It is admirable that public comment was sought in the recent principal-hiring processes around the district. However, many will not participate until and unless Robinson and his crew have moved on and a fresh, trustworthy superintendent is in charge. This is because there are parents who have worked for positive change for this district who believe they could harm the chances of a perfectly capable candidate by participating in the process and noting positive attributes of this or that candidate. In other words, those seen as in the "enemy camp" by Robinson's crew, might well give a candidate the mark of Cain by appearing to support them. Rather than risk doing that, there are parents abstaining from the process.
Some may see this as paranoid, but it is a real fear to some parents, and I can see their point. It is nice that Steve Kelley works to involve parents and the community now. The problem is, it won't work because there is too much water under the bridge, too much distrust, too many attempts to intimidate and silence teachers with opposing viewpoints, and too much condescension to parents with concerns.
Kelley is probably trying to save his own future in Lebanon by taking steps to involve community in ways that might have been successful years ago, before so much negative history was made. (Is it sad or what that LCSD needs a legal ruling to tell Robinson he can't order staff to talk only to their bosses about concerns or questions and not to exercise their constitutional right to free speech by talking with elected school board members?). Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
On substitute teachers
Every once in awhile I hear of a substitute who actually does a better job in the classroom than the regular teacher. Here's an example: A high-level math teacher at Lebanon High School recently didn't want/know how/care to explain a concept that many students in the class weren't grasping, yet the teacher elected to just "move on" to stay on a teaching timeline rather than back up and explore different options for explaining said concept. Fortunately the teacher was absent soon thereafter, and the substitute happened to know math and how to teach it. The sub backs up and takes time to explain this apparent hole in our students' prior math learning, until these bright students grasped the concept! Success!
Then there was another recent sub who lacked knowledge of a speciality subject area where the sub was assigned. This sub just let the class hang out and talk the entire period, wasting valuable educational time. If a subject is too specialized for regular subs to follow a lesson plan (do teachers at the high school level do lesson plans?), say maybe band, choir, French, Spanish.... couldn't there be a quality DVD on hand that would enrich the students? A play in French? A concert by a famous choir or symphony orchestra? I'd say a substitute teacher should be able to teach (or at least play a teaching DVD), or we are not only wasting our students' limited educational hours but paying way too much for a sitter.
Then there was another recent sub who lacked knowledge of a speciality subject area where the sub was assigned. This sub just let the class hang out and talk the entire period, wasting valuable educational time. If a subject is too specialized for regular subs to follow a lesson plan (do teachers at the high school level do lesson plans?), say maybe band, choir, French, Spanish.... couldn't there be a quality DVD on hand that would enrich the students? A play in French? A concert by a famous choir or symphony orchestra? I'd say a substitute teacher should be able to teach (or at least play a teaching DVD), or we are not only wasting our students' limited educational hours but paying way too much for a sitter.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Out of touch
Apologies to those who have missed this blog. I have over-committed in all domains of my life, so haven't blogged or read the other educational blogs in some time. I would like to be back on track soon, but am not sure this will happen in the near future.
Of course I was very pleased to see the board vote not to renew Jim Robinson's contract, yet it doesn't seem he'll be gone anytime soon. I fear he will hang around and work to support school board candidates at the next election who would initiate another vote to renew his contract if they are elected.
And to the person who asked if I wasn't blogging because of comments by Dennis...Heck no! I disagree with Dennis about most things local yet there is something about him I like: He's passionate about his views and will state them in no uncertain terms, and seems to really want a better educational system for Lebanon's youth even though he's wrong about the best ways to get there!
And as for LT, who last I heard was anonymous and I respect his/her right to remain that way, I just have been too busy to read her/his rants of late, and I suspect they haven't changed much.
Of course I was very pleased to see the board vote not to renew Jim Robinson's contract, yet it doesn't seem he'll be gone anytime soon. I fear he will hang around and work to support school board candidates at the next election who would initiate another vote to renew his contract if they are elected.
And to the person who asked if I wasn't blogging because of comments by Dennis...Heck no! I disagree with Dennis about most things local yet there is something about him I like: He's passionate about his views and will state them in no uncertain terms, and seems to really want a better educational system for Lebanon's youth even though he's wrong about the best ways to get there!
And as for LT, who last I heard was anonymous and I respect his/her right to remain that way, I just have been too busy to read her/his rants of late, and I suspect they haven't changed much.
Friday, February 8, 2008
What next? Career choices by 4th grade?
I appreciate State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo encouraging Lebanon's 7th-8th graders to begin to ponder possible career options, and to know that there will be additional science and math requirements in place by the time they graduate from high school. But it seems there is pressure on students to select a career path before their developing brains can even get around the word "career." I would wager it's a small percentage of you reading these words who had selected a viable career choice by 8th grade.
The academy system at LHS tracks kids by asking them to pick a general career area so they can select the most appropriate academy before their freshman year. Each academy then tailors classes to cover high school basics within the framework of the academy career domains. This system greatly reduces the possibility that a student interested in physical science will enroll in a drama class (in a different academy) that sparks a passion for theatre arts, that might then lead to a college drama major: It reduces the chance a student strong in language arts (social systems academy) will discover a talent for chemistry as applied in a medical field (different academy).
High school resources are best spent offering a wide range of courses that cover basics and offer a taste of possible career futures. How will one know if one likes welding, if there is not a class to try? How will one know if they might have abilities and interests to train as a dentist if as an 8th grader they loved drama so selected a social academy?
Now dentists might indeed come out of a social academy: It can happen. But this tracking of high schoolers reduces the chances that they will find their way to a true passion. Just as tracking in the 60's steered some of us toward college, some towards vocational schools and some towards a terminal high school diploma -- this process limits students knowledge of their choices and interests by prematurely asking them to make life-changing choices.
There was a day when students graduated from high school, then decided on their next step. Then there was tracking by school-determined aptitude levels (college prep, voc prep, or high school is all you can hope for.). Now students are asked to decide in the 8th grade on a general career domain.
Will we keep pushing career-decisions to lower and lower grades? Do we start to teach the kindergardener who wants to be a cowboy to make rope loops?
We need to back off and gives kids space to discover interests and abilities at the high school level, while enthusiastically teaching basic courses with rigor so that as many students as possible are ready for college courses should they decide to pursue them.
The academy system at LHS tracks kids by asking them to pick a general career area so they can select the most appropriate academy before their freshman year. Each academy then tailors classes to cover high school basics within the framework of the academy career domains. This system greatly reduces the possibility that a student interested in physical science will enroll in a drama class (in a different academy) that sparks a passion for theatre arts, that might then lead to a college drama major: It reduces the chance a student strong in language arts (social systems academy) will discover a talent for chemistry as applied in a medical field (different academy).
High school resources are best spent offering a wide range of courses that cover basics and offer a taste of possible career futures. How will one know if one likes welding, if there is not a class to try? How will one know if they might have abilities and interests to train as a dentist if as an 8th grader they loved drama so selected a social academy?
Now dentists might indeed come out of a social academy: It can happen. But this tracking of high schoolers reduces the chances that they will find their way to a true passion. Just as tracking in the 60's steered some of us toward college, some towards vocational schools and some towards a terminal high school diploma -- this process limits students knowledge of their choices and interests by prematurely asking them to make life-changing choices.
There was a day when students graduated from high school, then decided on their next step. Then there was tracking by school-determined aptitude levels (college prep, voc prep, or high school is all you can hope for.). Now students are asked to decide in the 8th grade on a general career domain.
Will we keep pushing career-decisions to lower and lower grades? Do we start to teach the kindergardener who wants to be a cowboy to make rope loops?
We need to back off and gives kids space to discover interests and abilities at the high school level, while enthusiastically teaching basic courses with rigor so that as many students as possible are ready for college courses should they decide to pursue them.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
"Shame on you"
I noticed, reading some comments on another educational blog, the phrase, "Shame on the rest," when someone disagreed with a commenter and those who agree with them. This is a variation of, "Shame on you!" Fortunately, I don't see this phrase too often. It's a deeply hurtful phrase used today, in my opinion, mostly by those without positive parenting skills while shaking a finger in a child's face.
How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?
What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?
How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?
What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?
Thinking outside the country
There's a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic, January-February 2008 edition, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education) by Matt Miller. He argues that to create a competitive educational system in this country, we need to do what other countries do that are most successful at educating their populations: Establish national standards and proficiencies, and let go of local and state control of schools entirely, which he blames for the dreadful state of America's schools today. He suggests we abolish local school boards, though acknowledges advocating for this is an uphill battle at best.
He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."
This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.
Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.
There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.
In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:
"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."
"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."
Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?
I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.
He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."
This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.
Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.
There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.
In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:
"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."
"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."
Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?
I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
OSU fires basketball coach
Now I'm not personally big on sports, but it did interest me to see that OSU just fired its head basketball coach after a several-year losing streak. We can argue this is unfair, that he should have had more chances to improve, that he recently had changed whatever he had done wrong in past years, etc.
This is how things work in the big world: Top people who don't meet goals are replaced.
Did this head coach have a formal evaluation before being let go? (Didn't sound like there was time for one.) I know, he didn't apparently have the same type of employment contract held by Robinson, but that's not the point.
In the real world, when the leader doesn't get the performance out of those she/he leads (for whatever reason), the leader is replaced.
This is how things work in the big world: Top people who don't meet goals are replaced.
Did this head coach have a formal evaluation before being let go? (Didn't sound like there was time for one.) I know, he didn't apparently have the same type of employment contract held by Robinson, but that's not the point.
In the real world, when the leader doesn't get the performance out of those she/he leads (for whatever reason), the leader is replaced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)