Poverty and Student Achievement

I've read more and more bully-pulpit Tweeters, big-time Bloggers, famous FB-posters and powerful Pundits lately suggesting that to fix the problem with K12 student achievement, all we need to do is solve the problem of poverty.

First off, let me say the problem of student achievement is hard enough to fix. In fact, we're still trying. But until we get our focus off all this time-wasting standardized testing nonsense and find more ways to involve students and parents in assuming responsibility for learning success, improved achievement is not likely to happen.

What will work, you say? Well, I have a plan that will work. How do I know that? It worked before in an innovative school many years ago and it will work now.

What did we do? We required each student (with a parent or mentor) to develop a Personal Learning Plan - a listing of learning goals achieved; a listing of what yet needed to be achieved; and lastly and importantly, what resources the student needed to achieve it.

Why would this help? It puts each learner in charge of his or her own learning success. Not the teacher, not the principal, not the school, not the school board, not Sec. Duncan or Pres. Obama.

Let's ask ourselves, "Who is fundamentally responsible for our own learning?" Answer: "We are!"

Sure others can help us, motivate us, observe us, praise us, correct us, show us, invite us...but for us to learn, we must learn it. No one else can do it for us. We can be led to the water, they can even salt our hay, but if we are to partake of it, we must choose it.

It's that simple. Require each student to create, enact, assess their own Personal Learning Plan. Revisit it regularly. Report on it frequently to parents, mentors, advisors, teachers, the public at large, if you wish.

That single transfer of the major responsibility for learning to the learner can enable this increase of student achievement we've all been looking for.

No, it may not work well for everyone. Some will need more help than others. Some will choose not to do it. But bottom line, more will learn more.

Let's close with an observation on learning and poverty. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say ignorance and poverty. Years of research show these terms are positively correlated. That does not mean one causes the other.

When I started school over 65 years ago, many students were poor, especially by todays' standards. But our own expectations, and those of our parents, resulted in many of us becoming successful learners, graduating high school, seeking post-secondary training or education. Some did not, and dropped out of school, but were able to find work. There is little of that kind of work left any longer that pays well.

In a nutshell, poverty doesn't mean you can't learn. It does mean you may not have the resources or encouragement that others may have, but we all know you can succeed anyway. In fact, many of our recent immigrants provide ample evidence of learning success when parents care and students work hard to learn.

Education's Vote

So, who (OK, whom) will we support in the next election for our Education President?

We haven't had a strong supporter in the White House in a long, long time. Neither party!

Where can we turn for political leaders who will support kids, parents, teachers, principals and all those in education.

The current focus on standardized testing does nothing to help K12 learning. It wastes time, money, talent and the futures of our learners.

Millions of dollars from the Pearsons of the testing world go into the PACS and SuperPACS of politicians for reelection and more support of the Pearsons.

What thoughts do you have on this tragic situation? We can't keep supporting those who won't support us. Can we? Will we?

We need some solutions fast!

Grading the Graders: More Meaningless Madness!

Have you been following the recent drive among pundits and pols to find a new use for those standardized tests they give to our kids?

Those costly tests, which also take much time away from learners and teachers, are largely useless in helping individual students. The sample of questions and student answers just don't tell teachers enough about what to do with the data to actually help the student.

This testing costs hundreds of millions of dollars every year, in addition to even more priceless lost learning time. The sizable profits made from the sales to over 16,000 school districts and state departments of education end up in the coffers of the testing moguls. Followup political payback donations go into the PAC pockets of the pols of both parties.

What we have here is a government-endorsed license to steal money from our schools. Worse, it robs teachers of critical classroom time-on-task for teaching and learning.

Could it be even worse, you ask? The answer is, "Yes!"

Let me explain.

About a year and a half ago, I wrote the following blog on student grading:

====

To grade or not to grade, that is the question!

What's the answer?

How did you feel the first time you had a grade attached to you? You know...a letter C, maybe with a + or a -. Or maybe a number, like 82 or 69?

Suppose you had a good grade way back when; did you deserve it? Or, how about a bad grade in 3rd grade? Was your performance really that bad? Well, the teacher must have thought so.

How did it affect your view of yourself? Were you the better or the worse because of it?

=====

No way can we grade another human being this way. No simple number, no single letter and no standardized test score adequately describes human performance. We are far too complex.

So, if it doesn't make sense to label a student with a letter or a number or a profile of numbers, why would you consider grading a teacher using a student's test score? That's now what some districts are doing.

Yes, it can be helpful to teachers to have a checklist of needed skills, to assess their performance using video or visits from other experienced teachers. It makes no sense to include measures that are not their own.

Here's some recent history:

Since NCLB and other standardized tests were little help to individual learners, they were then used to grade our schools. If enough students in a school had low scores, the school was labeled "F" for failing.

Next an onslaught of fixers would come forward to fix the school. Never mind it rarely worked, by then many parents moved their children elsewhere. Charter schools emerged as an alternative. Most schools never improved.

Then emerged the idea of using the meaningless test scores to measure teachers. If we can measure a plant manager by the number of widgets he gets out the door each day, why not do the same with teachers? Teachers can be graded too, just like butter and milk.

Folks, our kids are not widgets. They bring a unique blend of talents and needs to each classroom. Regrettably, they are largely grouped together by how old they are, and not by what they need to know or the resources they must have.

A teacher may find 30 kids in her room at the end of the school year, completely different from the 30 she had the previous September. Many students can't or won't come to school on any given day, so the lesson given was a lesson lost. Some students have parents who care, and others who don't. Some work hard in school and see it as an opportunity to improve their lives; others clearly do not.

Each of these children yield a test score which can be accumulated to grade their teacher. Of course, we can also use it to grade the principals. Just because we can, should we?

Permit me to ask a simple, rhetorical question:

Is this use of student test scores a valid measure of a teacher's performance? Should we assign a grade to a teacher using those irrelevant scores?

These are very important questions and they need an answer.

Test-makers and pols and policy-moguls say yes.

What's YOUR answer?

Speak up! We need to be heard!

Twitter. Email. Facebook. Write your legislators. Contact President Obama. Letter your Editors.

Those many good teachers out there would be grateful for you spreading your answers for them.

Common Core Needs a New Learning Corps!

"There may not be any curriculum that every learner needs to know, but there surely are many curriculums that most need learners to know."

There's lots of talk out there in Web 2+ land these days about learning standards, standardized testing, common core curriculums, even having teachers read scripts to students to assure that all learners are hearing the same thing. Madness abounds! Who even knows when the kids are listening to anything the teacher says.

A teacher's curriculum delivery plate is far too full these days, not just with standards, but with all the other cultural, social, political, and local necessities that constitute what children are expected to know. Well, at least expect to be tested on. For more on this topic, read Jamie Vollmer' List: http://www.jamievollmer.com/list.html

It's my intent in this blog to tilt a different windmill. Pancho, hand me my Quixotian lance. What do our students really need to know? The answers, whatever they are, must be doable.

One of the recently touted solutions is Common Core standards. It makes sense, really. At some acceptable level of competency, kids need to know how read, write, compute. The devil is in the details of when and how much. Not all will pass 5th grade tests in 5th grade.

I'll digress on this last observation, because the enemy of standards is us. We have a plethora of disconnected school districts. We group our learners by how old they are, not by what they know and need to know. For more on this topic read "Animal School" - fable with a moral that's been around for over 50 years:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/oaar/animal-school.html

Why group them at all? Why not deliver the Common Core standards to each learner, one at a time. We could make lessons available, with the requisite testing, online 24/7 and even include real, live tutorial and mentor help for those who need it. Hey, it's already happening. But, let's have all states adopt the same definition of standards: every learner needs to know these skills and understandings before diploma time. Maybe we could even have a Confederation of States Commission to oversee it and let the states get on with other business.

Classrooms could then become a gathering-place of learners with like interests and comparable readiness to learn the non-core curriculum du jour or the semester....watercolor art, choral music, journaling, geocaching, poem-making, etc. Why, they might even choose something new to learn that would motivate a more aggressive mastery of their Common Core standards. Students could even form learning teams and help one another, teachers assisting as needed. And our teachers wouldn't have to read from teleprompters either.

With 16,000 school districts and an equal number of school boards, alignment for effectively delivering common standards is nearly an impossible task. Let's let the new technologies and Web 2.0+ and a Common Core Commission of States help deliver what our current classrooms can't. Then let's create New Classrooms to deliver what Common Core can't: Competencies in Action.

I know, I know! My windmill is a dream. And so is my tilting. But dreams can happen, one newly revised classroom at a time, a place where learners are ready, willing, and able to show us that they know. Even Horace Mann might approve.

More Nonsense!

I read this lead story in our local St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_19015419

For those of you who remember Popeye cartoons, I experienced one of those "I can't stands it no more" experiences and penned this piece...OK, OK....typed this terse and pithy retort.

What's your two cents on it? Thanks!

======

Dear PP:

I read your interesting piece on student test scores today.

As a teacher celebrating his golden anniversary of teaching this year, I have a comment. I'll try to be terse and pithy.

What matters most in kid's learning is having the motivation and readiness to learn. If the learner doesn't care and/or isn't ready for the curriculum being presented, almost nothing else matters....family poverty, geography or residence or school, teacher excellence, school budget, you name it.

Next in importance and relevance comes the host of other factors that help: student interest, parental involvement, time on task, conducive classroom, pervasive learning environment....there's more, but you get the point.

These ill-conceived standardized tests we've all been sold are designed to measure the performance of an hypothetical standardized student. I hasten to add that this student does not actually exist. He/she is an amalgam of the norming process by the test-makers and designed to give an abstracted average of performance. Furthermore, these tests don't just measure what happens in a classroom. They measure what's been learned in the environment at large during one's waking hours.

Real learners don't come abstracted that way, being as they are good at some kinds of learning and less so at others. Since these tests are little help in helping actual students, we now use them to measure schools, or worse, teachers for which they were not designed. That said, it seems to me that standardized testing is largely a waste of time and an increasingly bigger pile of money better spent elsewhere.

It is not surprising to find that motivated, ready-to-learn students can do well almost anywhere, (exceptions duly noted). Abe Lincoln, we are told, got much of his learning by the light of the cabin fireplace. By today's standards, many of my generation came from neighborhoods and went to schools that would be called impoverished or substandard. We did not think of ourselves that way, however, and many of us ended up with an education that helped us not only find a job, but lead a modest, "examined life."

I do not deny that it is a very different world today. Although the standard of living for almost everyone is higher, the perceived value of an education is diminished in the eyes of many. Good paying jobs for manual labor are mostly gone, and the ones requiring more extensive learning are fading, too. I remain surprised and grateful that so many students do want to learn.

If we'd stop this irrelevant debate and invite both parents and students to join us, I truly believe we'd have more learning more.

Cheers,

Better Learning for ALL!:Locking the Locker Room Door!

Just like the weather these days, everybody talks about educational reform, but almost nobody does anything about it. Except for maybe a ray of sunshine here and a thunderstorm there, schools and the kids in them continue pretty much as Horace Mann started them almost 200 years ago.

Sad, isn't it? We know a lot more about how kids learn, but we rarely can do anything about it. We have more tools for learning than ever before, but even when we have them (which is also far too rare), the teachers haven't been trained in how to use them.

Now there are a few dozen exceptions to this tragic pickle jar we find ourselves in, some schools with staff and kids that have leapt ahead in their teaching and learning. Most don't last for long. Leaders leave, teachers burn out, funding fails and the lamp of learning is dimmed again.

Furthermore, we find it almost impossible to replicate them anywhere else, no matter how extensive the documentation and supportive research. The chemistry is never quite the same.

What can we do to change this tragedy?

Let's dream dreams. What if we brought together some caring, creative folks and asked them to imagine a school, or even better, a learning environment, where more kids learned more. We'd stipulate that we can't make all kids learning everything right now, so we'll settle for more learning more.

We keep this team of change agents together until they come up with a Manifesto for K-12 Learning Success, with the motto: "That More Will Learn More!" Let's go way out on a limb and say we can list what's needed and what it will cost, and we can find a way to fund it, too.

What's next? Educational paradise? Hardly. Why?

We have over 16,000 school districts in America, all controlled by separate school boards, superintendents, principals, plus state boards and agencies, and a host of federal regulations if you want their federal funds. What do you think are the chances of convincing tens of thousands of entities to adopt a unilateral plan for change? What do you think are the chances of changing even a few? As the old saying goes, "Slim to none!"

If you've been in K-12 or higher-education for any length of time, you know this is true. With the local control of schools, directions for change can't come from outside. It's hard enough to make them come from the inside. And even if you can light a fire big enough to make that happen, how do you keep it from burning itself out over time?

So, allow me to suggest the only firm conclusion I can draw from my own effort with school reform: True change begins and ends with changed practices, one practicer at a time. The proof is in each dish of pudding. Here's the story:

http://www.bobpearlman.org/Learning21/saturn.htm

Start with your own classroom. Here's one more key tip: involve the students as change partners. Give them more responsibility for being in charge of planning, doing and reporting on their own learning. Let the parent be their partner. You are the team member. Each student leads his own Personal Learning Plan.

That was the most significant idea at our Saturn School of Tomorrow: the Personal Learning Plan, owned by each student. It works. Listen to the last line of this video made by the Saturn School kids to tell the whole world about their school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGLeGWLWNcQ

Never give up. Change what you can. Pass it on and pay it forward.

Now what's this business about "Locking the Locker Room Door" in the title above? Comedian Bill Cosby told a joke with a moral once about the coach who got his players all pumped up at half time to mount a major comeback. They were chomping at the bit, ready to go out and win the game, but the coach couldn't find the key to unlock the locker room door.

Make sure you have the key.

And, may the Force of Change be with you.

The Teacher's Curriculum & Duties Plate

Ever wonder why teaching is so much harder today? It's never been easy, of course.

But take a look how more and more is required of those who teach our kids. And then we want to measure teacher effectiveness with the test scores of the kids they teach.

If you can't hug a teacher, thank him or her profusely!

=====

The Ever Increasing Burden on America’s Public Schools

BY JAMIE ROBERT VOLLMER

America’s public schools can be traced back to the year 1640. The Massachusetts Puritans established schools to: 1) Teach basic reading, some writing and arithmetic skills, and

2) Cultivate values that serve a democratic society (some history and civics implied).

The founders of these schools assumed that families and churches bore the major responsibility for raising a child. Gradually, science and geography were added, but the curriculum was limited and remained focused for 260 years.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, politicians, academics, members of the clergy, and business leaders saw public schools as a logical site for the assimilation of immigrants and the social engineering of the citizens—and workers—of the new industrial age. They began to expand the curriculum and assign additional duties. That trend has accelerated ever since.

From 1900 to 1910, we shifted to our public schools responsibilities related to

• Nutrition

• Immunization

• Health (Activities in the health arena multiply every year.)

From 1910 to 1930, we added

• Physical education (including organized athletics)

• The Practical Arts/Domestic Science/Home economics (including sewing and cooking)

• Vocational education (including industrial and agricultural education)

• Mandated school transportation

In the 1940s, we added

• Business education (including typing, shorthand, and bookkeeping)

• Art and music

• Speech and drama

• Half-day kindergarten

• School lunch programs (We take this for granted today, but it was a huge step to shift to the schools the job of feeding America’s children one third of their daily meals.)

In the 1950s, we added

• Expanded science and math education

• Safety education

• Driver’s education

• Expanded music and art education

• Stronger foreign language requirements

• Sex education (Topics continue to escalate.)

In the 1960s, we added

• Advanced Placement programs

• Head Start

• Title I

• Adult education

• Consumer education (purchasing resources, rights and responsibilities)

• Career education (occupational options, entry level skill requirements)

• Peace, leisure, and recreation education [Loved those sixties.]

In the 1970s, the breakup of the American family accelerated, and we added

• Drug and alcohol abuse education

• Parenting education (techniques and tools for healthy parenting)

• Behavior adjustment classes (including classroom and communication skills)

• Character education

• Special education (mandated by federal government)

• Title IX programs (greatly expanded athletic programs for girls)

• Environmental education

• Women’s studies

• African-American heritage education

• School breakfast programs (Now some schools feed America’s children two-thirds of their daily meals throughout the school year and all summer. Sadly, these are the only decent meals some children receive.)

In the 1980s, the floodgates opened, and we added

• Keyboarding and computer education

• Global education

• Multicultural/Ethnic education

• Nonsexist education

• English-as-a-second-language and bilingual education

• Teen pregnancy awareness

• Hispanic heritage education

• Early childhood education

• Jump Start, Early Start, Even Start, and Prime Start

• Full-day kindergarten

• Preschool programs for children at risk

• After-school programs for children of working parents

• Alternative education in all its forms

• Stranger/danger education

• Antismoking education

• Sexual abuse prevention education

• Expanded health and psychological services

• Child abuse monitoring (a legal requirement for all teachers)

In the 1990s, we added

• Conflict resolution and peer mediation

• HIV/AIDS education

• CPR training

• Death education

• America 2000 initiatives (Republican)

• Inclusion

• Expanded computer and internet education

• Distance learning

• Tech Prep and School to Work programs

• Technical Adequacy

• Assessment

• Post-secondary enrollment options

• Concurrent enrollment options

• Goals 2000 initiatives (Democrat)

• Expanded Talented and Gifted opportunities

• At risk and dropout prevention

• Homeless education (including causes and effects on children)

• Gang education (urban centers)

• Service learning

• Bus safety, bicycle safety, gun safety, and water safety education

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, we have added

• No Child Left Behind (Republican)

• Bully prevention

• Anti-harassment policies (gender, race, religion, or national origin)

• Expanded early childcare and wrap around programs

• Elevator and escalator safety instruction

• Body Mass Index evaluation (obesity monitoring)

• Organ donor education and awareness programs

• Personal financial literacy

• Entrepreneurial and innovation skills development

• Media literacy development

• Contextual learning skill development

• Health and wellness programs

• Race to the Top (Democrat)

This list does not include the addition of multiple, specialized topics within each of the traditional subjects. It also does not include the explosion of standardized testing and test prep activities, or any of the onerous reporting requirements imposed by the federal government, such as four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates, parental notification of optional supplemental services, comprehensive restructuring plans, and reports of Adequate Yearly Progress.

It’s a ponderous list.

Each item has merit, and all have their ardent supporters, but the truth is that we have added these responsibilities without adding a single minute to the school calendar in six decades. No generation of teachers and administrators in the history of the world has been told to fulfill this mandate: not just teach children, but raise them!

© 2011 Jamie Vollmer | To purchase this list in poster form or to invite Jamie to speak visit www.jamievollmer.com