With the World Crushing Down on You

In this time of quantification, the unquantifiable tends to get lost. If no sources and numbers can be offered, a concept may disappear from view. Stakeholders and others argue at length over the meaning of test score results. They argue much less over the effect of those results on individual children. An emotional trait that cannot be pegged with a number, predicted or put into a formula becomes invisible. Districts are working to improve attitude with positive feedback and mindset training, but the emotional lives of students remain a gray area only sometimes allowed to fall into education’s orbit.

Here’s one elephant hiding in the room with us: Those tests and test results? Their weight, their gravitas, has been increasing over the years. Fifty years ago, students were taking an annual spring test. But scores were simply much less important. Kids were not hearing about that test all year long. They were not having their faces rubbed in past results. Mostly, we were leaving kids out of the process.

The tests were adult territory. Just as alcoholism, sex, family financial difficulties and gory news were not shared with children, school leaders were not regularly taking children aside to tell them that their lack of academic prowess might condemn them to a botched and futile future life. For one thing, many more vocational options existed in those past schools because the idea that all students should go to college had not yet taken hold. We were measuring kids, but we were not trying to whip them into frenzied test preparation.

Once, the goal of instruction was learning. That may still be true, but not all U.S. students know their school experience is a voyage into learning. Actual classroom quote from a late spring day, some weeks before the end of the school year: “More math!? Why do we have to do more math? The tests are over!”

What is the effect of this changed emphasis on the importance of testing? A line from a song captures what I suspect: “Wake up each day with the weight of the world spreading over your shoulders. Can’t get away from the weight of the world crushing down on you … and you’re afraid it’s gonna go on forever.” (Lowen and Navarro).

I think this piece of the puzzle just gets lost. Before NCLB, before the fierce emphasis on data, we did not involve kids in our desperate data quests other than to hand them a test to complete. Now we hold conferences with them after tests to ask them what they think their test scores mean, where they think the test went wrong, and what they think they can do to improve future results. I was required to sit down with each student to go over MAP benchmark tests during my last formal teaching year, and I am sure we would have done the same for the PARCC test if those results had come in before the end of the school year.

Let’s just rub everybody’s noses in their “failures.” That will get results. What results? I’d say that’s the elephant.

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnoses have skyrocketed in the last few decades. According to https://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/facts-statistics-infographic#demographics, the CDC says that “11 percent of American children, ages 4 to 17, had the attention disorder as of 2011. That’s an increase of 42 percent between 2003 and 2011.”

But here’s my scary thought: What if at least some of the growing ADHD is not ADHD? What if we are seeing Generalized Anxiety Disorders instead in students who cannot hit targets, sudden trials that keep popping out at them like black-and-white images of human targets on police firing ranges? That woolly-headed, pinging-off-the-walls behavior often called ADHD? It can be ADHD — or it can be anxiety or a nightmarish combination of both.

What if some of our children are simply buckling under the pressure?

Stating the obvious. Then stating it again.

I just crawled through an article on WebMD, intended to help parents guide their ADHD children to develop better study habits. I’d say the article is useful for almost all parents and for teachers as well. All children may not struggle with ADHD, but I’d venture that all children have ADHD moments. That’s part of being a kid. You get excited. You get distracted. You focus on lunch or the new girl instead of the triangles in front of you.

The URL is http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/childhood-adhd/ss/slideshow-adhd-study-habits?ecd=wnl_day_083015&ctr=wnl-day-083015_nsl-ld-stry&mb=UT0EfRiJlerLe8Nl%2f6BrJGdEpmNqbUHLZTN%2fwNIxCow%3d and I would suggest you might use this to create a cheat sheet for parents. If nothing else, you can pass along the URL.

One screen struck me as especially useful for new teachers. Screen 14 of 15, titled “Mention the Obvious,” can be applied to students in classrooms everywhere.

“When helping your child do her homework, include steps that might seem obvious to you. For instance, the last two steps should always be “put your homework in your folder” and “put your folder in your backpack.” The more specific you are when giving instructions, the better.

Eduhonesty: At the end of the hour, you may assume students will automatically put their homework in places where they will be able to locate it later. That’s a bold assumption. Some students will, but others won’t. It never hurts to say, “Now put that homework in your blue folder and put your folder in your backpack. Put the folder in a location where you will be able to find it when you get home. Do not forget to take your Fungus book home. You will need that book to do the homework.” If you see those students at the end of the day, check that they did as instructed.

“Is your homework in your backpack in your blue folder? Along with the fungus book?”

You will never be the worse for giving “extra” instructions. Spelling out all the little details step-by-step will simplify your life. Some kids are organization naturals, automatically arranging and rearranging folders for the joy of putting their desks in order, but most struggle with this life step, especially when they first hit middle school. I recommend regular, specific reminders worked into the end of activities. Break it down into steps, at least at first.

P.S. Don’t wait months to clean the lockers, either. By November, so many microbes can be growing on that half a mystery meat sandwich that you may want to call a Hazmat team to help you with little “Albert’s” locker. Toward that end, you will thank yourself if you add rubber gloves to the classroom supply list you are probably buying for yourself right about now.

Looking through the cracks

To retain or not retain — that is the question. Should we flunk our underperformers? If we do, should we hold them back? Or send them on the next grade with a hope, a prayer and — if we listen to the research — extra tutoring? Academic studies favor social promotion, usually adding the caveat that the socially promoted should receive extra tutoring when they enter the next grade. Unfortunately, that tutoring may not happen or may be wholly insufficient: Two extra hours of instruction per week cannot begin to cover the losses from years of failure and near-failure. I’m not sure 10 hours a week could hit that target, but ten hours might be plausible for quick learners.

This post is only peripherally about retention, though. I want to briefly visit another topic. So Napoleon has failed or nearly failed his classes, quite likely not for the first time. At least one possible rescue ought to go on the table immediately, one that inexplicably may not be raised for discussion.

For parents and teachers: If Napoleon failed or has been skirting failure, please consider special education. When a parent demands that a child be tested for special education, the district must comply. Absent that demand, sometimes testing never happens. For one thing, the barriers to entering special education keep getting higher. I don’t want to start addressing those issues — they’re huge — but the amount of proof required to move a student into special education may shut the process down before it starts, especially as districts keep adding responsibilities to the teaching day. My 27 days of meetings this year take a lot of time away from possible parent calls or social worker discussions.

One of my students just entered special education. Her mom had mentioned she thought the girl needed extra help and I thought so, too. I talked to special education teachers. They told me the same thing they have been telling me for the last few years: Tell the parent to insist that her child needs to be tested. The amount of documentation a teacher requires to get that ball rolling is so daunting now that I suspect only parent interventions are likely to work in some districts. She’s not my only student who I think needs help. I have one more mission before year’s end, if I can put it together in the time that’s left.

For some kids, special education may be their only chance to graduate from high school and possibly move on to higher education. My colleague down the hall has been educated and trained specifically to work with academically and behaviorally-disadvantaged students. She has classes with eight or fewer children in them and a paraprofessional to help her. She can sit down and focus on one child, providing intensive instruction, while other children work with the paraprofessional. For any kid who is struggling to pass, year after year, my colleague’s class offers a chance to succeed.

Eduhonesty: Economic forces are in play here, something teachers and parents don’t always understand. Districts have a big incentive to keep children in the regular classroom. That special education teacher costs as much or more than her regular education counterpart, probably more since special education endorsements require quite a few college credits — this varies by area — and greater numbers of college credits usually lead to higher pay. Depending on law and contracts, one regular teacher can teach the same number of students as three special education teachers. Putting a child into special education thus represents a financial commitment that poor districts, especially, may prefer to avoid.

I need to observe that educators and administrators tend to be ethical people, dedicated to providing the best education possible to their students. While an obvious financial incentive exists to keep students out of special education, parties to the process are extremely unlikely to falsify testing data. Still, financial factors may lead to data interpretations designed to keep students in regular classrooms. A few years back, I had a student tested for special education. The man who tested her determined that her I.Q. was 78 — 3 digits too high to qualify for special education. She needed a 75 to qualify. But while psychometricians generally regard IQ tests as having high statistical reliability, the fact is that the standard error of measurement for IQ tests is commonly considered to be about three points — the very difference that might have gotten my student into special education. That test can easily be three points off. They didn’t let my girl into special education. (Bilingual education saved this former student, but that’s another story. She did graduate. She may be stranded in a Spanglish world, and she can’t spell or do math for beans, but she diligently attended school, receiving enough credits to walk the stage.)

Am I rambling here? To go straight to my point, many of our failing kids will benefit from special education; however, parents and teachers may need to force the issue. Parents — don’t trust the schools to tell you if your child needs special education. If you suspect learning handicaps, demand that your district test your child. Teachers — the mantra of this time has become, “All children can succeed!” This cheery sound bite sounds appealing but fictions often do. Not all children can succeed in regular classrooms. If they could, we would never have created special education in the first place.

Lost and struggling students deserve to get the help they need. These small classes with individualized attention allow some students to learn when regular classes do not. My colleague down the hall has dedicated her life to teaching reading to students who need extra help to put the letters together. Parents and teachers sometimes hesitate to seek special education placements for fear of labeling a child slow, but special education often proves the best possible world for at least some of our boys and girls.

Leonard Cohen put it perfectly in his song, Anthem:

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.

It’s all about light, the light of learning. We are here to help our children learn to love learning. We do that best when we don’t force them to go faster and farther than they are ready to travel. We do that best when we hand them books they can read with a teacher who understands the pacing and parameters they require. We do that best when we accept and love them for who they are.

Tracking today’s time

MAP is over for now. I think I am going to count the minutes from my Student Learning Objective or “SLO” tests, though.

What is a Student Learning Objective (SLO)? SLOs are content-specific, learning objectives aligned to curricular standards. As part of the SLO process, today I was obliged to give all my classes tests which cover the material we are going to teach this quarter. Most of the material on these tests has not yet been taught. I reassured students repeatedly that today’s tests would not be part of their grades. I recommended they try to remember questions when possible, since the tests would be repeated as their final exams at the end of the quarter. I reiterated that I was not going to hold them responsible for not knowing vocabulary and concepts they had never seen before.

One major purpose of SLOs is to provide evidence of a teacher’s instructional success. If all teachers in a department give the same exam, teacher results can be compared at the end of the quarter. Comparisons are normally averages, the mean improvement of students in given classes. SLOs are losers for some subsets of teachers. Special education teachers, for example, have student groups who normally do not attain the same overall averages for improvement as their regular education counterparts. SLOs can also be losers for teachers who do not draw strong class groups from the regular population. Any teacher knows that some classes are academically stronger than other classes. Picking the right class or classes may be critical to the SLO process when not all classes are included in the data.

TIP to new teachers: Pick your strongest class! Don’t let anyone tell you that your lowest class “has the most room for improvement.” Your lowest class is your lowest class for a reason. If that class had regularly been pegging a full year’s academic progress or more overall, they would not be your lowest class. Your best bet to show improvement will come from those kids who have already surged to the front of the pack. Learning comes more easily to these kids. That’s why they are already outscoring their peers.

Eduhonesty: I’ve gone sideways here. I wanted to explain why the SLO minutes are being included in my count of standardized testing minutes. While today’s tests were not national tests, they represent a full day of testing in which I gave my students tests filled with information they had never seen before, tests that were not part of their grade. I am doing this so that the administration can make comparisons of progress at the end of the quarter.

Total minutes spent giving SLOs today: 225 minutes or 3.75 hours. The true time loss would be a bit more, since tests preclude making progress on other material. Students who finish do reinforcement work or help with class projects while we wait for slower students to get done. No new material was presented today. In fact, no lecture happened at all, although a fair amount of individual tutoring occurred here and there during testing.

Standardized testing and test prep time for the week so far: 9.92 hours

To add another component to my time management study here: Total meeting time for today ran 150 minutes, or 2 1/2 hours. Meeting time for the last two days (some of which I missed due to testing) ran 135 minutes. Total meeting time for the week so far then adds up to 4.75 hours.

Be a good one

Whatever you are, be a good one. –Lincoln

The above phrase resonated with me.

As we diversify classes while simultaneously homogenizing curriculum, I believe it becomes harder and harder to be a good teacher. My current science topic is based in abstractions of physics. I don’t know that I can find a way to make the true content intelligible to all my students, especially those from special education backgrounds. I persevere because all teachers are supposed to simultaneously be teaching this content. But given that some of my lowest kids are a full six years below their grade-based reading level, I don’t see how this is going to work.

I also don’t see how these students are going to manage to be good students, no matter what their intentions.

An educational researcher named Piaget had a term for these students: Concrete operational thinkers. They don’t manage abstractions well. They struggle with concepts that can only be indirectly seen or demonstrated.

Eduhonesty: I will try to teach basic physics to my guys. The opportunity cost of teaching physics will be all the early math and English we can’t go over — and desperately need to go over — because we are required to teach physics concepts to a group of students who can’t convert a decimal to a fraction without a partner to guide them.

I wish Abe were President. He might have understood that education should be tailored to the individual student, not to a national agenda that fits only some students well. It’s as if we are issuing everybody the exact same pair of shoes. If you are lucky, the shoe fits. If not — well, keep trying to stuff your foot into that thing, because in this one-size-fits-all time, that shoe is all you are going to get.

Fuzzy research

“The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

~ Thomas H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) (From bob@LakesideAdvisors.com)

Eduhonesty: If we want evidence that education is no science, all we have to do is notice the number of administrative hypotheses that cannot be slain by ugly facts. The hypothesis did not pan out? The teacher must have done the experiment badly. The children did not improve? The instruction must have lacked rigor. The scores are stagnant? The teacher must have failed to scaffold and differentiate for the different levels of learning in the classroom.

If the teacher points out that almost no student in the classroom can actually read the book the district purchased, he or she may get a lecture on the need for increasing rigor.

Nowadays when I hear the word “rigor,” my mind silently tacks on “mortis.” (Latin: rigor “stiffness”, mortis “of death”) One of the recognizable signs of pie-in-the-sky curricula: Death of learning caused by inappropriate new strategies that incorporate irrational expectations, eliminating the pedagogical flexibility needed to help many students learn.

(If your students are newly arrived in the U.S. and are unwilling to converse because they are sensitive to their language deficits, obligatory activities that require verbal sharing aren’t the best — or even a particularly rational — demand.)

Sad quote from a special education teacher

“I used to love my job. I used to get up and it was exciting.” But she has been losing control of that job rapidly since No Child Left Behind. She is told what to teach now, whether or not her students are suited to that material, material chosen by an outsider who does not know those students. Her problem is simple: She knows she could do a much better job if she were left alone.

Scary Estimate by a Sped Teacher

Walking to the gym beside a new special education teacher, she tossed off this observation:

“I spend about 60% of my time doing paperwork and 40% giving instruction. I hoped there’d be less of that here (than in her old school) but it seems to be the same.”

We commiserated over government paperwork demands, a real burden in bilingual education as well.

Eduhonesty: At a certain level, those government paperwork demands begin to impact instruction. Time spent preparing mountains of paperwork cannot be given to planning future instruction. After a long day of paperwork, many teachers just grab an appropriate or semi-appropriate lesson off the internet, minimizing preparation for the next day since the present day is pretty much gone.