Every Kid Can Learn

There may be exceptions, actually, but I really believe this in general. The main thing that stands in the way of that goal, though, is often administration. Of course not every student will cooperate, and of course not all students will pay attention, study, or do homework. Of course some will fail. For the most part, though, it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed.

Every teacher I know has heard about differentiated instruction. I know some supervisors have demanded multiple lesson plans for different students. Sometimes supervisors assume teachers have nothing to do and unlimited time. This is not a good approach. We have a lot to do, our work is important, and it's sad when we're burdened with wasteful nonsense.

Differentiation is a tough demand when you have 34 students in a class. Of course, class size tends to be overlooked by administration, and in fact when I go to grieve oversized classes, they fight to keep them that way. It's an ironic attitude from an organization that claims to put, "Children First, Always." Of course, the real meaning of that slogan is demoralizing and devaluing those of us who do the important work of teaching the children (the very children Moskowitz Academies would not accept on a bet).

I'd argue that differentiation is a fundamental human trait. Unless you are in possession of a remarkable lack of sensitivity, you treat people differently. I see, in my classroom, students who will challenge me. I'll let them do it, and I'll challenge them back. I have nothing to lose, really. If they manage to out-talk me, I must be doing a great job. I also see very sensitive and reserved students, students who need my understanding, students for whom a harsh word would be hurtful and damaging.

Then there is talk of assessment. I hear insane things from administrators about assessment. There is evaluative and non-evaluative (formative) assessment, evidently. Supervisors come into classes and trash teachers for failing to offer non-evaluative assessment. They write them up for it, failing to see the irony that they themselves have just failed to offer the formative assessment for which they advocate.
 
As for non-evaluative assessment, it too is often presented as a one-way street. The only way you can do it is if students have red and green cards. Green cards mean they understand, and red cards mean they don't. Or they use left and right hands. Left hand means they understand, and right means they don't. Or vice-versa. Who remembers?

I recently read a Danielson observation form criticizing a teacher for failing to use the left hand-right hand thing. Evidently this teacher was walking around looking at student work. The observer concluded there was no way the teacher could assess the quality of student work that way. I was amazed by this conclusion.

First of all, there is the underlying assumption that 15-year-old students will freely announce to their peers that they do not understand what is going on. There is the assumption that kids at that age are neither obsessed with nor concerned about the opinions of their peers. There are the further assumptions that students who do not know what is going on are aware of it, that they have not yet tuned out altogether, and that they are even listening when the teacher says raise this or that hand, or this color or that color card.

The very worst assumption, though, is that of the binary nature of understanding. You understand it or you don't. There are no degrees. There is no grey, only black and white. That's ridiculous. Once you understand that, you understand how absurd the criticism of looking at student work is. When I look at individual student work, I can offer individual advice. This sentence doesn't make sense. What were you trying to say? That's a good idea--please explain or build on it. This sentence doesn't belong in that paragraph. Eliminate it or start a new paragraph. This word doesn't need an apostrophe. Use a question mark here, please.

If everything is green and red, or left or right, your subject is pretty limited. I don't really want to be in your class if that's how you see things. And even so, if I'm the only student who doesn't get it, why do the other 33 students have to sit around and wait while you explain it to me?

You may as well give only true-false tests and hope for the best. If you're marginally more adventurous, you can give multiple choice tests. I was a pretty terrible high school student, but I loved multiple choice tests. I almost always passed them, whether or not I knew the answers. Now on an open-ended question I could spout a lot of wind, but I couldn't usually appear to know things I didn't. 

There is spectacular irony in the fact that our system demands that every one of our students take the same tests. I mean, if we're going to talk differentiation, how can it possibly exist when final assessment is exactly the same for everyone?

Every kid can learn, but not necessarily the same things in the same way. I'm glad to see that NY State has finally allowed some leeway for different students with different needs. It's a step in the right direction, but it isn't enough. Every kid can learn, but every kid can learn differently at different times. Some kids need more time than others. Some have learning disabilities. Some don't know English. A full 10% of our kids are homeless, and as long as we continue to ignore that, we won't be serving them no matter how often we give them the meaningless label of "college ready."

Learning is not binary, and it's not multiple choice either. It really is individual. The sooner administrators can understand that simple notion, the better we will serve our children.

Staying Ahead of the Curve

I don't  know much about the writer of the quote at left. Oddly, I found it on Facebook, posted by the writer himself. I'm wary of people who quote themselves, but I love this sentiment. Look at Andrew Cuomo, with no moral center, doing any damn thing his contributors want. He only rolls it back when his popularity is swirling the bowl, and even then, not nearly enough to change much of anything. NYSUT and UFT leadership appear not to notice, and spend millions of our dues dollars on what appear to be pro-Cuomo commercials.

Thinking teachers and parents are paying close attention, though, and don't buy the "moratorium" nonsense that rolls back just a little bit of the test-based drek that passes for teacher evaluation in New York State. Our kids are still taking the same number of tests, including the ones that now seem to count for nothing whatsoever.

It's surreal that we live in a country where Bill Gates can dictate that test scores dictate the life and death of schools (not to mention the careers of teachers). Yet Gates sends his own kids to schools that aren't subject to his whims and caprices. Reformy folk like Gates, Rhee, King, Obama, Cuomo and Bloomberg opt their kids out of programs they impose by opening their wallets. When we do the same by declining to allow our children to take the tests, it's an outrage. The taxes we pay for our children's schools can be withheld, they say. Our children will suffer, they say, because we didn't conform. That's not taking care of those in their charge.

Of course, the folks above appear interested in taking care of only their own children. Otherwise, why would they impose a system they deem unfit for their own children on our kids? Of course there is hope for our kids. Opt-out is burgeoning in New York State, despite the druthers of test-happy zillionaires and the politicians crawling through their pockets. Parents and teachers aren't blindly accepting this nonsense anymore.

Classrooms don't need to be test-prep factories. Classrooms can be windows of kindness and encouragement in a tough world. A test-obsessed America makes that tougher each and every day. How can you be kind to children when you're gonna lose your job if they fail that test? It's an awkward balancing act, and every thinking teacher I know feels that pressure pretty much every moment.

Despite that, most of the kids know whether or not we care about them. Most of the kids know whether or not we have their interests at heart. It's harder for us, of course, because we're subject to all sorts of external pressures that have little to do with their welfare (not to mention ours). I can't imagine being a new teacher today, and trying not only to learn a very complex job, but concurrently dealing with all the red tape and nonsense that make actually doing the job a near impossible dream.

It's a balancing act, a juggling act, and it's really getting tougher to maneuver every single day. It's too bad we can't just do our jobs, help our students and give them that little bit of guidance they need. It's too bad these kids will lose so many people who could help them due to myopic to outright hostile leadership.

But we stand, we stay, and we care. How we broadcast that message over the Gates-propagated noise machine is just one more issue for us.

UFT Gets the E4E Perspective in NY Teacher

There's a lot of talk about testing nowadays, and when UFT wishes to discuss it in the union paper, the first person they go to is E4E member Starr Sackstein. Sackstein says she doesn't want to prepare kids for tests, but rather for college. And after all, college readiness is a hallmark of Common Core and all the reformy folk who say our schools are failing.

That's certainly the direction in which we're moving. Personally, I lost seven class days to a newly extended version of the NYSESLAT exam, ostensibly to determine the English level of my students. Having now given the oral part a million times, and having read the written part, I'd argue it's a better measure of just how Common Corey the kids are.

When I teach, I don't aim for test prep or college readiness. For one thing, so-called college readiness is based on a hodge-podge of minimum standardized test grades that likely indicate little. Studies show that teacher grades are, in fact, a much more accurate indicator of ensuing success of lack thereof in college. I teach kids how to speak, write and understand English. I'd argue this is fundamental not only for college, but for life. I'd argue setting up kids to be happy and successful prepares them for college, if they choose college, whether they like it or not.

Of course, I'm not E4E, which is just one reason you won't be finding pearls of wisdom from me in the pages of NY Teacher. The other, of course, is that my philosophy on education is aligned more closely with Diane Ravitch than Michael Mulgrew. Unlike Mulgrew, I oppose VAM absolutely. I don't think it's OK if you dust it off, dress it up and call it a "growth model." I believe the American Statistical Association when they say teachers only affect test scores by a factor of 1-14%, and that using VAM can be counter-productive to good education. I don't believe in mayoral control, or school closings, or charter schools, or two-tier due process, or having teachers work under conditions of abject terror. I believe an appropriate response to meaningless and time-wasting tests is opt-out.

UFT leadership, as is their right, disagrees. That's why the E4E member is pictured in the story, and that's why E4E POV gets top billing. When it comes to fighting for more work for less pay, UFT desperately wants that seat at the table. That's why they cannily negotiated to get money everyone else got in 2010 by 2020. Not only that, but they managed to negotiate this with someone reputed to be the most left-leaning mayor in decades. And as if that weren't enough, we still have no idea how much we'll be paying to help the city, now flush, with health care costs.

But leadership has other priorities. I often get upset with Chalkbeat NY for running idiocy like how E4E got 100 signatures for more effective means of firing teachers, or whatever Gates money has them pushing for this week. It's even more disappointing to see the official UFT paper giving them top billing. I thought one purpose of a union was to seek better working conditions for working people, a group that will soon include our children and students.

I don't think that's what E4E wants, and it's unconscionable that they are promoted in the pages of our union paper.

But I never know what the hell it is that union leadership wants. Yesterday, I got an invite to spend a weekend with Randi Weingarten, TFA's Wendy Kopp, and reps from the Gates Foundation for the low, low AFT price of 50 bucks. I hadn't planned to write about the UFT's E4E feature, but invites like that make me feel like leadership thinks we'd do just about anything for 50 bucks.

There are words for people who do anything for 50 bucks, and none of them describe my profession.

Not yet, anyway.

Do "Failing" Schools Mean Failing Teachers?

There's an interesting point of view in the Daily News. Apparently, the issue with the "Renewal" schools in New York City is that they have an inordinate percentage of "lower quality" teachers. This assumption, of course, is based on the research of reformy Chalkbeat NY, nee Gotham Schools, which finds it noteworthy when E4E can muster 100 signatures on a petition demanding more work for less pay, but can't be bothered to cover a massive demonstration against Cuomo's policies.

First, let's look at the definition of a "lower quality" teachers. This particular person is someone who scores developing or ineffective on a rating system even Andrew Cuomo labels "baloney" (notwithstanding his enthusiastic support for it at its inception).  Unlike Cuomo, those of us who actually believe in science and research called it junk science from the start. That includes people like Diane Ravitch. In fact, even Randi Weingarten, who ran around the country helping to negotiate crap evaluation systems eventually admitted "VAM is a sham."

These systems are all a result of the Gates MET study, a convoluted piece of crap that set out to prove yet another theory emanating from Mr. Gates' fruitful hind quarters--that we need to replicate whatever teachers do in classrooms in which students receive high test grades. This, of course, is the central theory behind reforminess. Public schools, Gates theorizes, are no good because kids don't score well enough on standardized tests.

The fact is, though, that every so-called failing school contains high concentrations of high-needs students. There are kids who live in poverty, kids who have special needs and kids who don't speak English. And please, before some preachy moron gets the notion I'm giving up on those kids, the fact is I spend every day of my working life trying to help those kids. And what my kids need is help learning English, not help passing a test.

I spent a few years teaching ELLs how to pass a test. Some genius in Albany declared that it didn't matter whether or not kids knew English, and in order to graduate high school they needed to pass the English Regents exam anyway. I was drafted. I made kids pass and didn't teach them fundamentals of English language because it wasn't necessary for the test. Kids who passed may have assumed it meant they knew English, but I can assure you they did not. It meant they knew a highly formulaic four paragraph essay good for nothing but that version of the test, and it meant they knew how to look for correct A, B, C, D answers in Regents texts. It meant absolutely nothing more.

I was happy for kids who passed, but I did not fool myself for a moment that it was because I was a great teacher. It was because I made them write until their hands fell off. It was because I made them rewrite everything, no matter how tedious, and it was because I read and critiqued every word they wrote. It was no fun, neither the kids nor I liked it, but they tended to pass the stupid test in higher numbers than they would have without it. Of course their actual writing was no better than before, and they surely failed college writing tests in droves.

Here's the thing--if you are the principal, charged with running a so-called failing school, are you gonna say yes, the school is failing, and all the teachers are excellent. It is therefore an anomaly, a veritable miracle of nature. Are you gonna say the students are no good? Are you gonna tell the truth, that you in fact have high concentrations of high needs kids and there is really nothing you can do about it? Is that gonna get you that desk job at Tweed that will afford you the much-needed time to work on your oragami? Those paper airplanes are not gonna fold themselves, after all.

Of course not. You're gonna observe the teachers and blame them. It's remarkable, in fact, that the negative observations are a mere 20%. Now, you can accept the observation system as the Ten Commandments and assume principals in troubled schools have no self-interest whatsoever.

Or, you can face the actual issue of rampant poverty in NYC and the United States. You can face the fact that non-English speakers tend to settle in cities, where there is work. You can face the fact that most of them cannot, in fact, afford to live in Scarsdale. You can face the fact that the necessity of working 200 hours a week to support one's self and family is not conducive to thoughtful and thorough parenting.

Or, you can accept Bill Gates' formulaic solutions, which are to education as my ELLs' four paragraph compositions are to writing. That is what much of the public does, and that is what many editorials, up to and including those of the NY Times, encourage.

It's on us to get the truth out, and we have our work cut out for us.

Let the "Reformers" Re-Form Themselves

The facts and formulas we instill in kids are secondary in importance to the manifold other purposes of public education.  We need individuals who can think outside a test bubble.  This has traditionally defined our greatness.

When it comes right down to it, most of us probably remember only a small fraction of what we learned in school.  Yet, we succeed in life because we are able to think creatively and confront positively the problems that appear in life.  These are the problems that you will never find on a test.

I judge my education a success because I gained a love for learning which propels me past the confines of my college and graduate-school years.  I do not deed my learning over to classrooms or workshops for PD credit.  I motivate myself to learn and my students and children further motivate me to self-educate.

In school and at home, I gained confidence in my ability to address new problems.  If the Common Core had repeatedly smacked me down and branded me as a failure, I might have started off with the supposition that I cannot do it.  It might have caused irreversible harm.  How many children are suffering harm today?

We need something more than good test takers.  We need good citizens.  We need emotionally and intellectually healthy people as threads in the fabric of our society.  We don't need beaten-down masses labeled as failures by a test-crazed, self-appointed set of reformers.  We need individuals inspired to achieve their very best.  We need to teach the principles that encourage kids to love learning--and it may not be the same principles for all kids.

We don't need a "common core" to kill individual initiative in the name of standardization.  Greatness is rarely, if ever, achieved in any nation when it becomes set in its ways.  And, we certainly don't need Common-Core testamania to promote incessant prep and then punish students and their teachers.  Maybe what the ed. "reformers" really need to do is re-form their own thinking.

Land of a Thousand Rubrics

I've been attending curriculum development workshops all week. We're looking at Common Core, without which no sentient being can function, and one of our sub-categories is rubrics. Yesterday we created some of our own.

I'll be frank. I have never liked rubrics. The first time I saw them was when a new, two-day, four-composition English Regents exam came out. I read the grading rubrics and got a general idea of what levels 1-4 meant. From then on I marked more or less holistically. I used to know one teacher who treated the rubrics with great reverence and examined them quite thoroughly. It was very rough partnering because by the time you finished a class set of essays this teacher would be on number 2 or 3, if you were lucky.

I've been teaching for 30 years. I'm pretty good about reading papers. I comment on them and offer advice as needed. One of the most frustrating things, to me, is watching a kid look at the paper, or not, and then crumple and toss it away. More motivated kids tend to reflect a little more. My question is this--after I spend time writing a rubric, who's to say kids wont toss them away too?

I kind of understand the thinking. There's got to be a way to get a good grade. What the hell is this teacher looking for? And it's true there are conventions, and mechanics, and standard usage. I like paragraphs and organization, and I like being able to easily understand things. But during the presentation I kept hearing words like "grapple" and "complex." The word "simple" is used as a pejorative. I think Pete Seegar said, of iconic American songwriter Woody Guthrie:

Any damn fool can get complicated. It takes a genius to attain simplicity.

People don't still sing This Land Is Your Land because they want to grapple with complex ideas. They sing it because it's direct and simple, because it hits you like an arrow to your heart. Still, dedicated Gates-o-philes want to measure things with lexiles and make kids read train schedules instead of To Kill a Mockingbird.

If I'm forced to use rubrics to rate my kids' essays I'll do it. I do, after all, get paid for this stuff. But I'm more comfortable issuing general checklists, which kids understand better, and then demanding particular and different things from particular and different kids for rewrites. Isn't that actually the elusive differentiation of instruction we hear about?

And, in fact, the essays and projects are fine, but we still have tests that overshadow and override them. No matter how many projects they do, my students, who don't necessarily know English yet, can't graduate until they pass an English Regents exam that tests very little of what it is they actually need to know. Grappling with complex text is not their first priority, and I'd argue it ought not to be the first priority of native-born kids either. That's what you do way better after you learn to love and appreciate reading, and something you do when you need to. It's not remotely how you teach. 

How can we differentiate instruction if the test is always the same, and the evaluation is always the same? In the quest to quantify everything, we're producing a lot of rules. It's hard for me to see, though, how we're producing critical thinking or better-equipped kids, unless our ultimate goal is to make them take more and more standardized tests.

The Test to Test the Teachers Before the Test

Yesterday I went to a PD session in which we looked at the senior English test, a test that counts not for the kids taking it, but rather for the teachers giving it. This is important to us because, as ESL teachers, our students who tested advanced will have to take the test, the test to test the teachers, the test they give before the test to test whether the teachers prepared the kids to to take the test again. You see, fully two days of instruction are lost as we explore whether or not your teachers suck, and if so, just how sucky they may be.

This particular test to test the teachers before the test is an argumentative essay. This, we're told, is completely different from a persuasive essay. Why? Well, in a persuasive essay, I would just make an argument and try to persuade you to accept it. Ah, you say, that's an argumentative essay? Well, you're completely wrong. In fact, I learned yesterday that in an argumentative essay, you give the counter argument and explain why it sucks even worse than the teachers who failed to demonstrate that their students could improve on the test after the test to test the teachers before the test.

What's really great about this test is it has almost a full page of instructions. There's nothing I like better, if I'm an ESL student who doesn't have a whole hell of a lot of English, than spending hours looking up words in a bilingual glossary. That doesn't cramp my style at all. What's style?

You need not concern yourself with style at all if you're in my class. If you're in my class, and there's a gun to my head, and Chancellor Walcott is saying, "Make this non-English-speaking kid pass or I'll shoot," I might whimper a small protest. "But...but the kid doesn't know English!" Naturally the Chancellor would reply, "The test says the kid is advanced, and I paid a billion dollars for Pearson to design it, so no more excuses!"

Well, with that gun to my head, I'd figure out just how that kid could pass that test in the fewest paragraphs possible.

1. Introduction
2. Opposing argument and why it sucks
3. Reason 1 my argument is the bestest, supporting details
4. Reason 2 my argument is the bestest, supporting details
5. (for ambitious, or really advanced students only) Reason 3 my argument is the bestest, supporting details
6. conclusion

And that's about it. I didn't bring the entire list of instructions home with me, as I can fit just so much crap in my house. And I wouldn't want to complicate my prescribed plan for the students, as they can fit just so much crap in their heads. But yes, if you're going to fire me if they don't know it, I will teach them this crap. I've taught kids how to pass many exams that required formulaic crap.

It's too bad. If anyone ever asked me to, I'll bet I could teach kids how to write instead.

Common Core--Being Reformy Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

The new Common Core test scores are about to come out, and are anticipated to be a disaster. This, naturally, will give further credence to the corporate-created myth that our schools are in crisis and need to be "reformed," despite the fact that CC itself is quite reformy. The fact that no one actually knew what would be on the tests is of no importance, nor is the fact that this system has never been proven, let alone tested, anywhere.

The papers will write editorials about "failing" schools, and will revel in this as proof that unionized teachers are goofing off when they should be teaching. Of course, since no one knew what would be on the tests, no one could prepare students for the tests. And, of course, we don't really know what passing or failing these tests establishes.

In fact, even today, elementary and middle schools haven't got a curriculum for this all-important program. The thing about reformy programs is they are absolutely urgent. That's why we can't wait to find out whether or not they work. In fact, in the case of things like VAM and merit pay, the fact that they have failed everywhere they've been tried is no reason to stop using them. In times of crisis, we must do whatever Bill Gates says we must do, no matter how counter-productive or idiotic it is.

So despite the fact that these tests have not been established to determine anything whatsoever, they will be used to place teachers on a fast track to unemployment, one of the long-cherished goals of reformy people everywhere. So what if we vilify a few more city teachers for no reason whatsoever?  As long as we can fire them, we're making progress.

Now I don't know whether or not these tests will establish anything. But when the scores are as abysmal as projected, they'll be used as a battering ram to trash working teachers. Why on earth didn't teachers prepare kids for the tests they had never seen? Why didn't they spend a little time going over the material that didn't exist?

And, of course, in schools with high numbers of learning disabled and ESL students, the scores will be lower, and reformy Arne Duncan will press for their closure. Never mind that every school targeted for closure has had high numbers of such students. That's just a coincidence. It must be the fault of the unionized teachers.

It can have nothing to do with the lack of planning and preparation. We are simply to assume that Common Core is wonderful, despite the fact there is no evidence whatsoever.

Because reformy Arne Duncan says so, and that ought to be enough for anyone.

Obama: Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Leonie Haimson has a great new piece pointing out that the preposterous things we demand from American children don't apply to the kids of the President of the United States. Sasha and Malia attend the Sidwell Friends School, where they are not subject to high-stakes tests, and where they enjoy small class sizes. Obama was very vocal in criticizing Romney for opposing reasonable class sizes, yet his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, did the same thing months earlier.

One would think this would suggest a change in Education Secretaries for term two, but one would be mistaken. Many public school parents and working teachers are upset with his insane and non-science-based policies, but it appears we're headed for more of the same. I often question why the NEA and AFT supported a second term for such policies and I get varying responses. One is that Romney would have been worse. Indeed, Romney supported not only all the crap Obama supports, but also vouchers. However, Obama's education policies are pretty bad, as evidenced by supporters like Jeb Bush.

The other talking point I get from union reps is that Obama has said many positive things about class size, but again he never refuted Duncan's contradictory statements. More importantly, there has been absolutely no action to support these words. Also, Obama has spoken out against excessive testing, but policies like Race to the Top and Common Core will almost certainly exacerbate the problem. Sad to say, his words look very much like lip service, and, unless they are accompanied by deeds, will surely be meaningless.

Would it have been tougher for a GOP President to have enabled such things? Probably. Democrats may have opposed such nonsense on principle had it been suggested by a Republican. But we are Barack Obama's Sister Souljah moment, and nonsensical VAM evaluations will surely result in teachers being fired for no reason whatsoever. However, now that Democrats have jumped on the "reform" bandwagon, this is a tough issue for us. Until these programs fail, as they certainly will, and enough people notice it, which may or may not happen, we're stuck here.

We missed a golden opportunity by not making demands before endorsing Obama. LGBT and immigrant groups extracted concessions from this President, and I marvel day after day why our union leaders, in what promised to be a very close election, did not deem this worth negotiating over.

Focus on the Kids

I've had a few people implore me to do that over the last few weeks. The first time, I was discussing Walcott's scheme to override arbitrators so he could fire teachers based on not only unproven, but plainly rejected allegations. This person said it was unseemly for me, as a teacher, to stand up for adults, and that I should focus only on the kids.

Yesterday I was chided for complaining about politicians and their wacky antics. Why can't I just focus on helping the kids? Why am I so negative?

This seems to be a favorite argument of those who claim to put children first. A huge flaw in this particular argument is the fact that people like me spend our working lives with said children, and we don't sit in classrooms lecturing them about our political views, whatever they may be. Another is the fact that those of us who care about these kids know they will grow up one day. Would it be responsible for us, as teachers, as parents, to ignore the world into which we're sending our children?

I teach 100% high-needs kids, and it's my job to make sure their needs are met. I'm hampered by the imposition of idiotic high-stakes tests that don't even measure what my kids need most. They lose valuable time that could be devoted to addressing their needs, and are likely placed in more remedial college courses as a direct result. There's nothing these remedial courses can offer them that I couldn't give them in high school.

By debasing the teaching profession to a test-prep, low-security, Walmart model we not only hurt teachers, but also children. First, we're offering them lower quality and less dedication. For many of us, teaching is not just what we do, but who we are. We're not here to pad our resumes for a couple of years before we move into making real money. More importantly, by eviscerating what teachers have worked for for decades, we're removing a very viable path to middle class for kids like those we serve.

If we care about kids, if behooves us to take our heads out of the sand and stand up for things that will help ensure their future. That most certainly includes leaving them more opportunities, specifically including the opportunity to serve those who come after them by teaching them.

This Is School, and There Will Be No Enjoyment

It's incredible to read that even 4-year-olds are now taking tests, due to the brilliance of common core. No more of this play nonsense, no more discovery, and no more fun for children. Unless, of course, they go to schools like Sidwell Friends, where the president's kids, and the VP's grandchildren go. For the rest of us, it's get ready for a life of sheer drudgery as a Walmart associate, and no wonder the Walmart folks put their big bucks behind this.

My daughter took four days of standardized tests called the Terra Nova when she was in kindergarten. Granted, she was five rather than four, but I was very surprised by it. When I got the results, I was even more surprised. My daughter, who certainly did not know how to read, was deemed excellent in reading. However, she had no English language skills whatsoever. Now I'm not a testing expert, having never actually run a hedge fund, but to my limited understanding reading is an English language skill, and a rather vital one.

I went to the school and spoke with the teacher, who told me these results were typical of the class. Apparently, the reading skills test had been given the first day, when the kids were focused. The English skills test was given on the last, when the kids were well beyond their comfort level. The teacher clearly had as much regard for the test as I did, and had no choice but to administer it.

Of course kids at that age should be pushing trucks on the floor, blowing bubbles in their milk, and out playing with their friends. But in this test-oriented society, as we fervently try to erase the twentieth century in our drive to bring back feudalism, that's unlikely to occur.

But it's nice to see pieces like this one by Tim Clifford featured in Schoolbook. Apparently there are people paying attention, wanting to add real value and engagement to education. The more of us who push back against the rantings of corporate-backed garbage designed to reduce our children to automatons, the more likely we are to capture the limited attention of a country more focused on American Idol than the education of its children

These are the interesting times of the apocryphal Chinese curse, but there are those of us who are standing up, and what we lack in money, we have in numbers. Parents, teachers and students have a common cause, and that is what's good enough for Obama's children and Biden's grandchildren--reasonable class sizes, worthwhile instruction, focus on education rather than test and punish nonsense--is good enough for our children and grandchildren too.

Tell the Truth

It's a novel concept, but sometimes required by law.  For example, parents now must be informed if bedbugs are found in NY State schools.  I don't know what exactly they're to do about it, aside from keeping kids home from school, or hosing them down before coming back in the house, but there you have it.  As teachers, we have the same options.  They're not very good, but we need to know what's going on if we're to have any chance of keeping away from these little bloodsuckers.

But they're not the only thing sucking the life blood from education.  The "reform" movement has managed to snag itself not only a NY Mayor, but a US President, and several state governors.  This led UFT President Michael Mulgrew to write a pretty sensible editorial in yesterday's Daily News.  We really don't want schools to become test prep factories.  Those of us who've done test prep are acutely aware it's different from actual class.  And given the debacle of the recent state scores, you'd think we'd learn something from it.

Yet, as Mr. Talk pointed out yesterday, Mulgrew's point is a little late.  Just a few months ago, he went to Albany and negotiated a deal that teacher evaluations would be based 40% on test scores.  It's tough to imagine Mulgrew hasn't figured that principals, constantly under pressure from Tweed, won't base 100% of their opinion on test scores.  And it's tough to imagine tests you can't prep for.  If I'm looking at dismissal based on test scores, I'm not placing kids in groups and having them express opinions.

If Mulgrew didn't want test-prep to be the be-all and end-all, he shouldn't have allowed us to be painted into a corner, or supported the AFT's rousing endorsement of Bill Gates, to whom tests are the only thing that matters.

Play by the Rules

So says the New York Post, which seems to make the rules up as it goes along.  The Post supports every "reform" that comes down the pike.  They applaud when schools close, and never, ever question why.  They do cartwheels when public schools are replaced by charters.  Yet they're shocked, shocked when they find that credit recovery programs are shams designed to make students pass by any means necessary.

The Post, which applauded while GW Bush cheated, lied and drove the country into the dirt, has no patience for public schools that don't want to close.  They can't wait to make room for new schools with disposable McTeachers.

The test-prep factories that the Bill Gates/ Wal-Mart coalition is spawning are fine.  The non-union charters are fabulous.  The only problem, apparently, is that some unreasonable public school principals are unwilling to just lie down and die.  This is troubling to Gates and Wal-Mart, who need to save the world by supplanting public schools with non-union charters ASAP. 

It's unfortunate that billionaires who know nothing about education, including ultra-right wing Post publisher Rupert Murdoch, are the dominant forces in education today.  It's disgraceful that faux-Democrats like Barack Obama are eager to do whatever the billionaires request, and have no interest in representing the people who put them in office.   Of course I expect one-sided, shallow nonsense from the Post, and they rarely disappoint.

But these stories are the inevitable consequences of the test-prep, do or die frenzy that's gripped the nation.  Any thoughtful person can see that such incidents will multiply rapidly as the Gates/ Wal-Mart/ New York Post crowd make their imprint on education.

That's just one reason we should drop this nonsense and go back to teaching children.