What Makes a School Great?

How do you define a great school?

The way it's typically done in the US is via standardized test scores. If you search a particular school, most likely you'll end up at greatschools.org, a website that ranks schools solely on the most recent standardized test scores available.

Obviously this ranking system leaves much to be desired, particularly for those who realize the flawed nature of standardization and high stakes testing. There is no attention paid to any of the important features of a school that research has proven to be crucial for student learning. These include class size, recess time, parent/community involvement, teacher collaboration/support, and student interest level, just to name a few.

It pains me that some parents select their child's school based solely on a group of test scores that have little application to the world. Standardized tests, after all, cannot measure some of the more important life skills such as problem solving, creativity, social skills, and compassion.

So why then, are we basing such an important decision--where to send our children to school-- on these functionally useless test scores?

Efficiency Is No Friend of School

I love reading blogs and articles about education. This one, by Peter Gray, discusses schools not as places of learning, but places to show off via grades and test scores. He makes a secondary point that I want to discuss further.

Efficiency. This is the enemy of schools, at both the administrative and classroom levels. I'm focusing on the classroom side here, because that's what I know firsthand.

Most people have no idea how much time teachers spend on classroom management. For the average person who is likely unaware of what "classroom management" entails, here is a loose definition: the routines, procedures, and methods a teacher uses to maintain order in the classroom. This involves things such as how to calmly enter the classroom, the signal to get quiet, and signs hung about the room that remind kids to "use their inside voices." Teachers spend hours upon hours just practicing routines and procedures with students. This certainly saves time in the long run because then teachers aren't trying to quiet the class for five minutes straight ten times a day for the rest of the year. However, what if such procedures and routines weren't even needed?

Not having routines and procedures would only work if there were few enough students; I'd say ten or less for younger grades and 15 - 20 for older grades, depending on how the classroom is structured. Imagine the time saved! Entire days could be used more efficiently, perhaps even for a field trip or guest presenter!

Proof in the Pudding

I saw this invigorating, inspiring post today from The Libertarian Homeschooler:

Some Things I Wish I Had Understood When I Started Homeschooling

1. Lessons do not equal learning.

2. Curriculum does not trump real work.

3. My expectations about "who our children will be and what our children will do" need to sit down and shut up.

4. Most veteran homeschoolers don't do sit-down lessons until the child is six or older.

5. Some veteran homeschoolers don't do parent-initiated lessons.

6. Some children don't read until they're 10. Others, 13. And then they pick up and are reading at the same level as their been-reading-since-kindergarten peers. Without intervention.

7. The years we did book learning like mad, our son tested really well. The years we did no book learning at all, our son tested better. Don't put much stock in book learning or testing.

8. No lesson, no video, no book, no class can substitute for a curious parent who is with her child and asking questions, exploring, reading aloud, making messes, making mistakes, facilitating, doing intellectual match-making, and explaining stuff. There's no substitute.

9. You must spend a lot of time with your child every day, intentionally, and open-heartedly.

10. If you focus on understanding the child's needs and capacities everything else will fall into place. Until you understand the child you have in front of you, nothing will fall into place and you'll keep going from thing to thing to thing. 

To Each Their Own Interests

One of the things I struggled with as a teacher was what material to teach. Probably many secondary (middle and high school) teachers struggle with this issue.

I imagine it would be even more difficult to determine what students should learn, especially millions of students. My classes were a mere 20-30 students and there was incredible variation in interests and personalities among them.

The reason I struggled so much with what to teach is because research proves (and I strongly believe) that learning happens best when kids are interested and engaged. It is highly unlikely that any single book will be interesting and engaging to all students in a classroom, even if there are only 20. So how can a rigid set of standards apply to millions of unique individuals who happen to be the same age?

How is it that someone with an advanced degree can determine exactly what millions of children should know at any given point in time? I believe that a second grader interested in dinosaurs should be able to pursue that. And a fourth grader interested in ecosystems should be able to explore that. But with standardization, students aren't allowed to explore their own interests in the name of "college and career readiness."

How Many People Does it Take?

How many people should be responsible for writing the standards that millions of children will be expected to learn? What kinds of credentials should they have?

A mere TWO people wrote the language arts standards of the new Common Core. There was a third person that was consulted. The content that millions of teachers are now required to teach and that even more students are required to learn rests on two (and a half) individuals. But it's ok, because those two individuals are probably highly qualified, right?

David Coleman is perhaps the more notorious creator of the Common Core language arts standards. After graduating from Yale, he studied English literature at Oxford University and classical philosophy at Cambridge University. Not too shabby. Then, he applied for a high school teaching position in New York.... and was turned down. Instead, he began work with a large consulting firm, advising urban school districts. He has never been a teacher and has no educational training whatsoever. But wait, advising urban schools must count for something, right? Sure, but that is the business/administration side of schools and has little to do with instruction.

Anyone writing an educational standard should have some sort of education training and/or experience. Understanding how kids learn is important to creating standards. Incidentally, I left public education due to my interest in neuroscience. We have made leaps and bounds in brain research in the last 30 years but this amazing stuff has been ignored by public education. It is so incredibly frustrating to see schools doing the opposite of what research proves to be effective. Perhaps if the people who wrote the standards had some knowledge of teaching and how kids learn, their standards wouldn't ignore proven research.

Happy Birthday to William Kamkwamba

One of my favorite books and stories is the autobiographic novel The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. It is the story of a 14-year-old kid who built a windmill literally from trash, thereby bringing electricity to his African village for the first time. The author and innovative windmill builder is William Kamkwamba. The book is also available as a children's book. Here is the website for more information.

I love William's story for many reasons, one of which I'll focus on here. I like to see people succeed. As a teacher, helping others succeed is what I strove to do, even though schools make failure more possible. Shouldn't success outside of school translate to success in school and vice versa? The intention of public education, after all, is to prepare kids for life outside of school.

The reason William was able to build the windmill was because his parents couldn't afford his school fees and so instead of school, he went to the library and checked out books related to his interest in science and mechanics. Often times, kids do their best work outside of school, or in spite of school. A particular thing that comes to mind is coding/programming games. I would love to see schools who enable kids to follow their passions and build their own metaphorical windmills.

Places of Learning?

If schools are truly places of learning, then a child shouldn't be "good at" or "bad at" school. Every child has the capacity to learn and usually the eagerness, too, until school takes it away. The very idea that one can be "bad at" school means there is something going on besides learning. Being inherently "bad" at learning is impossible. Sure, we all learn at different paces and in different ways. But the fact remains that we can all learn, and we all do learn, one way or another. 

Perhaps public school only caters to certain types of learning, or only allows certain types of learning. This is especially true with NCLB and now Common Core, which have all but done away with hands-on learning of any kind. Hands-on education is less testable, or at least less directly testable. It's much easier to shove a story in front of a kid and have him answer the questions that go with it. Cheaper, too. 

To Each Their Own Pace

"A child who is miserable with a curriculum is not 'learning' a whole lot. As for what they're 'supposed to' learn and when they're 'supposed to' learn it, I think they pull this stuff out of a hat and call it good. It has nothing to do with how children learn and what will serve each individual the best. It's about pushing the meat through the grinder. A numbers game. We find that we do better without adhering to a standard scope and sequence because we're tailoring the education to the individual."

~The Libertarian Homeschooler


Standards, by definition, are NOT individualized. Teachers are encouraged to differentiate instruction to meet all children's needs, but in a classroom of 30 or more, that is utterly impossible. 

A standard suggests that there is a specific concept that a child should have mastered at a specific point in time. But why? Why is it so important that a child master any given concept at a particular age? If you have children, think about this. At what age did each child learn to walk and talk? Probably it was different for each kid. So then, why can't each kid master concepts and skills at his own pace throughout his school days? Why must we have deadlines for mastery?

I've heard a story of an unschooled kid who was slow to begin reading. Suddenly, at age nine, he blossomed and couldn't stop reading. By public school standards, he would have been labeled with any variety of (often negative) terms used for kids who have not achieved mastery by an arbitrary set date. He likely would have been placed in remedial reading classes under the Special Education umbrella, where kids who enter rarely leave. 

Strict and arbitrary standards are not healthy for kids. I say let kids learn what they want when they want, because, why not? 

A Letter to Students

Dear Students of Public Education,

I’m sorry. I’m sorry for all of the problems that you have to endure thanks to NCLB on steroids. I’m sorry that your generation is being cheated out of a quality education.

I’m sorry that you are looked at as a number and treated as a test score by the powers that be. Please know that your teacher does not see you that way. 

I’m sorry that our Congress members seem to think it’s necessary to spend more on prisoners than on you. Know that this is part of a larger systemic problem that has nothing to do with you. Unfortunately, you still get left with schools operating on shoestring budgets. But hey, at least it’s better than third world countries, right?

I’m terribly sorry if you’ve ever been made to feel stupid at school. This thought brings tears to my eyes. Test scores can only tell us a fraction of how smart you are. Know that many people are simply not good test takers and this in no way means you are dumb. Grades, too, are a poor indicator of intelligence. Some of the smartest folks did poorly in school and went on to become very successful adults. 

Most of all, I’m sorry that school has been stripped of excitement and passion for you. Some of you are lucky enough to have veteran teachers with a few tricks up their sleeves and I am so grateful for them. Please, please, please understand that learning CAN and SHOULD be more fun than you’ve experienced.  Don’t base your opinion of an entire subject or field on just what you learned about that particular subject in school. There is so much more to each subject than what you can learn from a textbook or worksheet. 

There are other ways to learn besides school. Find a way that you enjoy and learn the way you like!

Sincerely,

A Former Teacher  

What Should a Child Learn?

Is there an essential body of knowledge that everyone simply must know in order to survive or to thrive in this world? Who decides what kids must learn? How do they know?

These are questions most people don't often consider. Parents send their kids to school because that's what their parents did. "School" as such is just what kids do. Many people never question it.

But I think (and hope) this dynamic is changing. What with the glorious internet, people are realizing other options exist besides public school. True, more families than ever before are homeschooling. But is that in proportion to our population increasing?

One of the blogs I read recently resonated with me because it discussed a belief I hold dear: it takes a community to raise a child. More than ever before I think this idea is important, with our American divorce rate ever climbing and single parents being the norm.

I like the idea of a school co-op, where one person educates the children of several families. Alternatively, several parents could share the responsibility, either by working with the kids certain days or co-teaching with each other. There are many reasons that a school co-op is ideal:

1. The kids still get to socialize with other kids, as they would in a school setting. 
2. Smaller student:teacher ratio allows for much more individual attention.
3. Stronger relationships.
4. Healthier meal options than public schools.
5. Increased autonomy, both for the student and his parents.
6. More active learning such as field trips!
7. Greater access to technology. 
8. More all-around freedom, with schedules, curriculum, etc.
9. No tedious homework! 
10. Students mingling with a variety of ages more closely mirrors society. 

Creating a Culture of "It Wasn't Me!"

In my brief experience as a teacher, one of the most frustrating things was that my middle schoolers very rarely owned up to doing wrong. "It wasn't me!" was by far one of the most common phrases I heard on a daily basis.

I am a believer that kids learn behaviors in response to their environments and experiences. Therefore, I believe this response was learned. I also believe that the public school environment is a perfect breeding ground for such behavior. After all, no one ever wants to take responsibility when things go awry in public education. However, I don't think that's what directly causes such behavior in students.

I have to wonder if the Zero-Tolerance policy employed by many schools is primarily to blame for our students' adamant denial of wrongdoing. I say this because Zero-Tolerance by definition means there is no due process and anyone thought to be doing wrong is automatically punished without being allowed to defend himself. So if a kid really is innocent, she will vehemently declare it wasn't her, for fear of punishment without ever getting to tell her side or explain her behavior. I can't tell you how many situations were resolved when I just allowed my students to explain (after class) what happened. Sometimes students would even write me notes to explain the situation and avoid punishment.  

As a disclaimer, I do think a Zero Tolerance policy is necessary in some urban schools where gang violence is a problem. But it shouldn't be the norm.

So what is the alternative? I have heard of a few schools that have a peer review setup, where a group of students will decide on the appropriate consequence for the offending student. I like this idea, as it more closely mirrors society and creates a culture of accountability. Moreover, it can be a valuable experience for the peer jurors and can help the offending student see things from his peers' perspectives.

Many discipline problems could be avoided in the first place if our schools used researched-based practices and weren't overcrowded. For example, as I mentioned in my previous post, brain research is rarely (if ever) applied to teaching. Another example: I have an entire book on movement aiding in memory and yet kids are often expected to sit in their seats for the duration of class, which can partly be attributed to overcrowding. It's no wonder we have such rampant cases of ADD and ADHD. And since it relates, here is an article about ADHD being a hoax.

Alternative Schooling and Parenting

I'm not a parent yet but greatly look forward to that day. My husband and I have agreed that if we fully subscribe to the libertarian non-aggression principal as we do, that needs to also apply to parenting. So lately I have been reading blogs about what are mostly known as "alternative parenting" styles such as Attachment Parenting and Peaceful Parenting.

Most of these blogs mention how difficult it can be to deviate from mainstream ways and opinions. In fact, these parenting styles go beyond deviation to flat out rebellion against common mainstream parenting. I completely understand how tough it must be when other parents on the playground expect you to go over to your kid and respond a certain way to whatever issue has arisen. When you don't, there are looks of pity, of surprise, of frustration and even anger. But one thing these blogs agree on is to keep the child at the center of the response, for it is about their growth and not what these lollygags think.

I believe this mindset is similar to that of public school, which is the primary (mainstream) way we do things in the US. Because public school is the mainstream, people raise their eyebrows when an alternative such as homeschooling or unschooling is mentioned. One reaction is that public school is something kids just have to get through-- after all "I did it," many adults lament.

As a teacher and avid reader of educational blogs and research, I can't subscribe to public school. It goes against what we fundamentally know to be true about how children learn. I recently started reading a fascinating book on neuroplasticity, The Woman Who Changed Her Brain, about a woman diagnosed with severe learning disabilities who developed brain exercises to rewire her brain. As a child, she struggled tremendously in public school. The thing that got her through was her impeccable memory, which she used to regurgitate information on tests while not understanding it at all. For her sake, I am glad she was able to do this. But any school system that allows children to pass without understanding the material in the slightest is obviously doing a disservice to those children and to society as a whole.

Neuroplasticity and even the entire field of neuroscience is largely ignored in public schools. On a positive note, the bridge between education and neuroscience is finally being bridged via a new masters degree known at Harvard as Mind, Brain, and Education. It will certainly take time for this information and these degrees to be applied to education reform but at least we're finally bridging this gap!

Energetic employee wanted

As I've scoured the internet for jobs the past couple months, I've noticed something. It's actually pretty hard to miss: most employers seek "energetic" employees, which makes absolute sense because no one wants a lazy, lackluster employee. Having energy is a universally desirable trait, no matter the field.

And yet, in schools, energetic kids are seen as a problem. In fact, they are often medicated for having too much energy. In FACT, it is not uncommon for a school to threaten parents that unless they medicate their rambunctious child, the school will be forced to kick the kid out.

Once again, schools are missing the mark. Not only are they killing creativity, as shown in studies and lamented by Sir Ken Robinson, but they are killing energy.

Nothing to Show

There have been several stories of teachers resigning that have made news as of late.

In a video reported on by The Huffington Post, Ellie Rubenstein laments that everything she loves about teaching is extinct. Her ten-minute video covers nearly everything wrong with American public education today.

One of my oft read columnists, Valerie Strauss, wrote today about a Virginia teacher bemoaning the testing regime. Only four years from retirement, he is resigning.

It is not uncommon these days to hear stories like these, of great teachers who are leaving the profession due to the dilapidated condition of our system. But in a way, I feel that these teachers are lucky. Lucky because they had the chance to teach in public education. They experienced support from administration, parents, and their communities. They experienced success and will likely have no problem finding another job, no matter how similar or dissimilar to education. They changed lives, helped kids. But what about new teachers that never had that chance, that have already felt the walls collapsing on them, in just their first year? They have nothing to show. After years of dreaming of being a teacher, then four or five years of college, they are now left crushed. Their naive disillusionment is long gone, replaced by the stark realities of public schools.

Of course the real loser here is always the kids. As my hero, Sir Ken Robinson said (paraphrased), "Why aren't alternative schools the norm?" I can only hope that students find the alternative education that works best for them.

School Lunch

The First Lady usually takes up some sort of cause, and Michelle Obama certainly found hers. She has been on a healthy kids kick, which involved making changes to school lunches. While I know her intentions are nothing but good, her changes have fallen short in many ways.

First off, the milk. The new policy is to serve only 1% and fat free milk. Naturally, the 1% milk goes quickly, and the kids who eat last are stuck with fat free milk. Maybe you think that's a good thing. Actually, research proves that kids who drink fattier milk are actually skinnier. One of the reasons for this is that whole milk causes people to feel fuller and therefore eat less. Especially for active kids, milk fat is a good thing.

Second, Michelle Obama decided that kids shouldn't be served seconds. For some kids, this is no big deal; certainly for me, this would have been a non-issue in my school days. However, for active kids, this is rough. Obviously kids who play sports require many more calories each day. Moreover, this doesn't take a kid's age into consideration. Kindergartners might be fine without seconds, but a growing middle-schooler needs more food. I had middle school kids come to me after eating lunch, asking for food (I kept a drawer with snacks for them) because they were still hungry. Though I've only experienced it a few times, eating a meal and still being hungry SUCKS.

Third, the quality of school food leaves MUCH to be desired. Almost everything comes in a can (BPA, anyone?), bag, or frozen. One day, I saw "waffles" on the school lunch menu. I decided to get it, and was blown away to find these waffles came individually wrapped, heated in their plastic packaging. Of the dozen or so school meals I purchased, most of them seemed to have been heated in a microwave, as much of the food was soggy.

Forth, the serving size for those canned fruits and vegetables was increased so that kids would eat more of these important food groups. Well, if a kid didn't like the small portion previously provided, they probably aren't going to like the new increased portion size. Plus, without a parent to encourage trying a food, or taking just a bite, many kids won't touch their veggies. Soooooo, now you have even more wasted food.

Finally, the time allotted for lunch is ever-decreasing in this age of standardized test prep. My school's lunch periods were 25 minutes. This of course was supposed to include recess. Nothing like encouraging kids to scarf down their food in order to go play. Or, if they did take their time eating, they didn't get recess.

Streamlining

I spoke with the ELA teacher that preceded me and who is now doing Title One. She was/is a fabulous teacher, as my 8th graders like to remind me since they had her last year. As the Title One director, she was at school a couple weeks ago, offering support and interventions to teachers. She had offered me her class materials from previous years when I first took over but I didn’t really know what to ask for so I never took her up on that offer. I did receive some materials via her husband, the principal, some of which I used.

After her presentation about ways she wanted to support teachers (RTI), I talked to her about a few things, only one of which I remember now. I mentioned to her how the 8th graders seemed much more closely aligned in level, whereas 7th graders seemed all over the board.  I think I used the word “streamlined” to describe 8th grade. She enthusiastically agreed, saying that 7th grade just needed to be streamlined.

I was somewhat surprised that she said this, merely because she was such a good teacher, but I just nodded along because I had to get my thoughts in order. The idea of streamlining students seems.... totally/categorically wrong to me. That is exactly what standardized tests require, that all students perform at the SAME level. But never in the world will you find a situation in which 20 to 30 people involuntarily thrown together in a room perform at the exact same levels. We NEED differences in ability. “It takes all types,” as the saying goes. It is a GOOD thing that people have different fortes. Companies value differences, and in fact it is this very thing that gets one hired: standing out from the crowd! I don’t want to make everyone the same; I don’t want to streamline my students.

But where does that leave me? Against the grain, at the very least. Maybe the question then is what DO I want for my students, if not to perform at the same level? Of course the ultimate goal is that they become productive, self-reliant, caring citizens.  

Streamlining inherently means some students will be held back or stagnated. Why the hell would I want to stall a student? I’d rather stall a car. Another sad reality of standardization is that advanced students are essentially abandoned. Now that they’ve achieved and passed the test, a teacher has no more reason to help them improve--there are too many failing students that need her attention.

Always a Teacher

I still consider myself a teacher, even though I'm not teaching in a public school now, and even though I'm not teaching at all. It is still my passion and what I want to do, just not in our current system.

I read this tweet the other day by Joe Bower: "You're either an accomplice to standardized testing or you are a teacher. You can't be both." In my case, this is true. I can't give students a test I don't believe it, nor devote so much time to practicing and preparing for that test. Not only do teachers have to administer this test, they have to put on a happy face and attempt to convince students that this test is important. My former school resorted to telling students that the benchmark tests would be graded, just to make them take it seriously. Of course they weren't graded. I don't blame those kids one bit. After all, it's hard to take a test seriously when you took a very similar test last month or two months ago. There is no reward for doing well on it. So my former school starting offering rewards: pizza parties, free time, candy.

Learning should never be about bribing kids to try on a test.

The Cantankerous Common Core Monster

I had a three-hour Common Core training that left me so completely disheartened and frustrated by our public education system. Since discovering unschooling a year ago, I can't believe how counter-intuitive so much of what we do in public school actually is. I am adamantly opposed to the Common Core, which has been adopted by 46 states due to federal funding pressure. The Common Core, it turns out, was designed primarily by Pearson, the biggest education company in the US. While schools are laying off vice principals, school counselors, librarians, and running at minimum staff, education companies are making millions. Today the middle school SPED department asked the middle school team if we have any extra supplies. They are scrounging for pencils, pens, paper, expo markers, and other basic supplies. They've been using scrap paper because they have nothing else. To be clear, it's not Pearson that is at fault; rather, our system is backwards and Pearson happens to be the one profiting.

For me, standards go against my fundamental belief that students learn at different paces. Standards go against so much of what the research says and so much of what I know to be true!

Standardized testing takes up so much time. My school uses a system to test the kids four to five times a year to see where they're at. Kids are so tired of bubble sheets. I have articles galore on standardized testing, almost all of them viewing it unfavorably. I have articles on brain research which somehow never get applied to education.

Thankfully, there is a new degree that combines neuroscience with education. Finally! I hope to get my master's in that cross-field one day.

Bring Back the Passion

I guess for me it does come down to freedom. The simple reason I can’t teach in a public school is lack of freedom. Teachers cannot teach what they want, and student learning is relegated to politicians and others who’ve never taught and know little about child development. Students lack the freedom to learn what they want. Passion is what drives most careers and hobbies. Why not bring passion back to schools? Let kids do more of what they want, learn about their interests and passions.

Good Teachers and Sinking Ships

Since I have decided to make a career change from teaching to... as yet to be determined, I have heard the same response time and again. "But you're such a good teacher. We need good teachers."

Though I'm flattered by the compliment, good teachers are not what our education system and our children need. Sure, good teachers are instrumental, but in such a broken system, these teachers can hardly play a tune. When good teachers aren't allowed to teach the content they think is relevant, to assess the way they know best, and to teach more holistically than the standards would ever allow, their good ability is wasted. In our current system, good teachers' abilities are stifled. They aren't teaching the way they intuitively know to be best, the way they've seen work with even the toughest of students.

I've read letters written by retiring veteran teachers who can't understand this testing madness we currently practice. Veteran teachers have told me, many times over, that if they had the same decision to make in today's society, they wouldn't choose to be teachers. This is not because they don't enjoy teaching; on the contrary, teaching has been their livelihood. But the system has disintegrated to such a degree that getting started at this point is like jumping onto a sinking ship.

Good teachers won't solve our current problems. We need a fundamental systemic change, so that these good teachers are able to teach to the fullest of their potentials.