If I can work a happy thought about today’s education into the end of this post, I will, but I think I am about to take my rocket in another direction. This post will be about real kids.

So there I was, with my last year before retirement stretching out before me. While I had not planned to retire early, I had landed in one of those magic years where retirement might make sense, and as the months went by, retirement made more sense by the day.

The state had taken over my district, and desperation was running rampant. District leaders were standardizing my schools’ 7th grade curriculum to match the 7^th grade Common Core curriculum. Teachers were expected to give mandatory tests and quizzes based on the Core, using materials chosen to match that test-determined curricula. We had shoved the bar dramatically upward. In concrete terms, I was expected to teach 7th grade mathematics to bilingual students in classes that were averaging a 3rd-grade level in mathematics and sometimes an even lower level of English-language learning.

What tutoring time I had was skewed heavily toward expected test content. I was meeting students at McDonalds on Saturday mornings for extra tutoring and quiz retakes – so many quiz retakes. How did students pass their classes? They could retake quizzes. And they did. They retook and retook quizzes until they finally got them right. But were they learning what they needed to know? Could they apply the specifics of problem number six to a broader use of probability, for example? In some cases, the answer to that question might have been yes. In others, well, “Diego” had finally memorized problem six.

In the meantime, essential remedial instruction was not occurring. Teachers in lowest-level classes did not have close to enough time to fulfill Core requirements. Where was time for remediation going to come from? I worked that remediation in as often as I could, and sometimes got in trouble when I was caught remediating. But that’s another story.

Too few educational leaders have been asking critical questions: What if our students are unready for a chosen curriculum? What if their own test scores show they are four or more years away from being ready for the year’s standardized test or the chosen set of tests and quizzes for the year?  What if the tutoring they require has nothing to do with their new weekly tests and quizzes, or that annual test, a test coming at them like a proverbial freight train, a large, resounding failure to finish their school year? How will these students learn the desperately needed fourth, fifth and sixth grade mathematics they previously failed to absorb?

America has many, many students testing below grade level. Some middle school and even high school students are taking benchmark tests whose scores place them at early elementary school levels. I want to highlight effects we shove aside and ignore as schools push to meet test targets: For the student who struggles and often fails the many tests and quizzes in the year’s pipeline — tests and quizzes linked to a curriculum that may be neither realistic nor age-appropriate for that individual student – today’s school has become a profoundly depressing place, punctuated by frequent failures that mark the year’s best efforts. After too many such failures, I have seen academic efforts sputter to a sad halt, sometimes replaced by mild but sustained misbehavior.

Why does a student who started on track in elementary school begin regularly misbehaving in middle school or even earlier? Hormones are sometimes blithely thrown out as an explanation, but many excellent students undergo identical hormonal changes. In the academic research and in my experience, one of the best “predictors” of misbehavior is being out of sync academically with peers, especially for students who have fallen behind.

Falling out of academic sync with peers may not cause misbehavior – although I am convinced this is sometimes the case – but I can safely say that research shows a strong correlation between misbehavior and academic failure. Whether failure leads to misbehavior, misbehavior leads to failure, or some combination of the two, with or without additional challenges thrown in, misbehavior and academic failure go hand-in-hand as we tease out factors that lead to overall educational breakdown and dropping out or failing out of school. Why are we graduating students unable to write a college paper or figure out a loan? Because those students “dropped out” — even when their bodies kept occupying desks.

Moreover, I have become convinced that furious efforts to raise standardized test scores ironically are creating misbehaving students, often in tandem with the additional one-two punch of course failures or near-failures in English and mathematics. As we stuff classrooms with students ranging from a first-grade level to a ninth-grade level academically and then hand those students common or nearly-common preparatory materials chosen because those materials are expected to provide optimal test preparation for a specific set of grade-level tests, we create a group of lost students who simply are too far behind to succeed with the material they have been given. A student reading at a second-grade level and doing math at a third-grade level cannot do seventh grade work on any regular basis.

Period. And the sooner we face this fact, the better off we will be. Remediation is not optional. Time for remediation cannot be taken away and replaced with “higher standards.” Those standards should be taught. But if we want to teach those standards, we will have to provide students with more than a 7 1/2 hour day and a 180 day school year.

How can we close the achievement gap? I see only one possible path to success. We have to provide more instructional time to the students who have fallen behind. A few extra hours of tutoring after school or on Saturday will not accomplish our goal. If those hours could work that much magic, we’d have many more success stories to point to today. Students can’t cover four years of missing material in a few extra hours a week. They might have a shot with an intensive, obligatory summer program, however.

Our students don’t need more rigorous, new standards. The old standards are usually more than rigorous enough to prepare them for college and life. What they require is a school year that provides enough time to catch up to the standards they previously missed and are still missing.

Yes, my solution will be expensive. I suspect that’s why we keep trying Plans B, C, and D, the plans that can be most easily effected with the funding available. But B, C, and D have not worked. The achievement gap has barely budged. I’d try obligatory summer school next or an all-year school year with obligatory school during intercessions throughout the school year for those students whose data shows them to be cripplingly behind.

Half-baked, stop-gap measures are not working, and in the meantime we are making many kids feel like absolute crap with our half-thought-out solutions. I got so tired that last year I taught. I kept picking kids up psychologically and dusting them off, working to keep them in a game we all knew only a few of them could win.

I can work incredibly hard. But I can’t work stupid. And now I am one of many, many former teachers who left the toughest schools in America to make tomato risotto and write, taking advantage of my abundant spare time. I watch highly talented former English teachers sell lipstick and mascara. Some of us substitute teach. Others rewrite resumes and tutor ACT students. Some just sip piña coladas on Florida and Indiana beaches, a few years earlier than expected.

I am sad for all that wasted talent. I am sad for those men and women who are counting days until they too can retire. Mostly, I am sad for students who are being cheated by plans that no one seems to have thought through. We are teaching critical thinking as part of our curricula today. In educational administration, though, sometimes critical thinking seems lamentably thin on the ground.

Eduhonesty: Stay with me to get to the platypus.

Except for squishy balls and other silent fidgets, schools should be bringing the hammer down on activities that distract other students. Distractions are not harmless. If five minutes per student are lost by students watching other students with their fidgets, in a class of 30 students that’s a loss of 150 minutes, or 2 1/2 hours. Fidgets should be silent or nearly so, and boring viewing for nearby students.

Today the one child in my church’s early service was spinning his fidget spinner throughout the service. Better than an IPAD, I guess… But pacification is not training. Fidget spinners teach time diversion, not time management.

But enough of this topic — probably as appealing as Trump Tweets to many teachers! I threw in platypuses above so my audience would not throw me in the mental discard pile immediately.

I owe you some platypus facts. The below source was found at http://www.activewild.com/platypus-facts-for-kids/ and invites social media sharing. I love sites that freely share facts. Kudos to the authors here:

Platypus Facts For Kids

“You may have heard of the platypus, but did you know that this strange-looking Australian animal is venomous? This incredible mammal is truly unique and has several other unusual characteristics; we’ll find out about these further down the page. This article contains platypus information and pictures, plus a list of platypus facts for kids.

Oh, there’s also an awesome video for you to watch!

This page is part of our Australian Animals series.

If you enjoy finding out about the Platypus, feel free to share this article on social media using the buttons above!

Platypus Information: Introduction

The platypus (scientific name Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a highly unusual animal. Not only is it venomous, but it is also a member of a group of curious mammals called the monotremes.

Rather than giving birth to live young like other mammals, monotremes lay eggs!

There are only five species of monotreme: the platypus, and four species of Echidna. (You can read about Echidnas here: Echidna Facts)

The platypus is found along the eastern side of mainland Australia and in Tasmania. It lives near freshwater streams and rivers and is highly adapted for its semi-aquatic lifestyle.

As we’ll see further down the page, it has a useful trick up its sleeve for locating food.

Description

At first glance the Platypus looks like a strange mixture of several different animals: it has the webbed feet and brown coat of an otter, the flattened tail of a beaver, and the large bill of a duck.

The large bill gives rise to the animal’s other common name: the duck-billed platypus.

The platypus’s bizarre appearance caused much confusion among early naturalists. In 1799, Dr George Shaw, a keeper at the British Museum, was presented with a dried platypus skin. The animal’s appearance was so unusual that Dr Shaw was suspicious that the museum had fallen victim to an elaborate hoax.

Believing that someone had joined a duck’s bill to another animal’s body, he used scissors to try to separate the parts. The marks his scissors left on the skin can still be seen today!

The Platypus’s body and tail are covered with dense, waterproof fur. This traps a layer of warm, insulating air close to the animal’s body.

The platypus’s legs are attached to the sides of its body, rather than underneath. This gives the animal a reptile-like gait.

When walking on land, the platypus walks on the knuckles of its front feet to protect the webbing between its toes. There is less webbing on the hind feet.

How Big Is A Platypus?

The platypus’s weight varies considerably from individual to individual, ranging between 0.7 and 2.4 kg (1.5 and 5.5 lb).

Males are larger than females, averaging 50 cm (20 in) in total length. The average body length of females is 43 cm (17 in).

Venom: A Little Known Platypus Fact!

The platypus is one of the very few mammals that are venomous.

The male platypus has spurs on each ankle that can deliver venom powerful enough to kill small animals such as dogs. While not lethal to humans, the venom can cause excruciating pain.

Female platypuses are also born with spurs, but they drop off within the first year of life and are not venomous.

The male’s venom production rises during the breeding season, suggesting that it is primarily used as a weapon by rival males to establish dominance.

What Does A Platypus Eat?

The platypus is a carnivore, and eats worms, insect larvae, freshwater shrimps and crayfish, all of which are found in its freshwater habitat.

The platypus hunts underwater, using its cheek-pouches to carry prey to the surface before eating.

The platypus needs to consume around 20% of its body weight in food each day. This means that it spends an average of 12 hours per day looking for food.”

The article itself goes on to further describe the platypus. For teachers not locked into a strict curriculum, I could see this providing a great platform for biological discussion about animal characteristics and categorization. The platypus offers a quick picture of the complexity involved in sorting and classifying lifeforms.

______________________________________________________________

My eduhonesty positive for today: We are becoming more sensitive to time lost in dribs and drabs. Our coaches work on transitions, for example, trying to pare away those minutes lost as groups shift activities. We are less and less tolerant of dead minutes and classes killing time while waiting to move on to the next activity. We now see those “few” minutes for the large time loss they may potentially become.

(Continuing my recent set of “positive” posts.)

Sometimes I worry about my ability to write happy posts. I look at the above title and I think it’s a version of “We will find a vaccination before the Zombie Apocalypse  completely destroys the human race.” Unqualified sources of happiness seem hard to identify in the greater sphere of American education.

But I am going to praise data, even as I think of the caveats that ought to be added, given the opportunity costs created by our current obsession with data. When spreadsheets preempt lesson planning, tutoring and parent contact, we are going awry in our attempts to improve education. When data is used without an understanding of the lives and characteristics of the students generating that data, we are going badly awry. GIGO — or Garbage In, Garbage Out — should be a focus at all times as governments and administrators demand more numbers. Poorly-understood data has too often been used as a weapon against teachers, especially in under-performing school districts.

That said, using data to plan and execute instruction has benefits when intelligently implemented. Let’s face it: Some kids are masters of the “nod.” Yes, Ms. Q, I understand, their body language says. Nod. Nod. They may be talented crammers, able to pull together the test or quiz that supports that body language. One challenge posed by academic nosedives comes from the ability of some students to fake their way through confusion for at least a year or two before the extent of that nosedive becomes clear. Yes, alert teachers will catch the dive eventually, but if too many months have gone by, catching up may prove difficult or even impossible.

Teachers hate the word impossible, but impossible is possible. No matter how hard I am willing to work, if Lonnie will not work with me, Lonnie may be unable to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. If I have 40 students in my classroom, I may not realize how far behind Lonnie has fallen for some time, and Lonnie may not bother to inform me, especially if he would lose his lunch or afternoon gaming time by asking for help.

Catching the fall sooner is always better. Data helps catch those falls. What do the MAP scores say? What trends can be identified in the spreadsheet? Sometimes the right question at the right time — Why do you think that test caused you trouble? — can start the interventions before a true crisis begins. Data can flag the quiet kids especially, those kids who hardly ever call attention to themselves.

Eduhonesty: Data makes me think of that proverbial two-edged sword. Spewing out more data does not always serve the greater good. But when implemented properly, data-driven instruction can clear away wisps of wishful thinking and unmask our nodders. We can start interventions sooner to pull kids back onto the track. We can make special education placements sooner, too.

I’ll offer the push toward data-driven instruction as another example of one more recent educational fashion that — when implemented by people who know what they are doing — often benefits America’s children.

Nevertheless, I add the last caveat:

Returning from a delightful vacation in Mexico City, I will continue my series of positive posts:

“How are you going to reach ALL learners?”

A coach might leave a note like this on a lesson plan. We expect teachers to understand they have auditory and visual learners in various combinations. Some students benefit from kinesthetic or even musical reinforcement depending on the age and subject material. Some students need extra help because their attention wanders or stress blocks learning.

The old days of Ms. Jones lecturing from the front of the classroom while everyone took the same notes are pretty much done and gone. Whole group instruction may be viewed with suspicion even when that instruction is appropriate.* Teachers are expected to attempt to reach all their students. “Freddie” does not get shoved in a back corner because he is slow. “Sadie” does not get written off because she has trouble focusing. Administrators and teachers work to make sure students do not become marginalized because of their struggles.

Yes, the system fails sometimes. Yes, some teachers don’t do as well at including everyone as they might. Yes, some efficiency may be lost as we try to keep all our balls in the air. But compared to those days of lectures and notes, we have made considerable strides toward including everyone in the classroom, instead of just those few whose hands are always in the air.

________________________________________________________________

*We do have occasional struggles with trying to find the one-style-fits-all teaching approach. One-style never fits all. Teachers should be left to determine what their classes require based on the students in those classes. My student mix and its match to the curriculum should determine my instructional approach — not some Board Office Master Plan.