I'll be gone until about July 10. I'm visiting family out of state as well as taking two different classes.

I'll be back, hopefully refreshed.

Kids need mothers and they need fathers. I'm not writing about abusive parents or the exceptions. I'm being general. Mothers and fathers bring different things to their children. The balance of two different parents produce healthy children.

What brings this to mind is that today is Father's Day. I was a little depressed that I could not find a suitable card for my own father. Too many were insulting. They seemed to play with the idea that "father" was inept, a clutz, or stupid. There were a few really sappy ones that were supposed to be from daughters. Since I'm male and I'm not sappy, I wasn't going to send one of those! I finally broke down and bought a blank card on Saturday (after the post office closed) and I'll write my own material into that, a bit late.

What I want to talk about today is the importance of fathers in raising children. This is not to denigrate mothers. Rather, it is to emphasize the importance of fathers.

Independence

Watch most small children when they hurt themselves or they struggle. They tend to respond with cries of "Mommy!" Mommy responds with hugs and kisses and lots of attention. Daddy is more likely to respond with, "Well, no bones broken." Though this is a bit of a stereotype, it does illustrate what fathers bring to the raising of children.

Fathers have a tendency to let children fight their own battles. As a teacher, I deal far more with mothers than with fathers. This does not mean that fathers care less. It means that they view problems differently. Fathers are good at teaching children how to take care of themselves. This is an important part of adulthood. Adults take care of themselves and only learn to do so by taking care of themselves. Sometimes, at the beginning, they fall flat on their faces. This teaches them what they did wrong and gives them an opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

Fathers teach children how to take care of themselves and how to rely on themselves.

Protection

Mothers can be quite protective of their children. While the father may say, "Well, the kid needs to study," the mother is more likely to say, "Our child is smart. That teacher is an old grouch." However, the father will protect his children when it really matters. We've all heard of the overprotective father when his daughter begins to date. However, remember that this comes from true protectiveness.

The father knows that sometimes people cannot take care of themselves. Sometimes they're too weak. It's important for children to know that someone is there to protect them.

Love

Much is made of a mother's love. We forget that fathers love as well. Fathers teach their children about one side of love. (Mothers teach the other side.) Fathers teach the type of love that involves loving someone enough to let them go. Fathers love their children so much that they allow them to fail so that they can learn. Sometimes, it takes true love to allow a person to suffer the consequences of his own choices.

Two Parents

Sometimes a father's love expects too much. Sometimes a child isn't ready. That is why a child really does need both a mother and a father. Soon I need to write about the importance of a mother's love.

I've noted before that junior and senior year should include college-level courses for some students. I see these two years as a transition to adulthood. Other students are doing apprenticeships. Anyway, the goal is to get them ready for adulthood.

Years ago, schools recognized that they had students who needed coursework that was more challenging than what was given to regular students. These were the students who would go on to college. The courses that resulted were called "Honors." The result was that some students took "Honors Chemistry" or "Honors English." In times of budget crunch, schools asked the reasonable question as to what the advantage of honors was. These courses would then be cut. A few years later, when the cash was there, they would be brought back.

The thing is, too many of these courses were little different from the regular version. At some schools, the teacher moved through the material faster. At others, the teacher might go into topics in more depth. However, there was no agreement as to what "honors" meant. Furthermore, the students who did not take the honors courses could go to the same colleges as those who did.

Then, some high schools started down the road to my dream school. Some offered "dual-credit" courses. These were courses that offered both college and high school credit. Schools fortunate enough to share a town with a college might bus their students over to the college for certain courses. Other schools brought in either AP or IB courses. These were courses with a recognized curriculum and an end-of-course exam. A high enough score on the exam resulted in college credit.

The result is that honors courses are disappearing. I like the concept, somewhat, at the junior high level, but, really, why take an honors course? The Washington Post recently examined this trend. If I were a high school student I'd much rather take the course that will help me in college. It makes sense. College should not be a brutal shock to students. High school needs to do a better job to transition them to college-level work.

Honors meant very little because it was not defined. AP and IB are well defined. Even dual credit is somewhat defined.

In short, this is a trend I support. It's moving education closer to my "dream school."

My dream classroom won't happen in the near future. Teachers' unions will fight it because it requires fewer teachers. Schools will fight it because it means risk. Students will fight it because it means responsibility and change. I'm not a fan of sudden, radical change anyway. We need to get the culture of education ready.

North Dakota is in a GREAT Position

I am fortunate enough to live in North Dakota. We are facing some serious changes whether we like it or not. By some estimates, over a third of our teaching force will retire in the next 5 years. There are not enough new teachers coming up to replace them. This will force consolidation of schools and will bring in a generational change.

It will also create school districts like mine which cover a massive land area. We're over 1000 square miles, and we're not the largest district in the state. We're bringing in kids from extremely rural places on roads which are of dubious quality. These are kids who could really benefit from an online component to their coursework. I've used online course software with dial-up internet. It's slow, but perfectly doable. As transport prices stay up and it becomes difficult to fill classrooms, many changes I proposed will become more appealing.

Your Classroom (and Mine)

My classroom needs a lot of change. Yours may as well. How much time do you waste? Are you teaching efficiently? Are you teaching or are you merely conveying information? There are a lot of changes we can make in our classrooms even if we're stuck with traditional measures of "seat time."

• Don't read the book to students!

Seriously, your students are intelligent. They can read. Don't spend class time conveying "notes."  Spend the time using the material. Sometimes it would be an activity. Sometimes it would be a "template" for them to fill in their own notes. It might be discussion. There are many USEFUL ways to spend class time. Summarizing the book for them is a waste of their time.

• Lecture on the difficult or obscure.

There are things that are difficult for students. Unless you're a new teacher, you know what they are. If you're a new teacher, I'm afraid textbooks don't help much, so you'll need the experience. Still, the solution is the same. Spend your lectures demonstrating how to do things. Spend your lectures explaining what kids don't understand. (Mine never make the like between Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment and what it says about atomic structure.) Keep these lectures short. Kids have a short attention span.

• Focus on Individuals
  

Some kids need help. While kids are doing these activities instead of taking notes from your lecture, you should be circulating. Help kids. Don't use the time to sit at your desk and catch up on your work. You can provide the targeted extra instruction to students who need it. Maybe you can offer a tutoring session.

• Focus your Curriculum

Your textbook is a nice resource, but it's not a curriculum. Figure out what you're trying to teach from your national and state standards. Create textbook assignments from there. Recognize that just because it's in the book that does not mean it's important. It may even be important, but perhaps not worth teaching.

• Skills, not Facts

A certain body of facts is inevitable in any course. For example, I really do believe kids should know about the parts of an atom. However, too many facts become trivia. Many will be forgotten. What is important is the skills students develop. Can they balance a chemical equation? Can they explain the causes of the Civil War? If you know the skills you want them to take away, this will help inform your choice of facts they must learn.

• Differentiate?

This is a tough one. I have a real problem calling a course "Physics" when it is a different thing for different students. I want students to have the freedom to work at their own pace. At the same time, I teach some lazy students and I teach some students who are not capable. When I put "Physics" on their report card with my name, others who read that should have a good idea what that student learned. This is tough and I don't have a good answer for it yet.

• Don't accept substandard work!

Some students will do just enough to get by. They will turn in papers littered with spelling and grammar errors as well as other serious faults. As long as they get a grade, it's "good enough." It's time for teachers to stand up. Rather than mark off points (which aren't hurting them), insist that they do the work properly. INSIST on good work. This is tough, especially in the face of apathy. Hold your ground and they will do better.

I should note that I'm not a fan of this on tests. When I collect tests, I do look for blank answers and insist that students at least try. However, the danger of redoing tests is that students may see the first one as only a "practice." Possibly you can allow students one retest per quarter or semester. Tests, though, should be a measure of what has been learned. I would much rather see students receive tutoring or extra practice on those parts of the test where they struggled.

Not much of what I proposed today is revolutionary. However, it's amazing how few teachers actually do it. This will be a great in between step on the way to my "dream school."

Previously, I noted that the current structure of schools holds a lot of kids back, directs a lot of kids in a direction that doesn't apply to them, and leaves too many kids behind. I suggested a few innovations, among them:

• Alternative forms of class (online, ITV)
• More options (which goes along with the alternative forms)
• A rigorous course of study for those students not college bound that includes apprenticeships.

I want to look at what such a school would look like. This is my dream-world post. My next post will be about how to implement my dream in a real classroom.

Seat Time

States have requirements of "seat time." Every year, I fill out papers that tell the state exactly how many minutes I spend teaching each course, eating lunch, and as a "prep hour." This is something states can easily measure. It forces a certain minimum, and it makes for nice graphs. The idea is based on the turn of the early 20th century Carnegie Units. Unfortunately, just because a student is in the room, this does not mean he's learning. Karin Chenoweth recently described substandard teaching in an article that was supposed to be about NCLB.

Any reader can recall teachers who wasted some or a lot of class time. In other words, seat time is not a measure of education. I can recall plenty of classes where I just sat there while the teacher read the book. I've even been guilty of being that teacher. I try not to be, but it happens. Seat time requirements hold students back. These requirements also leave some students behind.

In its current structure, schools are stuck with these requirements, but what if they weren't? What if a student could access my syllabus online? What if that student could read the assignments, do the work, and come to the school a few days a week to do labs, get targeted assistance, and to take tests. The school could save money on transport (and classroom space), and the student could move at his own pace. A recent article on Accelerated Math explores how this could work.

My dream school would eliminate measures of seat time altogether. My dream school would measure student education by a combination of course and project grades as well as a standardized test.

Responsibility

In the end, the person responsible for education is the student. I can't make a student learn. However, if the work can be appropriately paced with appropriate amounts of practice, a student is more likely to learn. Some require lots of practice and more time, some require very little practice and a lot less time.

At the same time, these students will be working in the "real world" someday. School needs to prepare them to be self-motivated and responsible. A structure such as I describe would require responsibility at a young age. As I noted before, the junior high and elementary students would still be in regular classes, and hopefully learning about setting goals and deadlines as they prepare for a more independent style of learning later.

My suggestions would require fewer teachers. If I'm not in school every day to write notes on the board for my students to copy down, I could offer more courses. I could also teach at 2 or more schools. I might spend 2 days doing the tutoring and labs at my current school, 2 days at the school 45 miles east, and maybe another day I could teach over ITV to all my students. In less rural areas, it would work out even better!

Class Time

Seat time is not a measure of learning. Nevertheless, I noted that students do need time in class, even in my dream world. Currently, too much instruction (including my own) is retelling the book to the students. This is "lecture" or "sage on a stage." While lecture has its place, it is of only limited utility. Lecture is good for things like explaining a piece of equipment, explaining an obscure or difficult concept, or explaining a particular skill.

Most of class time should involve students DOING the subject. Students in Physics should be doing Physics. This might be labs, it might be solving a problem, or it might be getting some help from me on a difficult concept. When I say "problem" I don't mean doing the homework problems where they practice application of momentum. I mean a more complex problem that involves truly understanding and applying the concept.

Benefits

• Reduced transport costs: students don't have to be delivered to school every day.
• Reduced energy costs: with less students in school, fewer and smaller facilities are required.
• Reduced staffing costs: I can teach more classes by using technology and by using time more efficiently.
• Responsibility: students would be more responsible for their own education.
• Responsibility: teachers would be held accountable for what their students learn rather than the amount of time they spend in the classroom
• Buy-in: students who are not held back or rushed ahead by their classmates are more likely to have a favorable opinion of school. Furthermore, if education is more applicable to their plans, they are more likely to buy into it.
• Targeting: instead of lecturing large groups, teachers can spend the time on difficult concepts and on the instruction individual students need. Student A may need to spend more time to get through Chemistry than Student B.

As a close, I want to relate something about me. I once worked in a fast food restaurant. I was terrible at making soft ice cream cones. Where most people learned the skill in a few days, I took months. I eventually learned it and became quite good at it. By the time I quit the job, my ability to make soft ice cream cones was as good as or better than anyone else there. I just needed more time to develop the skill.

I'm the same way in math. I like math. I can even teach math. It just doesn't come quickly to me. Slow does not mean "stupid." It means slow. Just like fast doesn't mean "smart." We want people in the workforce who are good at their jobs. We don't really care how they got to be good. In grad school, I would turn in proofs that were nothing like those produced by the true math majors in the room. Mine were right, just really different. I look at math differently. Many students do as well, but we've convinced ourselves (and them) that they're less capable.

My dream school allows anyone who desires it to succeed and learn.

Some "children" leave themselves behind. This is a simple truth. I really believe that all children can learn, but not all children will learn. As I've noted before, some schools and teachers move children into this latter category because of their practices or structure. The solution (for most children) is almost magical in its simplicity. Implementation is more difficult. That solution is: choices.

Choices in Education

Not all students will go to college. Not all students will work with their hands. I live in a very rural area, but not all of my students plan to be ranchers. School needs to be structured so that these students can pursue interests based on career choice. At the same time, schools need to retain the flexibility for students to change their minds as they mature and their interests change.

The only way to truly accomplish this is flexibility. Some school districts are large enough to provide this "in house." Many, like mine, are not. My district covers over 1000 square miles and contains only 450 students. We can't offer the choices of a Bismarck or Fargo.

This brings up the other part of flexibility. Not all schools need to hire a teacher of every subject. ITV is one way to deliver courses. Another is online coursework. Neither quite replaces having an actual instructor in the room. However, they provide options. The students in my school can take German through ITV. We will never offer German ourselves. We're too small to employ a full time instructor.

Schools would be able to share teachers, hire specialized teachers, and give students choices. My students are shut out of AP courses right now because we don't have the population to justify AP courses. Online courses would change that.

While we need choices, we also need to set some limits. I would make the junior and senior years the time when students truly branch out and focus. This would also be the time for apprenticeships, internships, and other real work experience. It might also be a time to start taking some college courses.

A few electives would be appropriate at the sophomore and freshman level, but these students are really still figuring out who they are. They aren't ready to specialize.

A Base

We are all citizens of a great nation. Citizens should all have certain things in common. We should all have the ability to better ourselves. We should share certain cultural elements. We should all share certain skills and knowledge. Because of this, students should master certain skills.

Up until the 8th grade, students should share a common curriculum. Now I don't want to hold any student back. I want them to be able to work faster. However, there are certain skills and bodies of knowledge that all should master. Individual students should be able to move beyond this base, but all should have that base. I would only make exceptions for those who are mentally incapable of understanding the base.

For some examples of a common curriculum, look at the standards of Project 2061. This is a good example of a base in science. Science majors and the college bound should move beyond it. Skilled workers will likely move beyond it. However, everyone should have that base.

Conclusion

I recognize that this whole series rambled a bit. In some ways, this blog helps me organize my own thoughts. Let me sum up my main points. In other entries, not in this series, I will try to look at specific issues of implementation.

• Students need choices. A one-size-fits-all curriculum does not serve the needs of all students.
• Students need a base curriculum. There are certain skills and areas of knowledge that we should all share.
• Junior and senior years should start serious specialization. This would include true apprenticeships, college coursework, and various specialized courses.
• School should not lock students into a particular "track". Students are still maturing and deciding who they are.
• No choice should be the "easy" choice.
• ITV and online courses should be expanded so that teachers can specialized.
• Even small rural schools can offer more options.
• The current definition of a school day is out of date. Schools should be measure by results, not "seat time."
• Some students will choose to be "left behind" no matter what the school does.
  

National education standards are out of local control. Some would argue that that is the point. Fordham Foundation has spent a lot of time proving that state standards are weak. I won't argue that point. It's true.

The danger with national standards is that the "little people" like my readers and me don't have any control over them. They are too far away and too removed. Only large or powerful groups will have any influence.

There is no guarantee that the national standards will be any better than what the states have created. Witness the controversy over the national standards created for math by NCTM. The difference will be that the standards would have teeth and none of us will be able to do a thing about them.

This brings back the other danger of national standards. The little people can't influence them, but powerful or determined groups can. California is a case in point. Textbooks are subjected to a laundry list of requirements. Diane Ravitch did a better job than I can in describing this phenomena in California and many other states in her book The Language Police.

What caused me to post this today is a spate of bills in the California legislature. These are bills inspired by special interest groups. They are bills that require special attention to various ethnic groups be put into history books. This includes the Hmong, which is already law, Italians, American Indians, and who knows how many others. Now, in California, this is rather hard to fight. I know because three cowards refused to vote against legislation they opposed. Instead, they abstained.

At the national level, it would be impossible to fight this legislation. The curriculum could become so stuffed with special interest legislation that it would be a mockery.

At the state level, the little people can still control legislation. At the federal level, we lose any control. NCLB was a step in this direction. Let's resist any further steps.

Tomorrow I'll finish up with what schools should look like.