Happy or Proficient?

Our good friend and UTL president Paul Georges shared this article with me this morning: "Is a good teacher one who makes kids happy or one who raises test scores". If you read nothing else in this post, migrate to EdWeek and read that article.For educators, this is the question above all questions because doing one thing does not necessarily compliment the other.  According to the EdWeek article, a recent study found that, on average, a teacher who managed to raise test scores was worse at making students happy. Here's the study from David Blazar in MIT Press- read it and weep.Over the course of my career, I have been an MCAS test administrator (admittedly only for the "legacy" version - whatever that descriptor means). I've felt the dichotomy of creating a positive and joyful learning environment for 3rd and 4th grade students and the pressure of removing high stakes testing monkey from our backs. Don't forget the weeks of "preparation".I have no great love or respect for high stakes testing nor for the value of high stakes testing. It did not inform my teaching in a timely manner as the results from the Spring arrive on a teacher's desk in October. How helpful is that?What testing in the era of No Child Left Behind and its successors does accomplish is the creation of a toxic and stressful environment for everyone. The joy of learning and exploring is sucked right out of the room; curricula are narrowed and teachable moments left in the dust.Of course in a perfect world teachers could just not worry about test scores. The reality, however, is far more harsh and possibly devastating.  Agree with it or not, state Departments of Education (including our own here  in Massachusetts), periodically attempt to tie student high-stakes test results to teacher evaluations. So far, thankfully, that effort in Massachusetts has failed.Kids and teachers are more than a number. Isn't it time schools used other measures beyond a test to evaluate learning and schools?

Adventures in Oxymorons

Say what you will about living in these political times, snaps go to the marketeers coming up with the names. Why if you didn't actually spend a large portion of your reading time being skeptical and following up with questions and queries, you might just miss out on some really fun oxymorons.Let's take the group, Families for Excellent Schools as an example. Or Students First. Or Great Schools or Building Excellent Schools.Is there a single person on the planet who is NOT for excellent schools or excellent opportunities for students and children?Families for Excellent Schools Advocacy (FESA), a close cousin of Families for Excellent Schools, recently was fined more than $450K and banned from campaigning in Massachusetts for 4 years. Why? Because in an effort to win over a ballot question that would expand charter school networks unnecessarily, the FESA group attempted to hide large donors, including Paul Sagan (Chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in 2015)  from campaign finance reporting.  Not cool, FESA. Not cool Mr. Sagan. Link to Maurice Cunningham's piece on this published on the WGBH website here.What these names, knee-deep in oxymoronic descriptors, demonstrates to me is the never-ending need to question and check on "advocacy" groups for their true mission and purpose. Marketers are expert manipulators of vocabulary. They know which word combinations may cause unsuspecting audiences to be lulled into endorsement of groups which may, or may not, be supportive of their own beliefs. Exhibit A: Democrats for Ed. Reform (DFER) which endorses expanded charter schools, rigorous high-stakes testing, and top-down school structures particularly in the areas of "accountability".  Building Excellent Schools apparently believes the only way to make a school "excellent" is to partner with a charter group.It always is a good policy to learn about groups purporting to advocate, especially those involved in or attempting to be involved in public education. What you may find out can be surprising.  

September 11, 2017

When one reaches un certain âge, the realization dawns on you that the past is measured in events; the moment you meet your true love, graduation, your child's birth, a parent's death.But time is also measured by events of such great historic proportion that you can remember with clarity where you were and what you were doing. We mark time by the events of historic proportions. The events mark us with changes too.On November 22, 1963, I was in sixth grade at Huron Junior High. We had an "honors" study hall which was about anything but studying. If you can imagine it, a group of sixth grade students were allowed to sit in a classroom alone and without supervision for the purpose of doing homework. I suppose this was considered a privilege, but, as junior high students are wont to do, we spent most of the time being noisy and silly and, I believe just before we heard the news about the President, we had been threatened with loss of privilege by a teacher who was passing by the room and recognized the sounds of "un-studying".I cannot recall the particulars of how we found out about the events in Dallas, but I do remember snippets of the rest of that day. It was unnaturally quiet. After that, things felt a little less safe, as if the world had made a seismic shift and we weren't quite sure how to react. But time blurs those feelings and puts them into a back corner of our memory until the next time.And there are so many "next times". RFK, MLK, Newtown, Oklahoma City, and closer to home, the Boston Marathon. And September 11, 2001. On that morning, I was testing second grade reading out in a hallway. With each tragic event of that day, one of my colleagues came out to whisper what had happened. We were directed not to discuss anything in front of our students; however, given the eery quiet with which the staff went about the day, I would not be surprised to learn from former students that they knew something bad had happened that would impact their world, as the Kennedy assassination had for me.Over the past sixteen years, we observe a moment of silence to remember the people and events of 9-11. And each year when that moment of silence is broken by the playing of taps, the magnitude of that day is with me and many others.  The memory of the circumstances, the events of September 11 is renewed. May we never forget.  

Speak up. It is important.

Last Tuesday, I was able to attend the Joint Committee on Education's hearing in Boston. I say "able" because, while I am sure the legislation before the Committee would have garnered interest and testimony from many active educators, they largely would not have been able to attend as the hearing took place the day after Labor Day, a school day. As a teacher retiree, I was not in my first (or fourth) day of a new school year and could attend, so I did.There were many proposed pieces of legislation under discussion last Tuesday; however, two bills, S.279 and H.304, aroused my curiosity and alarm. These two pieces of legislation appear to target teachers and students in gateway cities and,  if you are a Massachusetts parent, teacher, or administrator and your student attends school in one of these districts, you should pay attention. Your voice in what happens in your local school is being threatened.Bill, S. 279 unnecessarily singles out and targets urban and gateway districts. How do I know this? Because the "opportunity" to become an innovation partnership zone is based on a the results of a single high-stakes test, the MCAS and consequently the assigned school level that stems from that test. To base the worth or value of a school - or a district - on how students perform on a single high-stakes exam is w.r.o.n.g.  It is bad educational practice. No teacher would ever give a student a final mark based on one measure and the Commonwealth shouldn't be doing this with schools and school districts either.Those who favored moving H.304 and S.279 forward spoke frequently about the power of looking at students' (test) results and collaborating to determine school budget priorities, schedule/time allocations, and coordination of student needs with curriculum. My reaction to that is NO KIDDING. Why, why, why, do some in the Commonwealth feel that a piece of Legislation would make this a) any different from current practice, or b) necessary to mandate?Those in favor also spoke about the empowerment zone created in Springfield. The Springfield schools working in the empowerment zone are all middle schools and have done so for two years. Even James Peyser, Secretary of Education, had to admit the "data" on the success of these schools was rather green and not established. Others from this panel (two teachers and a principal) spoke about their experience meeting as teacher teams to think about what the students need.Sorry kids this is not a new concept or practice, nor is it one that requires a mandate from the Commonwealth. Lowell teachers, and I suspect teachers in most districts throughout Massachusetts, routinely meet to do this very same thing regularly. We call these collaborations PLCs (professional learning communities) or CPTs (common planning time). We do these things because a) we are there to figure out how to help students go from learning point A to B and b) we are professionals.Here's another thought: if a school is considered lower performing according to MCAS results, H.304 and S.279 would allow the Commissioner of Education (appointed, not elected) to begin the process of designating the schools for empowerment or innovation zone status. In the case of H.304, if the local teachers' union and the school committee cannot agree to concessions to the collective bargaining agreement, the Commissioner can just make the school a lower Level 4, and in effect, start the process of diluting local control anyway.Under S.279, the legislations proposes to "support" struggling schools through the creation of an innovation partnership zone. From what I can tell, the "partnership" is that the Commissioner of Education and DESE has a large stake in how the school is run. Schools are eligible to be in an innovation zone if their MCAS scores put them in Level 4 or Level 5 status. But - and this is key - in order to create an innovation zone, there needs to be at least 2 schools participating.Just to put that into local perspective, if Lowell has a Level 4 school (and it does) and the decision was made to create an innovation partnership zone for that school, the Commissioner of Education could pair that Level 4 school with another higher performing school - a Level 3, a Level 2 or a Level 1. So don't breathe easy if your school's MCAS results are great, you too could be part of this education magic show.When a school is "in the zone" (sorry Vygotsky fans, I couldn't resist that), an appointed  Board of Directors has autonomous control over personnel, budget, curriculum and hours. This unelected board with possibly no connection to the community could decide to do anything, including conversion of the public school to a charter school through a charter management company.Just for comparison, if a school is not in the zone, the elected School Committee and a combination of school administration/school site councils (theoretically) make these decisions and if you, a parent or voter, don't agree with those decisions, you can voice that in person or you can make your feelings known at the ballot box.Wait. Who is missing from those groups? If you said "teachers", you go right to the bullseye of the Zone of Proximal Development. At least on this topic. Despite the Springfield testimony highlighting empowering teachers and teacher teams, the decision-making for what takes place in a classroom is still top-down.The act of creating empowerment or innovation zones is different from what has happened in a few districts in Massachusetts, namely Lawrence. In those districts the state has outright put the entire district into receivership, meaning, the local governance of the public schools is given over to the Commonwealth. There is no local control over the education of the students and an un-elected "receiver" makes all the decisions. It also includes a favorable environment for education management organizations (EMO) to set up a network of charter schools. If you are interested in the track record of the charter school industry in Michigan and in particular Detroit where entire public school districts were replaced by charter school entities, read this article from the NY Times. Chilling.The full text of S.279 is found here, and the full text of H.304 is found here.  For now, both of these bills warrant a close watch. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education seem to be ready to dismantle traditional public education one school at a time.

Two Tales in Education

Two stories from the education world caught my attention this week, and I feel that both are worth the time to read. The first story, Why Teachers Quit by Liz Riggs, is a cautionary tale from 2013 about teachers and burn-out. The second, Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues is by Natasha Singer of the New York Times. It is a warning for anyone who worries about the possible effects of corporate America's influence in schools and school materials.The Atlantic recently reposted Liz Riggs' 2013 article Why Teachers Quit which was originally printed in October 2013. Even with a 4-year time gap, this is an article that is relevant and worth reading for anyone interested in retaining educators. The turn-over rate cited in the article, 40-50%, refers to the numbers of teachers leaving the education profession within the first five years of their career.  While I believe this attrition rate to be lower in 2017 thanks to strong induction and mentoring programs available to beginning educators, many beginning teachers continue to leave education for other fields.Although many of the teachers Ms. Riggs interviewed were from charter schools, the conditions which lead to decisions to leave education are often some of the same expressions of discontent heard now from both novices and experienced teachers. The responsibilities of educators don't end at the dismissal bell. Planning, assessing, writing reports - those workloads are often overwhelming and makes for an unhealthy and out-of-balance life.Even when one goes into education for all the best reasons, the reality of the profession can become overwhelming. With all of the emphasis on teacher quality, there continues to be a need to ensure that the extracurricular demands on talented educators are not overpowering.The second article, Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues, was recently published in the New York Times and describes a new trend in education: recruiting teachers to promote edu-products. While understanding that obtaining "free stuff" is a way for classrooms and educators to afford enhancements and the latest in bells and whistles, I think this pathway is a very slippery slope. It makes me more than a bit skeptical about the motives of corporate American forming relationships with educators to obtain favorable product placements.As a retired educator, I can still recall the disproportionate amounts of time spent each evening writing plans, pulling together materials, researching, contacting parents, and grading student work. I am not quite sure how Kayla Delzer, the third grade teacher chronicled in the Times article finds enough time to attend to teacher responsibilities; blog, tweet, and post on Facebook; and sleep. I wonder about the cost to her students.  Is her objectivity in evaluating appropriate materials compromised? Are her students missing out when their expert teacher is away to promote these materials?Two tales for the week, both cautionary. Anyone out there listening? 

The courage to be imperfect

“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.

Art is knowing which ones to keep.”

~Scott Adams

Educators and staff in my community start the new school year tomorrow. And as they do, there will be the usual pressure to be perfect. Perfect in pedagogy, perfect in understanding students, perfect in everything that has to do with school, in the finger-pointing education environment under which we teach and learn.Does it seem as if somehow no one in public education is allowed a misstep?  I think so; and I think that toxic expectation of perfection can interfere with the art of teaching.In teaching, there is an underlying expectation that all should go according to plan without stumbling or error. This is an unrealistic expectation, and it creates an environment of canned, scripted and safe lessons that do not necessarily serve students. Unrealistic expectations of flawless lessons create an impediment to teaching creatively.  As any experienced educator can attest, every day there will be moments when all goes smoothly, and moments when nothing does. This is to be expected. Teaching is an art filled with glorious highs and magnificent lows; sometimes this takes place within the same 60 minutes.As you all return to school and to the important work of creating a community of learners, I urge you to embrace both creativity and the mistakes that are inevitable.Do the research. Read professionally. Participate in discussions with colleagues. Take chances. Take advantage of opportunities for creativity in teaching and learning. Teaching is an art and you, my friends, are the creatives. 

Lost in the shuffle

The Lowell High School project is, without a doubt, the biggest thing going in Lowell. I mainly stay out of the discussions about siting this project, mainly because, aside from being a taxpayer, I have very little skin in the game - no children/grandchildren in the school system. I do have an opinion, however, that is not based on tradition or the often-cited "that's the way we've always done it". That is one of the advantages of being a Blowellian.In my opinion, soliciting community support for this massive project has been ass-backwards from the start. My recollection is that, until there was some blowback from community groups like CBA and CMAA, there was very little effort to include all the stake-holders in the decision-making.  Did the rush to get the project in front of Mass. School Building for project approval preclude the necessity for a referendum vote on where to put the school? I think it has.But while decisions and debate about where to put a new high school have become the focus point, there are other equally important issues that are getting pushed aside.  One of those issues is the inadequate school funding support coming from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Thanks to cuts in the state budget and cuts coming from the Federal government, Lowell Public Schools needs to cut the previously approved 2018 budget by nearly $1 million.  At the last School Committee meeting, there was plenty of debate surrounding the cutting of positions. Some of those proposed cuts are positions that directly impact students.  The loss of anticipated Chapter 70 funding is somewhat complicated, but in my mind, these are the issues:

• The lowering of  tax revenues at the State level has resulted in the need to make last second reductions in school budget line items.
• The state's budget and funding formula for Chapter 70 has not been fully funded (currently presumed to be underfunded by over $1 Billion) for many years.
• Education funding formulae are based on 23-year old calculations. The Foundation Budget is is dire need of updating (see TracyN Foundation Analysis).
• The continually increasing expenditures for charter schools.

Brockton, Worcester, and other gateway cities, those who are impacted most critically by Chapter 70 underfunding and under-calculations, have joined together in an attempt to force the Commonwealth to rectify Chapter 70 funding issues through a lawsuit to address the inequities of funding. Because of Lowell's focus on the high school, the effort to fix the funding, and possibly get some relief for our local school budgeting, isn't even a blip on the radar.Yes, the high school facility and a building that will serve the students in this community is important, but it is not the only thing.

"Doing" Justice: More than just forms

Donalyn Miller recently tweeted about a recording sheet she uses for the 40 Book Challenge she not only "invented" but practices with her students in her classroom.  As I've recently added her book "The Book Whisperer" to the book study portion of a course I've developed, Donalyn's tweet caught my attention:

My curiosity over why Donalyn Miller would feel compelled to tweet an endorsement of  Debbie Ohi's collection of forms led me to read this post from August 2014:  The 40 book Challenge Revisited.Her point this:

... the original thinking behind an instructional idea becomes lost when it’s passed along like a game of Telephone. You heard about it from a 60-minute conference session. Your teammate attended a book study and she gave you the highlight reel. The teacher down the hall is doing something innovative. You should try it. We’ve all seen the quick adoption of shiny, new ideas without a full picture of how these concepts fit into best practices (or don’t).

I've frequently heard fellow educators reference that they are "doing" the Daily Five or the Daily CAFE. However, digging in a little deeper, misinformed yet well-intentioned educator's idea of the "doing" is more likely to be incorporating some of the "centers" (sorry Gail and Joan, I know that's not what you intended) or using some printable for students downloaded from one of the educator enterprise sites.The Daily Five practice is based on developing a trusting relationship between learners and teacher. The development of this trusting relationship is every bit as important as the student activities.  A gradual release of responsibility leads to developing students independence and accountability.  Joan and Gail's commitment to research and development of their own practice is the powerful glue that, in my opinion, holds the Daily Five and CAFE together. This becomes the basis for educator changes that lead to best practice.Shiny new ideas are terrific, of course. That is the basis of being "green and growing", as one of my former administrators used to say.  However, without fully understanding a method for management of teacher, the practice become so simplified that it often becomes just another tedious fill-in-the-blank task to keep students occupied. And that, is not a best practice of any kind. 

Is STEM the only thing?

Is STEM the only thing? I'm asking for a friend.It occurs to me that in the rush to turn out worker bees for business sectors, the focus in education is more than a little skewed in favor of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Yes, these are all important studies and part of a well-rounded balanced education. However, I am questioning that the focus on STEM has over-shadowed other content and curricula that, in my biased opinion, should be equally important.Because I see education in terms of an avenue toward a pursuit, observing the march of the bureaucrats toward the next great crisis in education is equally frustrating and alarming. Our educational goal should be to "hook" students into becoming life-long students, to foster curiosity and questioning and the drive to know more.And maybe that pathway toward becoming lifetime learners is through a STEM discipline, and perhaps it is not.As a student, my personal pathway into learning was through something quite different. I was a more-than-adequate reader, not a particularly skilled writer, and a horribly incompetent math student.  What fired me up to become more disciplined about learning and more successful as a student, was a love and pursuit of music. The irony of this statement is that, as an adult, music has taken a backseat to the very disciplines that catch all the attention today - technology and mathematics.To me, it is more important to teach students to think critically, to process logically and, yes, even scientifically. Science, math, and technology are important and great ways to get to those problem-solving and thinking skills. But other disciplines can be a means to this end - and toward the goal of fostering and enduring desire to learn - too. And for the student whose interest in learning lies in arts and humanities, exclusion of such pursuits leave them flat.So while our education policy makers direct a refocus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, I hope there might also be a similar pursuit of arts and humanities. Because, in my opinion, there is a need to balance educational pursuits across all disciplines.

Boomers cutting the cord

About six months ago, Adrien and I came to the realization that, despite 200+ channels offered by our favorite cable provider, we were more often than not finding little entertainment of value on television. Mostly we ended up watching television to "kill time" - not a particularly compelling reason for sitting in front of the tube after dinner.  And then, there was the over $200 a month bill.So with that realization, we started to become intrigued with the idea of cutting the cord - getting rid of our cable television access. And yes, I do know boomers are notorious for not quite being on the cutting edge of technology. Yet we persisted.The television we gravitated to really was a short list. Once we started to keep track of what we really wanted to watch on television, it was fairly easy to match up streaming providers (Hulu, Roku, etc.) to our habits. Although we had an older Apple TV, we upgraded so that we could take advantage of DVR capabilities offered by streaming providers like Hulu-live.What we discovered was that we might lose one of the local (Boston) channels (WCVB). We also let go of local cable access coverage of meetings (yea, I was that person), and watch local PBS affiliate,  WGBH, via the Internet.  By choosing the more costly live-streaming packaged offered by Hulu (Hulu-live) we can still access local sports coverage (Red Sox!). Another advantage is that any changes to account types (i.e., from regular Hulu to Hulu-live) so far do not incur any penalties or change of service charges.The feature we've had to get accustomed to is queuing up programs that we are interested in rather than channel surfing.  Our previously acquired Netflix account is easily accessed through an Apple TV app. Using Amazon Prime is naturally a little more difficult, but with a little more effort (Airplay and playing through an iPad) still accessible.We kept the same Internet access speed (200 Mbps), curtailed landline and cable. By doing so, our monthly "entertainment" costs are about $60 a month less - nearly $1,000 savings a year. At this point we are still evaluating whether the "live" feature of Hulu-live is worth the $40/month charge; regular old Hulu (with limited commercials) is $12 a month. If we discover that live TV broadcast is not something we regularly watch, we'll be able to cut our entertainment charges even more.In my opinion, however, the greatest advantage for us is that when we do sit down to watch television, we're doing so for a reason or with a particular show in mind. Reading, conversation, and dinnertimes are a lot calmer.  So far, so good.

Are we over-coaching developing readers?

One of the texts I've reviewed for a course I'm leading this summer is Jan Burkins and Kim Yaris' Who's doing the work: How to say less so readers can do more. What do you, as teacher, do when a student is stuck in their reading? Do you go into wait-time mode or try to move things along with hints or suggestions of strategies? And if you do either of these, what is the student's response or reaction?Sometimes when we think we are moving responsibility for learning to our students, the shift is not as significant as we think. Case in point: when a student successfully uses a decoding strategy to uncover a challenging word, does the student look to you, the teacher, for affirmation.  Surely that's something I was guilty of doing.However, when students come to rely on that affirmation and teacher praise as an indication of whether or not the word was called correctly, that is scaffolding that has over-served its usefulness in steering students toward a gradual release of responsibility.  We set the students up for dependency, not independency.In real reading - the kind that students engage in on their own either in school or later in life as adult readers - what happens when a decoding challenge the meaning of the print breaks down? Will a teacher always be there to nod a yes or to give hints?The end game for reading instruction is to enable a reader to develop so that he or she knows that to do when confronted with reading challenges.  Instead of leading a student through the use of a specific strategy (get your mouth ready, think about what makes sense), what if the prompts from a teacher were more open-ended:

What do you notice?

What can you try?

There are undoubtedly times when explicitly teaching strategies for decoding and comprehension are not only appropriate, they are essential. How else would a reader learn about them? But once the strategy has been introduced, practiced and become part of a reader's repertoire, shouldn't we, as coaches, allow the reader to decide what to do?Over coaching developing readers is something I became aware of as an active and as a retired teacher.  More open-ended questions and less controlled coaching not applies to reading. Think of the implications for problem-solving in math.So I ask: are we empowering our students to truly be independent? Or, as Yaris and Burkins point out, are we creating learners who are dependent upon our affirmation and approval? Are we allowing students to be independent learners?

The promise of "yet"

Words have lots of power.How many times have you, as learners, encountered can't statements? Can't as in "I can't do math" or "I can't draw" or "I can't" just about anything. I think it was my grandmother who used to say "can't never did anything".  And she was - and still is - right.I was thinking about the power of "can't" during yoga practice this week. It used to happen that when I was in a public class and a balance pose as simple as tree pose was called, my whole body would break into an anxiety sweat. I can't balance on one leg, I would tell myself. I'm too clumsy, too old.Then, one day, I switched the narrative to add in the word "yet". I can't do this... yet. Through those 3 letters, I could feel my attitude changing. "I may fall out of tree pose today, but some day I will nail it." In fact in time, that's exactly what happened.When I was actively teaching, students often would say "I can't" to everything from a writing topic to division. Adding the word yet to their statements - I can't do this yet - often made a difference for them too.Three letters. Those three letters can make all the difference for every student.

Meanwhile, back at the DOE

This past Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Secretary Betsy DeVos gave testimony in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. An overview of Secretary DeVos' testimony can be found on mlive here.The presidential version of the 2018 budget details a whopping $10.6 Billion in cuts to programs supporting students of all levels.  Last week, I posted what the effect of cuts to three Federal grant programs might be on Lowell Public Schools. Using a back-of-the-envelope estimate based on the FY2018 school budget proposal, Lowell Public Schools would be out close to $3 Million in funding for 21st Century Schools, Title II (Teacher Quality) and Title III (ELL support).Layering on the devastation caused by a (state) Foundation Budget that is severely out of whack and underfunded, the fiscal future for urban districts such as Lowell does not look very bright. Several superintendents ago, the Lowell Schools had a Superintendent who told staff that "less is more". Well, in this case, less is actually less, and our students are going to bear the brunt.During her testimony in front of that Senate subcommittee, Ms. DeVos stated the need to cut Title funding (i.e., nearly everything funded through the Department of Education with the exception (so far) of Title I).  As usual, making up facts that fit a narrative for redirecting federal funding was evident:

"This budget does so by putting an emphasis on programs that are proven to help students while taking a hard look at those that are well-intended, but haven't yielded meaningful results," she continued.

Where are the reports and research that back this up, Ms. DeVos?  Are we to believe that providing students from higher poverty/economic need districts such as Lowell with after school and summer activities doesn't yield anything "meaningful"? What exactly does constitutes meaningful for you? A higher test score?I most vehemently disagree with that statement by Secretary DeVos.  In a Gateway City, such as Lowell or Brockton, or any number of cities across the US, there are many families living in poverty and struggling. And despite many challenges, sometimes overwhelming challenges resulting from poverty and trauma, our Gateway cities strive to provide a comprehensive, adequate and free education to every student.Allowing students the opportunity to participate in and explore activities beyond the school day gives these children a safe and supervised environment and their parents the peace of mind knowing that their child(ren) is well cared for during the time between the end of school and suppertime. I would call THAT meaningful, yet apparently Ms. DeVos would not.But back to the federal budget that was the overarching topic of discussion during Ms. DeVos' testimony.  As Michigan billionaire and school privatization champion Ms. DeVos, is okay with cutting or eliminating funding of some of the more substantial federal grants. Using the theme of giving parents "choice" of school settings, the Secretary of Education intends to funnel the funds eliminated or cutback into a voucher program. funding religious and private schools. DeVos intends to implement a voucher program without guarantees that would protect vulnerable students' rights or ethical oversight of for-profit education management firms even when federal funding is involved.  For more on that, read Valerie Strauss' June 6 Answer Sheet analysis.  In place of "less is more", I am more inclined to agree with this assessment of the federal education budget proposals from Senator Leahy:

"The Department of Education budget can summed up very quickly in one word: 'abysmal,'" said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

Abysmal it is. And abysmal it will be for our students.

Are we just getting by?

Tuesday evening, I spoke before the City Council to encourage that body to meet with City of Lowell school administration before approving the budget that was before them. You read that correctly, I was advocating that the Council not approve the budget. Why? I don't believe that the City's contribution to the school budget adequately considers our public school students. Here are my remarks:

Former Presidential Advisor Paul Begala once stated, a budget is a “profoundly moral document” in that it enumerates those things that we view as priorities. We fund those ideas and things which we value.As a retired elementary teacher with 30 years experience, it was my privilege to teach in the Lowell Public Schools for 20 years. And while I appreciate the City’s efforts to meet minimum Net School Spending requirements during the last several years, that effort should not stop at the minimum. We should not expect to just “get by”.The educational challenges to communities such as Lowell are deep and sometimes complicated. Children attending our City’s public schools often have needs complicated by language, by poverty, and by culture. Stagnant computations of Chapter 70 aid, based on 20 year old formulae mean our schools operate with fewer resources to support these students. Increasingly, funding is redirected to charter schools in the City and this complicates the fiscal picture even further.Tonight, the City Council considers a Home Rule petition, and I applaud you all for insisting that the Commonwealth meet its obligations for fully funding charter school tuition reimbursement. It is unacceptable for the Commonwealth to shrug off that reimbursement promise and leave urban communities like Lowell with fewer and fewer resources.Yet however complex the issues may be, it is still the responsibility of our community to ensure that funding for schools is adequate. Those funds must guarantee that students and public schools in Lowell continue to be a reflection of what we, as community value.Over the span of my teaching career, there were often years when that minimum contribution was not met. During those times, our students lost out on opportunities as positions such as Science Specialists and Librarians were eliminated.  Our school buildings delayed repairs or improvements that now loom ahead as major undertakings.Is education is important? Is it something that Lowell values? Or is it sufficient to minimally fund the schools and just get by?Doing the minimum does not suffice for our children, and it should not be okay for our school budget either.A reduction in personnel is felt when positions are eliminated and other staff members pick up the slack. We get by. More often than you realize, supplies and resources needed for classrooms are funded out of teachers’ pockets, sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars a year. And once again, we get by.The Lowell Public Schools is an asset to our community for which we can all be proud. It is not sufficient to just “get by”. Our City leaders need to envision the schools that will fully serve our children and fund that vision. Instead of beginning with a minimum budget number and fitting school expenditures to that amount, what if we look at what is needed first and then worked together to fund that?We need to move beyond the "just getting by." We need to strive for more than a minimum.And so, I urge the City Council to increase funding for the 2018 proposed school budget. I urge you not to vote to approve the budget before you until both School and City administrations have met to discuss solutions to this fiscal crunch.Let’s demonstrate that here in Lowell, we value our public schools and that our schools and our children are a priority.

Return to Sender

Educators, if you received a free and unsolicited book in the mail, would you read it? That's what a conservative "climate realist" group by the name of Heartland Institute wants you to do. In fact, it would be really swell if teachers would do a little more than just read their free book(s). If you would also start teaching some of their conceptions and beliefs, that would be great.Here's an introduction to this Heartland Institute courtesy of Dean Reynolds' report on April 22 CBS News.  There among the reported 97% of scientists who believe global warming is real, is non-scientist Joseph Bast claiming that global warming is not only part of the cycle of life on Planet Earth, but actually desirable for us humans (see video link above).Bast, CEO and President of Heartland Institute, is admittedly not a scientist; what he claims to be is a "climate realist". Here are some of the ideas Heartland Institute champions:

• Second hand smoke, smoking, and lung cancer have no connections
• Global warming is not a "thing" - it is more like a cycle of nature and "cold weather kills more people than warm weather does." (refer to clip at 1:15 mark)
• In Education, the group supports the increasing charter schools, providing education tax credits for private school students, vouchers and the group supported the parent "trigger" reform started in California.
• Health care saving accounts and a "free market" health care system, and (finally)
• Hydraulic fracking

Curiously, or maybe not so curiously, Heartland Institute is engaged in a concerted effort to influence science educators in Grades K-12. As such, this group has committed to mailing 25,000 copies of a free book (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming authored by Craig Idso, PhD; Robert M. Carter, PhD; and S. Fred Singer, PhD) and DVD every two weeks until every single K-12 Science teacher in the United States has a copy (reported total 200,000 copies). Lennie Jarrett, who manages Heartland Institute's Center for Transforming Education, includes a cover letter (please read it here).Now everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if one is going to flood schools with science materials, shouldn't those materials be.... scientific? As in something that is based upon proven and replicable fact and not on opinion? Bast and Heartland Institute hope that science educators will have some doubts about that. After all, 3% of the scientific community don't agree on the cause(s) for climate change.From time to time, entities offer curriculum and materials to schools and educators for free or reduced costs. The utilities companies used to send Lenny Lightbulb coloring books to elementary school teachers who requested them. Apple Computers became prevalent technology in schools because Apple targeted the education market and offered deep discounts. As a teacher, presenting opposing opinions on issues should be part of the educational process. When proven and science-based facts are replaced by flimsy opinions of "think tanks" with a political agenda, that is not science. Here's a second viewpoint detailing why the Heartland Institutes' effort is alarming written by NY Times Op-Ed writer, Curt Stager.That's a gift that should be returned to sender.

On Homework

This morning, the New York Times carried the story of the decision by several Public Schools in New York City to suspend traditional homework. The disagreements that have ensued have largely been by parents of students with very different viewpoints on this topic.  This is definitely worth a read if only to broaden the lens with which one views this topic because, as I read, two things came to mind:

• in some families, providing meaningful after school activities is frequently limited by economics, time and money/resources, and
• parent input into broad ideas is a key to change.

As a parent, I would have loved the idea of no homework for my own child, who by the end of a school day had had just about enough with sitting still and completing paperwork. One assignment, burned in my memory, is of him sitting at our dining room table attempting to fill in the remaining (empty) pages of a spelling workbook, assigned for the night's homework ostensibly because it was the end of a school year and all pages must be completed. Did anyone "learn" anything from that exercise?In the Times article, the attempts to move away from mindless drill-and-kill worksheets is something I would applaud. Suggested replacements for traditional homework include reading and finding other exploratory pursuits.  These are all great ideas. Most students have library books from school or the public library that can be accessed if a personal library is not within reach.However, I would suggest that the ability to find and fund those "other" resources for explorations - mentioned were additional software products or for-fee activities and programs - is problematic for parents who don't have the same monetary resources found in privileged, middle-class homes.  Yes, Khan Academy is a free resource, but if your family doesn't have internet access or a workable computer device, that free resource is not available. I worry that under the current federal administration how long programs like 21st Century School grants will continue. How this impacts a community with a large number of students from lower socio-economic means remains to be seen.The "quality" of homework is cited in the article. This, too, needs investigation. What are the elements that constitute "quality" homework?  I know how I would answer that, but maybe I don't know how a parent who is working 2 consecutive shifts and still living below poverty would answer.Which brings me to Point 2. Parents need to be a big part of this conversation. Schools and Districts considering the change from a traditional homework model to something else, whatever that might be, have to engage all - and I mean all - the parents, not just those who find it convenient to come to meetings and presentations between 8:30 am and 3 pm. The educators have the expertise to make these changes, but the parents bring viewpoints to the discussion that not only need to be considered, those views must be considered.Read the article. Learn from it. And let's move forward in making homework something more than a mindless and epic after school battle.

You have to show up

Yoga serves.But you have to show up.

-Adriene Mishler Yoga with Adriene

There is something both beautifully simple and truthful in that statement. What are you invested in? Physically, mentally, intellectually. Show up for that. It really is that simple.After a year of some minor, mainly annoying, challenges that come with the advancement of growing older, I decided that I now had the time to invest in my own well-being. And so I embarked on some physical training (who starts a running program after age 60?) and an exploration of centering myself through yoga. I've been well-served by both running and yoga. But in order to reap the benefits of not running out of breath by simply walking uphill or a more steady, balanced foundation, the commitment to doing one or both of these on a daily basis has been a challenge. It is easy to become distracted or to allow appointments and meetings to become an excuse to skip.As a former educator, I think the act of showing up has to apply as well, particularly in times when public education is under daily attack. Purposeful underfunding of the Commonwealth's obligation to fund schools, over-reliance on high-stakes testing, an education that is at once developmentally appropriate and flexible, valuing humanities as well as science and technology.These are just a few of the issues that I feel strongly about. This is why I worry that educational opportunity, that great equalizer, may not be much of an opportunity for our young citizens.And this is why I will continue to show up - because just like yoga, education serves. But you have to show up. 

Lost Things

Don't it always seem to goThat you don't know what you've got til its gone

I was thinking about Joni Mitchell's lyrics to Big Yellow Taxi this morning because, I think a lot of what has disappeared in classrooms has happened so gradually that even educators don't realize the value of what has gone missing.During last Friday's middle segment on Beat The Press, Adam Riley asked if the panel believed viewers could tell the difference between fact and opinion. Here's the link to the segment which is definitely worth the five minutes viewing time.If as an adult, knowing the difference between fact and opinion is an important skill, do educators have opportunities to explicitly teach students to distinguish between opinion and news/facts? I would suggest that in this era of time-on-task we do not. I think teaching and practicing critical thinking has been replaced by test preparation and test strategy sessions.As a high school student, one of the courses I took to fulfill the English requirements was a course called Propaganda and Prejudice.  We started out examining marketing materials and ended up dissecting political discourse to better understand opinions and how facts can be manipulated to prove a point. Those lessons of examination and questioning have stayed with me my entire adult life.As a teacher of elementary students in 1987, one of the PBS programs that we employed to encourage students to think deeply about issues was called (I think) Think About It. Think About It was a 15-minute, current events based program for middle-elementary and junior high students and broadcast each week on the local PBS airwaves. We watched it together every Friday afternoon. Students were enjoined to dive deeply into a current issue and engage in opinion writing or discourse based on facts they could uncover throughout the upcoming week. I underscore based on facts, because, as the panel from Beat The Press points out, our current conversations seem mainly based on beliefs and perception and not necessarily on researched or proven fact.Why these anecdotes are important is the action of thinking about whether or not a statement is true or verifiable or even plausible seems to be a missing skill. In our divisive political conversation, proveable facts are in very short supply and thinking about whether a statement is reasonable or truthful is often even more scarce. Case in point would be the Comet Pizza shootings in DC.When the focus is on test preparation and standardized testing, something has to go. Honestly, until I started to think about the question posed by the Beat The Press panel and wonder more about why our grown up and adult students don't necessarily discern between fact and opinion, I didn't realize the full extent to which teaching critical thought has been omitted. Is one of those "things" educators let go in favor of prepping students for test success explicit teaching and practice with critical thinking?I wonder, if result of 20 years of education "reform" and focus on standardized high stakes testing, is a cohort of adults who cannot critically question and discern opinion from fact?

Another Reason for Increased Recess

I wonder how many other adults have experienced this? After about 30 minutes of intense focus, there is a need to get up and move. For me, moving around when I am actively engaging my brain applies in nearly every circumstance, and I notice it most especially during some training or class when my brain is powered up and I'm trying hard to retain new information.An article republished in the New York Times' Well column made me think of how sitting and movement impact learning for all students regardless of age level. Written for runners and titled Can Running Make You Smarter, the article was originally published in July 2016. Here are some major take-aways from the article:

• exercise fosters neurogenesis, or creation of neurons which cluster in the brain and increase ability for thinking and recall
• physical stimulation is necessary for healthy brains
• Cathepsin B protein, which helps muscles recover from exercise such as running, appears to be a factor in neurogenesis
• in the study, more active subjects like runners had better and more improved tests scores for memory and thinking

So what's the connection to students and learning? Here's my take:One of the first things schools jettison when time-on-task and test preparation becomes the focus, is recess. Recess is short-changed in many schools across the US even though research study after research study shows that children need recess and breaks from more academic pursuits in order to learn and think. Google the phrase "importance of recess" and page upon page of research pops up. And then, of course, you could just ask a teacher.Recess is important. If this study is taken seriously, active play during recess appears to be even more important. Recently, in response to School Committee member Jackie Doherty's motion of January 18, 2017, the Lowell Schools reported (click here for the report from the February 15 meeting packet) on the number of minutes allocated for recess at each Lowell Public Schools. The times ranged from zero minutes at Lowell High School and alternative school settings to 20 minutes at several elementary schools (25 for some Kindergarten classrooms).The studies cited in Can Running Make You Smarter point once again to the importance of allowing students enough time to be active throughout the school day. Isn't that a good reason to pay greater attention on finding some additional recess and play time in the school day? 

The Test Participation Penalty

I wonder how many parents have submitted a letter to opt a child out of state mandated testing (MCAS2.0)? And in the process of opting-out, were any of those parents called to discuss their choice with the school administrator? According to the current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, parents need to have a choice in a child's education. It appears, however, that "choice" has limits.According to state and federal government, there should be a "choice" of educational setting.  School setting is a choice, whether it is public, charter, private, or religious. That's a good choice according to the government. Using federal funds to pay for vouchers? That's the current federal proposal. And our government claims that that kind of choice is also a "good" choice.However, if you exercise your parental judgement by choosing to opt your child out of long, arduous, standardized tests like MCAS 2.0 or PARCC, then your choice as a parent is questionable. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education really does not want parents to make that choice. Why? Because in assessments, unless a significant number of students participate in those tests, the reported results may become skewed or inaccurate.The issue of test participation rates is part of the newest federal education act, ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). The current DESE draft of Massachusetts' ESSA application states that:

E. Participation Rate. Describe how the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into its system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 200.15.A school’s summative performance level will be lowered if that school assesses less than 95% of students in the aggregate or for any subgroup that meets a minimum N size of 20.

Broken down to simpler terms, this statement means that if a group of parents decides that MCAS 2.0, the standardized test in Massachusetts, is harmful to their child, the entire school and school district could be penalized. The penalty is to lower a school's rating (Level 1, high to Level 5, low) by one level if less than 95% of students eligible for testing participate.Here's a mathematical example: A Pre-K through Grade 4 school may have 500 students. The two grades that participate in state testing within that school are Grades 3 and 4. Perhaps there are 100 students in each of these grades (200 total). If the parents of 11 student request that their children be excused from MCAS 2.0, as is their parental right, then according to the regulation, the state will lower the school's level rating by one.I believe a new feature of the ESSA draft is that participation rates apply to subgroups of students. An example of a subgroup would  be a group of students from a given school who are also identified as English Language Learners, Students with Disabilities, or Economically Disadvantaged students.  Applying the 5% non-participation rate penalty, if there are 25 children identified as Students with Disabilities in Grades 3 and 4, and parents of as few as 2 students choose to opt them out, then the school's level rating could be lowered.The stakes for building and district administrators to maintain excellent school ratings are quite high, and therein lies the conflict between parental choice and the unfair penalties for participation rates. The feds bully the states, the states in turn bully the districts, and the principals and parents are caught up in a conflict of choosing what is best for students.Parents should not have their decision as to whether or not to subject their child to standardized MCAS 2.0 testing questioned if opting-out is truly a choice. If too many opt-outs skew the test results, maybe it's time to look at the value of the assessment.