becomes becomes legal. For right now, I have too much to loose if I ever get caught with it, so I will stay clean until such time. That is probably all I will say about my own personal use.

The video that follows shows an excellent cartoon I originally found via Andrew Sullivan. It not only shows the negative consequences of marijuana's prohibition, but also shows the positive consequences of it's legalization.




It is time to end the prohibition of this drug!

School Reform I Can Get Behind

Educational Psychologist James Farwell gives his attempt to answer the question “What would Real School Reform Look Like?” It is a long-list of highly impractical suggestions. It is also a list I completely agree with, and wish more individuals in charge of education would consider when making policy. Some of my favorites from Mr. Farwell’s piece:

“We need to create a system of funding for this education that is not compromised by the ebbs and flows of the economy or by political whims.”

“We need to approach each child as a whole person, as someone who has physical, emotional, social, intellectual, artistic, and spiritual needs. Children are more than just brains to be filled and candidates for the job market.”

“We need to realize that not all children are developmentally ready for learning basic skills at the same time, nor do they learn in the same way. Moreover, they cannot show what they have learned by using only one means for measuring learning success.”

“Each child in the primary and elementary grades requires a needs assessment at the beginning of the school year. Each needs to be provided with an individualized learning program. This would be closely monitored and, at year’s end, evaluated to determine how well the teacher and the child did in meeting the goals and objectives initially established. This could be part of the teacher’s evaluation process.”

“Each school site reflects the community within which it is placed, and each needs to perform a needs assessment to determine how best to provide for its students. Part of this assessment should determine the impact that poverty, abuse, gangs, violence, family transience, and lack of parent support have on children’s learning and well-being.”

“We need to reintroduce the teaching of civics in middle and high school, and implement a test on the U.S. Constitution that students would have to pass in order to graduate from high school.”

“Moreover, training programs need to weed out those credential candidates who are emotionally, temperamentally, or intellectually unsuited to work with children.”

“We need to view the role of unions as a necessary check and balance, protecting staff members from managerial abuse and ensuring due-process rights.”

One of the criticisms I read in the comments section of the article (besides that raising taxes for schools is akin to slavery) is that he doesn’t share what his he thinks the ultimate goal of education should be. This is a fair point. But if Mr. Farwell is of the same mind that I am on education (and everything I read here seems to indicate that he is), then we probably share a similar view on what the ultimate goal of school should be. What is that goal?

The purpose of a good school should be to mold ALL young individuals into happy, healthy, and productive members of society.