When multiple choice became the only choice

I am taking a break from my series entitled “How to fix it” in order to bring a little perspective to some other aspects of teaching that have been kicking around in my head for a while. I will continue with my three-part series over Christmas break. 

When I first got into teaching, E.D. Hirsch had recently published his book Cultural Literacy:  What every American needs to know.  This book started a maelstrom of controversy about what was taught, not taught and/or not learned by students in American schools.  It fueled the debate – which is still raging today – about why American schools are in decline.

While I respect Mr. Hirsch, and I certainly have a deep appreciation for “cultural literacy,” I believe this very mindset – one steeped in tradition and outdated pedagogy – is crippling our schools today.

There is a palpable disconnect between students and schools because the educational system has failed to evolve beyond the style of teaching that was in place when Mr. Hirsch was a mere lad.  In a world where everyone’s mood, relationship status or what they had for breakfast can be tweeted, blogged or sent via IM around the world in a millisecond, we still expect kids to learn using many of the same tools, resources, and teaching styles that were in place nearly 100 years ago.

Although my curriculum focuses on project-based learning, I do, from time-to-time, require students to read from our state-adopted textbooks and answer questions.  I do it because students are expected to demonstrate comprehension by finding Main Idea, Author’s Purpose, etc. on district and state level assessments.  This type of assessment, based on reading short passages and answering a series of multiple-choice questions, was developed by a Kansas State Normal School professor in 1915.  Sadly, not much has changed since then.   

Recently, I had my students read a six-page passage from their social studies textbook about the early European explorers and answer the questions at the end of the passage.  One of the questions they had to answer was:  What records of their attempt to settle North America did the Vikings leave behind? 

Even with a great deal of background knowledge (we had recently read a book on the Vikings), most of my students did not understand the question.  First, they did not know what a record was.  More important, the wording of the question suggested that the Vikings actively sought – through multiple “attempts” – to colonize North America and deliberately left “records” behind.  Nothing in the book we had read or in the chapter from the textbook suggested that, so I re-phrased the question.  What types of artifacts have been discovered to suggest the Vikings may have visited or even settled in present-day North America? 

Since my students have access to a computer, we googled the phrase, “Viking artifacts in North America.”  In an instant, they saw hundreds of “records” of Viking remains in North America. After allowing them to “explore” a few web sites, I asked them to answer the question again.  Immediately, they wrote down parts of Viking ships, decomposed swords, tools, and bowls.  I showed them a web site that explained how carbon dating was used to figure out how old the artifacts were and another that showed were in North America these sites were located.  A collective light came on. 

To those who defend the use of chapter tests and pop quizzes, I offer this.  When in the real world do we ever expect anyone – a mechanic, a lawyer, an accountant or a doctor – to know all the answers on the spur of the moment?  Most doctors examine patients while typing information and symptoms directly into a laptop computer or iPad.  Lawyers often have a conference room filled with law books, legal reviews, and case studies.  Mechanics look up parts and settings on a computer.

Often students are not allowed the same “access to information”.  They are not allowed to “find” information or use resources to show that they understand concepts.  In short, we don’t teach the same strategies and skills they will need “in the real world” in the classroom. 

Much of the blame for our over reliance on this type of learning and assessments falls on the federal and state mindset that educational achievement can be measured through multiple choice assessments, and the belief that students (and teachers) should be assessed and evaluated based on a single test score.  A pop quiz of our schools.

Politicians will tell you the public wants accountability.  They will tell you that we need to hold teachers to higher standards so our students can achieve, grow and develop to meet the needs and demands of an ever-changing world.  Unfortunately, they do not abide by the same precepts.  They do not allow schools to develop curriculum that meets these needs simply because it cannot be measured. 

What are we really measuring?  That question is as perplexing to some as the one my students had to answer from their textbook.  Perhaps we need to re-phrase the question and take measurement and evaluation “outside the box” or least outside the textbook.

When we lost what was really important

In one of my recent blogs, I wrote about a teacher whose “intangibles” could not be measured by student test scores or a complex algorithm.  It read: His lesson plans are sketchy – at best. His record keeping leaves a lot to be desired.  He operates under the “it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission” mantra most of the time.  But he knows his subject area better than most college professors.  His vocabulary, writing and critical thinking skills are unparalleled.  More important, he knows how to relate to his students – from the nerd who sits alone in the back of the room to the loud-mouthed girl who is taking care of three younger siblings at home.  He makes learning meaningful and relevant, and they remember the life lessons he teaches them – as well as the subject area lessons – long after they leave his classroom.  His effectiveness cannot be measured by a protocol and certainly is not accurately reflected based on how his students perform on one test. 

That “teacher” was actually an amalgam of several teachers I have worked with over the past 20 years.  One of those teachers was Mike Martin.  This past week, Mike passed away.  He was only 66 years old and had just recently retired.  His death has caused me to consider (re-consider) my role as an educator, father and husband. 

Over the years, I have had many opportunities to leave the classroom and pursue other career opportunities.  To be honest, on more than one occasion, I was more than ready to close the book (pun intended) on my teaching career. 

What kept me coming back – and keeps me coming back each year – is the reason why so many teachers enter the profession and stay in it year after year.  It’s not the “cushy retirement” (30 years in the classroom for less than 50% of your top five years).  It’s not the “three months off in the summer” (which is really 11 weeks for kids and 8 weeks for teachers, which is really more like 5 or 6 weeks for dedicated teachers).  It’s not the “no weekend hours” (all teachers spend countless hours working over the weekend – in and out of school). The reason is simple.  For me, for my wife, for the teachers I work with, and for Mike Martin, there is (and only has been) one reason – our desire to share our love for learning with the kids.

Mike Martin’s career spanned 40 years in the classroom.  During those years, Mike witnessed (and endured) countless programs, assessments and educational pedagogies.  Despite working in a profession that was in a constant state of flux, Mike’s primary focus was making learning meaningful for kids.  His classroom was filled with models, magnets, rocks, compasses, fossils, puzzles and an array of “hands on” learning activities.  Mike was never concerned with the X’s and O’s of teaching.  That wasn’t important to him.  Relating material in ways that kids would remember and understand was.  Comments former students have made on Facebook are a living testament to his “old school” approach to teaching and learning.

Mike’s passing should be a wake up call to those who make policies and laws that affect our schools and children.  Losing Mike should be a reminder that the “old school” approach, one in which children were the primary focus, is dying too. 

We cannot bring Mike back, but it is not too late to bring back some perspective to teaching.  Do we need to assess students?  Sure we do.  Can test scores help us understand our students’ strengths and weaknesses?  Of course they can.  Should we monitor teacher performance and look for ways to improve instruction?  Absolutely.  Have we made student assessments (and now teacher evaluations) far too much of a focus in education?  If you would have asked Mike that question, his response would have been “heck yeah.”

Rest in Peace, Mike.  You will be missed in more ways than one.

When standing up for children became "childish" behavior

To those of you who receive my blog posts via email, I apologize for the multiple times I have published this particular post.  In my haste, I had several typos that I wanted to fix.  Here is the most recently edited version.

Over the past few months, I have engaged in series of personal letters with Florida State Representative William Proctor.  Representative Proctor is the Chancellor of Flagler College in St. Augustine and a life-long educator.  Mr. Proctor wrote a letter to me after reading an article (a Guest Column piece) I wrote in the Press Journal newspaper. In his initial letter, he challenged several analogies I made comparing how teachers will be evaluated (under the newly enacted Student Success Act) versus how other professionals are evaluated.  I returned his letter and answered his questions.  I further explained my analogies and presented him with a list of objections I (and other teachers) had with the new evaluation system, one that ties 50% of a teacher's overall job performance to student test scores.  Representative Proctor returned my letter with a second letter.  Sadly, in this letter, rather than present a logical, rational and lucid explanation of  the evaluation system in terms of validity and bias (two primary conditions for any educational assessment), he felt the need to educate me in terms of the state's budgetary shortfalls.  He closed his letter with the following statement, "If you have a parking space, and it is in the shade, consider yourself fortunate."

I have to be honest, I had never heard the expression he used, so I "Google it".  I got no references to the phrase.  I asked others - people I know and respect for their experiences and intellect - and none of them had ever heard the expression either.  They all agreed that it sounded like Representative Proctor was telling me to stop complaining because I had a job.

I took umbrage to several of the statements Representative Proctor made in his letter.  Namely, I was very disappointed that he turned a professional dialogue about issues facing Florida's students and teachers into a rhetorical diatribe.  I responded with a very pointed letter in which I told him how disappointed I was in his response and the condescending tone to his letter.  I told him that I was going to make it him rue the day he decided to question my intellect and integrity.

Well, I got another letter from Representative Proctor this week.  This letter, like the previous letters, was marked - in bold, underlined and capital letters  - PERSONAL.  In order to respect Mr. Proctor's desire to keep the exact contents of his letters "personal", I have resisted the urge (and the ardent request of others) to publish his letters in their entirety on Facebook or by copying them and distributing them to friends and colleagues.  I have published excerpted comments in order to give a context to my responses.  I am going to continue that practice in this post.  In his latest letter, Representative Proctor wrote the following:  "my having presentation of the facts of the state’s current financial position may have been so frustrating as to bring about what I consider to be a childlike response..."  He continued by stating that I had made "idle threats".

My return letter to him was not marked PERSONAL; therefore, I feel no moral or professional obligation not to post my response to him in this blog.  Here is my latest letter to him.  I welcome your feedback.

Dear Representative Proctor:

Again, I am both pleasantly surprised by your willingness to engage in discourse with me and disappointed in some of your tactics.  I was hoping – if you did return my last correspondence – that you would return to a discussion focused on the original topic – SB 736 and the subsequent Student Success Act – and its impact on the education of Florida’s children.  Instead, you regressed to calling me “childish” for chiding you for turning our discussion away from the topic and to one of taxes, funding and budgetary constraints.  I was not “frustrated” by the “facts of the state’s current financial position.”  I was frustrated by your attempt to turn the discussion away from the original conversation.  Since you seem to be focused on the facts, let me present you with the “facts”.

FACT – None of my Guest Column articles in the Press Journal, nor any of the posts on my education blog posts, have been about teacher pay or the new merit pay system in terms of how it will impact me directly.  They have been about how merit pay is not good for students and Florida’s school system because it is an unfunded initiative, and it creates a “competitive” system that unfairly rewards and punishes teachers.

FACT – You voted for legislation that cut funding to education and cut taxes to businesses and property owners.  Last week, it was reported that Florida’s education budget faces another $1.2 billion shortfall.  According to the article, the primary reason for the budget shortfall was a decrease in revenues from property taxes.

FACT – You supported a bill that was/is unfunded (although it calls for districts to “reward” top performing teachers) and is without the proper testing and assessment measures to do what the law now requires.  In other words, it requires school districts to implement a new teacher evaluation system and more student assessments but does not provide the necessary resources to do so.

Recently, a group of teachers from Indian River County Schools met with Representative Debbie Mayfield to discuss the concerns teachers, administrators and parents have with the new teacher evaluation system and the impact it is already having on student instruction.  After listening to our concerns, Representative Mayfield was asked, “Given what you now know about the impact of SB 736, would you still have voted in favor of it?”  Her response was, “Probably not.”

Representative Proctor, I offer two challenges for you to consider:  One, answer the concerns listed by teachers in our district – without digressing into any Republican rhetoric – in terms of how the Student Success Act will improve education in the State of Florida. Two, explain the mathematical algorithm used to calculate the Valued Added Model (VAM) used to evaluate teachers using student test scores.  In fact, have one of the math professors at your university evaluate it and give a logical, mathematical explanation of how it is unbiased, valid and reliable (The list of concerns and the mathematical algorithm are attached.).

If you accept both of these two challenges – in manner listed above – I vow to do the following:  I will cease to write to you.  I will stop publishing Guest Column pieces in the Press Journal.  I will stop writing my blog.  I will remove my Facebook page – Education is about children, not test scores.

If you decline to accept the two challenges I have presented to you, I vow to do the following:  I will increase my letter writing to you and other state legislators.  I will seek additional media outlets to publish my criticism of the Student Success Act.  I will increase the frequency of my blog posts. 

Nothing I have written or said should be construed by you or anyone to be an “idle threat.”  The word threat – in this political environment – is a poor choice of words on your part.  I have far too much respect for authority to “threaten” anyone.  It is, however, my constitutional right – and I feel my patriotic duty – to question and challenge laws that are not in the best interest of me, my family, my community or the children of the State of Florida.  Franklin, Adams and Jefferson were called traitors for challenging the laws and oppressive rule of the British monarchy.  They are now revered as patriots.  I will not allow you or any elected official to deny me of that right by calling me childish.

Respectfully,


Paul Mucci

When "reform" became the answer and teachers became the problem

Former education secretary William Bennett knows exactly what’s wrong with America’s schools.  In response to a report College Board published about an unexpected drop in SAT scores across the nation in 2010, Mr. Bennett jumped right to the source of all of educations problems – teachers and their evil, money grabbing unions.

According to the report published by College Board – the company responsible for developing and scoring the SAT – the drop in SAT scores from 508 (the level recorded six years ago) to 497 on the reading component is due in part to “the record size and diversity of the pool of test-takers.”

In his 15-paragraph article posted on cnn.com, Mr. Bennett devoted three paragraphs to how much money is spent on education in the US, six paragraphs on teacher contracts, teacher pay and unions and one paragraph, the last one, recapping College Board’s assessment of the problem (there is a two-paragraph introduction as well).  Like most education “pundits”, Mr. Bennett ignored the reason stated in the report by College Board (which has no political stake in presenting its findings) and went right to what he knew was the obvious cause – teachers and unions.  And why not?  Teacher bashing and demonizing unions has become the cause celebre among conservatives and other “reform-minded” citizens. 

Are there bad teachers in American schools?  Of course there are.  Just as there are bad mechanics, bad doctors, bad accountants, and bad financial planners.  Are some of the examples Mr. Bennett cited in his article legitimate causes for concern among parents and administrators and in need of reform?  Again, the answer is yes.  However, rather than examine the causal theory supported by College Board, Mr. Bennett saw this as another opportunity to push an agenda bent on dismantling the system by blaming the easiest and least defensible target.  Furthermore, he fails to make even one direct correlation (no studies, no data, no programs, no anecdotal records – NOTHING) between a one-year decline in scores and the performance of ALL teachers.  More important, Mr. Bennett failed to give relevance to any of the following factors that may (or may not) have attributed to the decline in SAT scores:

a)      The overemphasis on high-stakes testing at the expense of authentic learning experiences.  The pressure on students and teachers to raise standardized test scores has created a “teach to the test” mentality across this nation.  Its origin can be traced to the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act and has continued into the Obama administration’s Race To the Top education program.

b)      The lack of focus (and resources) on our “top performing” students due to an overemphasis on our “lower performing” students.  Please understand I am not advocating that we ignore our struggling students so we can increase SAT scores.  I am saying that over the past 10 years, there has been a deliberate shift in instruction that has been geared toward struggling students at the expense of others.

c)      The deterioration of American families and their focus on education.  Many families have heard the “blame the teachers” cry from politicians so often over the past few years, that they have adopted a similar mantra.  Many have an “It’s not my child’s fault…it’s the teachers fault” approach to every issue and circumstance involving their children.

d)     The deterioration of the economic support system for our schools and our students.  More of our school-age kids are living in poverty than in any time since the Great Depression.  More and more kids are helping their parents raise younger brothers and sisters. More and more kids are escaping the pressures of home life via video games and other non-academic endeavors.

e)      Last but not least, absolutely no “blame” was placed on administrators, district and/or state officials who have allowed some of the deplorable situations Mr. Bennett described in his article to continue. 

During this past legislative session, Florida enacted sweeping education reform similar to what Mr. Bennett proposed.  Senate Bill 736 (and its accompanying House Bill) is currently being implemented.  Its purpose – claim its supporters – is to remove “bad teachers” by eliminating tenure and reward “good teachers” by creating a performance-based pay system.  Sounds great, right, Mr. Bennett?  Here’s what education reformers are not telling you.  Under the new system, it takes three years to fire a “bad teacher” when it took only 90 days under the old system.  As for rewarding good teachers with bonuses based on student performance, these savvy reformers forgot two key elements – funding and providing a valid instrument in which to assess all students.  The result?  Already financially-strapped school districts will have to redistribute funds to pay for the program as well as create assessments (and administer and score them and calculate whose students have shown learning gains) with ZERO funds given to achieve this wonderful reform.

My advice to Mr. Bennett is this:  Let those who work most closely with students decide how to reform the system.  My guess is Mr. Bennett is “gambling” that the public won’t know any better and will continue to buy into the “Let’s bully the teachers”approach he and like-minded folks have already begun.

If you’d like to read Mr. Bennett’s article, you can find it at:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/opinion/bennett-education/index.html

When Evaluations and Test Scores Don’t Bring “Satisfaction”

It was Friday, the day before the three-day Labor Day weekend.  When I finally pulled out of the teachers’ parking lot, it was 5:10 – an hour and twenty-five minutes after my contract hours and almost two hours after students were dismissed from school.  What is unusual and notable about this is not that I was at school that late, or that it was a Friday before a three-day weekend.  What is notable – if not extraordinary – is that there were ten teachers (out of a staff of 36 teachers), one administrator and the school secretary who still had not left school. 

This was not a rare occasion or a beginning of the school year phenomenon.  On any given day, over a third of our faculty and staff arrive well before contract hours, and the vast majority leaves well after contract hours.  Some are “repeat offenders”.  They get to work early each day and leave late each day. 

I recently wrote a letter to one of our state representatives.  The letter was in response to one he wrote to me after reading a Guest Column piece I had written for our local newspaper.  In his letter, the representative challenged my opposition to the new teacher evaluation system – a system which uses student test scores to determine 50% of a teacher’s overall evaluation.  At the end of his letter, he asked the following question, “Do you think 97% of all teachers are ‘satisfactory’?”

My immediate response was, “Yes”, but his question struck a chord with me, and I began to think about all the teachers I have worked with over the past 21 years.  I have worked at four different schools with approximately 250 teachers (I rounded down to make the math easier).  Of those 250 teachers, I could only think of a few – less than a handful – who were “unsatisfactory” in their performance year in and year out.

Perhaps age and a sense of kindness and generosity to my current and former colleagues had clouded my memory, so I doubled that number to eight.  Over the past 21 years, I have worked with eight unsatisfactory teachers – teachers who were unprepared, unprofessional, and incompetent and/or whose classrooms resembled a circus rather than a learning environment.  That left 242 out of 250 teachers, or exactly 96.8%, who were “satisfactory”.  They did their job.  They came to school prepared to teach.  They worked with students.  They supported students.  They encouraged students.  They graded papers.  They turned in grades.  They filled out IEP’s, AIP’s, 504 plans, IPDP’s, etc.  They met with administrators.  They attended workshops.  Yes, 97% were satisfactory.

Anyone who has ever had children (or spent any time around a school in the last 30 years), knows that teaching is about much more than being satisfactory, or effective, or highly effective or even exemplary (or innovating the term used in the new measurement system), and it’s about more than one man or one woman’s ability to get a group of 22 to 25 students to “show learning gains” on one test.  Teaching is about understanding and tending to the needs of children – their academic, developmental and social needs.

The new evaluation system has sixty teaching characteristics or elements.  They are all “observable behaviors” of an effective or “satisfactory” teacher.  They include descriptors such as “provides clear learning goals” and “establishes classroom routines” and “demonstrate value and respect for low expectancy students.”  All these characteristics can be measured on a scale or evaluated with a protocol, but do they truly measure the characteristics of a good teacher?

How do we measure dedication – coming to work early and staying late?  Where is the rubric to evaluate a teacher who spends an hour and a half of her own time each night (if not more) – away from her own children – to find “just the right” story, book or lesson to spark interest in that one disconnected child?  What score do you give to a teacher who stays after school to listen to a child sob because her parents are divorcing, and she doesn’t know where she is going to live?  How do you evaluate the “with-it-ness” of a teacher whose students could care less about “world cultures” when their own culture consists of gang violence, teenage suicide, bankruptcy or foreclosure?

One of the least effective teachers I know – in terms of “observable behaviors” –  is also one of the most effective teachers I know – in terms of “with-it-ness” and “meeting the needs of students”.   His lesson plans are sketchy – at best.  His record keeping leaves a lot to be desired.  He operates under the “it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission” mantra most of the time.  But he knows his subject area better than most college professors.  His vocabulary, writing and critical thinking skills are unparalleled.  More important, he knows how to relate to his students – from the nerd who sits alone in the back of the room to the loud-mouthed girl who is taking care of three younger siblings at home.  He makes learning meaningful and relevant, and they remember the life lessons he teaches them – as well as the subject area lessons – long after they leave his classroom.  His effectiveness cannot be measured by a protocol and certainly is not accurately reflected based on how his students perform on one test. 

The question is not “Are 97% of all teachers ‘satisfactory’?”  The better question is “How do you measure learning gains when learning is about more than questions on a test and teaching is about more than documenting observable behaviors?”

When teaching became a measurable act and not a meaningful experience

Last week was the first week of school for most students throughout the State of Florida.  For the past several weeks, teachers and administrators have been “gearing up” for the return of school and a new group of kids.  This is the time of year that most everyone remembers fondly – new clothes, new shoes, new school supplies and the eager anticipation that comes with wondering who your teacher will be and whether or not your best friends will be in your class.  It is a time of excitement, anticipation and wonder.  It’s a fresh start – a new year, a new beginning.

Looking back on my first day as a teacher – 22 years ago – I recall feeling excited and nervous.  I, too, had new clothes, new shoes, and new supplies.  My students’ desks were clustered in groups of four.  Fresh posters adorned my walls.  My lesson plans were typed using my new Apple Macintosh computer.  I was nervous, but I was ready.  As the first bell rang, I remembered what one of my professors told me, “When that door closes, it’s just you and those kids that matter.  Your job is to do everything you can to help make learning a meaningful experience for them – regardless of what is going on in the world around them.”

Today, however, much of that anticipation and excitement has changed for administrators, teachers and – more important – for students.  While most students still experience the nervous anxiety of new classrooms, new teachers and new friends, and teachers still approach a new school year as a clean slate and a new opportunity to guide and help young people, a new fear – a different kind of anxious anticipation – has gripped our schools.   Gone is the sage advice of a trusted professor – “your job is to make learning a meaningful experience…”  That philosophy has been replaced with a new mantra, “Your job hinges on your ability to raise test scores.”  For students, it is an even more ominous proclamation, “You won’t graduate if you don’t pass this test.”

This week, I had a dozen teachers in my classroom.  It wasn’t their enthusiasm, excitement or nervous anticipation that brought them there.  They weren’t in my room to share stories about the bright, new faces in their classrooms, like they would have years ago.  They were in my room with a new sense of nervousness and anticipation.  They were there to ask me to explain how, when and where they should be writing and posting their “learning goals”.  They were there to ask me how they should structure their “scales” so that they could show the administrators – who were observing them during the first week of school – that they were “taking the temperature” of student learning and understanding.  They were there to ask me to explain how they could be “scored” as “Beginning” for a skill that they were not using when they were evaluated.

Likewise, the nervousness normally exhibited by students has changed over the years.  No longer do students ask questions at the beginning of the year like, “Are we going to make a volcano this year?”, or “Can I bring in my new puppy to school for sharing?”, or “What projects are we going to do in class this year?”  These queries have been replaced with, “When is FCAT this year?”  and “If we don’t pass the Reading FCAT is it true we have to take two reading classes in middle school?”  and, “Why did our school get a B last year?”  Our teachers’ focus has shifted from “making learning meaningful” to making teaching observable – measurable.  Our students’ focus has shifted from “what are we going to do and discover?” to “when is our next assessment?” and “I hope I pass it.”

While the recent changes in teacher evaluation system and the implementation of End of Course exams for middle school and high school students (along with the ever present emphasis on FCAT testing) is much to blame, this “paradigm shift” did not occur over night.  It is rooted in the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind act and the mantle has been passed on through the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education plan.  It has been fueled by a numbers-driven political atmosphere in which politicians (and the voting populace) feel the need to analyze every dollar spent and to justify every program.

As a group of teachers and I waited for our last bus to arrive at the end of the third day of school – a bus that transports six students from the north part of our county to the south part of our county because we are a choice school – I made the comment, “This is the type of thing that the general public never sees – kids who spend an hour and a half on a bus twice a day simply because someone thought it was a good idea.”   One of my colleagues turned to me and said, “To the general public, these kids are nothing more than numbers.”  We all looked at each other and sighed in agreement.

Albert Einstein once said, “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”  Alfie Kohn, a prominent educator in this country, summed it up even better when he said, “We are so busy weighing the elephant that we are forgetting to feed it.”

I long for the days when I could close my door, and it was just me and my students.  My only concern was how to make what I was teaching meaningful.  I long for the days when pacing guides did not exist and student interest and inquiry drove the curriculum.  I long for the days when a “basal reader” was a resource, not a required text.  I long for the days when – while gauging the temperature of student learning and interest – I could go off on a tangent and use that “teachable moment” to give my students what they wanted and needed – regardless of what my posted learning goal was. 

Sadly, those days are gone.  They are gone until someone has the courage to say kids are more than just a test score, and teachers are more than just a tool to generate those scores.  As Americans, we have to determine what can be counted and what should be counted.

When "jargon" became more important than kids

Every profession has its share of jargon that only those in the profession fully understand (or care to understand).  Acronyms, abbreviations and Greek and Latin terms are normally used to either expedite communication or to clarify (or in many cases specify) exactly what process, test, or procedure is needed.  In education, however, acronyms have an entirely different purpose – accountability.  Think you understand education jargon?  See how well you do understanding this scenario:

 Pablo is a 10-year old ESOL student, who recently enrolled in a new school.  The AP at his new school reviews his CUM folder and SIF folder and enters his name into TERMS.  She discovers that Pablo has an active IEP.  Originally, he had a 504-Plan, but after extensive class time spent in an RtI group, which was established in response to NCLB, he was referred for additional testing.  Using a Connors (to make sure he is not ADHD), an IQ test and other ESE testing instruments, it was determined that Pablo was SLD.   The 504-Plan was closed and an IEP was written because students cannot have both designations.   Due to the ADA of 1990, Pablo was placed in his least restrictive environment – a regular education class.  The AP notes that Pablo’s IEP minutes will be met through pull-out services.  Pablo’s most recent FCAT scores show that he is a Level 1 reader and a Level 1 math student.   He attended a six-week Summer Reading Camp at the end of third grade and scored at the 51^st percentile on the SAT 10.  The AP makes a notation that Pablo’s new teacher and the Reading Strategies Coach will need to continue to provide both Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction and that Pablo’s progress in reading will be monitored using bi-weekly ORF and MAZE assessments and quarterly using FAIR.  These scores will be entered into AIMS and printouts of his scores will be kept in his SIF folder.  During math instruction, Pablo will be pulled out of his regular education class and placed in a Tier 3 or  “triple I” group with other ESE students.  His ORF, MAZE, FAIR and FASTT Math scores, along with scores on his Reading and Math Benchmark Assessments, will be entered by the school district into Performance Matters.  Pablo’s classroom teacher will print these scores and keep them in a Data Monitoring notebook. Data Monitoring notebooks will be reviewed twice a quarter to ensure that Pablo’s classroom teacher, ESE teacher and the Reading Coach are recording data, analyzing Pablo’s strengths and weaknesses and differentiating instruction to meet Pablo’s needs.  Pablo’s classroom teacher will also document in his lesson plans all the SSS and Access Points that are covered in each lesson, not to mention the ESOL strategies.  Finally, the AP then sends an email to Pablo’s new teacher suggesting that he write his IPDP based on how well Pablo (and the other ESE and ESOL students in his class) do on FCAT Reading this year.  She notes that if these students do well,  the school might achieve AYP.

Some will argue that these programs, student designations and assessment measures were needed to make teachers, administrators and school districts more accountable for student learning.  Others will tell you that quality instruction, teacher-driven assessment, cooperative learning and critical thinking, have been sacrificed as a result of a numbers-driven mentality.  Norm-referenced assessments, like those accumulated in the most recent NAEP report, show that students in Florida – and across America – have made little gains in reading, math and science over the past 25 years despite these measures. 

How do we fix this problem?  There is no panacea.  We can do a few simple things, though.  We can start by eliminating high-stakes testing.  One test is not an accurate reflection of student learning.   Secondly, we need to stop the ridiculous practice of “categorical funding” that separate facilities and operations money.   Finally, and most important, we need to move educational decision-making away from the federal and state levels and return it to the local level.  Who knows better what students in our schools need than the teachers and administrators who work with them every day? 

The students I taught 20 plus years ago are now the doctors, lawyers, and teachers you see today. Apparently, we didn’t do too bad of a job before all the jargon.