Congress recently approved more than $71 billion for education for the fiscal year ending September of 2012. Of course, hundreds of millions are set aside for Race to the Top and other useless organizations like Teach for America.
I did some quick math and learned that if the government simply divided the money equally by the number of public school students, it would mean schools would have roughly $1,400 per student. Granted, this isn't a huge amount, but if we knew there would be at least this much yearly, imagine what schools could do to improve education.
Just spitballing, my first thought was to put an iPad, loaded with powerful applications, in the hands of every student. These would last a long time, so in subsequent years, the $1,400 per student could go for other useful education materials.
Keep in mind, this is in addition to the millions districts get each year from tax dollars and existing government funds.
The way this gigantic pile of cash is currently dispersed, though, most of the nearly 50 million K-12 public school students are left penniless.
In a brilliant article, posted on Valerie Strauss's The Answer Sheet, San Francisco State professor emeritus Mark Phillips shares the following anecdote:
"Edwin Abbott’s classic book, Flatland, tells the story of a square that falls into a world of three dimensions. Returning to his two-dimensional world, he tries to explain his incredible experience. But how do you explain a cube to someone who can only conceptualize two dimensions? Ultimately he’s branded a heretic and jailed."
This got me thinking about my own attempts at education reform. As I share with colleagues the results-only strategies I use, I'm often greeted with skepticism. Fortunately, I've yet to be branded a heretic, but some of the dissenters have recently become vocal. Still, it seems that many of today's teachers struggle with change.
As Phillips writes, "Most teachers and administrators, dealing with the daily challenges of teaching, don’t have the luxury of thinking beyond the present paradigm."
Some, however, simply don't know when it's time to put a square peg into a round hole.
An education blogger I read often, Joanne Jacobs, recently posted a link to a traditional teaching program, called DI (Direct Instruction), created by someone from the private sector.
Although I had heard of this, I only knew that it embraces everything I'm against in education: scripted lessons, rules, worksheets and tests, so I had previously dismissed it without further research. The eBook Jacobs linked to on her blog about DI confirmed my suspicions -- that DI is one more in a long line of traditional systems that provide crutches for bad teachers and turn students into mindless automatons.
I decided to share my opinion about DI in the comment section on the post; I was the first. A few days later, I returned to Jacobs' blog to find dozens of comments. I was not surprised by the opinions, most of which were directly opposite of mine. Some outraged fans of Direct Instruction thought I was crazy and defended DI and other oft-used weak practices, like lions fighting for their young.
I was not angered by the comments; after all, these people were only defending what they believe in.
Rather, I began considering how difficult it is going to be to overcome these outdated teaching methods, so we can reform American education. If programs like DI and other scripted, basal-type systems can so easily influence parents and educators, how will modern, more progressive teaching methods, like results-only learning, compete?
I wonder, are we losing the fight with traditional teaching?
This video, posted to Edutopia.org, is a remarkable example of how ROLE strategies can transform any school into a remarkable learning community.
Although the people at Cochrane Collegiate Academy, featured in the video, don't call their school a ROLE, watch and listen for the results-only concepts shared by staff and students: collaboration, rapport-building, caring, hands-on, engaged and empowered students.
A remarkable turn of events occurred at my school recently, providing another excellent opportunity for coaching the autonomy and intrinsic motivation that is critical to the success of a Results Only Learning Environment. YouTube was made available to students. (Hopefully, it wasn't an accident.)
On this incredible day, I just happened to have my students in a computer lab, so we could work on our classroom web site. Throughout the day, the buzz about YouTube's availability had spread through the hallways, and it didn't take long for my students to discover this uncanny miracle.
As my 8th graders worked on their private web sites, creating new pages and links where they would place reading plans, novel reflections, projects and more, a student nervously asked if he could pull up a music video and play it in the background, underneath his classroom web site, while he worked. Every student within earshot craned his or her neck and waited silently, eager to hear my response.
"Of course, you can," I nodded, shrugging off what the students perceived to be a crazy request.
I told him in a voice that all students could hear that I was interested in the results. "I need you to watch the video I created for today's lesson and to create two pages with accompanying links on your home page. Can you do this, while listening to music?" He promised me he could.
Moments later, half of the class was locating music videos on YouTube, clicking play, then lowering the YouTube pages to their desktops, so our classroom site could be the focus of their attention.
The day couldn't have gone better, as all students completed the objectives, while shaking their heads and tapping their fingers to the beat.
With only a few minutes left, as they returned their headphones to me, I explained that YouTube had previously been blocked to students, because many administrators and teachers don't trust students to make good decisions. "In a results-only classroom," I emphasized, "autonomy is king. If you can accomplish a task, why shouldn't you be able to do it comfortably? Just remember the responsibility that comes with this kind of freedom."
The message was clear, and I never saw so many smiles in one class in my career.
One of my favorite bloggers, the extremely bright Pernille Ripp, sparked some Twitter chatter with her recent post on classroom rules.
Ripp says that students already know the rules, and we don't need to quote them in our classrooms.
'"Isn't this your 6th year in school?" All nodded and starting to wake up a little. "Do you need me to explain the rules or can you tell me what they are?" With this, the buzzing started. That little bit of chatter that kids get involved in when they start to see the light. "We know the rules, I know how to act, we can set the rules...."'
Photo by: Trexglobal.com
Obviously, as a teacher in a Results Only Learning Environment, I am on board with this approach. It's a difficult one for many teachers to embrace, though.
When I tell colleagues that I have no classroom rules, they are shocked. For some reason, there is an obsession with posting a bunch of Do's and Dont's around the room in gigantic type size.
As Ripp suggests, students already know the rules, especially older kids who have had rules and consequences hammered into them year after year by every teacher with a whiteboard or poster and tape. So, why repeat them? Why not discuss what will make any class successful, instead? Why not allow the students to lead the conversation, like Ripp did.
"I gave my students a voice and let them lead and they showed me they already know. I am so excited for the rest of the year."
Give your students a voice, and you will be on your way to a problem-free classroom.
My 7-year-old second-grader brought home her first batch of homework today. It came in two workbooks, one textbook and one worksheet. It took her 30-40 minutes to complete, and it consisted of mostly review-type math, grammar and spelling work.
As I read the teacher's school web page, which explains the homework, I was not too shocked to see that she strongly supports this workload, contending that it will help my daughter learn responsibility and build good study habits, to which my best response is, "Poppycock!"
When will this homework madness stop? How many books and exhaustive homework studies must be completed before teachers eliminate this archaic habit?
To suggest that homework teaches responsibility is nothing shy of ludicrous. How can a child demonstrate responsibility, when given no choice in the task and threatened with punishment if the homework is not done? If I put a gun to your head and tell you to copy the Bill of Rights and you comply, does this make you responsible?
Alfie Kohn, Sara Bennett, John Hattie and Etta Kralovek are all noted educators and researchers who have denounced the effectiveness of homework as a teaching tool. Even Duke researcher Harris Cooper, who tried desperately in two separate studies to find value in the practice, said there is no measurable correlation between homework and achievement in elementary school.
Yet a second-grader is carrying five pounds of books and spending more than 30 minutes drawing lines from words to matching phrases.
Although I had heard of this, I only knew that it embraces everything I'm against in education: scripted lessons, rules, worksheets and tests, so I had previously dismissed it without further research. The eBook Jacobs linked to on her blog about DI confirmed my suspicions -- that DI is one more in a long line of traditional systems that provide crutches for bad teachers and turn students into mindless automatons.