Matt Damon's Pep Talk for Teachers (and Parents)

Everyone may have already seen Matt Damon's keynote speech at this weekend's Save Our Schools rally.  If you haven't heard about Save Our Schools, it was a rally held last weekend in Washington DC to show support for public schools and to protest the extensive use of high-stakes standardized testing to evaluate both students and teacher on its performance.  Although it drew some of the biggest names in the alternative education reform camp (that is, the Diane Ravitches and Alfie Kohns, not the Bill Gates and Michelle Rhees), unfortunately, it tended to be overshadowed by all the drama on Capitol Hill about the debt ceiling increase.

Matt Damon flew overnight from Vancouver, where he is filming his latest movie (hence the bald head) to give his support to the cause and to speak out against the overuse of standardized testing.  But even more, he spoke of his appreciation for teachers, and let them know how grateful people are for the tough but invaluable work they do.  He was introduced by his mother, who was, and maybe still is, a school teacher.  And he did was is really the ultimate reward that those of us who teach, or those of us who parent, fantasize about.  He acknowledged that an important part of who he has become and the success that he has achieved has come from the support and education he received from his teachers and his parenting (he does mention the last one specifically as well).  He said he knew it wasn't always easy, and he was thankful.

So I think this is a great video to have on hand for those days when teaching, or being a mom or dad, just seems really frustrating and thankless work.  Our students or children may not be able to communicate this feeling, but I'm sure they would if they could.  And it also reminds us that maybe we ought to take time to thank our own parents and teachers for the difference they have made in our lives.

You can watch Matt's mother's introduction, and then Matt's talk here:

The Kids Are All Right

I hope people enjoyed my eight nights of book reviews for Hanukkah.  It was kind of fun to focus on one things for a while, as well as finally writing reviews of all these great books we've been reading.  I really recommend the Mock Newbery Book Club program--it encourages your middle schooler (and probably you as well, at least if you are like our family) to catch up with some wonderful new books, and has us all reaching for different types of book than we typically read.

But now, back to other educational issues.  However, I'm still in a holiday mood, so I don't want to go on a rant against educational policies I disagree with right now.  So I thought tonight maybe I would give parents a gift--the gift of reducing our guilt about all the ways we are messing up our children.

This gift comes via one of my favorite educational writers, Alfie Kohn (oft mentioned in this blog).  He posted a new article on his website recently pointing out that all the woes of today's educational critics--high school graduates who can't read, employers who find high school graduates incapable of performing even entry-level jobs, grade inflation, falling standards, yada yada yada--have been railed about for years.  That is, critics were saying the same things about the problems with the education system during Eisenhower's time (and in some cases, even earlier) as they are saying now.  So while it is obviously unacceptable to have high school graduates who can't read, at least it is not just a recent phenomenon that our generation has created.

While this article is good, an even better one was something in the same vein he wrote this summer.  In that article he addresses the often-heard criticism that today's parents are too permissive and indulgent, and that today's students are entitled, smug, out of touch with reality, and out-and-out spoiled rotten.  Well, Kohn traces the exact same complaints about overindulgent parents and what he calls "undisciplined narcissists" even farther back, to over a century ago.  It seems that educational experts have been blaming parents for ruining their children's work ethic for nearly as long as we've had mandatory universal public education.

Kohn points out a couple of holes in this line of criticism.  First, there is no data--in fact, there has never been any attempt to collective information on parenting styles in a systematic way that could be used to rate a parent as "permissive" versus a "disciplinarian" in all these many long years that critics have been decrying the failures of successive generations of parents.  What little research has been done in this area hardly suggests that parents are awash in overindulgence; Kohn cites a 1995 study of parents of preschoolers in which 94% admitted that they spank or hit their children.

For this complaint, however, Kohn does have an explanation.  He discusses a 2010 article in the journal Perspectives in Psychological Science by Brent Roberts, Grant Edmonds, and Emily Grijalva of the University of Illinois.  These researchers argue that such critics are confusing developmental differences with generational differences.  That is, young people, on the whole, are more self-centered and self-concerned, laxidasical, and unfocused than older professionals (such as these professional critics) because of age-related developmental differences; most only become less self-involved and more focused as they get older.  So, yes, there is a difference between the younger generation and the older one--but it is function of age, rather than a result of differences in parenting styles (or anything to do with their parents, really).  But as the young generation matures and eventually is replaced by a new young generation, they, too, will start shaking their heads and making pronouncements like "these young kids these days DON'T.... or SHOULD....  well, you get the picture.

So, parents, you are off the hook for that one.  If your tweens or teens or even college students or recent graduates are driving you crazy with their lack of responsibility and their inability to get over themselves, don't beat yourself up for being a bad parent.  Most likely, they are just being kids--which is what they are, no matter how early our society starts the whole "get good grades to get into a good college to get a good job" pressure on them.  Apparently we did the same things to our parents (that's not how we remember it, of course, but we probably did), just like they did to our grandparents, who did the same thing to our great-grandparents...and on and on.

So, Alfie Kohn, thank you once again for helping us keep things in perspective.

Should We Send Homeschoolers to School for High School?

Although we're just in our first year of middle school, I am often asked, "Will you continue to homeschool your son through high school?"  My response is that we'll see where things are when we get to that point, but right now I don't know why we wouldn't continue homeschooling.  But certainly many families do decide to send their children to school for high school.

Just like with the decision to homeschool, sending a child to school for high school can come from many different reasons.  Some homeschooling parents are just tired, or have spent enough time devoted to their children and want to get back into their former careers, start a new career before they get too old, or just need some time for themselves and their interests.  Some don't want to add the pressures of having to be a teacher on top of the conflict that sometimes comes with being a parent to a child going through a rocky adolescent.  Others feel intimidated about teaching subjects at a high school level, and feel their children will get better instruction from specialists in each field.

But one big argument people give in favor of sending a homeschooler to school for high school is to prepare them to look attractive to and do well in college.  I don't want to judge those families who make those decisions; for many, especially those who want to pursue careers that will require a lot of schooling (like becoming a doctor) or that will ultimately be in education (like being a college professor), that is probably a wise choice.  But I also have to ask, especially for those with children like my son, who certainly doesn't have such a driving ambition right now:  Is teaching our children the skill set to do well in school going to help them, hinder them, or have no effect on their success in the rest of their adult lives?

My thinking along these lines was sparked by Alfie Kohn's latest blogging in the Huffington Post (followers of my blog know that Kohn is the source of some of my greatest educational inspiration).  Entitled "'Ready To Learn' Equals Easier to Educate,"Kohn explores what may be American education's greatest irony--that our best and most elite institutions are devoted to finding, attracting, and teaching the students who need it the least (or, as I'm constantly saying in discussions with my friends, if you have what it takes to get into Harvard, you don't need to go to Harvard because you already have it made).  Kohn argues that, starting in preschool, we cherry-pick the "brightest," usually most advantaged, and most cooperative students and give them additional educational resources that only increases the gap between them and their less advantaged peers, justified by the rationale that those other children aren't "ready to learn" (at least, in that institutionalized way, since children are learning all the time, one way or another).  But this gap continues and expands all along the educational pipeline until one set of children is on track for Harvard (or Duke or Cal Tech or whatever...it's not Harvard per se) and the other set is on a conveyor belt towards failure (see Waiting for Superman for more details).

But it seems to me one manifestation of this "ready to learn" concept is sending students to high school to prepare them for college.  On one hand, and particularly for some kids, sometimes it makes sense.  On the other hand, what does sending homeschool students to high school teach them?  For one thing, it certainly teaches them to expect less individual attention and less one-on-one discussion with teachers and peers.  I fear that it teaches them to give up pursuing their unique questions and curiosities about a subject in favor of following the pack along the educational path set by the teacher.  Since homeschoolers are an admittedly fairly homogenous community, even within a pretty sophisticated secular group like our Cary Homeschoolers, learning with a more diverse population might be a valuable aspect of school.  But reports from my friends in high schoolers in school say that their children are tracked or gifted-programmed or cliqued into groups that are no more diverse than our homeschool peers (who at least are definitely exposed to a greater age range of fellow students).

As I said, this is probably the right route for many students.  But does it develop skills that all students need to become happy, productive adults?  I don't think so.  Or am I missing something?  Please let me know, because I'm open to reconsidering this position.

Should We Stop Giving Students F's?

In the movie Apollo 13, when Ed Harris's character (Flight Director Gene Kranz) announces "Failure is not an option," he is referring to the fact that the team could not even consider the possibility that the astronauts stranded in a broken spacecraft would not return to Earth safely.  But when West Potomac High School principal Clifford Hardison says it, he is talking about the fact that his school has dropped the use of the F grade in classes.  Rather, students who have not performed up to minimal expectations will be given an I for Incomplete, and will be given additional time to do the work necessary for a passing score.

Needless to say, this has been a very controversial move, both within the school itself and among the educational community.  Proponents argue that what we should really care about is that students' achieve mastery, not how long it takes them to do so.  Otherwise, they continue, students receiving F grades simply drop any attempt to understand that subject matter....and, all too often, end up dropping out of school all together.  Opponents say that removing the F grade takes away one of the few tools in the teacher's arsenal as teachers attempt to persuade reluctant learners that they need to apply themselves and do the work necessary to cover the subject matter and skills required to be productive in "the real world."  And the "good students"--the ones who have performed to expectations, who turned in all their assignments on time and studied to get good grades on their tests--worry that the fact that their high school gives out I's (to be replaced by the appropriate grade once all assignments and tests have been passed) will diminish the value of the high grades they achieved within the normal timeframe of the class.

It is particularly interesting to consider from a homeschooling perspective.  Most of the homeschoolers I know do minimal or no grading until students get into high school level classes, which need to be turned into some kind of transcript for college admission or job applications.  In my experience, the prevailing thought among area homeschoolers is that those transcripts need to include grades, because that is what colleges or employers expect.  But there is a contingent that argues that even high school level work should not be graded (including one of my favorite writers on educational reform, Alfie Kohn).  But even among those who are grading their students, many actually take the same approach as West Potomac.  That is, if their children don't get through all the material in a subject the parent's have planned for the year, they don't usually get an F; they continue to work on it in the next academic year, and it is listed as a course in the year in which they complete the work, not the year they began it.

I haven't decided which way we will go when my son gets to the transcript years.  But what about you?  Do you think giving F's is a good idea or a bad idea?

Research Study Shows Merit Pay Doesn't Work for Students Either

After yesterday's rant on my blog, I continued to research the issue of merit pay, or in academia-speak, "financial incentives for performance output.""  I ran into another fascinating study that I somehow missed when it came out in April 2010.  This study looked at the effectiveness of paying for standardized testing improvements as well, but this time the money went to the students instead of the teachers.

This study, conducted by Roland G. Fryer Jr. of Harvard University, EdLabs, and EBER, was quite extensive.  It was a four-year study among the four (edu-speak again) "protypically low-performing urban school districts" of Chicago, Dallas, New York City, and Washington DC (and, having lived in Washington DC, I can attest to what a desperate state the schools there are in).   It involved giving a total of $6.3 million to about 38,000 students in over 250 different school, based on their achievement within a number of different incentive systems.  The study involved students from 2nd-9th grade, including MIDDLE SCHOOLERS.   It was also much more controversial than the previous study with the teachers; not only did Fryer get thrown out of quite a number of schools, but he received hate mail and even death threats from those who say his work as "bribing students" for good performance.

Once again, there were good news/bad news result:

THE BAD NEWS:  Student merit pay didn't work in raising standardized test scores.  Or, to be more specific, offering students up to $2,000 (a significant amoutn for students, especially those from low-income families) for better grades in classes and weekly exams did nothing in terms of raising their end-of-the-year standardized test results.

THE GOOD NEWS:  However, those students who were paid for performance--that is, just showing up regularly, following directions, good behavior, etc.--did show some significant improvement in their year-end scores.  The best investment?  Paying student to read books.  That produced the largest gain in reading comprehension scores of all the incentive schemes, and at a relatively low price; the average student only earned $14 in incentive grants.  But they had much better results, not only compared to other incentive programs, but compared to other educational reforms like reducing class size and increased early education programs that cost thousands of dollars more.

To me, the two studies are both fascinating -- and related.  Once again, the result tell me that students don't WANT to have bad test scores.  You can offer what is a relative fortune to them ($2,000) to improve their scores, but they can't do it.  This suggests that low student performance comes not from "laziness" or lack of motivation, but from an inability to do any better.  On the other hand, if you give students even little sums of money to do what they can do--show up at school, be on their best conduct, read another book or do than they would have done otherwise--those small behaviorial changes can add up to a significant increase in student achievement.

In presenting this study, I don't want to argue that we should necessarily be using monetary incentives with students.  As I have said in earlier posts, I'm a great fan of Alfie Kohn, and am persuaded by his book entitled Punished by Rewards (a great interview about the contents of that work can be found at http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/pdf/Punished%20by%20Rewards.pdf).  However, I would not rule out something that some of our most struggling schools have found to be effective in raising student achievement.

But, once again, I think it demonstrates the difficulty in imposing the industrial model on education.   This study says, in my interpretation, that low test skills are not a result of lack of interest or effort or motivation by students--a problem that MIGHT be solved by economic incentives.   Rather,  if the child doesn't understand the concepts being tested, offering $2,000, $10,000, or even $1,000,000 doesnt make any difference.  The child can't pass the test.  But now, the child feels even more frustrated, even more downcast, even more worthless, than simplying failing the test without outside incentives.

Not a good idea, to my mind.

Education Reform: Alfie Kohn's Response is "School Would Be Great If it Weren't for the D*** Kids"

Or that, at least, is the title of the latest article by one of my favorite educational writers, Alfie Kohn.   This is how he characterizes the mindset that blames issues in education not on the high-level policymakers with their increasingly-restrictive regulations and mind-numbing educational practices, but on the people who are trapped in the morass those things create.  Countering one pundit's theory that the problem in education is student's lack of motivation, Kohn quotes Frederick  Herzberg, a critic of traditional workplace management, who says  “Idleness, indifference, and irresponsibility are healthy responses to absurd work.”

You can read the article on Kohn's website at:http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/damnkids.htm