May you live in interesting times.

The "curse" above is of dubious origin, but I still like it. As educators, we are certainly living in not what I would call interesting, but rather horrible times. I chose to get into the field of education two years ago. It didn't seem so bad at the time, but now? Oy gevalt! Tomorrow I will be interviewing for a temporary position in one of the larger school districts in the state of Oregon. Just the fact that I've had interviews in this economy could be viewed as something of a minor miracle. I find it so ironic that we (and by "we," I mean all of us) talk so much about the importance of education, yet we can't find ways of funding the schools. Now, as a person who understands the way that economies and recessions work, I also understand that falling tax collection has a direct impact on all government services, and that because states can't borrow money like the federal government (which is a good thing, trust me) that the states aren't shielded from the effects of recessions very well. Education usually makes up large portions of state budgets, so when it's time to cut, they must cut education.

But that doesn't mean that I have to like it. 

So, simply, what are solutions to the problem. Well, long-term would be stable sources of income based on strong economies. Oregon doesn't really have a "rainy day" fund for times crisis. If the government takes in more than they were anticipating, they're prohibited from holding it back for a rainy day and must send back rebate checks to the taxpayers. That includes during times like this. So, imagine a situation where the economy rebounds faster than expected. Could we use that money to offset the cuts in government services? No. This is insane.

It is recommended that in good times, good times, that people have at least three months worth of living expenses in the bank to help weather the storm of unemployment, hospitalization, or other problems. But these aren't good times. We wasted our money in the form of tax cuts during prosperous times when that was the time that we should have had higher taxes. That way we would have had the latitude to lower taxes as a stimulative measure. But unfortunately we didn't do that.

Bluh.

Swearing at the TV.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I saw this on the NBC Nightly news and I should have gotten depressed. Instead I let loose with a series of expletives that are usually reserved for use exclusively by sailors. Then when Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels spoke at the 1:32 mark, I lost it! He said “…class size, by comparison, is virtually meaningless. Put a great teacher in front of large class and you can expect results!” Anyone who is a teacher or a parent knows that both classroom size and teacher quality have an impact on student performance. So I call shenanigans on Governor Daniels. He has a political ideology, and is firing yet another salvo in the war against teachers.

Sorry, I can't write anymore. I'm seething with rage... (calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean)

Cross-gender bullying, the most confusing kind.

I think that we all know that bullying is a serious problem that some parents (and even some rare teachers) see as an unpleasant but nearly unavoidable rite of passage. We're familiar with the typical patterns of teasing. While not perfectly representative of the differences in gender with regards to teasing, I really enjoy this Seinfeld exchange:

ELAINE: Why do they call it a wedgie?
GEORGE: Because the underwear is pulled up from the back and ... it wedges in..
JERRY: They also have an atomic wedgie. Now the goal there is to actually get the waistband on top of the head. Very rare.
ELAINE: Boys are sick.
JERRY: Well what do girls do?
ELAINE: We just tease some one 'til they develop an eating disorder.

So, we get it. Boys bully boys and girls bully girls. There really are differences between the genders when it comes to these behaviors. Males are more likely to use physical aggression as a means of expressing their bullying behaviors, and girls are much more likely to use verbal and social methods of bullying. So, Elaine was right. Boys and girls really do use different methods. But what happens when boys bully girls or even more stranger, when girls bully boys? From an early age, boys are taught to "pick on someone their own size," so it seems there's already a stigma against boys crossing that gender line. So even guys know not to physically pick on girls, it's just "not fair." But how often are girls told not to use the tools that they're socialized/innately familiar with on the other gender. It seems to me that girls who don't bully boys don't do so because they don't realize that it was an option.

Here is where I come out of the closet and admit that like many other kids, I was bullied. But in my case, the bullying that is the clearest and simultaneously most confusing was that which was visited upon me by girls. The thing is that I never remembered hearing the same prohibition for girls not to bully boys. And when you're a boy who's being made fun of by a girl, it's a lot harder to report it. A male is supposed to be independent and strong. It reminds me of the statement that I once heard a parent say: "How can you be failing ART?!?" Imagine the same incredulity with a statement "how could you be bullied by a GIRL?!?" At least that's what I would imagine being said to me if I ever brought it up.

Because girls tend to use social and verbal methods to bully, I wonder whether they are "attuned" to those who might be more likely to be affected by those methods. How the bullying manifested itself in my case was, it seems, to intentionally shred my self confidence around females. What was said and done is irrelevant and not appropriate to write in a blog post here. However, it has been shown that bullies have an ability to identify victims who are less likely to be defended by their peers and that they bully in packs. That makes sense, and the fact that my experiences of female-on-male bullying were almost always by multiple girls "working together" bears that out. For me, it was very traumatic, but don't worry, I've gotten over it. I worry about the kids who are victims now.

So, what's the point? Why do I bring this up? The reason is that we need to shift our perceptions about what bullying looks like and what we can do about it. As with any subject, we should occasionally question what we "know" to be true. Where does the information about what is "common knowledge" come from? While cross-gender bullying may be comparatively rare, it happens. I have been trying in vain to find good resources for boys or young men who are bullied by girls or young women on the Internet. I can't believe that what happened to me was so unusual that no one has heard of it. If anyone reading this blog has information that they can link to, please write something in the comments and I will update the post.

Teachable moment or travesty?

And just when you thought it couldn't happen in Oregon...

In the city of Beaverton in Oregon, a student teacher was reassigned from his school because of his sexual orientation. Student teachers are kind of like proto-teachers. When you go though student teaching, it's a trial by fire where, depending on your cooperating teacher, adviser, and other support people, you may or may not have a lot of instruction in how to deal with every situation that comes up. Such was probably the case with this student teacher in his 4th grade classroom when a student asked him whether he was married. It's only natural that students, once they get to know you, are naturally interested in some things about you. It happened with me and made for some interesting discussions that I had to be very deliberate about how I answered in an age and situation-appropriate way. But when the student teacher replied that he was not married, the student asked him why he wasn't. That's where the problems started, because he told the student that it was illegal for him to be married. A parent overheard and complained to the administration. The long and the short of it was that this student teacher ended up being reassigned to a school in the Portland Public Schools while Beaverton School District had a bit of a black eye, feeling pressure from gay and lesbian teachers as well as other sources.

Now, luckily, that was one problem that didn't come up for me, but very well could have for members of my Concordia University cohort (GO ORANGE). But it speaks to a wider problem. The first gut reaction was to bow to the bigots, rather than to do the right thing. I find that this is often the case. It takes a whole lot of guts to stand up to those who would spread hatred. There is nothing wrong with orientation, it is only a function of who you are. Gay, straight, transgender, bisexual and other; it's becoming apparent to a whole generation of Americans, the youth who are not so much leading the charge against bigotry that is at the heart of this kind of behavior, but rather, they fail to understand what the big deal is. I find this interesting, and in many movements, their can either be an outright resistance to a wrong, or a kind of acceptance to of those who are marginalized, and resentment piled on those who are causing the problem. I believe that young people fit more into the second category. The battle is already won when a school district has to trip all over itself apologizing to the community for strange actions such as this. I hope that the same kind of scene will play out in other parts of the country that aren't as liberal as Oregon. Nobody should be discriminated upon based on race, gender, age, religion or orientation. School should be a safe zone not only for kids, but also for the teachers.

PPS decides to stick with a good idea.

Harriet Tubman Leadership Academy for Young Women's
original building facade and lunchroom.
Photo by the author.

Sometimes part of the problem with the idea of school restructuring is short-sightedness.

Let me back up. Portland Public Schools have been in the midst of one of the more difficult restructurings it's been through in a while. In a response to shifting demographic trends, the numbers of students in PPS have shrunk over the past couple of decades. Less children are living in the city and more in the suburbs like Beaverton, Sherwood, Tigard/Tualatin, etc. This has resulted in some hard decisions of restructuring of School District #1. The most visible of these was the recent high school redesign process that went through many iterations. Originally two high schools were to be closed. Then one, while Benson became a half-day technical option. But finally it seemed settled with most schools staying as they are with one high school, Marshall, being closed and students reassigned.

Almost shattered in the high school redesign is a nearly invisible diamond in the rough, the smallest of high schools in the city. Harriet Tubman Leadership Academy for Young Women is the only public single-gender school in the state. The Young Women's Academy (YWA) is under the umbrella of Jefferson High School, which is located about two miles north. This school services students grades 6-12, and its future in its current form was held in the balance, slated to be a possible victim of the redesign process. As it is structured right now, there are 63 high school students in the total population amounting to about 1/3 of the student body. YWA has many things going for it that other public schools in the city don't first, unlike Jefferson's failed and shuttered boys academy, the single-gender setting is successful. I have some thoughts about this. For an all-boys school to be successful, it is my belief that it requires the type of structure that is not easy to find in a public school. While boys might see single-gender as a negative, girls see single-gender as a positive; they see it as refuge from the distractions that interactions between the sexes can cause on a daily basis. This school also has a loose uniform/dress code that allows a small amount of flexibility, while maintaining the underlying the, well, uniformity that this code maintains.

Test scores among the higher grades are consistently higher at YWA than they are at Jefferson High School, but due to the way the academy structured being under Jefferson's wing, test scores are reported as a combined data set. Consequently YWA can be making AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) but because they are still a part of Jefferson, they still suffer from that school's problems. They are also dependent on Jefferson for money, but that's a story left for another post. There was talk at one point of spinning YWA from Jefferson entirely, being allowed to sink or swim independently from the larger high school, but those plans are now tabled. 

As a part of the high school redesign, there was tremendous uncertainty about the future facing the school with one of the most recent plans being to eliminate high school all together and keep the remaining three grades as a middle school in the same form. This was extremely short-sighted. If you are going to think strategically about a problem, you have to be prepared to work on it over the long term. Fortunately, and possibly due to extreme pressure from a dedicated parent base, the YWA is going to continue in its present format, as a 6-12 school. I believe that it would have been wrong for the (so far successful) experiment to be scaled back before it had an opportunity to see the payoff of young inner-city women going to college.

PPS saw the light, and I'm very pleased.

Bad apples? Yes, but some just aren't ripe.

Image by Matt Grigsby, Willamette Week

The writing is on the wall. It's time for bad teachers to be kicked out of their positions. Though Oregon doesn't have tenure per se, in most places it's still unlikely that the "bad" teachers will lose their jobs any time soon. As a newly minted teacher who's looking for a position, it may seem self-serving for me to wish for people to lose their jobs, especially in an economy such as this, but I have some thoughts on the concept of "bad apples."

1. Yes, they do exist. One example of such a poisonous apple was a teacher that I worked with in my student teaching who went out of their way to badmouth other teachers in front of students, yell at her students and demean them, and then have the gall to feel like she was being mistreated. This woman was toxic, and quite obviously needed to not only have her contract not extended, encouraged to quit, etc, but to be out and out FIRED.

2. There is room for improvement. This is the case for any job, and everyone needs to be on board. I recently listened to a segment on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," where Neal Conan was interviewing an author that said that performance reviews were detrimental. His belief was that when managers (principals for this conversation) have a set of benchmarks that they expect an employee to meet, it's a dodge to absolve themselves of responsibility. His belief is that the mark of an effective manager is to help your subordinates be successful, rather than to be a cop who cites the employee when they are committing an infraction. There are teachers who see the principal in their classroom once every two years. That is inexcusable. Also, it's incumbent upon the teacher to be always working to up their game. They need to work with other teachers, to share ideas about how to be more successful. And talking isn't enough. If possible, a principal needs to find a way for teachers to be able to observe other effective (or ineffective) teachers in the school to learn from them. The relationship between the teacher and the principal should not be adversarial, but more as a student/teacher relationship. We're all in this together to make learning more effective for the children.

3. Don't confuse earnestness with effectiveness. I am learning how to play the guitar. It is my sneaking suspicion that I will never be great, despite my earnest interest in the instrument. There are teachers out there that just love being in a classroom, sharing knowledge and seeing a child's eyes light up when they get something. That's great. But it doesn't mean that those are necessarily great teachers.

4. Standardized testing as an assessment isn't unfair, so long as the test makes sense. As much as teachers complain about standardized testing, it's a measure of how well students have done in the classroom. There must be some kind of objective measurement of student progress, it's that simple. A good teacher teaches to the test. "WHAT?" they ask. A good teacher will figure out what the student needs to know, makes the test, and then teaches to that the student will be able to pass the test. If they pass the test well, that means that they know the content that the teachers deemed important. I believe that part of the reason that teachers are so incensed about standardized testing is that they have no control over the content of the test and feel out of the loop. Like their opinion isn't important. Maybe so. Teachers should have more input into what goes into the standardized tests. Then when they have buy-in, they can teach to the test. Finally we can use that as an objective measure to gauging not only the students, but the teachers progress against themselves.

5. The younger generation doesn't "get" why losing your job is a bad thing. I'm not young at the age of 38, but I've worked in the private sector. I've survived layoffs, but also been affected by them. I also know that in the private sector (in the ideal company) results matter. I don't get why this is a tough concept for some people who shall remain nameless to get. It's even more important that results matter when it comes to school, because a degree is one of the better predictors of earning potential in the future. If a teacher is ineffective, people talk about how it is hurting the children, but here's something that I don't think that they think about. If you are ineffective in your job, despite the fact that you may like it, are you really doing what's best for yourself? Are you achieving to your fullest potential. I know that if I wasn't great at my job despite an earnest desire to be great, I should probably move on. Quit trying to be a professional guitarist, and do it as a hobby if that's what makes me happy. But leave room for the talented professionals.

School must be a safe place.

Recently we’ve seen some fairly high profile examples of bullying, in schools. With the tragic case of Asher Brown in Texas to the case of this girl who has cerebral palsy, most of the kids who are bullied have something in common, and that is that they are not “like the other kids.” Take for instance Asher’s case, a 13 year old who just came out as gay. Shortly after he did, he ended up taking his own life, after being bullied mercilessly about his sexuality. He must have been in a very dark place where he didn’t think that the treatment that was being directed at him was likely to stop, and that he had no place to turn. Below is an interview with parent who stepped in under different circumstances and tried to stop it the wrong way. I understand his frustration, but clearly his methodology was misguided.

That’s where we, as educators, need to step in. School and the bus ride to and from school must be a safe place for children and teens. Just like there is a zero tolerance policy for weapons in schools, I believe that there should also be a zero tolerance policy for bullying in schools as well. Teachers need to be absolutely consistent about how they react to bullying and get treatment for the bullied and the bully. Here are a couple of links, one from Fox News, and another from Stop Bullying Now, an anti-bullying website with some specific measures that should be taken to help mitigate the problem.

If a child is freaked out about coming to school, filled with anxiety about what's going to happen to them at the end of the day, during lunch, P.E. or even math class, how on earth are they going to function well in your class? Bullying doesn't just affect their self-esteem, but also their ability to learn, and that is something that can adversely affect their future.

Don't ever think that just because you "got through it" that bullying is in some way an acceptable rite of passage for young people. There are a lot of things that used to be commonplace that are now considered backward and unacceptable. Bullying should be treated the same way. And just because it you can't eliminate it entirely, doesn't mean we should allow an "acceptable level." We must always be vigilant and take the problem seriously.

You study wrong.

There was a great interview about study habits and the debunking of some of the accepted wisdom. There were several obvious ones like "cramming doesn't work." By "doesn't work" it isn't that you can't cram for a test and pass the next day. What is meant by cramming not work is that there will be an incredible loss of content that evaporates from your memory fairly quickly. What you should do instead is break up learning over the longer term, quizzing yourself. Another piece of advice that I found particularly fascinating is that you should not only break up study by subject, but also break up the study within a subject, moving from area to area. For example: in a foreign language maybe you should practice a little on learning verb conjugation, then vocab, move on to something else. Long periods of studying just one thing will be counterproductive.

Take a listen. It was a very instructive and eye-opening segment.

School shouldn't be a factory

Sir Ken Robinson talks about the larger structural problems with education. He believes that ADD isn't necessarily a real epidemic, but does see its correlation with the rise of standardized tests and the dismantling of alternative classes like art, drama, music and others that aren't "core" classes. He believes that we are drugging, boring and fragmenting our children in their education when we should be doing the opposite. Brilliant!

Waiting for Clark Kent

Superman's real identity.

Until the 80s, when the famed comic book writer/artist John Byrne helped to completely change the famous Kryptonian's mythology, Superman was a fundamentally different character than he is now. Yes, he still had all of the powers, the enemies, and the famous weaknesses to most kinds of Kryptonite. But until then, the character was the "real" person, and his alter ego just a charade. Happily, Byrne turned that all around, making the mythos far more interesting. He made it so that even though Superman is defined substantially by his alien birth, he's even more defined by his earthly parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. As we all remember, Clark grew up in Smallville, Kansas. He had to keep his gifts a secret, and he must have had the most understanding parents ever. Anyway, in the new mythology, he probably wouldn't be the man, the "super" man that he is if it weren't for those parents. Clark invented "Superman" as a way to protect his identity, but also be able to fully integrate the values he grew up with and protect "truth, justice and the American way."

So, why am I chattering about Clark Kent. Well (without seeing the movie, but knowing the premise) the new film "Waiting for Superman," posits that we need extraordinary people to go into education and be valued and allowed to use those extraordinary gifts to improve schools, students' lives, and bring America from a second-rate first-world country, a follower, back to being a leader in education. I believe that America needs more Clark Kents, rather than Supermen. We need extraordinary people who are grounded in real values and put on the uniform of Superman when in the classroom. Clark doesn't leave his identity behind when he's out saving the world, he's the same moral creature that he is when he isn't in his costume, though he does act appropriately to the situation. Superman gets all of the accolades, but he isn't the entirety of who Clark is. What Clark does is to de-emphasize his humanity (though he's an alien) and play up the alien parts of his resume to be better in both of his professions.

Teachers are really more like Clark. They become a version, perhaps a stylized and slightly exaggerated "boy scout" in the classroom, but they don't cease being human. They use their gifts in ways to make a difference in the lives of young people. So if you want to be an extraordinary teacher, I say this:

Be like Clark. Act like Superman.

Lewis Black said what I was thinking...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Back in Black - Education Crisis www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

...in a much better way than I ever could. But I have been thinking about this for a while. Because we are still near the beginning of the school year, the president, the media, and others are focusing on education. It seems like education is the newest fad again, and politicians of all stripes are tripping all over themselves and others to pay lip service to education. 

Though I'm happy with the new attention that education is getting, I hope that it doesn't fade back into the background after those who seek to exploit it as an issue find something else to focus on. With that, I can't write anything to improve upon Mr. Black, so I'll let you watch. 

School segregation is "back."

Source: Decent Schools for California
(http://www.decentschools.org/)

I heard an interesting interview on the NPR program, Here and Now (October 4th 2010) about the problem of segregation in the schools.  As we remember, legal segregation was the based on the already standard practice of the separation of the "races." It was enshrined in law due to the monumentally stupid Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1890s. The law now required facilities to be "separate but equal." Of course, that didn't happen that way, with minorities, especially African Americans getting the shaft having to make concessions with unequal facilities and being denied rights.

Fast forward to the famous case of Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education. The Supreme Court handed down the beginning of antidote to Plessy v. Ferguson in my parent's home state of Kansas at exactly the time they would theoretically be affected by it as they were both in high school in 1954. Segregation in the schools was now illegal, but that didn't stop some states' townships, legislatures and governors from trying to continue the practice. Eventually state sponsored segregation disappeared and desegregation became a priority. For a time.

It turns out that segregation isn't such an easy thing to fix. Bussing of students from underprivileged to the more affluent schools, minority to white, has lost its luster. (If it ever had it to begin with. Bussing was quite controversial, not just on the wealthier, white side) Plus, there are practical matters to discuss. As most children do, if you do not have a parent or a friend to take you to school, you ride some kind of bus or transit. Obviously already a challenge. Now double, triple or quadruple the time that a child is on this bus. It's not the ideal place to study. By the time you get home, you're already beat by the commute. Plus, if both of your parents work, (if you have two parents) then it's quite likely that you'll end up serving as a surrogate parent to younger siblings. That's a lot of pressure on someone who's top priority should be that of getting an education.

So, bussing isn't the answer. What is? That seems obvious. Improve local schools. I'm not ready to say that we've solved the race problem, not even close, but one thing that is clear is this: parents will be thrilled to send their children to schools that have a reputation for success and high standards. The answer is to make the formerly failing inner-city schools more attractive to everyone. When a school is able to be successful, divorced from place, then the segregation problem will not evaporate, but it will diminish to an extent that it is now only the racist hangers-on who self select.

But it's hard choices time. How do you make an inner-city or an other such failing school successful? It's not only resources, though that's important, but also about changing the cultures of these schools. Negative attitudes and a history of failure feeds upon itself. It only takes a few bad apples to poison the barrel. Disparate and non-cohesive action plans, lack of discipline, lack of parental involvement (that's a hard nut to crack) as well as many problems must be solved as a team effort. Everyone must be on board. I've heard it said that getting teachers to agree on anything is like herding cats. I'm a huge supporter of a strong central administration with buyoff from the teachers. A good administrator is able to get teachers on board and help them to understand why school policy is important.

Plus, more money to struggling schools wouldn't hurt. I'm okay with robbing from Peter to save Paul.

Our crisis moment...

My generation finally got our war, and we got our depression, but will we and our Gen Z children have it affect us the way that it did previous generations? Who will be most defined by this crisis? 

My parents were too old to be baby boomers, they're part of what's known as "The Silent Generation," the people who were the parents or Aunts and Uncles of the the Baby Boomers or Gen-Xers. My brother and I are both X-ers with him being right on the X/Boomer Line. After my generation came Y (Millennials), then Z (The Net Generation).

I want to talk about X-ers and Zs. The former because that's who I am, and the Zs because those are the kid's I'll be teaching. X-ers are what are referred to as a "baby bust" generation where the birth rate compared to the previous generation is much lower. We're supposed to be cynical, self-directed and the first truly postmodern generation. We're reflections of the Lost Generation after World War I. The Zs are similar to my generation in many ways (after all, they are our children) they are similar to my parents, sometimes referred to as a new Silent Generation, a generation that is less team oriented (boomerish) and more individualistic. That they will concentrate less on big ideas and more on what they can accomplish. Lastly, Zs are supposed to be less concerned with fitting into a group, and more into acceptance of the other.

As a student of history, I am finding many parallels with previous generations. The Lost Generation (the X-ers of the early 20th century) gave birth to the Silent Generation (the Zs of the mid-20th century.) The Lost Generation lived through a war and depression, but weren't active participants in either. Having thought about this, I realize now, that I will be teaching the 21st century's equivalent of my own parents!

But the thrust of this message gets to the heart of what defines a generation? My generation didn't really have a war, we didn't have the idealism like the Boomers. We had everything and felt like nothing. The world could end at any moment, but we felt a void. X. X, signifying nothing. And Z, the new Silent Generation. The children who will turn back to family and concentrating on getting by and getting back to basics.

Who will step up to the plate and advocate for strengthening our country, improving our schools, rebuilding our infrastructure and solving the larger problems? If history has any guide, it won't be Gen-X, and it Won't be Gen-Z, but those in-between. The youth who believe that they can do everything. But the question is, will they eventually become the same disillusioned people their parents, the Boomers are if they don't accomplish everything they think they can.

In the end, what is it better to be. Idealistic and have your hopes dashed? Or better to be realistic and silent, hoping for the best, but planning for the worst? Do we have to make a choice? I choose to be realistic and idealistic.

PPS High School Redesign/Rant

For those who don't know, Portland Public Schools have been losing students for years due to several factors. Whatever the reasons, Portland is has lost well over 20,000 students since the highs of over 80,000 students early sixties. While the population of Oregon is growing, PPS is shrinking. It is because of this that PPS has been engaged in a prolonged and sometimes contentious high school redesign. There were many ideas, but most of them involved the closing of high schools. This new one is no different, with the exception that only one school would be closing.

It's unfortunate, but PPS seems to be fighting a losing population battle. Unless more parents with families move into the city or there is a local baby boom, it's unlikely that Portland will need the use of all of the large comprehensive high school campuses. But it's difficult to close schools because everyone has input, and there are some schools that need to be closed.

But this isn't a problem that is unique to Portland. School districts across the country are flailing due mostly in the short-term to the economy, but also over the long-term due to demographic changes and structural instability and inability of governments to make the hard funding and hiring decisions.

This speaks to a broader societal problem in general. Our priorities are out of whack. We believe that we can fund everything that we want/need, but we don't want to pay for it. What I say is not controversial. What I write next may be. If we can't decide what we will cut, we must find ways of raising money, and if that means raising taxes, then so be it. If it means cutting services, then let's do that. At least we're paying for what we get. The real danger is going down the path that we are.

I'm happy that there is a new emphasis on education, but it's really hard decision time. Do we pay teachers more as Michell Rhee in Washington DC wants to? (Although studies have shown that more money past a certain point doesn't actually improve job performance or increase happiness). Do we get rid of the failing teachers? (Yes) Do we increase the amount of charter schools? (Jury's out on this)

These questions are the ones that we must decide as a society. Whatever the answer, we better figure it out soon, because we should be able to provide an education to students that is at least as good as it was when I was a student twenty years ago. Otherwise we'll continue to be a second-rate first-world country.

Thoughts on job hunting...

I am very likely going to move.

Oregon, the state where I happen to live, is a beautiful, vibrant, and pleasant place. (It also rains for weeks at a time too, which I love) However, Oregon has a dearth of teaching positions, not only for new teachers, but even experienced ones. The inability of the state to figure out funding, coupled with a sharp decrease in retirements doesn't bode well for my staying in this state. In all likelihood, when I'm hired for a teaching position, it will be outside of Oregon.

Being a native, it might seem that I'd be depressed with the prospect. Rather, this is an exciting proposition. Even though I love my native land, I am quite interested in creating new experiences outside of the Pacific Northwest. I've traveled more this year than I have in probably the previous five years combined. I flew to Washington D.C. where I was able to get an idea of what that part of the country is like, as well as driving to central Kansas to visit my extended family. Being able to see other parts of the west and reacquaint myself with the people and different outlooks on life was fun.

Teaching is a vocation, not just a job. It is my belief that wherever I end up, I will put all of my effort into it, be it a rural, suburban or urban setting. At this point, I have no preference. When I find the right position, I can then concentrate on working for the best interests of the students, no matter where they live, my new home.

Every child deserves a good teacher, and it's my desire to be that teacher. Wherever that may be.

-Darin-

Tech and Social Justice

I feel that using tech in classroom is a good idea no matter what. If you have access to it in the classroom, at least there's a little bit of access. Anything that you can get is better than what they may or may not be getting at home. It's cumulative. If access doesn't exist outside of the classroom, then it's necessary for people to work to make it not an issue.

So many of the questions in these web reflections are posited as either/or questions. For example, "Will you be doing a disservice to all of your students if you do not use technology because of access issues for a few?" Well, of course I would, but I won't keep from using technology because a few students don't have access. What I would do is to do my best to provide those students access to technology. I have some ideas. For example, our instructor for character in the curriculum has procured several video cameras and audio recorders for his class by writing grants for that technology. I could see how that would work well in for a lot of tech, like netbooks, which are relatively inexpensive.

Another idea that I borrow from my wife (who is from Taiwan) is to enlist the wealthier members of the parent population. When she was going to school, her father was routinely tapped to donate funds for school functions, supplies and other "non-essential" materials. He didn't see it as a burden, but as part of the responsibility of being wealthy. It is also a measure of pride that he could take. I don't think that's being encouraged in the way that it could be here in much of the US, and it needs to be fostered and recognized.

Educating parents and the community about what is and isn't able to be in the classroom is also key in getting donations. I think that parents and others in the community believe that the money that is spent in schools is either wasted or indulgent. When we educate these people we can get what I call "targeted donations," donations that are based on filling a need that isn't filled by basic funding. It's a part of educating not only the students, but the community at large and having them take a stake in their students' success.

Cell Phones Should and Shouldn't be Banned in the Classroom

I really want to want cell phones in class. Let me explain. I'm a huge supporter of technology. Going to school at Concordia has been a complete revelation in the amount of tech that's available in school now. I also did some observation at Grant High School where I saw that many of the classes had video projectors, laptops and other tech. But when it comes to using cell phones as a mandatory curriculum aids, I draw the line. So I agree with both sides. To a point

See, the thing is, I when it comes to tech, much of the existing technology is compatible with each other. As evidenced in the technology class, there are tons of open-source programs that are exactly the same on a PC platform as on the mac. Open Office, The GIMP, Audacity, and many others suffer from no loss of features or a different interface when you make the transition from one platform to to the other.

However, on a cell phone, the amount of differences between one cell phone maker and another are legion. An app that works on an iPhone will not work on a Palm-based cell phone or a blackberry. These are incompatible systems. My personal cell phone does a lot of cool stuff, but what about the student who has a super-basic cell phone. Will they be getting the same opportunities for education as other students? I suspect not. Also there is the problem with fee for service demands on cell phones. Texting isn't free. Getting apps isn't necessarily free. Most services on the cell phone cost something. Shall we subsidize that?

In fact, I have to agree with the author of the "pro" article when he says, "If they have a Blackberry… OK, I’ll just stop there, because the discussion on why a parent bought their child a Blackberry is so ridiculous my head may explode." Why are children being given a device that is meant for a business professional for personal use?

Now don't get me wrong, I have little trouble with laptops in the classroom. They are a tool that can be used for anything and are now almost critical. I could see how cell phones could be used as a supplement, but not as a critical tool. A question that I took away from the article is, "How would a student that doesn't have a cell phone get along in the classroom?" The answer is to beg, borrow or steal. Let's hope that the school has equipment to borrow because I'm not too excited about the first and third option.

Is cht spk dstryng nglsh?

1. States which side you agree with and why
2. Uses quotes from the text
3. States what questions resulted from reading the text

The article "Is Chatspeak Destroying English" pits the curmudgeon against the rebel. I choose rebel. Curmudgeon says that "Students may very well become so familiar and comfortable with chatspeak that it will be difficult to switch gears and construct adequate, meaningful academic
papers and other assignments." I don't see this as a concern. When I speak with my classmates, I have an informal way of speaking. However when I'm chatting online, I use a distinct set of vocabulary and grammar that is different.

This has been true for years. When I was running a BBS, I chatted with people online. BRB was the first chatspeak that I learned. However, when I spoke with those same people, I was gratified that they spoke proper English. I also saw some of their longer form postings and they wrote in proper English as well. It's crazy to think that people can't switch back and forth.

A question that I found when I was reading was that of whether chatspeak is intentionally meant to confuse the older generation. It would seem that the jury is still out on that one. Even though it may not be intentional, it seems to be having the effect. The example that Greg Monfils gives at the beginning of his article (“hey, i cant find hw n the conf can u help.”) confuse even me. Maybe that's okay. As long as the kids know how to move between languages, it's cool.

Are attention spans getting shorter? Bluh!

Must I choose a side? Really? No, I believe that the answer to whether children's attention spans are getting shorter or not is not necessarily a function of technology. The argument is that technology is causing a fundamental shift in the brains of children, and because of that, they are more able to multitask than previous generations. However, I remember when I was a kid, having the inability to focus on any one thing for any length of time before eventually falling into "daydreamland," was more likely than not.
It's interesting that the author of the "yes" piece puts a judgmental spin on attention, hearkening back to the good 'ol days. Marcovitz draws a comparison to today in the example of the Lincoln /Douglas debates that lasted days and required a dinner break because opening arguments lasted for three hours. He says, "Imagine our students sitting for three hours at a time attending to anything." That's just insulting. I've seen kids (and myself) do something for much longer than three hours. Do you think that people were not leaving the debates, for the call of nature? People in the back having small discussions? I doubt it. That was the framework of the time, and the expectation of oratory.

I wonder about the premise. I believe that perhaps we are enabling kids to jump around technologically that they weren't able to in the old days. And if they can be learning more of that time, so much the better.

Cyberbullying? What next, cyber-dodgeball?

From what I’ve gathered, cyberbullying is in many ways analogous to traditional forms of bullying. In the old days, (pre-Internet) bullying took several forms. There was the physical bullying, which qualifies as physical abuse. It was often times paired with verbal or emotional abuse. Girls were generally not beat up, but instead intimidated by peers with the most incredibly harsh emotionally abusive comments that I can imagine. But then something happened after I left school. Cyberbullying happened.

Cyberbullying is the same as traditional forms of non-physical bullying, except that it takes place on the Internet. There is no distinction on the Internet between school and non-school. It exists in both places, and therefore provides no escape for the person who is on the receiving end. Cyber bullies more and more use the anonymity of the Internet to get away with behavior that could more easily be policed in a traditional school setting. The bully can use the tools of blogging, anonymous text messaging, anonymous e-mail

Schools are in the middle when it comes to cyberbullying. What happens off campus in the “real world” so long as it doesn’t influence the teaching environment, it’s basically off limits for teachers and administrators. But the thing is, I have trouble believing that there would not be a “real life” component to cyberbullying. That could be easily punishable. Also, as mandatory reporters, if you know of a student who is being threatened or being abused, you are obliged to report. No exceptions. But when it comes to stepping in when things happen off campus? It’s a slippery slope that should not be stepped onto unless there’s proof, and there’s a real threat of danger for the child.

As to how I would know whether a student is being cyberbullied? So much of it is dependent on a student’s frame of mind and demeanor. I remember seeing students who had been bullied and how they reacted near their tormentor. It’s not inconceivable that students would have a similar reaction when they get an anonymous e-mail or text on their smart cellular phone. Perhaps I would take that student aside after class and ask them if something was wrong. But it’s likely that the student would say something to the effect of “nothing.” I would try to stress that if they ever needed any advice or help, I would be there as a person that they could count on.

My plan for dealing with cyberbullying will be both reactive and proactive. While I’m not big on singling out students, I am not opposed to preemptive shaming of that behavior. I have no trouble calling it what it is, a cowardly act. If you have trouble with someone, say it to his or her face. Cyberbullying is also a means for people who feel powerless to feel powerful. This will not fly in the real world. The kind of stunts that cyberbullies pull would be considered harassment in the real world, and is punishable under the law. And if I find out about it, I may not have the ability to punish them, but I can make them feel shame for their actions. If I did catch a cyberbully, I would deal with them harshly. I think that “big brother,” their parents, or the threat of it going into their permanent record might be a deterrent. Especially if they are generating the harassing material on campus, and I could really nail them to the wall, make an example of them. But a problem with the threat of exposure is that it may serve to drive the anonymous deeper underground. Kids are sneaky. Who knows.

However, I would address it in front of the class and then I would let it simmer. It is a subject that could easily be rolled into a Social Studies or Art unit before it crops up as an experience that year for the students. (Unless it’s already happening the first week of school.) In short, I think that this is a subject that needs to pondered about and worked with in partnership with students.