Childhood Poverty Can Be Bad for Kids

No time to blog about this now, but I think that this is an important concept: childhood adversity or trauma can have a lasting impact. Not only is the article interesting, but so are the comments included below the piece Research Traces Impact of Childhood Adversity by Sarah D. Sparks, found in the Education Week on-line newsletter EdWeek Update from November 9, 2012.  Just getting around to review all of the on-line bits that I saved from the past week.

I also heard an interview regarding this very topic last week on NPR.  Cannot recall if it was on Fresh Air or some other program. Interview of an adult who made good after a very challenging childhood. While she relishes her achievements, she also recognizes the constant reminders in her adult life of her rough earlier life. For example, food insecurity during childhood has made her particularly conscious of food availability in her current life and she told of having had difficulty controlling eating once food was readily available to her as an adult with a successful career. For more details, check out my posts titled Trumping Childhood Poverty, Part I and If Childhood Poverty is Part of the Problem–What Does It Look Like?

Educators see the impact every day of childhood poverty on the children they work with. During an interview yesterday, I was asked which social justice issue I believed required / deserved the most immediate attention. I answered right away: CHILDHOOD POVERTY.

Nervous about Tuesday?

Isn’t everyone? How many words can you come up with to describe how you and your friends and neighbors are feeling? It has not interfered with my sleep, but I do know folks who tell me that they have lain awake nights wondering and worrying how the presidential election will turn out. I will be glad when Wednesday rolls around that the flood of political ads will be finally staunched, but, I am keeping my fingers crossed that the big one is a win for my guy. I am forever hopeful that there will be no change in the White House.

“Teaching reading IS rocket science.”

I love this quote. I picked it up from a colleague and friend who taught reading for her entire career as a reading specialist and classroom teacher. I taught reading for 17 years as a third and fourth grade classroom teacher. And, as a science teacher for the last 22 years of my career, I also continued to teach reading skills and strategies in support of basic reading instruction. Until last year, my home school used to be one of the few middle schools around to have dedicated reading instruction every day for grades 6-8 in lieu of the more standard ELA (English language arts) where reading and English are mooshed together.

Teaching reading IS rocket science. This quote from Louisa Moats says it all.  Dr. Moats is a nationally recognized authority on how children learn to read and why some fail to learn. It turns out that Dr. Moats has become quite the controversial person, but that is not the focus of this post. I will mention that she is a proponent of methodology like Reading First. The point that Dr. Moats is making is that it’s not easy to teach another person, or a number of small persons, to read. Once you get it, reading may seem relatively easy; however, that process of letter recognition to sound association to word recognition to meaning connection can be quite a challenge. Diagnosis of reading difficulties is a combined art and science. I know. I have done it many, many times. But, I digress.

This is actually a simple post. I love books and I love reading. Reading for pleasure has become a luxury that I cannot often afford. I find that I don’t have a lot of spare or discretionary time. This is nothing new. When I was teaching, I was not able to dedicate many periods of extended time to curling up with a good book for a good, long read–except during the summer when I could luxuriate in reading a new spy thriller or murder mystery—my two favorite genres. In Maine, I could put away a book a day, especially if I pulled my night owl trick and read until one, two, or even three in the morning.

During the school year (my new job as state union president still responds to the traditional school year calendar, even though I now work year-round), I find myself saving books for when I travel. I do read books related to my job—non-fiction, which has its own level of satisfaction. And, I do subscribe to a number of magazines and read those bit by bit whenever I get the chance. Not such a big commitment of time or even intellect, in some cases.

However, I just finished reading a fascinating article in a recent New Yorker magazine (October 1, 2012) about the emergence of drug-resistant strains of gonorrhea. [I know that this is not necessarily a fascinating or appealing topic to others, but I am trying to make a point here. And I have warned you--I do geek science!]

Jerome Groopman’s article “Sex and the Superbug” is essential reading, IMHO, for anyone over the age at which one might become sexually active–used to be around sixteen, I would guess. But if I had a twelve-year old son or daughter, I would be having a serious sitdown about this news.

Gonorrhea has been a scourge for centuries. However, through proper and timely diagnosis and treatment, the incidence of this disease reached an all-time low in 2009. At that time–a mere three years ago–leading epidemiologists  believed that gonorrhea could be almost eradicated in some Western countries within ten to fifteen years. But it has made a comeback—and with a vengeance. You can google “sex and the superbug” for more information, including a complete copy of the article. It caught a number of people’s attention.

My point here is that it is my penchant for reading and my capacity to read and understand potentially complex texts, to understand complicated ideas and concepts, and to finish up with both the big picture and the details that makes learning to read such a satisfying and productive occupation. Reading is an important lifeskill. Literally, reading can save one’s life. I plan to have both of my young adult sons read this piece.

The fact that reading can also provide hours of entertainment and enjoyment is the icing on the cake.

Here are a few more good quotes related to the value of reading. Again, these come from my friend who retired in June, 2011 and is now enjoying hours and hours of reading—but then, she always made time for a few good books. She often had (and still does) 4-5 books going at one time: one on her I-pod, one in the car, one upstairs, one downstairs, etc. Books on tape are a godsend. She wisely and systematically uses the public library as her own. I admire her dedication to books.

“Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.”   ~Frederick Douglass

“Children are made readers on the laps of their parents.”    ~Emilie Buchwald

“So please, oh PLEASE, we beg, we pray, Go throw your TV set away,  And in its place you can install, A lovely bookshelf on the wall.”   ~Roald Dahl,  from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

“The things I want to know are in books. My best friend is the man who’ll get me a book I [haven't] read.”    ~Abraham Lincoln

“I cannot live without books.”    ~Thomas Jefferson

“Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.” ~Groucho Marx

“Why can’t people just sit and read books and be nice to each other?”  ~David Balducci

“If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”    ~Albert Einstein

“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”   ~Dr. Suess, from I Can Read With My Eyes Shut!

“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”    ~Ray Bradbury

Science Is Everywhere

I am a science teacher. I taught science exclusively for 21 years—from 1990 to 2011. Each September, I introduced a new crop of students to my classroom, my curriculum, the practice of cooperative team learning, and my focus on science process skills and the nature of science. During the first 2-3 weeks, I used a series of activities with each class before jumping into the first of four terrific science kits that comprised the year’s curriculum. I also shared several quotes or expressions that I repeated throughout the year and were supported by the science we did in class and the science activities I encouraged them to seek out and participate in outside of school. None of them were remarkable in any way. “Science is everywhere and in everything,” was one that I frequently referenced and sought to demonstrate throughout the year.

I found that I had to fight against students’ belief that science was just another class; that science was just a subject studied once a day at school; that science only happened during 5th Period or inside my classroom. I did my best to communicate and prove to 11 year old students that science concepts were basic, fundamental, and actually fairly easy to understand and master if they were approached in an engaging, strategic, properly scaffolded manner. This was the first time that students had the opportunity to experience science that was scheduled for every school day in a classroom that was dedicated solely to doing science.

You can read elsewhere on this blog about science instruction in Delaware and how elementary science in particular for the past decade has been given short shrift and relegated to any time left over in a schedule that has become totally focused on reading and math, reading and math, reading and math. Delaware has not been alone in this misguided attempt to bring up reading and math scores.

And, now, as Gomer Pyle famously said: “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” Folks around the country are throwing up their hands and shouting from the rooftops that STEM is the new, best pathway for education. Well, duh. Trust me, I am not surprised that in the 21^st century, someone finally imagines that our students’ schooling should have a significant amount of time and energy focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math—hence the acronym STEM. What may surprise many is that the Delaware state science curriculum, adopted by school districts across the state as their own, from kindergarten through grade 8, already incorporates a great deal of standards-based, nationally-renowned, developmentally appropriate STEM-focused, constructivist science. If only they would allow the teachers to teach it!

From the kindergarten kit on trees, to 1^st grade’s study of solids and liquids, to 2^nd grade Balancing & Weighing, to the 3^rd grade kit on chemical tests, to the 4^th grade kit that demonstrates the structure-function relationship of living things, to the 5^th grade kit Motion & Design, to the 6^th grade kit that exemplifies how scientists study human health, to the 7^th grade kit on the Delaware River watershed, to 8^th grade Forces & Motion, technology, engineering, and math are prominent and essential to instruction and learning.

In an article, Full STEAM ahead: Arts, STEM and 21st century learning, from the ASCD Smartbrief (an on-line compendium of recent publications), Doug Haller offers a justification of why STEM lessons should include the arts, a tip-of-the-hat to the notion that the acronym should be expanded to STEAM, a move intended to re-focus attention on the importance of the arts in education. [I only wish that somebody had raised a similar fuss when science and social studies were relegated to the backseat about ten years ago.]

What caught my attention was Haller’s suggestion that not only should the arts be part of future education—STEM or not-STEM—but, the arts should also incorporate STEM. Art and music classes should integrate science, technology, engineering, and math into their own curriculum and lesson planning.

Haller is right. It cuts both ways—art in science / science in art. Imagine for yourself the possibility of making explicit use of STEM in any art class or music class. The possibilities are endless. If you buy into my simple-minded statement that science is everywhere and in everything, then, there you go. It’s everywhere; it’s everywhere.

Is it boredom or apathy?

This question comes from a great little movie called The Trotsky–click here to see a movie trailer. If you have not seen this film and you have an interest in organizing or unionizing or are a union member (or you are, or will be or used to be, a high school student who has an intellectual bent and is fairly fed up with the bureaucracy and redundancy of high school–hey, how much could it have changed since I graduated in 1968???), you should locate a copy of this film and see it, preferrably with a group of like-minded friends.

It is a charming, funny, slightly provocative film–and I think not really aimed at the wider teen-aged audience. The lead role of Leon Bronstein is played by a talented actor name Jason Baruchel (Million Dollar Baby, Knocked Up, Tropic Thunder). You may recognize but not know the names of several other members of the cast, including Saul Rubinek as Leon’s long-suffering father; Michael Murphy as the lawyer who finally sides with Leon; the malevolent and strikingly familiar archetype principal played so well by Colm Feore; and a cameo appearance by one Genevieve Bujold, as a former liberal activist turned judge. [I looked her up. Let me tell you, at age 70 when the film was made, she looks great. I always thought that she was French--turns out she's Canadienne.]

DSEA showed The Trotsky last fall to local education leaders at our Leaders Weekend–our own version of dinner and a movie turned out to be a big hit. If you google The Trotsky you can peruse several entries, but the review on Rotten Tomatoes does not hold water, according to the 100 DSEA members who saw the movie with us. They liked it. As a matter of fact, I think that I will borrow the copy we own and see it again this weekend. It is a charming, funny, Canadian-made film which I would have enjoyed and recommended even if it did not have a great union message.

Anyway,…  It has been a LONG time since I last posted–September 1st to be exact. Can I just use the excuse that I have been busy? That’s an obvious and likely excuse.  And I have been busy, with meetings layered on meetings, with even an occasional overlap. But, heck, we’re all busy, aren’t we?

In some ways the last few days of pre-hurricane preparations, followed by the hours of anticipation, anxiety, and dread, were a change of pace and a definite change of focus. Jeez. I have not thought or even talked about Component 5 and teacher evaluation for the past 48 hours. That may actually constitute a personal record within the past fourteen months.

During the storm, we had a big tree come down–thankfully, it fell away from the house instead of into the house as I feared it might. [Strange that before last Wednesday when it became clear that the storm was actually headed for the mid-coast Atlantic region, near where I live, I had not paid much attention to the condition of this huge, gangly apple tree about fifteen feet off of the front deck of my house. Suddenly, there it loomed and I started to get nervous.] A huge white pine on one property line is standing now at an ominous 20-30 degree tilt, so it could come down before we get the chance to take it down. But, other than that, we fared well. My son, his girlfriend, and their two dogs came to ride out the storm with me–which was fun. The dogs were endlessly entertaining–even on Sunday evening when the corgi got into and ate three days worth of dry dog food–her share and the dachshund’s share–during the ten minutes that I was holed up in the bathroom. She is such a pig-dog. I was dog-sitting while the kids went to Newark for a Hurricane/Halloween blast at the Deer Park.

I had imagined that I could spend much of the past few days scanning my computer and catching up on lost blog time. However, most time on the computer was spent tracking the storm or putting the last touches on union business leftover from last week before we shut down the servers last evening, just to be safe. Or, there we were, glued to the TV set, watching the same or similar reports from all major channels. I did get caught up on episodes of Boardwalk Empire and Treme, as well as some of last week’s Daily Show and Colbert Report.

I have found that after a long day at the job I do, I often run out of steam by about 7:30-8:00, with no energy left to post on my own blog site or to even follow my other blog regulars and favorites. I have just enough power left to dull my senses with the oblivion of yet another episode of Law & Order, where I can just veg out and relax, or another TV opiate that requires little energy and very little thought. Aaaah.

It’s not boredom; it’s not apathy. It’s just plain tired. Maybe I’ll perk up again after the election. One less huge issue to worry about, to be consumed by, and to spend time and energy on.

What’s the Diff?

And from another Ravitch post on Common Core Standards, from earlier this summer–a frequent responder, Duane Swacker comments:

“One quibble I have is with teachers and other educators using this concept of “raising student achievement” instead of attempting to increase student learning. These are two very different constructs/concepts with “raising achievement” implying an end product-outcome versus student learning implying a process and all learning should be about the process. We waste valuable time and effort by focusing on “output” instead of process.“

I agree. There is a significant difference between process and product in regards to education and learning. Look, measuring learning has always been a tricky issue. Calculating the depth, breadth, and persistence of learning in a valid and reliable way is tough. It may even be impossible. In my own career as a student, I am fully aware of instances where I learned something; where that learning was reinforced over time; and where I have retained that information, knowledge, or understanding for years–even to this day. On the other hand, I can account for too many times and circumstances where I learned something well enough and for a long enough period of time to get by on a paper, a project, or a test in order to get a good grade and then–poof–that set of facts or skill or body of knowledge is gone (maybe in a few days; maybe in a year–but it is gone, Baby, gone).

Does that count? Did I really learn it if I can no longer recall it or apply it or put it to use in a meaningful way? Take geometry. (Yes, somebody, please. Take geometry.) I have no recall of that body of information introduced to me as a tenth grade student. I could look up various formulas and definitions; however, I certainly have no idea how to put them to use or even understand why I should. I made it through that class by the skin of my teeth. I do  remember that the teacher was intimidating as hell and that I dreaded that class every day. I made sure that I learned just enough to get by on weekly quizzes and tests. To a certain degree, I gamed the system. I made it look like I was learning. Not a stellar confession; nothing about which I am proud.

On the other hand, I studied French, German, and Spanish in high school, and continued with French and German in college for two years. I was quite fluent in French–after six years of masterful instruction. Unfortunately, I have not spoken those languages for decades, but I can still read and write in all three, and could get by, in a pinch, in speaking French. I feel that this is a valid demonstration of LEARNING. I can still do it. It stuck with me.

Like riding a bicycle. Like learning to read. You don’t forget or unlearn these skills. They stick with you; they develop; they improve over time.

When I was completing coursework for my masters degree–a Masters of Instruction, completed in 1981–one of my courses was all about the process/product conundrum, the nature of learning, and the implementation of teaching practices that sought to align process with product. The Big Idea was that the process of learning is of greater importantance for the student than the product that one teacher selects to demonstrate learning.

So what’s the big deal? Is it a big deal? Does getting a good grade on a test prove student learning? Does having a classroom full of students who do well enough on an important test clearly indicate that this group has learned what they were taught? Does that serve as clear and indisputable evidence that I am an effective teacher?

I am fully aware of, and believe in, the construct that teaching does not really take place if no learning occurs. In other words, I cannot say that I taught Johnny to ___, if, in fact, Johnny cannot ___. (You fill in the blank: cook, read, recall multiplication facts.) However, to come up with a way to quantify learning, to measure it, to guage the depth and breadth of learning–as well as to rank it, to rate it, and to turn it around to serve as a singular indicator of teacher effectiveness continues to make me uncomfortable. It may appear to be a scientifically derived methodology: quality input  –>  quality output. The opposite of GIGO–garbage in / garbage out.  Could be reduced to good old cause and effect. But, this concept appears to lack evidence.  Evidence appears not just inconclusive, but scarce.

So, are we on solid ground here? Or, are we setting up a system that does not hold up over time? A system where effective teaching may be overlooked or denied due to student test scores or, probably worse, that ineffective teaching is obscured by test success?

One last thing: I saw a math standard a few weeks back, at a very important meeting for teachers and principals, provided as an example of the rigor of current standards-based education. I believe that it was for 3rd or 4th grade math. It indicated that students should be able to recall the respective relationships between standard units of measure; like 16 ounces in a pound; 3 feet in a yard; 2 pints in a quart. I was stunned. Really? This is rigor? Honestly, this is why we have reference books and tables and charts. This is why in the back of almost every composition notebook–you know the ones with the black and white marbleized covers–they have a complete table of “Weights and Measures.” I am looking at one right now.

People. We have got to get over the idea that memorizing easily referenced information is a sign of learning or is even worth our valuable teaching time. Holy cow. Yes, there is some value to knowing these things, but there are bigger fish to fry than 5280 feet in one mile. Am I alone in this POV?

What Is It That Teachers Want?

This response by J.M. Tumbleson to a Diane Ravitch blog post resonated with me. Ravitch wrote recently about a rather chilling experience with a CNN interview. Here is what JMT had to say about an interview question that was based on the belief that teachers are desirous of, in favor of, and actively seeking merit pay or pay for performance plans.

“I work in a city with significant amounts of poverty. I see teachers who work hard, who think hard and who try to collaborate with others in order to constantly improve their practice. Never have I heard any teacher argue for merit pay. They will argue for more planning time, they might argue for more services for their students with various social, emotional or cognitive needs, they might argue for more money for special classroom projects, they might even argue for a longer lunch, but never once have I heard a teacher argue for merit pay. The hundreds of teachers I have known want to work collaboratively and see themselves as having a shared mission in which they play an essential role for the community and for the children. The interviewer has been fed disinformation on what most teachers want, most likely from sources that will monetarily profit from the destruction of the public schools.”        August 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm

This is my experience as well. I have spent thousands of hours with hundreds of teachers and other educators, and they never bring up the subject of merit pay. What they want is support, supplies, understanding, and appreciation. They want respect from kids, parents, the wider school community, and the public. They want time to prepare and time to teach; freedom from unfair demands and masses of paperwork; a moratorium on new initiatives; and a realistic and respectful testing program that provides all the right information in a timely and useful manner so that they can improve teaching and learning in meaningful ways. They want to have confidence that our high-stakes tests are actually and thoroughly aligned with their instruction. [This is not true for the current state tests here--they are the ultimate mysterious black box. Teachers have no idea what's on the test; what gets a lot of attention; what to stress during instruction. The instruction is standards-based. The test is standards-based, but with over 100 standards for ELA, do the two align?]

Teachers know what they need to do a good job. If, by chance, there happens to be an opportunity during this school year for educators to actually tell the folks in charge what it is they need–in detail–perhaps in a survey– I sure hope that they would do so in an honest and productive way. Just saying.

As for merit pay? It is generally not a topic of conversation unless someone else brings it. The $10,000 retention bonus for some teachers last spring resulted in some conversation. The upcoming attraction bonus program–about which little is known–will lead to more discussion, but not too much debate.

Teachers want a decent salary, especially for new teachers. They want to get to the upper salary levels in less time–a compacting of the base salary scale. They want career advancement with opportunities for additional responsibilities, greater status, challenge, and increased pay based on their level of commitment–JUST LIKE IN LOTS OF OTHER CAREERS. Heck, even the kid at McDonald’s wants a promotion. Except, not all teachers want to advance their behinds right out of teaching. Right now, advancement means stepping out of teaching and moving into administration. Good for some, and more power to them. For others, like me, teaching was my lifelong career choice. Career ladders would be a grand addition to the picture.