About Me

Name: Waski_the_Squirrel
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Assumptions

Posted by Waski_the_Squirrel on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:27:49 PM
"Those kids just won't take good notes."

"They just don't know how to summarize."

"They just don't know how to act."

So, let's turn around and, instead of blaming the kids, let's look at why. Sometimes the reason is laziness, immaturity, or attitude. However, the teachers at my school made a study of summarization. We discussed when and how summarization is taught. To our surprise, it is used all the way from elementary school, but is never once taught. It seems we all assumed that it was either obvious or had been taught.

How can we expect students to do something if we don't teach them. It seems silly that one should need to teach basic skills like note-taking or that seniors in high school might never have learned how to do it.

Schools must plan out these basic things. We must plan out how and when to teach these basic skills. What seems obvious to the teachers is not necessarily obvious to our students.

Too much of education suffers from a lack of a plan. Even in a small school, teachers teach their subject without any concept of what was taught the previous year or what should be taught to prepare for the next year. We often overlap topics or skip topics.

Standards are a tool that can help us develop a consistent storyline, but they do not substitute for communication between teachers. I have heard the argument that if all the staff use the same text, the problem is solved. This is simply not true. Textbooks are not a curriculum. Furthermore, simple coverage of content is not teaching it (though this is another topic of conversation).

I've mentioned before that I used to teach in very small schools where I was the only science teacher for grades 7-12. This gave me an enormous amount of control over the curriculum and gave me the ability to ensure that skills built from year to year. I miss this.

For the past 2 years, I've taught in larger schools. This year I share the science department with one other teacher. Last year, I shared it with 3 other teachers (as well as teaching math and sharing that curriculum with those teachers). This makes a world of difference.

The other teachers may or may not share my philosophy on what is important or how to teach. They may or may not follow the standards. They may or may not teach important skills.

Standards give us something to agree on. A teacher should follow these. A teacher who doesn't follow them is not doing his job. Teaching methods will vary and this will not change. I don't want to challenge anyone's freedom to teach. I simply claim that certain things must be taught and that we must work together to ensure that we build from year to year and develop skills to ever more advanced levels.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Isn't School Interesting?

Posted by Waski_the_Squirrel on Monday, February 19, 2007 11:32:49 PM
The inspiration for this blog came from outside education. Over the weekend, I was enjoying my DSL and exploring a website called YouTube. I happen to like an old British science fiction show called Doctor Who. This show is in a new incarnation after a long hiatus. It has picked up a new generation of fans.

During my exploration of YouTube, I ran across a fan video made by two 14-year-old boys. I've linked to the most impressive of their creations (from a technical standpoint). One need only hear them talk to realize they aren't my students (mine don't have cool British accents). The video includes excellent editing, split screen, green screen, and probably some other techniques I don't know. I'll be the first to admit that those who don't know Doctor Who will not understand what is going on!

Exploring the other movies that these two boys have made reveals more intelligent editing, other special effects, some really bad (and some good) acting, coherent storylines, and some original thought. One needs to make allowance for their ages, but, overall, it's impressive. What is truly impressive is that this is their work when they are having fun.

I don't know these boys. I don't know what kind of grades they get or what they are like in person.

However, this made me think. Most students don't put this kind of effort and care into their own schoolwork. (Yes, there are exceptions.) The difference is passion. Students are not passionate about school.

So why aren't students passionate about school? Part of it is laziness. Part of it is human nature. I try to do my best at teaching, but I won't be Pollyanna and claim I bounce out of bed every morning eager to impart more science knowledge to my students. I've even been known to cut corners.

At the same time, I am doing something that I appreciate and I am teaching a subject I enjoy. This passion (tempered with maturity) got me through college as a Physics major. Many of my students don't have this going for them. They have no love of science and yet must take it as a required course.

I don't know how to develop that passion and perhaps it's good if I don't. The world needs more than just scientists. However, I want to know why students find school so mind-numbingly dull.

I'm not interested in laziness. Those students who have no passion because something is difficult are not my focus. I'm interested in those who will work up enough passion to get through something they may actually hate.

One question I've been asking myself a lot this year is: "Are you lecturing right now to pass on valuable information and teach or is it to fill your 50 minutes?" I don't like wasted time. Another question I started asking a few years ago was, "Is this homework to give homework or is it valuable?" I know I used to hate having my time wasted as a student. Crossword puzzles, word finds, annoying puzzles, pointless lectures (that I could get from the book) killed my interest in many things -- or at least they buried it deeply.

School needs to involve more higher level thinking, and less "busy-work". I'm trying that this year a little. I'm doing a lot of the drill/practice at the beginning and end of class (which also shortens lectures). This gives students practice and instant feedback. For homework, I'm giving more writing. Obviously, practice is still an important part of homework, but I'm trying not to give homework just to fill a slot in the gradebook.

I'm not totally sure what a good classroom should be. I'm not one of these extremists who would do away with homework or tests. I'm actually quite traditional in my philosophy of education. I won't do a project because it's "cool" or innovative. I want an academic payoff for what I do in class. The curriculum must be taught.

However, students must be engaged beyond the level of "memorize and regurgitate." This is very low-level education and is quickly forgotten. By studying topics more deeply and to a higher level, students will actually retain more and be better equipped to apply what they learn.

The two boys who did the Doctor Who videos have passion for their videos. Everybody has the ability to feel that kind of passion. As teachers (and students), we need to find the ability to harness and channel that passion to other areas of life outside our interests. As teachers, we have a responsibility to make our classes worthy of that passion. For me, that is an ongoing project.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Common Sense in School Staffing

Posted by Waski_the_Squirrel on Friday, February 09, 2007 4:52:35 PM
I'm trying to do "happy" Friday blogs, but I just read the legislative report for this week, and decided to change my mind a little.

The legislature is holding hearings to decide whether to change the law on school consolidation. The proposed bill, Number 2227, will require that when schools consolidate, they first offer positions in the new district to existing teachers in the former districts. If these positions cannot be filled by existing staff, then the position will be advertised as with any opening. Similarly, if the new district does not have a position for an existing teacher, then that teacher will lose his job.

Obviously, the Union favors this bill. Strangely, for once, I find myself siding with the Union. Naturally, the North Dakota School Board Association is opposed to this bill. They believe that it is too restrictive.

The free market part of my personality sees their point. After all, this is a prime opportunity to lay off the poor teachers without the need to go through the usual hassles.  The problem, however, is that this is also a prime time to get rid of the perceived "trouble makers", the expensive teachers (who have been there a while), or the teachers who have a personality conflict with someone in authority. My feeling is that if a teacher should be removed, the school should work on doing so, rather than rely on consolidation. As for the rest, that may be an abuse of power.

All of this was on display in all of its ugly glory last year during the consolidation of the New Rockford and Sheyenne districts. The consolidated board chose not to rehire 9 teachers and, instead, hire from outside. This led to a student strike. The students picketed the school (during the school day) in support of these teachers.

I can only imagine what the next day was like at school or what this year has been like for those 9 who replaced existing teachers. Frankly, although I'm uncomfortable with the notion of students simply walking out of school, I can understand it in this case.

I was close enough to the situation (but, thankfully, not involved in any way) to know some of what was going on. I don't care to gossip on this blog unless the material is public record and I can give sources. Let me sum up the gossip to say that there was a lot of injustice done and a lack of professionalism. Since the board never had to justify hiring outside the system, this further contributed to the rumor mill. Naturally, there were some "instigators" who also got the students riled up and contributed to the nastiness.

To sum up, the New Rockford-Sheyenne experience is why I support this bill. Put this day in the record books.   I'm siding with the Union!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

School Funding

Posted by Waski_the_Squirrel on Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:41:21 AM
I was honored to have Wil comment on my blog, though a little embarrassed that he commented on one I wrote while sleep deprived. I hope I will make more sense today!

For many people, school finance is snooze inducing. In fact, if you are suffering insomnia, I might recommend reading the full text of Senate Bill 2200. This is a full 47 pages to lay out a new way to finance schools. I've read it. I should have read it Monday night instead of blogging. I might have gone to sleep faster! Even someone like me who is developing an interest in such topics found it mind-numbing.

The bill covers the state portion of school finance. This is based on student membership (no change there) and weighted based on the size of a school In very small schools, a student might be weighted at 1.25 students. In a large school, a student would be weighted at 1.00 students. The rest of the schools fall in between. The weighting factors have changed, but the concept is still the same. The logic is that small schools still have the same fixed minimum expenses, but fewer students to fund them. I was unclear from the wording whether the numbers were based on high school enrollment or the enrollment of the entire school, particularly since elementary and high school districts were in separate sections.

An interesting addition was a section on special-education funding. Some students are more expensive than others. If a student has a disability that mandates an aide, it is unfair that a school should have to absorb that cost just because the student happened to move into that district. These mandates are controlled by state and federal law, so it is only right that the state and federal governments should absorb some of that cost. I am concerned, however, that there will be schools that will take unreasonable advantage of this.

The bill goes on to suggest an equity payment. Some schools can raise more in tax money per student. Compare a school of 200 students that covers 500 square miles with a school of 500 students that covers 500 square miles. The former can raise a lot more tax money per student. Again, the concept of an equity payment doesn't bother me. My only real concern there is how it will be funded.

I was pleased to see language that defines "isolated schools." There are several in the state. Though these schools may be small, they are too far from nearby schools to consider consolidation. My own school is one of these, though we do have sufficient students to justify remaining open in any case.

I am concerned by a later section in which schools are penalized for a low general fund levy. Although there are certainly cases of irresponsibility (keeping expenses low by neglecting important maintenance or supplies), I think a lot of schools have been quite successful in managing their money so that they do not need high taxes. As a taxpayer, I have a problem with forcing a school to raise taxes, collect money it doesn't need, and thereby forcing it to spend irresponsibly.

Another section penalizes schools if they have a large taxable valuation per student. This is socialism at its finest. The state will rob from the rich and give to the poor. This is the concern I alluded to earlier with funding the equity payment. I would much prefer a "hold harmless" clause which does not penalize wealthy schools for accidents of geography or the ability to work with neighboring districts in consolidation.

There is much more to the bill, and a great deal of history to this school funding debate. I want to take a brief moment and introduce my suggestion. I'll develop this in more detail another day.

My suggestion is that the legislature finally take the bull by the horns and deal with the small schools in the state. I don't care to step on any toes by naming specific districts, but I will make some broad brush strokes.

I would like to see all elementary districts made part of high school districts. This does not necessarily mean closing a school. It merely means making it part of a district. The decision of keeping a school open or not should be made by the district, with some understanding that elementary children should not have horribly long bus rides.

There are a number of miniscule districts around the state that contain high schools. Unless they are isolated, these should be closed. The students could be absorbed by neighboring districts with very little hardship and the land distributed equitably. This will help solidify the districts that do survive and enable them to plan better for the future. It will increase the teacher supply both by releasing some teachers into the market and by giving each school less competition for a pool of candidates. It will also make teaching candidates more likely to stay within the state because they will not need to ask the obvious question: "How long will your school remain open?" Also, schools will be able to offer a greater salary.

Of course, my idea doesn't just step on toes. It stomps on them. A lot of people will be affected and displaced by my proposal. Until very recently, I would have been displaced by this proposal and very unhappy about it. However, my solution has the advantage of creating a much more long-term solution to the problems that schools are facing in this state. Senate bill 2200 may deal with the money issue, but provides no long-term plan for dealing with the underlying demographic issues. The school finance problem in this state is not just a money issue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »