Contrary to popular belief, very few teachers are sitting around scratching themselves. They are mostly teaching as hard and as fast as they can. Many are working nights, days and week-ends to pull their students test scores up.

Consequently, if we abruptly decide to raise score expectations, then we must realize that the classroom teacher may be unable to deliver those improvements without extra support. That support might be morning or afternoon tutoring. That support can even be delivered by outside tutoring companies. But without that extra academic time and support, those scores will not hike upward as demanded.

When you can’t work harder, or much harder, you have to work “smarter.” However, many teachers are working as intelligently as they can. “Work smarter” may make a good sound bite, but the idea that some secret teaching techniques exist that somehow we all missed — well, even if that were true, the amount of improvement our secret techniques could deliver will probably not create sudden, rapid spurts up the learning scale.

The idea that a secret cure in the form of a new teaching technique will somehow fill in years of academic gaps is supported mostly by wishful thinking. In fact, the idea that teachers can somehow work “smarter” may be an illusion and a dangerous one at that. Suddenly, for example, teachers discover they are all required to do think-pair-shares because the principal loves this technique. I had to do those think-pair-shares. I can tell readers they don’t work nearly as well in some classes as they do in others, and even represent a net loss of learning time in the wrong classes. If most my students are operating four grade levels below where they ought to be mathematically, having them teach each other yields dubious results at best. Yes, we can all teach smarter, but those smarter efforts may only be enough to affect scores at the margins.

Eduhonesty: If we truly desire to push those test score numbers higher in academically-challenged school districts, we need to stop looking for shortcuts or workarounds. Only longer school days and longer school years will deliver those numbers.

(Notice I am not talking about “learning” here. I think learning has become the loser in this testing mania. I don’t believe that learning and test score numbers are as highly correlated as some administrators and bureaucrats seem to believe, so I can’t substitute in the word “learning” for “test scores” above. The one word does not represent the other. In some cases, I think learning has been actively discouraged by America’s testing focus. But that’s another post.)

(Readers, I appreciate you. This blog now has over 10,000 registered users. I especially appreciate the fact that you seem to be hanging in with me despite my apparent lack of any overall theme beyond the gargantuan topic of education. Here’s yet another orphan post on the topic of teaching Spanish.)

 (A marvelous teaching assistant from an earlier time when curriculum had not steamrolled over education.)

This post comes from reminiscences from three years ago when I taught high school Spanish. I taught Spanish for one year before returning to middle school bilingual classes with a sigh of relief that could probably be heard on the Starship Enterprise, even if sound waves can’t travel through space. I also ended up in the hospital at the end of that run and I don’t regard that fact as a coincidence. I called that year, “The Curriculum Death March”. My students had prewritten midterms and finals based on a curriculum that required getting through over 300 pages of their Spanish textbooks, a requirement shared across the multiple high schools of the district. I had to get through that book to get them ready for those finals. The amount of material and the speed at which we were covering that material made Spanish into an endurance marathon, forced on students who had been forced into Spanish. Since all students must be prepared for college, and colleges mostly want to see at least two years of a foreign language, administrators had decided those kids were going to learn a foreign language whether they wanted to or not. A fair number had zero interest in foreign language studies.

“Why should we have to learn Mexican?” one girl demanded in class. “They need to learn English.” She had a lot of support to judge by faces in the class — even some Hispanic faces. I had a diplomatic nightmare, since I had a fair number of “Mexican” students in that class.

Anyway, my observation for today:

Fun often falls off the educational radar as we push for higher test-score numbers, yet fun should be part of any curriculum discussion, especially one involving foreign languages and other electives. Spanish should be fun. Students should be making family trees as they memorize the nouns naming their various relatives. They should be learning to prepare ethnic cuisines and practicing Hispanic dances. Classes should compare rituals across South America, Central America and the United States.

In the Spanish class I taught three years ago, we had time for almost none of that as we pushed through our three to four pages of vocabulary and grammar for the day. I want to note here that I emphatically believe in grammar, and in explicitly teaching grammar. A class of nothing but vocabulary and grammar becomes pure drudgery, though.

What administrators and bureaucrats seem to forget is the marketing component of teaching. If we don’t sell Spanish, our students may not choose to buy Spanish. They will complete their two years, and then drop that language like the proverbial hot potato and never look back — not until they are out of school. Because I have taught Spanish, I have listened as many young and older adults told me they regretted dropping Spanish, having discovered too late the professional advantages that bilingualism might have provided.

When the curriculum makes Spanish so tedious that students find Spanish a burden, rather than a fun break in the academic day, we need to take a step back and look at that curriculum. Do we want children and adolescents to learn foreign languages? If so, we should make those languages appealing.

Here’s the missing piece: At least at first, slower works better. Doing group projects and having a good time while adding words and phrases naturally works better than sending home long, obligatory vocabulary lists as part of book assignments.

If I’d stayed with that Spanish position another year or two, I could have found ways to work around at least part of the Curriculum Death March. But I also taught bilingual that year, so I had four different classes to prepare for daily. In the end, I had to stick with the book, too, because administrators above me had already written the tests that would determine my students’ grades and I needed to teach to that book to get them ready for those tests.

Eduhonesty: Rigor wrecked those Spanish classes. Irrational targets made the class very demanding, even undoable for some students who did not have a natural ear for languages.

“Rigor” has become one of those words that makes me cringe. I am not against rigor, just as I am not against grammar. But I am against curricular choices that do not consider students. The question should not be, “What is the maximum amount of Spanish we can make students learn?” The question should be, “How will we convince them to keep taking Spanish and to go on with their language studies in college?”

Love of learning should be the goal. That goal is not always best served by tougher questions, harder material, and more rigorous demands.

Food for thought from the article “Not a Small World After All” (February 11, 2015, Colleen Flaherty)

Language Enrollments and Percentage Change

“Wars in old times were made to get slaves. The modern implement
of imposing slavery is debt.”

~ American poet Ezra Pound (1885-1972)

I found the following scary snippet in the Huffington Post today. The full article is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rhode/father-forged-kids-names-_b_8251580.html.

“Dear Steve,

My ex husband left 2 of my children with over $100,000 each with student loan debt. He signed loans with their names without their knowledge, he missed months of payments which incurred high interest rates and now these kids both under 30 are saddled with these debts…. ”

I can’t vouch for the truth of this letter. I can tell readers that a Google search on the topic of forged student loans returned “About 351,000 results (0.60 seconds).” Forged student loans are no orphan-disease topic.

My best guess is dad was supposed to pay for his kids’ college education and did not want to fork over the $$$ or did not want to admit that he did not have the money. He then sneakily put the costs onto his kids. The article suggests pursuing dad, which might be the best option, except dad could actually go to jail. I don’t think I could have put my own dad in jail.

The kids’ options are ugly, uglier and ugliest. I hope those degrees turn out to be worth the stress and broken family ties that are likely to result.

Eduhonesty: I can’t blame the-college-for-all agenda for this mess. But I did decide to post this because of the number — over $100,000 each. At 5%, paid over 20 years, monthly payments come in somewhere around $700 per month. The exact interest rate is hard to know since with amounts this large, only some loans will be federally subsidized. That 5% estimate most likely is low. It’s hard to say since loan rates jump up and down.

A debt of $700 per month is absolutely crippling for an undergraduate degree. A graduate in chemical engineering might be able to manage this sum, but the vast majority of liberal arts graduates will have to pay all their disposable income to meet this target — or go into default.

My first practical piece of advice: Loan interest rates are lower right now than at some times in the past. If you have a former student who is struggling, encourage that student to attempt to refinance their loans.

My second practical piece of advice: When Maisie tells you she plans to go to an expensive private college to study psychology, please sit her down and go over debt scenarios carefully. The internet has tools to show what future monthly payments will be. Show her what debt means. Show her the numbers. We are busy encouraging big dreams. We need to stop glossing over their cost.

Kids love Snapchat. With Snapchat, they can send pictures, text messages, and videos that will disappear after a few seconds. They can add text, captions, and even emojis. Because the messages simply vanish, Snapchatting feels safe and fun. Mom can’t find these pics. The teacher won’t know what you wrote. That sexy, selfie pose will go away.

But teachers, kids and parents need to realize that not all Snaps disappear forever. Screenshots can capture snaps. So can some apps out there, I’m told.

Eduhonesty: Kids often lack judgment about what they expose in cyberspace. Because of today’s test-test-test climate, we are not spending as much time on whole child education as we did in the past. We ought to be spending more, not less. The temptations of everyday life have been exploding in a technological free-for-all of software and apps.

When your school does the anti-bullying assembly or tutoring period(s) — about the only reliable whole-child education that remains — please remember to work Snapchat-related issues into the lecture. One sideways method to get the idea across: Point out that bullying Snapchats can always be kept as evidence via that screenshot.

“A good listener is usually thinking about something else.”  ~ Kin Hubbard (1868 – 1930). Thanks to Bob at lakesideadvisors.com for this one.

Please pass this post on to newbies.

Some kids are masters of the nod. They track you with their eyes. They may take a note or two while doing so. Their heads go up and down at appropriate pauses in the lecture. Here’s the tricky part, though: A percentage of those kids don’t know if you are discussing the fall of Sparta or Sherman’s March through Georgia. They just have perfected the Nodding superpower. They know how to look engaged and attentive, no matter how far away their minds have wandered.

That’s why lecture absolutely must be broken up by questions. I’d suggest picking the people who DON’T raise their hands at least some of the time. Call on Nayelli when she nods. You don’t want to embarrass or trap the girl. If you can tell right away that Nayelli’s lost, please let her off the hook gently. But students must be made to participate regularly if you want to keep the Nodding superpower in check.

Preparing regular think-pair-share activities will work in some classes. Activity sheets that must be filled in as lecture progresses also help. Regular references to expected, upcoming homework will help.

Eduhonesty: Never trust a Nod.

Fox29.com via the Huffpost Weird News

The girl with the light green shirt was sent home for a uniform violation. Normally, I side with the district on these issues. That girl with the asymmetrical haircut that showed a leopard print on one side? Send her home. But this green shirt thing seems a bit silly. Still, I am going to stand up for uniform policies.

I have been asking readers to share certain posts with new teachers lately. I’d like to suggest that readers share this post with parents.

Clothing is imbued with meanings, some hidden, some not. In major urban areas especially, clothing still may represent gang affiliations. Even impoverished suburbs far from the big city may be battling gang representation. Clothing conveys many meanings and messages. That kid in the Star Wars or funny-math-joke t-shirt wants his peer group to find him. Gamers sometimes wear gamer shirts. Would-be thugs and gangsters sport gansta-rap clothing with hip hop artists and street gang references.

The girl in spaghetti straps with her short, short skirt poses a particular problem for school administrators. She wants to be noticed. She is probably indicating an interest in boys and sex, in a time when too many parents and family members leave houses empty in the afternoon.

If parents wonder about dress codes, codes that did not exist when they themselves went to school, the above examples help explain those codes. In an area with gang problems, putting all the kids in beige and navy blue sidesteps problems created by Insane Vice Lords wearing colors that identify them to King Cobras.

But even in schools that don’t need to manage gang issues, uniforms may be required. Uniforms save parents money. They downplay economic differences between students’ parents. Uniforms can prevent jealousy. Especially in economically-mixed neighborhoods, a uniform policy may help certain students feel their poverty less acutely. Even kids in elementary school often know brand names nowadays. They know that Daniela’s Kate Spade purse cost money that their own parents don’t seem to have.

Uniforms MAY save administrators time managing inappropriate clothing. (Or they may absolutely swamp those administrators as they attempt to deal with students out of uniform.) They help administrators avoid issues from distractions posed by spaghetti straps and too-short skirts.

Uniforms can be used to create school spirit. When everyone wears the same set of Eagle or Cougar t-shirts, that sense of being part of a group is reinforced. Uniforms help pull a school team together.

Eduhonesty: This post is for parents especially. Please don’t let Myra shave off half her hair if the school code forbids that shaving. Please don’t send her in a pink shirt if the code says white, navy blue, or black. That restriction may seem silly to you and Myra may look great in her pink shirt. But when Myra turns up in that shirt, a teacher has to talk to a Dean or another administrator. Myra can’t be left to wear that shirt because, if she does, pink shirts will start popping up all over the place, like a flower garden bursting into bloom in the spring. Fighting to maintain a dress code can begin to suck up huge blocks of time once all those pink flowers start proliferating.

Five minutes dealing with holey jeans here, five minutes there, and pretty soon hours have been spent on the jeans — and other, more important issues may never have been touched because the jeans question is immediate, whereas planning a spirit assembly can be postponed. If enough time gets taken by pants, that assembly may never be planned.

Educational resources are always limited and are much more limited in some districts than others. When the Assistant Principal becomes buried in disciplinary issues — and uniform violations are a category on disciplinary referral forms — some other useful planning and discussion will never happen. Or that planning may take on a shoddy character as that Assistant Principal tries to shove 16 hours of work into a 10 hour day.

Among civil liberties issues worth fighting, I’d include appropriate class placements, appropriate testing, limiting testing, fairness in student and teacher evaluations, fair allocation of educational funding, and the need for financially-disadvantaged students to receive access to technology. At least, those are the issues that came to mind immediately.

Parents and students may believe those cute pink shirts and holey jeans represent a civil liberties issue. Or they may simply be out of laundry detergent. They may be tired of fighting with Myra about that new pink shirt she keeps putting on and trying to sneak out of the house. Whatever the reason, sometimes parents will be tempted to ignore the dress code. Please don’t. When Ana comes in holey jeans, then the school has to respond. If not, the next day, Ana, Myra, and Shaun will ignore the code and turn up in holey jeans.

Allowing children to ignore inconvenient rules also provides poor preparation for life later. Not dressing according to corporate expectations may not result in loss of employment, but that choice of too-casual clothing has definitely cost some people promotions. At worst, a cavalier approach to corporate rules ends in loss of employment and unfortunate job references.

I recommend laying in as many pairs of khaki pants and navy blue shirts as you can afford. Then ask the kids before bed, “Have you laid out your clothes for tomorrow?” You can add that question to the ones about homework. “Is your homework done? Have you put it in your backpack?”

Uniforms may seem unimportant, but in aggregate those uniforms matter greatly. A school that has lost control of its uniform requirements has lost disciplinary control generally. When students know that a school cannot enforce one rule, other rules start falling. Disciplinary paperwork and policies start stealing educational minutes as teachers struggle to manage continuing, expanding infractions of school rules.

To put the issue succinctly, uniforms are the horseshoe-nails in educational conduct codes, and like that proverbial horseshoe-nail, they matter.

I’ll offer a counterargument to my own previous post. No doubt a few readers reflected that the Danielson Rubric is all about defining good teaching. As such, learning the rubric ought to offer some insights into good teaching. I don’t deny this.

Nonetheless, a quality PD (professional development) needs to be more targeted than the average explanation of the Danielson Rubric can offer. Asking, “What does proficiency in Domain 2d, Managing Student Behavior, look like?” may provide some insight to teachers. For the unfamiliar, proficiency in Domain 2d is described as follows: “Teacher response to misbehavior is appropriate and successful and respects the student’s dignity, or student behavior is generally appropriate.”

Asking, “How does “proficiency” in 2d differ from being “distinguished” in this area?” may also provide some insight. Distinguished 2d, Managing Student Behavior, is defined as follows: “Teacher response to misbehavior highly effective and sensitive to students’ individual needs, or student behavior is entirely appropriate.”

I’m not saying these PDs are useless. I am merely noting that they represent a suboptimal use of PD time. New teachers would benefit more from targeted PDs that directly teach classroom management techniques, for example. Special education teachers would benefit more from learning the latest research on autism than from group discussions on 2e, “Safety and Arrangement of Furniture.”

If my PD in no way improves my pedagogical skills but takes me out of the classroom for the day, my students lose. PDs about teacher evaluation systems and new Common Core state standards are necessarily losers for students left behind. Learning the new Common Core standards may improve eventual state test scores, but I would counter that a day — or sometimes more — of instruction just went out the window. Even if test scores come in a little higher for the year, overall learning undoubtedly came in lower.

For  non-teacher readers, a bit more information may help here. School districts pay for seminars and other presentations called professional development or simply PD. Districts may also offer their own professional development. Rarely, a teacher might stumble on a free, outside professional development opportunity, but few free seminars remain. Many consultants make their living offering PD activities and seminars. PD requirements vary from state to state and district to district, but mandatory PD comes with the teaching territory.

You can get a sub for PD during the school year, assuming a sub is willing to take your class. Some development occurs during the summer.

One article I read yesterday related to wasted PD opportunities. I’m afraid it made me laugh. Wasted? As far as I am concerned, I completely squandered almost all my PD from the last three years. Except for three brief interludes of one day apiece, when I learned theory and new practices for bilingual education, nearly every single minute of PD I experienced involved either the Common Core or the Charlotte Danielson rubric. What is the Common Core? How can you align to Common Core standards? HOW WILL YOU PREPARE FOR COMMON CORE TESTS? Interspersed with these test-focused PDs, I had Danielson Rubric PDs. The Danielson rubric is the teacher evaluation rubric in Illinois and some other states, with its 22 sections and 76 subpoints (or whatever, the numbers are something like that) which the Danielson group has now rearranged into 6 clusters since the first version of that rubric was “unwieldy,” to quote one Danielson speaker, if we want to speak diplomatically. I’d say “unmanageable” might better describe that rubric. The Danielson rubric was hammered into me during PDs, day after day, afternoon after afternoon, sometimes while subs took my classes.

I would  love to be able to go back in time and steer Charlotte Danielson — a very well-intentioned lady, I’m sure — away from education and into archeology or some similar, more harmless field. Anthropology? Etruscan pottery? European architecture?

Let her dig bones or classify shards of pottery. Just, please, please, please, get all these  arbitrary numbers out of the evaluation system. Too often, assistant principals and others are just making up numbers in their offices.

I am certain I spent more than a full teaching week during the last couple of years just learning the Danielson system. We paid their group to give off-site presentations even. That last time, a few teachers were in the audience whose Danielson rubric numbers put them in risk of termination. A couple had been told they were not going to be called back. I remain astounded that those teachers attended. (One was hired back anyway, after going through the hiring process from scratch, another moved to a better job in a nearby district, and a third retired. I am sure others I did not know were sitting in that crowd. I hope they are all doing well.)

Eduhonesty: I suspect some teachers in that room never saw a PD in the last year or two that was not either centered around Danielson or the Common Core. The best part of those repetitive PDs may sometimes be the lunches. That’s not merely sad. It’s outrageous. While we flounder around learning new curricula and new evaluation systems, who is teaching our kids? Subs. The idea behind days lost to PD is that lost class time will be made up later as teachers use newly-learned instructional techniques. But when all those teachers learn are new curricular standards and their own evaluation system, I’d say we can count these PDs as a net loss of instructional time during a period when tests are attacking that time like ravenous barracudas in a test-based feeding frenzy.

One last Danielson observation: No new teacher evaluation system should take weeks to explain. No any-evaluation-system-ever should take weeks to explain. No evaluation system should be sucking time out of the school year, as this one has been doing for a few years now.

Pseudo-data is running amok. We have become enamored of data. But data should not be an end and data should not even be a means — unless that data represents real values. The classroom time lost has become appreciable and the benefit remains completely undemonstrated. If we are going to use test scores to show progress, where are those test scores that demonstrate progress?

They don’t exist. Given all the effort we have put into pushing up those numbers, the lack of real, tangible academic advancement seems scary to me. Could part of that lack of advancement stem from wasted development hours? I’d say absolutely. When a sub takes my day so I can learn how my evaluation system works, I just wasted a day’s learning opportunity for my students.

We need to reclaim professional development and redirect that development toward improved teaching for our students.