Category Archives: Current Affairs

A Less Than Holy Eve

Posted by Jan Kragen on November 4, 2019
Current Affairs, Elementary, Life in the Classroom

Kids sobbing in the halls.

Kids screaming in the classrooms.

Fistfights in the lunchroom.

Welcome to Halloween in the elementary school.

Don’t get me wrong, there are cute costumes. There are adorable children. The staff has a lot of fun being creative.

But Halloween can be analogous to a horror movie. You know, draining the life out of you. Eating you alive.

And the next day isn’t any better. Kids amped up on a sugar high.

Then there are the kids with whole bags of candy at recess on November 1, distributing pieces to their friends. Kids with nothing but candy for lunch. Except for milk. Chocolate milk.

Plus, they haven’t had enough sleep.

Be still my heart.

Continue reading →

Baby/Bathwater

Posted by Jan Kragen on October 12, 2019
Current Affairs, Education, Education Policy | gifted, Highly Capable

The recommendation from the New York City School District’s “School Diversity Advisory Group” has sparked a national conversation, one that’s erupted right here in the Seattle Public School District. The NYC advisory group claimed that the best way to desegregate NYC schools was to eliminate most gifted programs. In their reply, the National Association for Gifted Children pointed out that NYC’s history of using a single test “actually exacerbated under-identification.”

Denise Juneau, the new superintendent at the Seattle Public Schools, is also pushing to phase out selective programs for advanced kids although she’s currently being blocked by two school board directors.

Juneau called the HC classes “educational redlining.”

Let’s all agree that the demographics of most gifted or Highly Capable programs in the nation—or in Washington state—don’t closely match the demographics of the districts at large. For example, in Seattle, the stats look like this:

Continue reading →

Gifted Ed—Elimination or Equity

Posted by Jan Kragen on September 3, 2019
Current Affairs

At the end of August Mayor Bill de Blasio got the recommendation from his School Diversity Advisory Group: desegregate New York City schools by eliminating most gifted programs.

I teach a self-contained class in our district’s highly-capable (HC) program. The news from NYC certainly caught my attention.

“The panel recommended that the city replace gifted and screened schools with new magnet schools — which have been used in other cities to attract a diverse group of students interested in a particular subject matter — along with enrichment programs that are open to students with varying academic abilities.”

Understand, NYC has the biggest school district in the country. They also occupy a reasonably small geographic area with absolutely amazing public transportation running all day long. (When I lived in upstate New York, students could attend any school in the area and ride public transportation for free.) Moving to magnet schools all across their district is more feasible for them than in many districts.

However, both of the New York panel’s recommendations, for magnet schools and enrichment programs, are just vague outlines thrown out there. They are lacking in any details. (Gut what exists. Replace with something. Eventually. Design details to follow.)

First, I want to point out how NYC schools operate differently from what the Washington State Coalition for Gifted recommends and what our state requires. In New York City, they test kindergarten students using a standardized admission exam. “At the elementary school level, students can qualify for the Department of Education’s gifted and talented programs by taking a single standardized exam, starting in Kindergarten.” Students can be in the gifted program permanently based on that one test!

Parents who can afford it pay tutors to prepare their preschool students for the test. Of course, many parents can’t afford tutoring. And thus, the segregation begins.

Also, New York City parents nominate their child for testing. “Savvy parents” are more likely to do the work of filling out the nomination forms for testing their child for gifted programs, paving the way for their child to have opportunities that other children might miss.

In Washington the Gifted Coalition has fought long and hard for universal testing “by the end of second grade” when the test results are far more likely to be valid. And our state law now requires an identification process that uses multiple data points. Our districts aren’t allowed to rely on a single test. By the way, the Coalition also got the state to change the law so we no long talk about “nominations” in Washington. We talk about “referrals”—just like referrals to Special Ed or any other student support. Parent or teacher referrals might be considered as one of the multiple data points in the identification process in our state, but they are not the gatekeeper, allowing or denying entrance.

Best case scenario? Each district in Washington observes and monitors K-1 students, identifying truly high-fliers (not just early readers). By the end of second grade, the district does a universal screening (at school and during the school day) so every student in the district is reviewed by the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT). Then the MDT looks at additional data from every child who scores high on that initial screening, including (potentially) referrals from parents and/or teachers, before making decisions about placement in Highly Capable programs. Finally, the MDT should also review data of students entering middle school to see if there is anyone who might have been missed at a younger age.

Second, let’s just take a moment to acknowledge the vast difference between meeting the needs of exceptional students and providing enrichment. The first and most important need for truly gifted students is quality time with their intellectual peers. Second, they need increased depth and complexity. Third, they need a faster pace.

Here is what is being suggested as on alternative to that type of holistic gifted classroom in NYC: “For younger children, that could mean setting up small groups of students who are pulled out of their classrooms to learn the basics of photography.”

I wholeheartedly support enrichment options—like photography—being offered to all elementary students. Who wouldn’t love that? But don’t confuse that with a rigorous program of advanced academics.

My fifth graders have to complete a Classroom-Based Assessment in social studies, just like any other fifth grade students. But I model their projects on a 7th grade CBA and on National History Day projects (NHD is open to students in 6-12th grades). They learn to follow MLA format guidelines for their written work, including their “List of Works Consulted” for their CBA. (You might have used the MLA handbook in high school or college.) My goal is to start preparing them for the kind of writing they will do in high school and college.

Enrichment class? Not quite.

The goal of the School Diversity Advisory Group was desegregation. May I suggest, a better goal would be equity. By that, I mean every student gets the education they need.

Some fifth-grade students need extra help in learning how to read. Some fifth-grade students need extra help in answering specific questions about integers or even quadratic equations.

Some students need small group work on phonics.

Some need large group discussions on topics like geopolitics in the American colonies or economic theories in the 20th century.

Give students what they need. Including robust gifted education programs.

Thrilled about a new mandate? YES!

Posted by Gretchen Cruden on May 27, 2019
Current Affairs, Education, Education Policy, Life in the Classroom, Professional Development | trauma informed

On May 9th, Governor Inslee signed a law that surely will affect our most vulnerable of students deeply. This new law reads: “Beginning in the 2020-21 school year, and every other school year thereafter, school districts must use one of the professional learning days funded under RCW 28A.150.415 to train school district staff in one or more of the following topics: Social-emotional learning, trauma-informed practices, using the model plan developed under RCW 28A.320.1271 related to recognition and response to emotional or behavioral distress, consideration of adverse childhood experiences, mental health literacy, anti-bullying strategies, or culturally sustaining practices.

I cannot believe it. This is such an incredibly positive step in the right direction! I am especially excited to see trauma-informed practices included in this new law.

Last month I wrote about the importance of teaching students self-regulation skills, especially in regards to how they would like their lives to play out. The challenging part is having the insight as a teacher into the impact of trauma on students to help these students regulate. Often their regulatory behaviors are counter-intuitive it would seem and only when you know the motivations driving them do they begin to make sense. Insights are not always enough though. You have to be able to act on this knowledge. An equally difficult aspect of helping students of trauma is to have the skills required to respond to emotionally laden situations in a healthy manner. Up until now, access to this knowledge and these skills have been limited. This is the case no long. Now, the question becomes, “Can this knowledge and these skills truly help, and if so, how?” Continue reading →

Teach Challenging Books

Posted by Hope Teague-Bowling on April 8, 2019
Books, Current Affairs, Literacy

I first floated the idea of teaching Claudia Rankine’s book Citizen: An American Lyric at Lincoln on The Nerd Farm podcast. One major point of discussion was that despite being first published in 2014, the urgency of this book is felt on every page. It feels like it was written for this moment.

Within a few short weeks, listeners flooded the mailroom with donated copies. I was a little nervous. I teach about race, class, and gender but I’ve never taught a book like this. I’ve taught poetry but I’ve never experienced a book of poetry that defies what I learned in college. In the back of my mind lingered the most daunting question of all: can I, a white woman, do justice teaching a book about racism, microaggressions,and intersectionality?

Not one to shirk challenge, I talked my student teacher into team-teaching the text. We found exactly three resources for teaching this text–a reading guide from Graywolf Press and two teacher blog posts from higher ed. For one month, my juniors wrestled with the language, structure, and themes of this book.

Despite the unfamiliarity of poetry as a genre and the “untraditional” way Rankine breaks any expectations of form, Rankine is accessible in a high school classroom setting. Every high school student needs to experience poetry, art, and language the way Rankine creates it. This year when I prepped for the unit, I found, more articles from college level classes, and several university teacher guides signaling to me that I’m not the only one feeling the timeliness of this text.

With the rise of hate crimes, public displays of racism and the casual way these are presented by media, I’m especially convinced that now more than ever, students and teachers need to grapple open and honestly with the discomfort of these issues. In particular, white teachers should teach books that make them uncomfortable or are out of their “range of expertise.”

For students of color, they tell me they need this book because it validates their daily existence. They want to read a Black author who excels at the art of language. They want to feel they are not alone.

For white kids, they need to see a black artist at the highest level. They need to be challenged as perpetrators and beneficiaries of white supremacy. They need to consider how intersectionality shifts and shapes power.

For teachers, we need to teach books outside our comfort zones be in content or style. We need to use our platform in the classroom to amplify authors our students might never experience.

For white teachers, we need to create safe spaces to have open and honest discussions about race in America–where we aren’t threatened by disagreement, where students of color feel confident expressing their thoughts, and where we don’t’ “not all white people” the conversation.

Instead of being fearful of these difficult conversations, we need to be brave. No matter what race we are, we need to collectively read and discuss more books like Citizen. Maybe then we will actually do something to loosen the grip of racism on our country.

Measles and Vaccinations

Posted by Jan Kragen on March 10, 2019
Current Affairs, Science

My mother caught the measles when she was in the second grade. Her overwhelming memory of the ordeal is one of boredom. She had to stay inside the whole time (which could have been up to three weeks). Even worse, in her day, she had to stay in a darkened room, so she couldn’t even read to entertain herself. Of course, there was no television yet.

She didn’t get that sick. She didn’t have any long-term effects.

No big deal.

I have another relative who caught the measles. Robert Dudley Gregory fought with the Union Army during the Civil War. At one point his whole company came down with the measles.

Before I go any further, I want you to consider that the average age of a Union soldier was 26 years old. These were young men in the prime of life who caught a “childhood disease.”

Many of them died. Those who survived were damaged for the rest of their lives.

The minute my mom was diagnosed, a quarantine poster was slapped on the front door of their house. When her dad came home from work, he wasn’t allowed inside his own home. That’s how seriously they took quarantines in 1938.

Back in the 1930s people had a more intimate understanding of measles. They knew from experience how contagious it was, how swiftly it spread, and how deadly it could be. They were not prepared to take any chances.

Once the measles vaccine became available in the 1963, it was considered a godsend. Measles went from being as “inevitable as death and taxes” to a 95% immunity rate after the second dose. Cases plummeted. By 2000—in less than 40 years!—it was eradicated in the United States.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been eradicated in the rest of the world. Measles can be contagious for days before any symptoms appear, so visitors from other countries can bring the disease and spread it here, affecting students, families, classrooms, and school districts.

How is that possible if everyone here is vaccinated? As you’ve seen on the news, not everyone in America is vaccinated. As fewer people vaccinate their children, more catch the disease. So now Washington State is moving toward vaccinating more of its students.

My students sometimes ask about that. They ask, in particular, about measles and autism.

I tell them there was a one individual doctor (see The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin). He noticed that signs of autism started to appear in some young children after measles shots. After studying a handful of children, he published a paper making the claim that the shots might be causing autism. It raised alarms, as any such allegation should.

Then other doctors around the world tried to replicate his experiments.

(We talk in science about how the ability to replicate experiments is crucial in order to confirm the results of those experiments.)

None of the other doctors or scientists could replicate his experiments. In fact, study after study showed no link between measles and autism.

Then I ask my class, “What should the doctor do, as a good scientist?” They think he should figure out where he made his mistake.

I tell them that’s not what he did. Instead, he went on the internet to tell the whole world that he was right and every other doctor and scientist was wrong.

Now the kids have two lessons they can draw on. They know about replicability in experimentation. They also know that anyone can post anything on the internet. Having a site doesn’t mean the information on it is authoritative. (After all, I teach them how to make sites of their own. They know they are not authoritative! We always ask, “Who sponsors the site? Who vouches for the information posted there?”)

They agree that the American Medical Association and the Center for Disease Control are more authoritative than a single doctor, especially when his studies contradict everyone else’s.

What is interesting to me is how much tension goes out of the room after discussing the issue in those terms. Science. The internet. They feel like they know how those things work. It puts the question in a context they can understand.

Abraham Lincoln Again

Posted by Jan Kragen on February 18, 2019
Current Affairs, Elementary, Social Issues

Last week I did a series of lessons on “argumentation in reading.” I told my student that I analyzed their STAR reading test data and found their lowest subcategory was in this particular area. However, I confessed to them, I wasn’t sure what the phrase meant. I mean, I teach them argumentation in writing, along with informal logic and fallacies of reasoning, but what was argumentation in reading?

I told them the story of how I investigated my question all the way up to the national STAR testing organization. They replied with their definition and sample test questions.

I shared the results of my research with my class, “You know how I teach you how to use good, logical, well-reasoned arguments in your writing? And how I teach you to use evidence to back up your reasoning? This STAR business is different. When they say ‘argumentation in reading,’ they are talking about bad argumentation. Not using evidence. Appealing strictly to emotion. Manipulating audiences.”

For the next couple of days, I defined terms and showed examples from print advertising and from commercials. Several times I mentioned that they could find examples of this kind of bad argumentation in other places—political speeches, letters to the editor, editorials on the opinion pages. As I wrapped up the final presentation, I quipped that I was just showing them the more entertaining examples of argumentation in reading instead of also pulling in political speeches and the rest.

One of my boys said, “Maybe that’s a good thing, to avoid sharing anything political.”

Maybe I can get away with something from 164 years ago.

The American Party was prominent in United States politics from the late 1840s through the 1850s. More commonly known as the Know-Nothing Party, its members formed a secretive group, answering questions about their beliefs with the phrase, “I know nothing,” which is where they got their more popular name. Most members were white middle class or working class men who strongly opposed immigrants, especially Catholics. Earlier waves of immigration to American had been strongly English-speaking and Protestant, but by the early 1800s people began to arrive from Germany and Ireland, upending cultural expectations and stirring up resentment and fear.

How did Lincoln react to the Know-Nothings? In a letter written to Joshua Speed in 1855 he said,

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

In the middle of the Civil War, at the national convention that nominated Lincoln for reelection, the committee members noted his justice and protection to all men employed in the Union armies “without regard to distinction of color” as well as his liberal and just encouragement of foreign immigration to “this nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations.”

Lincoln believed in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum—Out of Many, One.

What do you think? For Presidents’ Day, do you suppose I can get away with talking about how Lincoln supported immigrants from all nations?

Let’s NOT Have Guns In Schools

Posted by Jan Kragen on January 17, 2019
Current Affairs, Social Issues

10:54 am. February 28, 2001.

We had just dismissed to recess. I had students still in the classroom, some on the outside stairs leading down to the playground, some already out on the playground, some in the hall going to the library, and some in the bathroom.

The Nisqually earthquake struck. A 6.8 quake.

At first it sounded like a giant garbage truck rolling into the parking lot, but it just kept coming. The room began to shake. Startled eyes turned to me.

“It’s an earthquake,” I said. “Duck and cover.” I stood in the doorway so I could watch the students in the classroom and the ones in the hall. Everyone did what they were trained to do.

After the ground stopped shaking, we evacuated the building and gathered on the big field.

Later, once the school was inspected and we could go back inside, everyone shared where they were and what they were doing when the earthquake hit.

No matter where they were in the school, each child had followed the directions for how to stay safe during an earthquake.

I counted that day as a success, not just that the children knew what to do and did it, but that they could each debrief so easily, they could each share their story freely. As I had told them earlier in the year—once you are safe—you should pay attention during an earthquake and observe it because they are interesting.

At the end of the day, one of my students commented to another teacher about how interesting the earthquake was.

(“Good for you!” I thought.)

That teacher was horrified. She told him earthquakes were dangerous. They were not interesting.

Clearly adults react emotionally in different ways to high stress situations.

A 6.8 earthquake is impressive but not murderous. Try to imagine just how ramped up emotions are during a school shooting.

The first issue is, that extraordinary level of emotional response impacts the effectiveness of the police, not just the school staff. In the Parkland shooting Sgt. Brian Miller, who arrived first on the scene, was excoriated in the public and in the press for not entering the building immediately. But the official Broward Sheriff’s Office active shooter policy at the time specifically said deputies may go in and confront a shooter. It wasn’t a requirement.

More importantly, his was not the only failure that day. Colleagues described Captain Jordan as “disengaged and ineffective.”

In fact, in spite of their training—as police officers—the deputies were ill-prepared to react to a school shooting.

Several sheriff’s deputies said they remembered little if anything of their active shooter training.

Even police, with all their training, seldom face an active shooter. It’s hard enough to respond according to training when a shooting erupts right in front of an officer. It’s even more difficult—and more emotionally debilitating—to respond to an unseen shooter or shooters roaming within a school. What if you miss? What if you accidentally hit a student? What if you kill a child? Those questions can paralyze even a trained police officer.

Then comes the second issue. What happens when you take police, who are trained to deal with shooters, and add another shooter in the mix?

November 11, 2018, Roberson, who hoped someday to become a police officer, was working as a security guard at a bar in the suburbs of Chicago. He detained a shooter, pinning him to the ground, with his legal gun drawn. The police chief called him a “brave man doing his best to end an active shooter situation.”

But that night the police shot and killed Jemel Roberson.

Why did he get shot?

It seems like in the confusion of multiple people yelling “He’s security! He’s security!” Roberson may not have heard the police yelling, “Drop your weapon!”

So he died.

Roberson was both an armed security guard and a good guy with a gun. He risked his life to apprehend a shooter. And police killed him anyway.

Thanksgiving night Emantic Bradford Jr. went shopping in an Alabama mall with a cousin and two friends. He had a permit to carry a weapon. According to his family, Bradford was trying to help people during a shooting. He had his gun in his hand when a police officer saw him and shot him.

Here’s the problem. HB 1038 would allow school districts to authorize permanent employees to possess firearms on school grounds under certain conditions.

If trained police officers have a difficult time handling school shooting situations in general, and if they don’t always respond well to “helpful” adults in crisis situations who are also armed, why on earth would we put additional guns into schools? In the hands of everyday school staff?

Imagine that you are that armed teacher. Maybe you have hours of target shooting. Maybe you hunt. Maybe you are very comfortable with your weapon.

Have you had training in simulations where you have to identify friend or foe with split second timing? (Even high-quality military combat training will not fully prepare a soldier or sailor for war—only real live combat experience can do that.)

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you? Has your life been in danger?

If the police came in and yelled to you, could you be sure you would react fast enough not to be shot yourself?

(Especially if you are a person of color, as both Roberson and Bradford were.)

Even more to the point, have you actually served in combat in areas where children are present? Or have you served in the police in violence-ridden communities with children?

According to military personnel I’ve talked to, having the daily experience of having to deal with the direct threat of violence—in the context of children—is the best preparation for handling school shooter situations effectively.

Here’s a possible solution beyond arming random school personnel.

It may be that every school in the country needs a combat veteran as a school safety officer. At the very least, as individual schools decide to hire safety officers, they should specify combat or similar experience as a requirement. Even further, interview questions should demand details about how candidates handled high stakes circumstances with children as part of the situation.

Stories From School

Practice Meets Policy