Tim Fredrick's ELA Teaching Blog

Giving power and responsibility to adolescents

Last night, I hosted a book group who read Robert Epstein's The Case Against Adolescence.  I came across this book in the spring when it came out and wanted to get together with other English teachers to talk about his ideas.

It is a long book and I'm sure my summary will not do it justice, but here goes ... Epstein argues that adolescence as a time of angst and turmoil is a construct which is particular to western, post-industrial cultures.  In other cultures and in our history, adolescents were not treated as children, but given a multitude of responsibility for themselves and their families.  Epstein cites several research studies to show that adolescents have the cognitive, physical, and emotional capabilities of adults.  As a culture, we infantilize them and it is as a result of this infatilization that adolescents are angry, depressed, and rebellious.  He gives many examples, but to me the most interesting and telling is that when a young woman under the age of 18 has a baby, she is responsible for making medical decisions for the baby, but because she is under 18 cannot legally make medical decisions for herself.

I was reading this book in the last few months of the school year and I was reconsidering my relationships with my students.  I sent out a few e-mails seeing if anyone else was interested in reading the book and discussing it with me.  I met with four other ELA teachers last night to discuss the book.

There was some criticism for his ideas, especially those which advocate for a series of competency tests which teens could take to earn the right to marry, drive, drink, etc.  This seems to be quite a big shift in our culture.  Despite this and other criticism, we had a good time talking about what happens when we treat our adolescent students more like adults - giving them choices and giving them responsibilities.  We discussed practical ways to do this in the classroom.  Some of the ideas that came forward were that students should be in charge of the bulletin boards, certain paperwork, and keeping the room clean.  We shared examples of students who had been having negative experiences in the classroom begin to turn their performance around when they were given meaningful responsibility to the classroom community and curriculum.

I shared with the group some of the work that I've done with self-assessment, teaching students to be more reflective about their learning.  I've gone as far recently to give students the responsibility for grading themselves, explaining why they deserve this grade, and defending that grade to me and a small group of their peers.  I maintain a veto power, but rarely use it.  When given that responsibility, students shine.  They set goals for their learning and begin to take a stake in their learning.  This, along with incorporating choice into the curriculum, is one of the themes I hope to explore in my doctoral work.

Some interesting reading

With the start of the school year, education writing kicks back into gear and blogs come alive.  Here are some things I've read the past couple of days ...

The Blackboard Bungles at Newsweek.  Reviews three new books about education.  I've seen all three of them on the bookshelves, but my reading list is so long at this point, I don't know when I'll get to them.  Anyone read any of them?

An interesting article on the NCTE Inbox Blog.  It looks at Internet language and students' use of it.  Personally, I think this use of language is brilliant.  Face it, language changes as the world does.  This is where the language is headed and instead of being scared of it, we need to explore it and not just ignore or denigrate it.

Samuel Freeman write a piece about the Arab language and culture school opening its doors this year.  The hateful comments regarding this school are just completely shameful and bigoted.  This is not a new phenomenon, though.  The same thing happened when the city opened the high school for students who had been harassed for being gay - The Harvey Milk School.  The same furor and, just how the furor died down with that school, the same thing will happen here.  The sooner, the better.  At some point soon, I hope the more ignorant people in our society will learn that the majority of Arabs and Muslims are not 'terrorists'.  When I hear hateful statements to that effect it makes me ashamed to be American.

More shame ... book banning madness.

New post at the Teacher Research Blog

Go take a look at some of the new posts at the Teacher Research Blog, sponsored by the New York State English Council's Standing Committee on Teacher Inquiry.

How do we keep new teachers?

As the new school year begins, so do the careers of the plethora of new teachers.  Whether coming through traditional teacher ed programs or alternative pathways to certification, very few new teachers have it easy.  Teaching is not a profession that you can truly at your own pace.  The learning curve, in some cases, is more like a learning free-fall.  (Sure, those with student teaching experience are a little better off, but student teaching is at best a simulation.)   In most careers, the learning curve can be taken slowly and everyone understands; but, teachers are thrown right in.  They may get mentors who may or may not have been trained in mentoring.  They may be required to attend professional development which may or may not be relevant to the classroom.

So, it is with interest that I read the story about NYC Teaching Fellows in the Village Voice.  I was pointed to that article by a new NYC Teaching Fellow getting ready to begin the dreaded first year and hearing not-so-comforting things from those fellows getting ready to begin the second year.  It is also sad to see a new teacher, one who has been blogging about her teacher preparation program at the post-secondary level for the past year, quit within the first week.  There was no explanation offered, but perhaps one will come after the shock wears off.

Programs like the NYC Teaching Fellows mean well, but I've heard almost all negative things about the program.  I've known a handful of really, really good teachers come out of the program, but I've heard the same number of stories about people quitting within the first year.  I've also heard many stories about how the preparation is quite inadequate (even from those teachers who have developed into skilled educators) and their university classes are a joke.  Teachers coming through traditional teacher ed programs seem to have it a bit easier.  In New York State, one must do an entire year of student teaching.  But, still, you hear many of these teachers leaving urban school systems and education altogether in a few years.

The problem lies some with the preparation, but mostly with what we do with the new teachers when they enter the system.  Too often new teachers get the regular schedule with the students the senior teachers don't want.  Once you have enough experience in the system, your tenure and time-in mean that you get the classes you want - and most don't want the students who struggle the most.  Then there is the abhorrent thought that a teacher can't get the 'good' students until they've practiced and honed their skills on the 'bad' students.  This belief centers on the idea that teaching honors and AP is a promotion based on experience.

New teachers need to have lighter schedules with the students who struggle the least.  This gives them the confidence in their skills, as well as the time to practice and gain experience, that one needs to teach the most difficult students.  Unfortunately, it is the teacher contracts, as well as teacher attitudes, that prevent this from happening.  The fault of so many new teachers leaving, which we often blame on their teacher ed or alternative certification programs, lies with teachers themselves.  If we stood up and demanded that our union make the support of new teachers with lighter and easier schedules central to our contracts, the whole system would be better off.

Good classroom management advice ...

This article on "Tips for Keeping the Peace" is a great reminder for teachers, as well as great to use with students. 

Teaching to the test, no matter what you call it

A new article on Education Week, "Teaching With The Test, Not To the Test" by Amy H. Greene & Glennon Doyle Melton, can let us know just how much tests have infiltrated education and how educators will go to any lengths to work with them.  Although, I fear that Greene and Melton have gone too far.

They offer fundamental beliefs to help educators prepare students for testing:

1. Successful test-takers must first be successful readers.
2. Successful test-takers must be able to translate the unique language of the test.
3. Learning to be a successful test-taker can be fun.

The first point is the most dangerous.  I fear that there will come a day (if it hasn't happened already) where students will see reading as test-taking, not as actual reading - like a book or magazine or newspaper.  Greene and Melton claim that a test is like any other genre.  I've heard this before and have been in schools where "Tests" is a unit on par with "Memoir" and "Persuasive Essay" (this is encouraged by a well-known and well-respected School of Education).  Tests are not a genre of writing.  They are an inappropriate assessment tool.  Period.  Claiming that they are a genre unto themselves is an attempt to legitimize teaching to the test (or with the test .. or whatever you want to call it).  Let's not kid ourselves.

The second point is the most benign.  Greene and Melton write about "test talk" and teaching kids what it is meant by the different language used in tests.  Fair enough.  Language is used in different contexts for different reasons.  We just need to make sure that "test talk" doesn't become the dominant discourse in classrooms as it so often does.  "Test talk" should also be taught along with the idea that these tests are culturally biased, since the language used invites some in while it excludes others.  It's only fair to let the students in on that fact.

The last point ... well, I can't imagine how learning to be a successful test-taker can be fun and Greene and Melton offer no evidence or suggestions as to how it can be.  Of course, the skills tested on tests could be taught in an interesting way without ever mentioning, discussing, or showing the actual test or questions on it.  And, that's what it comes down to.  Educators need to work hard to identify the skills tested and teach them like they would teach anything else.  In addition, educators need to go beyond the skills tested on the test, since states so often set the bar so incredibly low. 

The authors do not mention the effect their new efforts at improving test scores had on actual reading and writing.  I was expecting to read that they found that students were doing better in their overall reading.  Perhaps the students did, and the authors chose to leave that part out.  That, in and of itself, is dangerous.  Shouldn't that always be the goal?  There's not doubt that tests are a part of education reality (if you can call any of this 'real').  But that does not mean with have to throw good instruction out and replace it with something inferior and then claim it's good instruction.

Whenever someone talks about tests and teaching to (with ... whatever) them, I'm reminded of what I heard Deborah Meier once say at a speaking engagement:  If we have a generation of students who are good at taking reading tests, but never pick up a book on their own, we've done something wrong. 

Reading different stories: Who should decide what it means to be literate?

There are many issues on which I agree with Diane Ravitch, conservative education critic.  I was glad when she came out against the incentive program being implemented in some NYC schools this fall.  She stated the case against them far more elegantly that I was able to.

But, there are many issues on which I disagree with her.  I came across a blog post that she co-wrote with Michael Ravitch entitled "Cultural vandalism".  It starts off with a short description of the pair's new book The English Reader: What Every Literate Person Needs to Know.  This seems paired with Diane Ravitch's The American Reader, which thankfully has a different subtitle.  I'll let you decide for yourselves about the content of the volumes, but they seem to me to be more of the same old canon fodder with the American volume being a bit more inclusive.  (Both volumes seem to stop mid-20th century for some reason.)

It is the subtitle of the latest volume and their blog post where I'd like to focus my attention.  The subtitle - What Every Literate Person Needs to Know - is very Hirschian.  Ravitch frequently argues for a national curriculum and, in the post with Michael, says, "The young must have heroes; they must have stories that stir them. When the schools strip the history and literature curriculum of significant ideas, people and writings, replacing them with fluff and contemporary concerns, then the future of our culture is jeopardised."  They dismiss young adult literature, essays about contemporary social issues, and instruction on how to fill out a job application.  By including these, according to the Ravitches, we are putting our culture at risk.

The stories my students have read which have given them heroes and have stirred them are precisely those stories they argue against - young adult literature.  These, strangely, are also the texts that have made my students want to read more.  (Our culture definitely seems to be at risk from those terrible students who like to read books that interest them and speak to their concerns now.)  As my students have become "readers" their tastes in reading grow and begin to expand into the kinds of literature the Ravitches would presumably like.  Young adult literature is "a gateway literature".  It encourages students to read with themes and language which is appropriate for their lives and skills levels.  When they eventually grow out of it (and in both interest and skill level), they move into adult literature.  By dismissing young adult literature, the Ravitches are dismissing the most frequent way that students become "literate" (at least as they define it).

Looking at the texts in both Ravitch Readers, I've read many of them.  Some in high school honors and AP classes and, to be frank, I didn't get them then.  I was exposed to most of them in college (as an English major) and I struggled.  Even as an adult, I can say I don't fully understand some of them - the language used is very different and they don't speak to my most current concerns.  Imagine many adolescents trying to read them.  Texts like those included in both the Ravitch Readers (not all of them, but most) are just inappropriate for adolescent learners - for their skill level or their interest level.  The frustration that students face when reading them turn many of them off to reading and the written word altogether.  Where will our culture be then?

Most adults in our society live perfectly happy lives never having heard of any of those texts.  But, the subtitle remains ... it implies that those people are not literate.  I'm surmising that the Ravitches deem people "literate" who have read these canonical works of literature.  And, by the shear number of texts, I can surmise that very few people are as literate as the Ravitches would like.  This seems terribly elitist to me.  These texts are difficult to read for a variety of reasons and to claim that one isn't literate unless they "know" them is just wrong.

Being literate should mean that a person is able to use written and spoken language in every aspect of  his or her day-to-day life with skill and mastery.  Because everyone's day-to-day life is different, obviously there will be different meanings of literate.  Many people don't want to or care to read the canonical pieces of literature and can live very fulfilled lives without them and can be literate individuals. 

Given this, continuing to push the canon in our high schools as the only way to be "literate" in our society is dangerous.  Imagine if I decided that we couldn't be literate unless we all understood quantum physics and people bought into that.  What would happen to you when you don't get it (I'm assuming you wouldn't understand it - excuse my presumption!)?   How would you feel about yourself?  And, who am I to decide?  What authority was given to me?

I, too, believe in the power of literature.  Some great literature as withstood the test of time and those of us who choose to read it surely reap benefits.  But, that does not mean that we are more literate than anyone else.  We've just read different stories.

Motivation is not the problem

There is another article in The New York Times about the incredibly misguided incentive (pay-for-grades) program being implemented in some NYC schools in the fall.

What strikes me about this program is that it is a solution to the wrong problem.  This (in addition to merit pay for teachers) implies that motivation is the problem in our schools.  The students aren't motivated, so let's pay 'em.  The teachers aren't motivated, so let's pay 'em more. 

Motivation is not the problem.

Students want to learn.

Teachers want students to learn.

Dangling money in front of either or both parties is not going to help.  This is where people whose experience is in corporate America (Joel Klein) or economics (our newly minute Chief Officer of Equality,  Roland G. Fryer, who's the man behind the incentive program) show that they just don't get what education is all about.  It's not about money or profit.  Those of us involved in education realize that the techniques used to improve sales is not what is going to improve teaching and learning.

The problem is that our focus is completely wrong and getting more and more wrong as we go.  If you really want to help solve the education problems we are supposedly facing (problems which are not new by any means), the first step is to get rid of standardized testing and/or the implications the results of those tests have on students and educators.  Assessment of this kind drives instruction and this kind of assessment drives instruction right into the ground.  Instead of the carrot approach of the incentives, it offers the stick of bad grades.  It makes life in the classroom boring, useless, and foreign to everyone's real motivation.

What is the real motivation in schools?  To learn and to teach.  Children of all ages (and, frankly, adults) have a natural curiosity about the world around them.  We want to learn about what is going on around us.  Schools should foster and encourage this kind of learning.  Then we won't need carrots or sticks.  The motivation will come from inside the learner and teacher. 

Offering rewards and punishments has never made anything better. You may temporarily get what you want, but the spirit that will sustain change will disappear as soon as the carrot or stick disappear.  We need to foster this spirit - the desire to learn about the world around us - in order to create real education change.