Browns and Blues

Today in class we watched a Frontline episode called "A Class Divided." It's a classic story that was first told in the 1960s when an Iowa teacher divided her class into blue eyes and brown eyes. She struggled with a way to teach discrimination and the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. to her third graders in an all white town. It also brings up the question of how we really know something. Would explaining to a class of third graders what happened to MLK, Jr. and defining the term discrimination be enough? Should third graders actually experience discrimination or are they too fragile? Walking a mile in my shoes was never easy.

What is most disturbing about the entire exercise is that students, almost overnight, internalized their emotions and feelings of confidence and self-worth based on external expectations and treatment. If the "blues" were "dumb," then their performance in the classroom dumbed down. If "browns" were bright and special, their performance improved.

But students don't just get those messages from a teacher in a classroom. Society, film, family, sports, advertisement all send messages of "you are blue" or "you are brown" and are often mutually reinforcing. That the arbitrariness of discrimination can be laid so bare in a concrete and simple way is brilliant. But that doesn't imply the reverse. Simply changing expectations or messages to students in a classroom, or in a school for that matter, is only a beginning and certainly won't overcome the constant, loud barrage of contrary information from outside the school.

Once again education may be part of the solution, but without significant social and cultural changes, it is a sail without a ship.

The Young and Compliant

Colorado's law for teacher due process ("tenure" was eliminated some years ago) only applies to non-probationary teachers. For the first three years of probation, teachers can be non-renewed (that's politically correct for fired) for absolutely no reason at all. A teacher may have superb evaluations and respect from students, colleagues and parents alike, but if a principal decides to boot the teacher, no reason is necessary.

Some would like to see all teachers in this boat. Easier to get rid of poor teachers, they say. But I've seen first hand some of the side effects of a lack of due process. First, probationary teachers are leaned on heavily for extra work. Are you really going to say "no"? Many are "yes men," and I don't blame them. It is only logical under the circumstances.

Probationary teachers that ask questions, or, God forbid, actually challenge something in athe building or district had better keep their suitcases packed. And some teachers pull up roots and move halfway across the country to accept a position, only to find at the end of the year that they aren't asked back.

And bad teachers, you say? I've seen absolutely fabulous teachers get the size 9 out the door simply because they are confident professionals and don't cower in fear to the powers that be. I'm not talking insubordination; I'm talking just asking probing questions. Or asking for justification, or clarification. Just asking questions can be (and is often) considered inappropriate and unprofessional. (Uncompliant.)

Of course that says more about the insecurity and incompetence of an administration than anything about the teacher. But, tell me please, how is that helping students receive a quality education? Due process is one of the checks and balances that keeps education honest and high quality. It is in the best interests of students. Educators never have to apologize or agonize over due process or tenure. Without it teachers won't teach, they'll be forced to deliver canned information.

It is only logical under the circumstances.

Groupies

James, Tony, and Tim; Sarah, Ariel, and Nura. Today groups of three, with boys and girls in separate groups. Tomorrow, perhaps, groups of four integrated, but self-selected. Next week, random groups of four with defined roles and a clear assignment. For a discovery lesson, groups of three with only a question defined. Group work can prove an effective way of learning. It can also prove to be an effective way of avoiding work.

The most common difficulty with group work is common grading on a common outcome. It is almost impossible to provide that kind of lesson without hearing from at least one parent about the unfairness of anything but an individual grade for individual work. I've always found that intriguing, since very few of us work in jobs where we are not evaluated or rewarded to a greater or lesser extent on how we work together in teams to reach a common goal or product.

While a great deal of research and theory has become available in the last few years that promotes the concept of certain learning by gender segregation, it often works better for the boys than the girls. Girl groups too often end up in long gossip sessions. I know how that sounds, but come to my class and observe.

Another observation that has only become clearer over the years, is that without a great deal of structure, groups tend to accomplish very little. It seems as though students are more social than previously, but less able to work socially.

It isn't often that one student will bear the burden of the group for a grade. I've found, at least with my students, that anyone who tries to free ride on the work of others in the group is quickly called to task or ratted out.

At any rate, the current fad is group work, group work, group work. The balance, I think, has tipped too much toward that style of learning. It is an important part of any classroom learning and teaching, but it also has significant drawbacks, not the least of which is the greater amount of time that groupwork tends to take, and the great range of quality in the work that is accomplished. But the group groupies in education tend to only see the benefits.

Cave, Hic dragones!

A progress grade report goes home and has a statement: Progress toward proficiencies; Upper elementary benchmark; DERA score. Inquiry student-centered labs followed by formative assessment to inform instructional pedagogy. Huh? It's called jargon.

Most professions have their jargon-laden language. In some cases it makes sense too. There are very specific meanings and understandings in certain professions that require precise words to convery very specific knowledge. But in particular with education, the jargon mostly serves to raise a barrier between the education profession and the public, the most important public being parents.

The dangers of using jargon language with the public is that it not only obscures meaning, but also makes the profession appear haughty and arrogant. For parents, understanding their student's strengths, weaknesses, and progress are paramount, and, although the jargon vocabulary may convey those things precisely to someone in the field, it only conveys confusion to most.

Mapmakers used to put the phrase, Cave, hic dragones! (Beware, here be dragons!), on maps where there were dangers or very little knowledge of the area. They were obscure areas that were to be avoided. In much the same way educational jargon should come with the warning. The obscurity that it creates brings only miscommunication, bad faith, and mistrust. That will undoubtedly be used by those that see education as only a money-making opportunity to portray public education in a poor light.

But, we are the dragonslayers.

Pursuit of Rigor (Mortis?)

I've always struggled with the trivia model of knowledge. Yes, knowledge is "knowing" many things. Yes, we should know some of the trivia of US History--dates, people, elections, names, places. But you can drill down to infinite layers of trivia. The Vietnam War itself, for example, could easily fill a semester of study, and without too much trouble be expanded to fill an academic year. Students would have knowledge of the Vietnam War in great detail. Is that essential? Let me provide an example of a released multiple choice "trivia" question from the AP® exam.

The national road was constructed primarily for the purpose of
a. demarcating the southwestern boundary of the Louisiana purchase
b. promoting trade and communication with the Old Northwest
c. opening the southwest to ranchers
d. assisting the movement of settlers to the Oregon Country
e. relieving overpopulation and crowding in the Northeast

How important is knowing this in terms of "knowing" or "understanding" US History? How much of these facts do we spend time memorizing? How much should be details within context, versus cramming information? How long will that information last, and what is its overall contribution to being "educated"? What is the meaning of rigor or rigorous?

Generally when educators and politicians speak of "rigor" we are talking about high expectations and richness of content. There is no question that AP® courses are "rigorous" on some level. But, I remain unconvinced that the trivia knowledge expectation has much to do with rigor. How many of us, high functioning, professional adults could answer the question above without a refresher? Have we used that knowledge for anything than trivial pursuit or our secret at-home competition with Jeopardy contestants? Would we be satisfied with science students who can rattle off all the data from the periodic table--in order--but can't manage their way through an experiment? Should we be with history?

Rigor, defined as strictness or severity, harsh circumstance, cruel act, rigidity, doesn't seem to be the best approach to knowledge. Perhaps a new word, a synonym, would help rethink what we are after, perhaps "thoroughness." Don't we want thorough, competant historians? That's my beginning point for rethinking and recreating a US History experience that I believe is far more "rigorous" than Advanced Placement®.

It's worth a shot.