By Mark

I'm sitting here waiting for the turkey to reach 165F so I can load it into the car and rush it across town to the three-dozen waiting family members at our multi-bird feast this evening.

In these few moments, as hokey and cliche as it may seem, it is worth taking a few moments to reflect on what I appreciate about this business I'm in.

First, I am thankful to live in a state where with each new policy decision, teachers' voices are louder and more respected by policymakers. This is due completely to the diligent efforts of the teacher-leaders at CSTP (The nonprofit Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession, sponsor of this site) and Washington's OSPI (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction) who proactively seek ways for teacher voices to be heard at the decision-making table–with CSTP being the force which helps remind OSPI of the need for teacher voices.

Second and even more important, I am thankful for those fellow teachers who have made their voices heard at those policy tables and in front of the legislature. 

Last, I am thankful for the thanks I get as an educator. Just last week, as the culmination of a tough unit on poetry with my Sophomores, students memorized and recited poems aloud as part of my poetry curriculum, with the assessment being the non-verbal channels of communication–tone of voice, power of expression, and stage presence. I sat in awe as sixty fifteen- and sixteen-year olds tackled voices from Keats to Komunyakaa and Sexton to Sanchez. They worked so hard, and they truly embodied the words in a way which gave me chills and proved to me that they really got it. I am thankful that I am in a job that can warm my heart and give me chills.

Enjoy the season, SFS readers, and thanks for checking in now and again.

By Tom

It looks like Arne Duncan decided to soften his approach to turning around "failing schools." Up until just recently, states that wanted to compete for Race to the Top funds had to take an aggressive approach to fixing their lowest performing schools. They had to either replace the principal and half the teachers, reopen the school as a charter school or simply close the school down.

But with the release of the new guidelines states are permitted to use a "softer approach" and still remain eligible to compete for the RTTT grants.

What's the softer approach? Providing professional development to the faculty and changes to the curriculum. Wow. Imagine that.

And who can we thank for this enlightened approach? Ironically, the charter schools themselves. Much to Duncan's surprise, they showed little interest in taking over these failing schools. Apparently they would much prefer to start from scratch than to take over a school in peril.

This is good news for Washington. It will make it easier for our state, which outlaws charter schools and doesn't have a particularly aggressive model for taking over failing schools, to compete for the funds.

And we really need the money. 

by Brian
 

David Horsey of the Seattle PI has weighed in with the best opinion piece about Superintendent Randy Dorn's proposal to modify the math graduation requirement that I have read so far.

We are having parent conferences at my school this week, and yesterday I heard the parents of one of my better Algebra students tell me how frustrated they have been with the WASL. Their daughter is a bright, highly motivated freshman who seems to like my class and be comfortable with the curriculum. But her parents told me she did not meet standard in math on the WASL in 4th grade or 8th grade, and she has a lot of anxiety about taking the state test (whatever it will be) next year. It makes me angry to read the Seattle Times editorial board opposing Dorn's proposal: "It sends a disheartening message to students who want to excel and who understand that the route to higher education — whether college or trade school — is by meeting high standards." What do they think the message has been for the last ten years for the 50% of our students who have not met the math standard? Inspiring?? What makes them think that the WASL has been a reasonable measure of what a high school graduate should know? Not a college-bound student, just a high school graduate ready to go to work. It's time to answer that basic question.

I made an appointment with my Representative today to talk to him about where the bar should be set for graduation. I sent him Horsey's article too. I encourage you to read it, and talk to your Representative too. Our students deserve a realistic standard.

by Brian

Back in September I wrote a post called How Much Math Does a Man Need?  I questioned the wisdom of requiring every student to take and pass Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 in order to graduate from high school, beginning with this year's freshmen.  Today state superintendent Randy Dorn wrote a guest editorial in the Seattle Times, and posted on OSPI's website his proposal for changing the math and science graduation requirements.  He proposes using a two tiered model, already in use in Massachusetts, to provide students in Washington the opportunity to graduate with either a ranking of "proficient" or "basic" math skills.  Proficient will be the goal for all students, but under this proposal the student with basic skills will continue to take additional math courses, and still be able to graduate.

I think the superintendent has taken a huge step toward setting the bar for high school graduation at a realistic level.  For far too long we have been telling too many students that they were below standard in math, when the problem was not their skill level, but how hard the WASL was. We were giving the same test to students in Algebra 2 and Pre-Algebra.  It didn't matter what course they were taking; they all got the same WASL.  Now they will take end-of-course exams over the math they have just learned, and they will be judged to be at a proficient or basic level.  That seems a lot more fair.

I'm still not convinced that everyone needs to take Geometry, but this would be a vast improvement. (And thank goodness Algebra 2 has disappeared from the required list).

I applaud the Superintendent's honest and realistic recommendations, and I hope the Legislature will consider them carefully.

By Tom

A recent story brought my attention to a brand new issue. Teachers are now selling their lesson plans to each other on-line. Some of them are making some pretty good money at it, including an English teacher from California, who brought in an extra $36,000 by selling his plans.

It's an interesting story, to which I have several reactions:

Continue reading →

By Guest Blogger Sarah 

What really sticks with me is Governor Gregoire saying that Legislators need teacher mentors to educate them about the important issues of education.  What a terrific idea. But honestly, I think a lot about the barriers and not always about the possibilities and I need to get over that.  I think about people’s lives already being full with teaching, parenting, trying to eat right and get enough sleep – being a “Legislative Mentor” is probably the furthest thing from our minds, realistically, but I wonder- would the efforts put in now make a difference down the road?  Would becoming legislatively active and aware and influential, create a school system in Washington state that would ensure our students were prepared for the world they are going to, and maybe even lighten our day to day load by having smart, teacher influenced, educational policy?

Continue reading →

by Brian

I love my job, but I really hate having to eat lunch in thirty minutes.  It must be nice to be able to meet friends away from work and sit down for a leisurely hour.  But 30 minutes for lunch is just a synecdoche for the larger problem: the traditional 6 period day used in most of our high schools.  It's not only hectic, it's inefficient.  Think of the organizational skills that our students must have to keep track of 6 different subjects every day. And with 125 to 150 students per day, even if I had common planning time with my colleagues in the math department, which I don't, how could I collaborate with them when my time is devoured by my own classroom responsibilities.  The schedule creates isolation, even for brand new teachers who would benefit the most from collaboration. So why do we keep using it?  And what does it have to do with teacher quality?

Continue reading →

By Kristin

I teach both honors and standard language arts.  For some time now I've been struggling with the concept of what makes an "honors" kid honors?  What makes a "regular" kid regular?

It's certainly not intelligence.  With the exception of some of my regular students who eat so poorly they're kind of out of it, I would say my regular kids are as intelligent if not more so than my honors students.  My honors students are just better educated and more sophisticated.  It's not simply academic skill, since some of my honors students write like third graders and aren't strong readers. It's not motivation, because some of my regular kids get to school despite tremendous obstacles, and some of my honors students do the bare minimum.  Two months ago I started to wonder would happen if I persuaded the counseling office to turn my regular class into an honors class.  Labels matter.  An honors class is like riding in the first class carriage of the train.  Being there gives you status.  Being seen stepping off gives you status, and that feels good.  Am I capable of teaching well enough that my regular kids could succeed in an honors class?  I decided to give it a try.

Continue reading →

By Tom

Mrs. Rooney was my third grade teacher. We spent all day with her, from September through June. She was tough, smart and observant. She knew me well, and was able to tell my parents about all the wonderful things I would accomplish once I began to "apply myself."

Today I teach third grade, and my students endure the entire day with me. I teach language arts, math, science and social studies. And sometimes art.

I'm what's called a "generalist." I have no specialty. I'm supposed to be as good a math teacher as I am a writing teacher. The prevailing wisdom in this country is that children in the younger grades benefit from the stability and constancy of a single teacher who teaches every subject. The prevailing wisdom also holds that once a student enters seventh grade or so, the benefits of having a subject-area specialist outweigh the benefits of having the same teacher all day long.

But that wisdom is being challenged. In fact, up to 20% of our nation's grade school students, some as young as six, are moving from room to room, just like their high school brothers and sisters, taking their classes from specialists.

Why?

Continue reading →

by Brian

I generally don't like articles that begin by saying something like the Obama administration's Race to the Top will fail.  My default position is optimism, and I don't want it to fail.  But I read an article like that today that made a lot of sense.  

Marion Brady, writing in the Washington Post says that it will fail for a reason no one is talking about: A curriculum adopted in 1893 that grows more dysfunctional with each passing year.  I teach math, and when my students ask me why they have to do two-column proofs in Geometry, I tell them we settled that question in 1893.  We do it because that's what we do.

You should read the whole article, but here's the money quote:  

"There are, however, some things Congress and the administration could do.  First, they could stop basing education policy on the opinions of business leaders, syndicated columnists, mayors, lawyers, and assorted other education "experts" who haven’t passed the 10,000-hour test-10,000 hours of face-to-face dialog with real students in real classrooms, all the while thinking analytically about what they’re doing, and why."

I recently participated in the NBCT Symposium where we were asked to prioritize how to allocate the money to implement the reform package encompassed in ESHB 2261.  While I appreciated the opportunity to contribute, I could not help but reflect that there was no one on the Quality Education Council, that could pass the 10,000 hour test.

And I remembered a New Yorker article byJames Surowiecki about Toyota's success.  He titled it The Open Secret to Success, which it is.  Toyota has defined innovation as an incremental process, fueled by the suggestions of workers (teachers?) on the factory floor.  He says Japanese companies get a hundred time more suggestions from their workers than U.S. companies do.  So instead of trying to throw long touchdown passes, Toyota moves down the field by making short and steady gains.

We can do that in education too, if the real experts, the teachers who have passed the 10,000 hour test, are increasingly involved in the process of planning reform, not just implementing top-down decisions.