Final Project

Just wanted to tell you all how much I appreciate our discussion this past week.  It has really helped me to connect my project to the semester's readings.  We rock!!

That being said, I am struggling on the paper end ... : (

M

The Case Against Tougher Standards, Kohn

This weeks reading is “The Case Against ‘Tougher Standards’” by Alfie Kohn.  Kohn’s argument is that both a horizontal instructional shift and a vertical “tougher standards” shift are not the only conversations we should be having (“we” being teachers, politicians, parents, students, etc.) regarding how best to educate kids.  Part of me just wants to say, “Yup, I agree” and end my blog post here.  But, that would not be fair and it would not allow an open dialogue to occur.   I also want to go against Kohn, for the hell of it, just to see where it leads me.  I can’t do that either.  So here I am on another Sunday morning trying to decide just where to begin. 

I hear all the voices of the authors ringing in my ear that we have studied so far.  When Kohn says, “the Tougher Standards contingent is big on back–to-basics, and more generally, the sort of instruction that treats kids as though they were inert objects, that prepares a concoction called ‘basic skills’ or ‘core knowledge’ and then tries to pour it down their throats”, Wesch would be screaming in agreement (in his soft tone) that what students need is more inquiry, more thinking, less memorizing, more connection to the world.  We all know, this type of teaching is what keeps kids interested, it is what motivates kids to get up and go to school in the morning.  When Kohn says, “in practice, ‘excellence’, ‘higher standards’, and ‘raising the bar’ all refer to scores on standardized tests, many of them multiple-choice, norm-referenced, and otherwise flawed”, I can hear Delpit agreeing and asking difficult questions such as:  Where are my disadvantaged kids?  Where are the black kids in all this?  Can the test reach them in any way or is it simply geared toward the kids with skills to play the culture of power game?

I looked at one of Kohn’s hyperlinks in the article, “Standardized Testing and Its Victims” and read about many facts Kohn finds “indisputable”.  One in particular struck me hard, which was “our children are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in our history and unparalleled anywhere else in the world”.  I’m not sure when this article was written but it made me wonder what Kohn would think of the new Common Core Standards and the PARCC assessments that will test kids a number of times throughout the year.  It is expected that the teacher will test kids three times per year and then adjust his or her instruction based on what the kids know.  These tests are in essay form, at least that is the last I heard.   There would still be end of year accountability type tests as well.  Here is an interview with Kohn regarding Common Core.  I’m sure you know where he stands but thought I would share anyway.   So, in Rhode Island, high school students were tested once in 11^th grade (Wrting, Reading, Math, Science) under the NECAP standardized testing structure.  Now, high school students will be tested about 16 times (4 years x 3 tests=12 + 4 end of year tests).  But wait, that's just in English class.  Wait, that's just at the high school level.  What about K-8?  Hmmmm.  I also wonder, how much money the PARCC folks make on this?  It has to be enormous.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/05/alfie_kohn_interview_here_is_t.html

The following link has some good information on what PARCC is.  Keep in mind, this article is focused on California but the philosophy is applicable to all states.

http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/03/11/big-promises-for-new-tests/

As always, I am looking forward to our discussion this week.  I am really at a loss for words because part of me was looking forward to CCSS when I first heard about it and actually I was thinking PARCC would be good as well.  Now, I just don't know what to think and it has nothing to do with Kohn, actually.  I have been kind of in a funk about all this new stuff and then add our new Teacher Evaluation System on top of it all and I feel I am in a state of constant fogginess (not even sure if that's a word but I like it).  

Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome

This week the reading was “Citizenship in School:  Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome” by Christopher Kliewer.  In his essay, Kliewer analyzes “the meaning of school citizenship for students with Down syndrome as it relates to (1) literacy development and (2) friendship formation” (pg 74).  Kliewer uses research by Kozol, Freire, Gardner, Vygotsky (to name a few) as well as his own field research to prove that children with Down syndrome not only can have meaningful relationships and be productive members of society, but that they can learn.  The best part of this essay was that Kliewer proved that people with Down syndrome could live meaningful, productive lives.

           

At first I was disappointed because the essay was written in 1998 and some of Kliewer’s research was rather old; however, as I read the essay, I realized that his research was actually timeless in a way.  People with Down syndrome have always been special people, with special strengths and weaknesses but “normal?” folks just did not “get” them years ago.  I am almost 50 and I remember at my high school, the “retarded” students (as they were called in the 70s) were stuck in a special room and rarely left this room.  Every now and then we would get a glimpse of them but for the most part they were not a part of mainstream education and they did not socialize the other students.  How sad and lonely it must have been for special education students during that time.  Obviously they can learn and they have feelings, this has been determined over the year.  I was thinking about the Rodriguez reading when Kliewer says, “democracy can only occur when no person’s voice is deterministically silenced” (pg. 72).   Once I had my daughter and she was going through the school system, I realized how absurd the special education students were treated years ago.  Mandy was part of the Pals program in elementary school where the school paired a special needs student with a regular ed student.  It was one of the best exeriences because Mandy was quite shy.  This program allowed her to be a leader and to help another student.  It was a win/win for everyone.

In Gerri August’s essay “Making Room for One Another”, she says, “Vygotsky determined that the higher psychological functions of human beings originate in social interaction and then are internalized.”  This is so clear in Kliewer’s case study on the student John Mcgough.  John was in a segregated school, had little contact with the community outside his Down syndrome world, and was considered uneducable.  It wasn’t until John moved to a community that embraced him for the competent human being he was that John was able to find success and happiness.  Amazingly, John found art through his community connection and his paintings are sold in shows around the country.  This social interaction with the community gave John models to look up to, admire, and emulate. Just like my daughter, another win/win on both ends.  As we read in Johnson’s piece, Kliewer also says, “We have got to learn to get along as individuals and as citizens” (pg 74).

But I have a question I hope we can chat about tomorrow night.   Why can’t the public have trust in what most teachers know is right for our students?  On page 78 we see the teacher, Shanyne (Isaac and Anne’s teacher) use the curriculum as a guide.  She knows her students so well and has such a good instinct for what they really need that she makes necessary adjustments that have huge impacts on her students lives.  I just don’t know why the public (or whomever) does not trust educators to know what is best for students.

Please take a few minutes to read this timely article posted Saturday from a CNN writer who is the dad of a child with Down syndrome.  Excellent article and exactly what I think Kliewer was trying to tell us 14 years ago …

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/opinion/perry-down-syndrome/index.html

Collier, "Teaching Multilingual Children"

Collier argues how important it is that teachers of bilingual students try very hard not to lose site of their students' cultural identity.  It is not all she writes about but it is what stood out to me the most.  My school does not seem to fit the schools I think Collier is talking about, but I think Shea High School in Pawtucket would most definitely fit the population.  I don't recall the numbers but I do know that the school has a very transient group of kids and a high bilingual population.  I wonder under what literacy development curriculum they use to teach their students?

I struggled with my response this week because I do not have a clear or strong feeling as to which way is the best way to teach bilingual students.  It is clear that Collier feels the "most successful long-term academic achievement occurs where the students' primary language is the initial language of literacy".  This bothers me because I was always under the impression that the right thing to do was to dismiss the home language in literacy development and force kids to think, speak, socialize in the dominant language.  Isn't that the goal?  Isn't the goal to make sure all kids can function in the American culture, which is an English speaking culture?  Until this class, I didn't really think about what actually gets lost when students are forced to leave their first language behind.  Richard Rodriguez made it clear that his relationship with his parents changed drastically when Spanish was left behind.  I know many, many of my students speak Spanish, Columbian, Portuguese, Russian, etc. at home.  They talk about it a lot but we do not have a large group of kids that come to our high school not knowing English.  Of course, there are some and our one ESL teacher works with them but he has an average caseload.  So, this brings me to another question:  If the research shows that students are more successful under the curriculum I mentioned above, then why don't we follow the research?  I know it is all very political, but come on.  The research shows they will be more successful which means better retentions, standardized test scores, we could go on and on.  Just so frustrating.  Not to be cynical but I wonder if politicians want less people speaking Spanish.  It further oppresses people which maybe is the goal of the dominant culture.  However, I think my students that speak more than one language (many speak three or more) are brilliant and I wish I had been taught a second language when I was younger.

I thought about Freire (part of the Finn reading) when I read this article.  Finn says that Freire “saw that literacy campaigns were bound to fail as long as the ‘students’ viewed literacy as part of a culture that was alien to them”.   It makes sense to me that if I was a young child, I would feel more comfortable and successful knowing my home language fairly well before I took on a new language.  But what about the high school kid that only has a few years to catch on to the English language?  I don’t think we have much time to have a kind of dual curriculum where the student can be taught both in English and their home language.

So, through all of this I think of Mr. Tom (as the ESL kids call the ESL teacher at my school).  He has the entire League of Nations in his room and if you walk by you would be amazed at what he accomplishes in there.  He never speaks anything other than English and somehow the kids learn the English language.  Most students that come in as an ESL student have Tom 4 times a day and then he slowly gets them into the mainstream classes where they just need him once a day.  When these students graduate, they cry when they say good-bye to him.  Honestly, I think Mr. Tom is a magician …