Janet Murguía: The Latino State of the Union -- A Challenge to Lawmakers: "President Obama's State of the Union address was a direct challenge to lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle to work together toward a more prosperous and globally competitive America. The president called for investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure to jump-start economic growth. He also pledged to get the nation's fiscal house in order and reshape federal government in ways that make it leaner and more efficient. His speech touched on many subjects and policy issues of great concern to all Americans and especially the nation's Hispanics.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
WNYC - Study Finds NYC Charters Don't Serve the City's Poorest
New York City has long boasted of studies finding charter schools do a better job of educating low-income students than regular public schools. But a new study questions that data. Bruce Baker, an associate professor at Rutgers' graduate school of education, said charters do serve the same proportion of children receiving free and reduced-price meals. But those two categories are lumped together when they're actually quite different, he said.
'The charters seem to have a larger share of the kids who are the less poor among the poor,' he said.
'The charters seem to have a larger share of the kids who are the less poor among the poor,' he said.
Huff Post - Alan Singer: New York Times Promotes Latest Educational 'Gimmick of the Month'
Alan Singer: New York Times Promotes Latest Educational 'Gimmick of the Month': "The gimmick of the month club is alive and well. When I was a New York City high school teacher in the 1980s, on what seemed a monthly basis, teachers received a memorandum from bigwigs at the Board of Education, forward by the school principal, mandating the latest miraculous classroom practice that would solve all learning and discipline problems, as well as unsightly psoriasis (just joking). We called the notices memos from the Gimmick of the Month Club, sat through department meetings where we were briefed on how they were the real thing, and then ignored them until the next solution was forwarded down the pipeline. One of my favorites was when we were ordered to update our lesson plans changing educational objectives (EO's) to Instructional Objectives (IO's). We sat in the department meeting singing Old MacDonald had a farm, eo-io-oh no. Other changes were not so benign, as when millions of dollars were shelled out to purchase the latest 'scientifically' proven success guaranteed reading programs such as 'Success for All' hawked by a team from John Hopkins University.
Huff Post: Jenifer Fox: Race, Race, Race. Win, Win, Win
Jenifer Fox: Race, Race, Race. Win, Win, Win: "Last night's speech sent me racing back to the 1980s where the rhetoric around education was much the same as we heard this week in the State of the Union. I remember the 1980s. I had a Cabbage Patch Kid. Remember Cabbage Patch Kids? In 1983, there was such a demand for them around Christmas time that parents were making the evening news for having fistfights in stores over the remaining few dolls on the shelves. These were soft-bodied dolls with plastic heads, and the thing that made these dolls so wildly popular, was that in order to be mass-produced, computers generated millions of subtle differences among the dolls. No two dolls had the same face, clothes, or coloring. It is incredibly ironic that the Cabbage Patch craze occurred the same year the National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The current mandates in education, coupled with the recent Sputnik rhetoric, sound like greater, not lesser amounts of standardized testing. Our race to win the future sounds disturbingly old fashioned.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Huff Post - Todd Farley: Points to Ponder About the Common Core Standards
Todd Farley: Points to Ponder About the Common Core Standards: "If there's one thing the uber-confident if minimally-experienced education reformers can agree on, it's that this country's students need 'high standards.' The thought is that the high expectations of 'high standards' in our schools will allow the United States to overcome any educational deficiencies we face (even the huge hurdle of our terrible teachers). This clamoring to raise the bar for our students is how we ended up with the revolutionary Common Core Standards, those academic benchmarks the reformers hope will lead us back to an educational promised land (also known as 'Finland').
But are the Common Core Standards really 'revolutionary'? Or are they fundamentally the same as the sets of standards that currently exist in each of the 50 states, different only in their wording? That is the question I recently set out to answer, when -- in an heroic act of corporate espionage that I undertook for you, dear readers -- I stealthily broke into the computer item bank of an assessment company I used to work for to look at their test questions and standards.
But are the Common Core Standards really 'revolutionary'? Or are they fundamentally the same as the sets of standards that currently exist in each of the 50 states, different only in their wording? That is the question I recently set out to answer, when -- in an heroic act of corporate espionage that I undertook for you, dear readers -- I stealthily broke into the computer item bank of an assessment company I used to work for to look at their test questions and standards.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Ferlazzo: “A Class Divided”
We have used this in humanities several years in a row and it has led to some strong class discussion in our civil rights unit. Here's what Ferlazzo posted:
"I’ve just learned about the PBS website and film (available online) titled “A Class Divided” (and I learned about it from the excellent resource “TeachersFirst,” which I’ve described on more than one “The Best…” list).
Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’m just going to reprint the description written by TeachersFirst (I hope that’s okay with them):
This is one of the most requested programs for effectively conveying the reality of discrimination, what it feels like, and how it can change a person. Frontline, the PBS news-magazine show, produced this gripping piece that tackles the controversy, complexity, and consequences of discrimination that have shaped our society. This film and collection of activities are based on the 1970 documentary of the daring lesson that teacher Jane Elliott taught her third-grade class to give them a firsthand experience in the meaning of discrimination, immediately following the assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The film shows what she taught the children and the impact that lesson had on their lives. It includes three major segments: the footage of the original documentary of Jane Elliott’s third-graders, (approximately 20 minutes), the reunion of those third-graders 14 years later who talk about the effect her lesson has had on their lives, (approximately 7 minutes), and also Elliott teaching her lesson to adult employees of Iowa’s prison system and how their reactions to her exercise were similar to those of the children, (approximately 20 minutes). A Teachers’ Guide, as well as an abundance of supplementary materials that allow students to wrestle with realistic ideas, are available on this site.
I’m adding this resource to The Best Sites For Walking In Someone Else’s Shoes."
"I’ve just learned about the PBS website and film (available online) titled “A Class Divided” (and I learned about it from the excellent resource “TeachersFirst,” which I’ve described on more than one “The Best…” list).
Instead of reinventing the wheel, I’m just going to reprint the description written by TeachersFirst (I hope that’s okay with them):
This is one of the most requested programs for effectively conveying the reality of discrimination, what it feels like, and how it can change a person. Frontline, the PBS news-magazine show, produced this gripping piece that tackles the controversy, complexity, and consequences of discrimination that have shaped our society. This film and collection of activities are based on the 1970 documentary of the daring lesson that teacher Jane Elliott taught her third-grade class to give them a firsthand experience in the meaning of discrimination, immediately following the assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The film shows what she taught the children and the impact that lesson had on their lives. It includes three major segments: the footage of the original documentary of Jane Elliott’s third-graders, (approximately 20 minutes), the reunion of those third-graders 14 years later who talk about the effect her lesson has had on their lives, (approximately 7 minutes), and also Elliott teaching her lesson to adult employees of Iowa’s prison system and how their reactions to her exercise were similar to those of the children, (approximately 20 minutes). A Teachers’ Guide, as well as an abundance of supplementary materials that allow students to wrestle with realistic ideas, are available on this site.
I’m adding this resource to The Best Sites For Walking In Someone Else’s Shoes."
Friday, January 21, 2011
Huff Post: Lisa Nielsen: We Would Prefer Not To Take Your Standardized Tests
Lisa Nielsen: We Would Prefer Not To Take Your Standardized Tests: "Around the nation, more and more school districts like New York City are considering making teacher performance ratings public. One of the many problems with this, simply put, is that the state tests which these tests are based on, well... they suck. Yep. I said it.
My background is in K-8 as a literacy and technology as a former literacy coach, tech coach, library media specialist, and current innovation manager who spent many days grading these sub-par assessments. Because of my background and experience, I'm going to focus on the high standard literacy tests K-8 and explain why they suck.
Background In Reading Assessment
Students read at different levels. Each level has attributes associated with it and there are strategies that learners can take to move to the next level. Teachers assess student reading levels with something called a running record. Today with technology, these readings can even be recorded, so if necessary, the student's actual running record or reading assessment could be shared. Teachers generally assess student reading at the beginning, middle and end of the year and can easily measure the growth of a student say from a G-Level reader to a J-Level reader. This makes sense as a measurement of student learning. It also allows for students to independently take ownership of their reading level and it is very easy to get families involved in strategies to support students.
The Problem with State Reading Tests
State reading tests provide all students on a grade level with the same test. While the test is an accurate measure of the students who fit the reading level the state arbitrarily has chosen, most students are left behind either because the reading level is too advanced or too easy. In essence, the tests assess how well students are doing on something they can't read well yet... Answer: Not very well. OR...we assess them on something that is below their reading level... So we don't know growth, we only know they can read that well. In other words, we're not really assessing student reading level.
What we do know is that developmentally children become ready to read at different ages. We also know that forcing reading on children is actually a deterrent for attaining growth. Finally, we know two extremely important factors in the attainment of reading fluency is family involvement and socioeconomic class.
None of these factors are in the control of the teacher!
What I propose is we stop creating a test that makes teachers and students absolutely bonkers, and instead use the running record reading assessments that teachers already use to measure student reading level. Though, while this solves the issue of assessing reading more accurately, it doesn't take into account that the factors that accelerate reading, really have nothing to do with the teacher.
On to writing...
As shared in Four Reasons Innovative Educators Should Boycott Standardized Tests, the problem with the way writing is assessed in standardized tests, stems from the fact that they use an outdated and irrelevant method of assessment. If teachers are doing their jobs effectively, students aren't just focusing on 'hand-it-in' teaching. Instead, they're focused on 'publish it' learning, meaning students are communicating authentically to real audiences using the learning style that best match their strengths. Student work can ideally be kept in a portfolio that can be assessed for writing achievement.
Wouldn't you want to measure a teacher by how she helps her students publish for authentic audiences in areas of deep personal passion rather than how she helps a student write about a topic the state dictates?
The problem with the current method is this:
This should give just a little insight into why these 'teacher assessments' are really not the right way to go. If you're convinced, you might be thinking, okay, that sounds nice, but there's nothing we can do. The state makes us take these tests.
There is a movement bubbling up called The Bartleby Project started by John Taylor Gatto. It's a call to action for students to simply write across the top of their test, 'I prefer not to take your test.' The premise being that students and parents should be empowered to decided how their child should best be assessed and not forced by the state to be subjected to very questionable assessments.
The project has a growing following with a Bartleby Project Facebook Page, a number of reprints of John Taylor Gatto's Bartleby Project proposal from his new book, Weapons of Mass Instruction floating around the web, and a huge round up of videos on YouTube. I've included two Xtranormal creations below.
One is a short video from a child's perspective and the other is taken from John Taylor Gatto's proposal for those who prefer watching to listening.
Read more: Standardized Tests, Standardized Testing, Education, John Tayor Gatto, Education Reform, Ny Standardized Tests, Ny Impact, Education News
"
My background is in K-8 as a literacy and technology as a former literacy coach, tech coach, library media specialist, and current innovation manager who spent many days grading these sub-par assessments. Because of my background and experience, I'm going to focus on the high standard literacy tests K-8 and explain why they suck.
Background In Reading Assessment
Students read at different levels. Each level has attributes associated with it and there are strategies that learners can take to move to the next level. Teachers assess student reading levels with something called a running record. Today with technology, these readings can even be recorded, so if necessary, the student's actual running record or reading assessment could be shared. Teachers generally assess student reading at the beginning, middle and end of the year and can easily measure the growth of a student say from a G-Level reader to a J-Level reader. This makes sense as a measurement of student learning. It also allows for students to independently take ownership of their reading level and it is very easy to get families involved in strategies to support students.
The Problem with State Reading Tests
State reading tests provide all students on a grade level with the same test. While the test is an accurate measure of the students who fit the reading level the state arbitrarily has chosen, most students are left behind either because the reading level is too advanced or too easy. In essence, the tests assess how well students are doing on something they can't read well yet... Answer: Not very well. OR...we assess them on something that is below their reading level... So we don't know growth, we only know they can read that well. In other words, we're not really assessing student reading level.
What we do know is that developmentally children become ready to read at different ages. We also know that forcing reading on children is actually a deterrent for attaining growth. Finally, we know two extremely important factors in the attainment of reading fluency is family involvement and socioeconomic class.
None of these factors are in the control of the teacher!
What I propose is we stop creating a test that makes teachers and students absolutely bonkers, and instead use the running record reading assessments that teachers already use to measure student reading level. Though, while this solves the issue of assessing reading more accurately, it doesn't take into account that the factors that accelerate reading, really have nothing to do with the teacher.
On to writing...
As shared in Four Reasons Innovative Educators Should Boycott Standardized Tests, the problem with the way writing is assessed in standardized tests, stems from the fact that they use an outdated and irrelevant method of assessment. If teachers are doing their jobs effectively, students aren't just focusing on 'hand-it-in' teaching. Instead, they're focused on 'publish it' learning, meaning students are communicating authentically to real audiences using the learning style that best match their strengths. Student work can ideally be kept in a portfolio that can be assessed for writing achievement.
Wouldn't you want to measure a teacher by how she helps her students publish for authentic audiences in areas of deep personal passion rather than how she helps a student write about a topic the state dictates?
The problem with the current method is this:
- We are not measuring what is important. The student's ability to authentically communicate about topics of importance to them.
- We are valuing writing as the most important method of communication. While this method works well for some, others may excel at communicating through video, cartoon, animation, audio casts, etc. We are losing focus of what is important.
- Studies show that students empowered to use technology for communicating will demonstrate improvement, however, their scores on writing the old fashioned way with pen and paper will decrease. Sadly, I've seen teachers refuse to let students use their own technology because they didn't want their test scores to decrease. YIKES!!!
This should give just a little insight into why these 'teacher assessments' are really not the right way to go. If you're convinced, you might be thinking, okay, that sounds nice, but there's nothing we can do. The state makes us take these tests.
There is a movement bubbling up called The Bartleby Project started by John Taylor Gatto. It's a call to action for students to simply write across the top of their test, 'I prefer not to take your test.' The premise being that students and parents should be empowered to decided how their child should best be assessed and not forced by the state to be subjected to very questionable assessments.
The project has a growing following with a Bartleby Project Facebook Page, a number of reprints of John Taylor Gatto's Bartleby Project proposal from his new book, Weapons of Mass Instruction floating around the web, and a huge round up of videos on YouTube. I've included two Xtranormal creations below.
One is a short video from a child's perspective and the other is taken from John Taylor Gatto's proposal for those who prefer watching to listening.
Read more: Standardized Tests, Standardized Testing, Education, John Tayor Gatto, Education Reform, Ny Standardized Tests, Ny Impact, Education News
"
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wormeli - What grade would you give your gradebook?
What grade would you give your gradebook?: "
If you struggle with setting up your gradebook or feel like there should be an easier – and better – way of grading, then Rick Wormeli has some sound advice for you! Check out this, and other great videos with Rick on our website dedicated to his book Fair Isn’t Always Equal.
"
If you struggle with setting up your gradebook or feel like there should be an easier – and better – way of grading, then Rick Wormeli has some sound advice for you! Check out this, and other great videos with Rick on our website dedicated to his book Fair Isn’t Always Equal.
"
Monday, January 10, 2011
Ferlazzo: “The Complete Dropbox for Educators”
I’ve previously posted about the great app Dropbox.
If you ever have any questions about how to use it effectively, Jeff Thomas has created The Complete Dropbox for Educators for you. It’s the ultimate Dropbox reference guide.
While I’m at it, here’s another much less complete guide that’s focused on How to Use Dropbox with an iPhone or iPod Touch.
If you ever have any questions about how to use it effectively, Jeff Thomas has created The Complete Dropbox for Educators for you. It’s the ultimate Dropbox reference guide.
While I’m at it, here’s another much less complete guide that’s focused on How to Use Dropbox with an iPhone or iPod Touch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)