When More (Time On Task) is Less (Effective)

2013fielddaybSome years ago, I enrolled in an Italian language class at Boston Language Institute. The class met for 3 hours – no break – several times each week. The instructor only spoke my “new” language, Italian, for the entirety of the three hours. We had some written materials, some listening resources, but mainly we were expected to immerse ourselves in Italian. If this sounds like what happens in a classroom, I would agree.

The first thing I learned from this experience was how utterly frustrating it is for a learner to function outside of his or her native language. But one of the larger experiences for me was the chance to experience what it must feel like for a student to attempt to sustain concentration and focus for extended stretches of time without a break.

By Hour 2 of my 3-hour class, I felt hopeless and defeated. I could no longer take another idea into my brain. I left the class with a dull and aching head and lots of questions as to what the goal of that instruction was. If this was my experience with sustained time-on-task learning as an adult, it wasn’t hard to imagine the same sense of frustration and defeat applying to the young learners in my classroom.

Regardless of whether or not the student is learning in a non-native language, as many of my former students were, extended periods of concentration does not necessarily yield higher academic achievement. Whether adult or child, the brain needs what the brain needs. And in learning new things, the brain needs some time off to make connections and absorb learning.

Since the inception of education reform, standardized curriculum, and high-stakes testing, educators have been pressured to prove that students are learning. The proof has, to date, been in the form of high stakes testing. Students, teachers, and schools who do not achieve arbitrary scores indicating that the prescribed curriculum has been mastered are called out. The trickle down response to test scores that are less than stellar has been toward reducing or eliminating children’s recess time.

Why? Because when test scores look bad, the first response is that the students need “more time” to learn the material. That time has to come from somewhere, so shaving minutes away from recess is the first response. To me, this sounds a lot like what I did as an unprepared college student studying for a final in Western Civilization: cramming.

Reducing or eliminating students’ active time does not mean better test results. The brain needs some time to process and absorb new learning. Kids who fidget less, focus more.

So what our kids need is similar to what my experience as a student proved for me: more recess. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s a statement from a recent Time Magazine article from October 23, 2017:

… a 2010 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found positive associations between recess and academic performance. “There is substantial evidence that physical activity can help improve academic achievement, including grades and standardized test scores,” the report said.

More time-on-task does not equate to more learning.

 

Advertisements

The Elephant in the Classroom

Another mass shooting, another set of knee-jerk responses.

Once again, there is a call to arm educators and school staff in an effort to thwart an active shooter in a school building. It is yet another measure that has been proposed to protect students while in school, but certainly not the first.

At first we practiced soft- and hard-lockdown procedures. Which morphed into active shooter drills employing ALICE (Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate) and other options-based practices. Read more about ALICE here.

While I was glad that a protocol had been worked out by people far more expert in such situations than I would ever be, these protocols can make adults and children very anxious.  ALICE and options-based responses are not a 100% guarantee of success.

Schools sometimes have resource officers stationed within them. At Stoneman-Douglas in Parkland, FL, there has been wide-spread criticism of the resource officers who did not enter the building as the gunman was shooting. The officers, I believe, were armed with pistols which would have been no match for the AR-15 assault weapon the shooter was carrying.  Would a resource office shooting a pistol have saved lives and prevented injuries in the Parkland incident? Were those officers slow in assessing the situation and their response to it, or were they incompetent? Either way, the officers must now live with their decisions and the consequences for the rest of their lives.

Now Mr. Trump and others are raising the idea of arming educators, or to be more precise, arming some educators. That elite group of people would be reward by a bonus for their skill and willingness to take on an active shooter within a school building using a concealed weapon. And while teachers carrying weapons is allowed in some state and schools already, this horrifying proposal – horrifying to anyone who has ever worked in an elementary, middle, or even high school classroom with impulsive children – is being touted as the magical solution to make our schools safer.

I don’t know why anyone would think school safety would be enhanced by an educator carrying a weapon. Here’s a statistic from a 2007 NYTimes article.  In New York City, police officers, trained in weaponry and in responding to tense shooter situations:

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

Maureen Downey reaffirms this statistic and more in this Atlanta Journal Constitution article, “Cops face hard time hitting targets in gunfire“. Law enforcement officers who train extensively know that hitting the “target” in a tense situation happens less than 20% of the time. How does that translate to educators? What will the collateral damage be in such a situation?

To me, it seems the path of least resistance is to come up with more protocols and reactions to armed shooters. The hard route? That would be having the courage to eliminate the types of weapons used most frequently in mass shootings: assault weapons. Is a weapon that obliterates everything in its path, that causes such massive and total damage to human life (see “What I learned from treating the victims from Parkland“) necessary for civilians to protect themselves?

The elephant in the classroom is that, despite all the protocols and proposals for protecting schools and churches and other venues, mass shooters, some with some very severe mental issues, continue to get access to some very powerful weapons. And unless we are willing to say that this style of weapon has no place in civilian society, until our lawmakers are willing to walk away from lobbyists who protect the manufacturers of these weapons, until access to such high-powered guns is taken away, no amount of hiding in a classroom or arming staff members will save anyone.

Carrying any kind of gun would never be for me: I had no intention of using it whether in a classroom or anyplace else. But I understand that is not everyone’s feeling. I think Emma Gonzalez expresses it best:

Screenshot 2018-02-26 06.30.45

 

 

 

In the Land of Missed Opportunities

pexels-photo-619636.jpegWhat will it take to break through the glass ceiling of education leadership in Massachusetts? The answer to that is still to be uncovered.

On Monday, the Board of Education met to make a final candidate selection for Massachusetts’ next Commissioner of Education. There were three candidates: Penny Schwinn, Angelica Infante-Green, and Jeffrey Riley.  Two of the candidates, both women, were from “out-of-state”; Mr. Riley is a known quantity who has most recently been the Receiver of the Lawrence Public Schools.

One would think that with two women in the final three, there would be a fairly decent chance that the next Commissioner might be a woman, but that would mean ignoring what seems to be an unspoken qualification for education commissioner: “known local quantity”.  Mr. Riley currently holds the position of Receiver in Lawrence Public Schools and has since that city’s schools were put under state receivership. He recently resigned the Receiver’s position and one wonders if that were serendipitous or by design.

By many accounts, Ms. Infante-Green’s interview was quite remarkable; she is a strong advocate of both bilingual and special education. As a parent of two bilingual children, one diagnosed with autism, she understands these two important issues intimately. While I disagree with some of her positions, she would have been a formidable advocate for bilingual students and for the differently-abled. To my thinking, the BESE members’ failure to select her as Masachusetts’ next Commissioner of Education is a lost opportunity: the opportunity to select the first woman to head the Commonwealth’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the first Latina to head Massachusetts’ education.

From each board members commentary, I think many of them supported Ms. Infante-Green’s candidacy, but could not, in the end make that selection. It felt as if many of the eight who selected Mr. Riley did so based on a perception of “earning” the position after his tenure in Lawrence. It was safer. So what we seem to have here is a safe, unimaginative selection; hopefully I will be proven incorrect about that last part.

Instead of breaking that glass ceiling, Massachusetts’ Board of Elementary and Secondary Education chose the safe, known, local candidate. In doing so, have state policy-makers missed an opportunity for greatness? I believe so. Missed opportunity indeed.

Adventures in (GIC) Health Care

If you live in Massachusetts and access health insurance through the Group Insurance Commission (GIC), you are likely aware of the swirling vortex of controversy that has surrounded the January 18 GIC decision to limit health care options for all subscriber/members whether active of retired.  I’m pretty sure the GIC didn’t anticipate the outcry and reaction of members.  That is a disgrace. GIC needs to be transparent in their actions and they need to hear from each and every member about the changes they are proposing.

The public hearing for the Northeast Region was hosted by the UML O’Leary Library. Chaos from the start. Although many attendees had followed GIC’s direction to RSVP (and never received a promised response back), names were not on the pre-registration list. By arriving 30 minutes early, I was able to take a seat inside of the auditorium; not everyone was so lucky. Many who responded to the public hearing invite were not allowed in to the room as it was at capacity.

Roberta Herman, a physician and Executive Director of GIC, made an introduction to the meeting by reading a release from GIC’s board offering that the Board would add an agenda item to their regularly scheduled February 1 meeting. In sum, the item would suggest that the decision to exclude current health care providers from GIC’s 2018 offerings be rescinded. Dr. Herman alluded to hearing the GIC’s subscribers loud and clear and she suggested that the decision to limit providers would be reversed. I, however, would suggest members continue to pressure GIC about this issue. Please continue to contact GIC directly via mail or email AND continue to contact state representatives.

Those who did speak were passionate in stating their displeasure at the current GIC decision to limit carriers and in making the case that GIC has not fulfilled its obligations to public employees OR the municipalities belonging to the group. The rates for 2018 have not yet been set nor have the plans have not been approved, so cities and towns are being asked to commit to GIC’s offerings blindly. Watching GIC roll over last year to outrageous increases in pharmaceuticals by shifting the costs to members by means of doubled co-pays (retirees), decreases to formularies, and a 67% increase in deductibles doesn’t leave one with much hope for 2018’s plans and rate increases.

Here, however, in no particular order are some points raised by speakers at the hearing last evening.  If you are upset disgusted by the middle-of-the-night attempt to pull the rug out from under GIC subscribers, don’t let up the pressure. As one speaker stated last night, the only reason for GIC to backtrack on this effort to limit providers is that they got caught.

  • Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts, two programs GIC proposed to eliminate account for 90,000 members each while Fallon accounts for 20,000. The membership of GIC has been reported at 420,000 (plus) – so about half of the membership has to pick something else.
  • Active employees’ choices are further limited by WHERE in the Commonwealth they live. Neighborhood Health Plan and Health New England are not offered in some geographic areas. Checking last year’s decision-making guide, which is all that is currently available to us, Health New England (HNE) serves Worcester and west; Neighborhood Health Plan (NHP) does not serve Berkshire, Hampshire or Franklin Counties. Here’s the link to last year’s guide as a “loose” reference.
  • Comprehensive services for transgender employees are available through two of the eliminated plans – Tufts and Harvard Pilgrim. Those services are NOT available through the plans on the consolidated list.
  • Despite what Governor Baker claimed earlier in the week (MassLive story updated to reflect the Governor’s more recent statement about poor rollout), subscribers may indeed be unable to access doctors (specialists and primary care) and hospitals with whom they have established a relationship. Several speakers, including medical professionals, spoke about medical entities that do not accept insurance benefits from the GIC-approved vendors (Unicare, HNE, NHP) as the reimbursement rates are unrealistically low.
  • Medical professionals spoke about both questionable financial stability of at least two of the companies approved by GIC and the quality ratings for all three of them.  One speaker – and I am so sorry I didn’t catch his name – had done research through Consumer’s Union. The ratings for all Massachusetts insurers and the NCQA (quality rankings) can be found here.  Notice which 3 providers have exemplary ratings. I know I did.

What happens next is still in flux.  While the GIC is making a motion to rescind their decision, there is no guarantee that the motion will carry, unless of course, public pressure continues to make it difficult for GIC to make decisions without being thoroughly transparent. Bigger issues also need to be addressed. GIC plans/benefits have deteriorated greatly over the last years, as have private sector insurance benefits. With a group as large as GIC’s though, there is opportunity to push back at out-of-control health care costs, particularly the outrageous profiteering from drug companies.

The GIC also needs to fix the decision-making process to be more transparent. Stakeholders should never be blind-sided by news that impacts such personal decision-making as healthcare. Public Hearings should happen well in advance of decision-making. Participants – cities, towns, public agencies, subscribers – should hear at least a year in advance when plan consolidation or any other major changes to health benefits are under consideration. What happened in this case was that cities and towns were required to commit to belonging to GIC a month prior to the consolidation decision. That’s bad enough, but the impact of plan changes to deductibles, copays, and premiums are still to be developed and are unknown.

Representation on the GIC board must include more members from stakeholder groups. Currently the health economist position is vacant. Is there proportional representation from public service unions, or is the “quasi-appointed” (the GIC’s term, not mine) group so heavily populated by folks with no skin in the game?

Stay awake people. The January 18 move to consolidate and change health care for more than half of us was accomplished under cover. It could happen again. Don’t let it.

 

Keeping Things Real

The Group Insurance Commission or GIC here in Massachusetts is at it again. Fellow public employees, active and retired, will recall last year’s efforts by the commission to bring health costs under control. I’d like to think attention was paid to questioning spiraling health care increases, particularly from pharmaceuticals, when the GIC set last year’s rates and policies. However,  the cost controlling aspect of last year’s adventures in rate setting became less about holding-the-line on increased costs,  and more about shifting all the increases to the subscribers.

Last year, subscribers found deductible increases doubling, retirees had co-pays in medi-gap insurances doubling, and some drugs were removed from formularies.  We survived that one, although as a retiree, I noticed my health insurance premium increased 13% over 2016. That cost change does not include increases from raising the deductibles (a 67% increase for individuals last time around) or increases to co-pays, particularly targeted toward retired members last year.

The GIC held a meeting last year and seemed shocked that GIC members from across the Commonwealth were upset by these increases.

Now before anyone goes all “you should be glad you have health insurance at all” on me, yes I am glad to have this benefit. I too, have experienced private sector insurance increases and realize that health coverage increases are pretty steep no matter whom you work for. Unless of course, you happen to be a member of Congress and get something pretty sweet for practically no cost – but that’s another story for another day.

So fast forward to 2018. In fact, let’s go right to January 19, 2018 and the GIC Commissioner’s regular monthly meeting.  This time, the Commissioners decided to eliminate some of the plans and offer fewer health care choices.  Read about which ones here, but interestingly three plans that were eliminated from the GIC’s offerings are ones that serve half of the GIC’s 442,000 members (that would be Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts, and Fallon). Read the Boston Business Journal article to get more specifics on which plans made the cut and which did not. If you believe Governor Baker, “practically everybody” will be able to keep the same trusted doctors and hospitals with whom they have an established relationship. On behalf of the 50% of us who are going to need to change plans, I say we shall see.

GIC members may have an opportunity to find out more as the Commission takes this information on the road around the Commonwealth. In Lowell, that opportunity presents itself this Thursday evening, January 25 (5 pm) at UML’s O’Leary Library on South Campus (Rom 222). That address is

UMass Lowell

O’Leary Library*, Room 222 (South Campus)

61 Wilder Street

Lowell, MA 01854

Parking: Wilder Lot/Visitor Metered Parking Lot

You must RSVP to attend the meeting. Please be sure to do that by emailing the GIC at gic.events@massmail.state.ma.us. The link below should take you to the GIC’s flyer for other venues across the state.

GIC PUBLIC HEARING – 2018_FLYER

.

 

 

 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

img_1871Day four’s Meditation from the Mat really resonated with me. That is so not only because of the simple truth, but also because what happens on a daily – or is it hourly – basis in these unprecedented times calls us to do something.

When legislative leaders in the United States can’t find money to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but can find a (very) sizeable tax give-away to very rich and powerful donors, it is time to act.

When the Congress of the United States entertains an offset to the deficits that will result from said give-aways by reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits, it is time to act.

When state aid to schools is based upon 24 year old (plus) formulas that result in underfunded public schools, it is time to act.

When our unique differences are a flashpoint for senseless violence and discrimination, it is time to act.

We must act, we need to speak our truth when we witness or experience those things that harm not only our personal selves, but our collective self. Because we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

The whole of this quote from a Hopi Elder

can be found on p 7-8 of Meditations from the Mat:

“There is a river flowing now, very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart and suffer greatly. Know that the river has its destination. The elders say we must push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open and our heads above the water. See who is in there with you and celebrate. At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally, least of all ourselves, for the moment we do that, our spiritual growth comes to a halt. The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves; banish the word ‘struggle’ from your attitude and vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred way and in celebration. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

 

Teacher

2014-11-25-lincoln-024I started reading Meditations from the Mat this weekend. The writings are daily practices in mindful meditation written by Rolf Gates and Katrina Kenison and had come highly recommended by a group of yogis I’ve encountered in an online group.

In explaining his own yoga journey, from a weekend retreat at Kripalu to yoga teacher training, Rolf Gates relayed a story about an encounter with Baron Baptiste, renowned yoga teacher and author.

…”Are you a teacher?” I said I was, but the words didn’t ring true. I taught classes, but I was not a teacher.

For a while I puzzled over how that could be true; if one taught, one must be a teacher, right?

As Rolf explained, the act of teaching is the act of drawing out. In yoga, that means drawing out what the student may already know about breath, alignments, and postures.

In education today, do we have the flexibility to draw out of our students what they already know and can connect to? Can we lead them to knowledge without having to force it in before the students are ready for it?

Standards in a general sense, are good end-goals for education and educators. Where standards and standards-based education go awry is when those end points are unreasonable or developmentally inappropriate or, in some cases, designed to foster failure. The purpose of early childhood education should not be a dress rehearsal for intermediate grade level standardized testing. Yet it sometimes is.

As an example, I have heard from participants in the graduate level literacy class I led tell of kindergarten students writing or keyboarding.  This is wrong. Forcing young learners toward skills that are outside what is developmentally appropriate for them is a disservice to them.

Teachers want to teach, to draw out, what their students know to make connections. We want learning to be relevant, to spark curiosity and to stay with our students. We want to teach.