Ronald A. Wolk was a long time editor of Education Week and has long been involved in educational issues. His 2011 book Wasting Minds: Why our Education System is Failing and What We Can Do About It, discusses how we might change the education system to better meet the needs of our children. It is reminiscent of C. Schwahn and B. McGarvey's Inevitable: Mass Customized Learning: Learning in the Age of Empowerment. Both authors see our technology as being capable of being the driving force behind reenvisioning schools. Both see our current educational system as being so far from meeting the needs of our students and society as needing a complete redo.
Many educational professionals I have spoken with will give lip service to the idea that they feel all students should have Individual Educational Plans, like we do for students with special needs. They advocate differentiation to meet the needs of students in the classroom. That being said, I have yet to see differentiation actually work for either my gifted or my Aspie children. Teachers may say yes they will. The special education teachers wanted what was best and occasionally would proactively alter an assignment to meet the needs of my son, but rarely was anything done on a consistent basis. With a great deal of prodding they provided acceleration for my daughter, but separate assignments- not so much. The current age of CCSS testing has only made matters worse.
I agree with both sets of authors that schools are not going to evolve to provide individualization. We need a do over. We need an Apple compared with an Univax technology. While charter and laboratory schools were established to try out new ideas, most are now just variations of what is being done in the private sector. Some programs exist like the Met schools use a more different plan than most. Some innovative new constructions of schools have been built around technology access. Most "new" programs are not radical departures from the current plan.
In order to do this we need to create a parallel program that demonstrates the feasibility and success of a radically different program. There might be some increased support for such an idea at a time when opt-out of testing has created a national scandal. I am not necessarily talking about charters as they are used today, but charters of the past- innovative places to try out ideas. We need to see about using technology to meet individual needs. We need to ignore the idea of age-based grading and somehow figure out how to establish flexible multiage grouping. Think one room school houses on steroids of technology.
I think it can be done. Clearly others agree that it can be done. The question is do we have the social-political will to attempt the new build of our educational system.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Friday, April 17, 2015
The Illusion of Full Inclusion
In some ways The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon, Second Edition edited by James M. Kaufman and Daniel P. Hallahan was an easy book for me to read. I knew when I picked up this book of essays that I agreed with the major thrust- that there needs to be a continuum of services available to meet the needs of children. That any single choice program, such as inclusion, is not right for all. That parents, teachers, other professionals and sometimes even the students need to be involved in placement decisions. This book upholds those views in spades.
My difficulty with the book was its extremely repetitive nature. The first part includes 8 chapters on the historical context of inclusion. If anyone is interested in this area, select any one of the chapters and you will have a comprehensive explanation of the background. The second part focuses on policy analyses, commentaries and research. Many of these 8 chapters do a quick revisit of the history before launching into a description of the concept that full inclusion rarely means full inclusion for the most severe, especially emotional disabled, students; how there exists a dearth of research supporting full inclusion; and how teachers are not prepared to tackle the influx of special education students into their classes. The third part of the book is the least repetitive- disability specific issues. There are parent and professional writings about the need for a special classes and special schools, the gist being that special needs require special education.
If someone is looking to justify a special class placement, this book provides lots of ammo, but one need not read the whole thing to get what is needed. Cherry pick the essays based on personal interest, focusing on one per section. That takes the 449 page book down to a rational size.
If someone is a true proponent of full inclusion, this book will be an uncomfortable read. It confronts the lack of research, the divergence of special and general education, and addresses issues of social equity. It attacks the concept that place is the determining factor in a placement being least restrictive. These ideas will be profoundly challenging and may be discarded outright. I would challenge people to read some of the essays with an open mind to see if they can understand why parents fight to keep their special schools open such as the one told here in Tennessee and here in California. We need to recognize that one option is not right for all and that these complex decisions should not be made by politicians or school boards, but by people in the front line who are most influenced- parents and students and teachers.
My difficulty with the book was its extremely repetitive nature. The first part includes 8 chapters on the historical context of inclusion. If anyone is interested in this area, select any one of the chapters and you will have a comprehensive explanation of the background. The second part focuses on policy analyses, commentaries and research. Many of these 8 chapters do a quick revisit of the history before launching into a description of the concept that full inclusion rarely means full inclusion for the most severe, especially emotional disabled, students; how there exists a dearth of research supporting full inclusion; and how teachers are not prepared to tackle the influx of special education students into their classes. The third part of the book is the least repetitive- disability specific issues. There are parent and professional writings about the need for a special classes and special schools, the gist being that special needs require special education.
If someone is looking to justify a special class placement, this book provides lots of ammo, but one need not read the whole thing to get what is needed. Cherry pick the essays based on personal interest, focusing on one per section. That takes the 449 page book down to a rational size.
If someone is a true proponent of full inclusion, this book will be an uncomfortable read. It confronts the lack of research, the divergence of special and general education, and addresses issues of social equity. It attacks the concept that place is the determining factor in a placement being least restrictive. These ideas will be profoundly challenging and may be discarded outright. I would challenge people to read some of the essays with an open mind to see if they can understand why parents fight to keep their special schools open such as the one told here in Tennessee and here in California. We need to recognize that one option is not right for all and that these complex decisions should not be made by politicians or school boards, but by people in the front line who are most influenced- parents and students and teachers.
Equity literacy
The Declaration of Independence includes an often misunderstood phrase, "all men are created equal,... with certain inalienable Rights... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Some interpret this statement to mean that all men are entitled to equal outcomes. This is one defense of socialism, but it was not Thomas Jefferson thought when he penned these famous words. He thought all men should have equal opportunity. Personal abilities, drives, and education would play an important role in determining how successful a person was. He was a great defender farmers and held much scorn for big business. A farmer who worked hard, stayed on top of the latest in agricultural improvements and personal development was more likely to be successful than the one who did not put forth the effort. Jefferson also knew there were no guarantees. Jefferson saw the corrupting power of big business. He was, however, one of the wealthy farmers of the day and saw nothing wrong with amassing personal wealth.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a small but great thing. We are entitled to not worry that our life will be capriciously eliminated, to freedom to pursue our religion and speak our mind, and to try to find happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. We are not guaranteed happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
Paul C. Gorski and Katy Swalwell in the Educational Leadership March of 2015 article, Equity Literacy for All, see a different interpretation of the ideals of our democratic state. Their article begins with a discussion of multiculturalism where a student declared, "There's racism at this school, and nobody's doing anything about it!" (p. 34). This is a sad but all too often true statement about society in general and many schools in specific. The authors then slowly incorporate ideas of sexism, homophobia and class inequality into the discussion of how to build equity into schools.
Dictionary.com states that equality is "the state of being equal especially in status, rights and opportunities" and equity as "the quality of being fair and impartial." There is a subtle difference between equality and equity that seems to have eluded the authors. Equal and fair are not the same thing. While I cannot argue against the idea that "heart of a curriculum that is meaningfully multicultural lie principles of equity and social justice- purposeful attention to issues like racism, homophobia, sexism," I do find fault when they tag on "economic inequality" (p. 36) to the list. They seem to have defined social justice as economic equality. They argue that we cannot prepare youth for participation in democracy without attention to "formidable barriers to an authentic democracy" which they have defined as including "poverty and sexism" (p. 39). They argue that the teacher's goal is for the "students to understand the issues involved and commit to working toward a society with less economic inequality (p. 39). Somehow they have equated equality with equity and the former as a requirement for a democratic state. Economic equality is necessary for a socialist state not a democratic state. People paying attention to sexism, racism and homophobia are paying attention to the social status we currently equate with the governmental structure of democracy where, to paraphrase Lincoln, we do not trample the rights of the minority under the will of the majority.
We want students to have equal opportunity to achieve great things, something a quality education facilitates, and we want them to be compassionate with people who have less or are hurting, but I do not believe that we want them to all have equal outcomes- we need plumbers and engineers, maids and teachers, doctors and police men. Truly equal would have them all earn the same amount, incur the same amount of debt for training and work the same hours. I know few teachers who want to work 48 weeks a year (goodbye summer break) and few people who think their neurosurgeon should not be paid more than their maid.
We serve students better when we give them the tools to rise above poverty and to reach out to people of different classes, sexes and sexual preferences then when we try to eliminate the differences that create these preferences. Education that truly provides a foundation, health care that enables people to be healthy, and housing that keeps everyone warm and safe and dry are the background. We do not want everyone to live in the same 1200 square foot ranch or apartment. We want them to have choices. When we ensure the foundation, we ensure opportunity. That is what our founding fathers wanted for our democracy.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a small but great thing. We are entitled to not worry that our life will be capriciously eliminated, to freedom to pursue our religion and speak our mind, and to try to find happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. We are not guaranteed happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
Paul C. Gorski and Katy Swalwell in the Educational Leadership March of 2015 article, Equity Literacy for All, see a different interpretation of the ideals of our democratic state. Their article begins with a discussion of multiculturalism where a student declared, "There's racism at this school, and nobody's doing anything about it!" (p. 34). This is a sad but all too often true statement about society in general and many schools in specific. The authors then slowly incorporate ideas of sexism, homophobia and class inequality into the discussion of how to build equity into schools.
Dictionary.com states that equality is "the state of being equal especially in status, rights and opportunities" and equity as "the quality of being fair and impartial." There is a subtle difference between equality and equity that seems to have eluded the authors. Equal and fair are not the same thing. While I cannot argue against the idea that "heart of a curriculum that is meaningfully multicultural lie principles of equity and social justice- purposeful attention to issues like racism, homophobia, sexism," I do find fault when they tag on "economic inequality" (p. 36) to the list. They seem to have defined social justice as economic equality. They argue that we cannot prepare youth for participation in democracy without attention to "formidable barriers to an authentic democracy" which they have defined as including "poverty and sexism" (p. 39). They argue that the teacher's goal is for the "students to understand the issues involved and commit to working toward a society with less economic inequality (p. 39). Somehow they have equated equality with equity and the former as a requirement for a democratic state. Economic equality is necessary for a socialist state not a democratic state. People paying attention to sexism, racism and homophobia are paying attention to the social status we currently equate with the governmental structure of democracy where, to paraphrase Lincoln, we do not trample the rights of the minority under the will of the majority.
We want students to have equal opportunity to achieve great things, something a quality education facilitates, and we want them to be compassionate with people who have less or are hurting, but I do not believe that we want them to all have equal outcomes- we need plumbers and engineers, maids and teachers, doctors and police men. Truly equal would have them all earn the same amount, incur the same amount of debt for training and work the same hours. I know few teachers who want to work 48 weeks a year (goodbye summer break) and few people who think their neurosurgeon should not be paid more than their maid.
We serve students better when we give them the tools to rise above poverty and to reach out to people of different classes, sexes and sexual preferences then when we try to eliminate the differences that create these preferences. Education that truly provides a foundation, health care that enables people to be healthy, and housing that keeps everyone warm and safe and dry are the background. We do not want everyone to live in the same 1200 square foot ranch or apartment. We want them to have choices. When we ensure the foundation, we ensure opportunity. That is what our founding fathers wanted for our democracy.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The illusion of full Inclusion Kavale and Forness
The Illusion of Full Inclusion is a series of essays about inclusion edited by James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. In it, Kenneth A. Kavale and Steven R. Forness wrote History, Rhetoric and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate. As I have read this book one rationale for full inclusion has appeared over and over- improving social acceptance of people with disabilities. The authors paraphrase a great deal of research saying that "findings generally revealed a tendency toward more tolerance with increased contact" (p. 247). We hear many heartwarming stories about people with disabilities achieving social heights such as prom king or a cheerleader prom queen. These stories hit the news with splash and we can say, "Look at what good inclusion has done for these wonderful kids." We are depressed when stories about bullying of similar students hit the news. When the boy with autism invites his whole class to his birthday and no one shows up, we celebrate the community efforts to try and rectify the wrong. Unfortunately as the authors point out, research suggests that "simple contact with students with disabilities does not in itself result in more favorable attitudes and improved social acceptance" (p. 254).
Peers may tolerate the student with disabilities. They may countenance the idiosyncrasies that a child may have, but that does not mean they will accept him. My experience with my son bears this out. He was fully included for most of his education. Everyone in school knew him. They would say hi and he sometimes responded. Some would look out for him, let him sit with them for lunch and not tease him. No one invited him to a play date or birthday party. He never received a phone call from a peer. My son's teachers insisted he had many friends at school, but he could not name most of his classmates. There were other students with disabilities who were not tolerated by their peers. They were bullied, teased and left out. Merely being in the classroom and not treated badly does not mean you have friends.
Justifying inclusion on the basis of social acceptance is ridiculous. This is especially true of students who exhibit negative and/or socially unacceptable behavior. If you think back to your childhood, you will remember knowing who were the class brains and the class dunces. We did not have formal labels for these kids, but we know who was strong and who was weak at all manner of activities. To think that kids will not discern differences because they are in the same room is also misguided. Kids will know. We need to teach them that those differences are part of the human condition. That people have different strengths and weaknesses. That humans are valuable for the sake of being human. We can teach how to treat people, but tolerance should not be mistaken for friendship.
Yes, some students with disabilities will be friends of peers without disabilities, but just putting them in the same room will not make it so. We can facilitate acceptance and friendship but cannot require it. We cannot say that one setting is right for all people anymore than we can say that we will be friends with everyone we work with. Kavale and Forness have it right that any program that puts all students in one setting is misguided. These decisions need to be made on a case by case basis with input from parents, school staff and children. We need to not present parents with a Pollyannish view of inclusion. There are costs and benefits to it. Some students will thrive around typical peers, others will not. Peers may not become friends with those with disabilities. Some will. Some will see these students with differences as targets. Some will defend them. Others will simply ignore them.
Peers may tolerate the student with disabilities. They may countenance the idiosyncrasies that a child may have, but that does not mean they will accept him. My experience with my son bears this out. He was fully included for most of his education. Everyone in school knew him. They would say hi and he sometimes responded. Some would look out for him, let him sit with them for lunch and not tease him. No one invited him to a play date or birthday party. He never received a phone call from a peer. My son's teachers insisted he had many friends at school, but he could not name most of his classmates. There were other students with disabilities who were not tolerated by their peers. They were bullied, teased and left out. Merely being in the classroom and not treated badly does not mean you have friends.
Justifying inclusion on the basis of social acceptance is ridiculous. This is especially true of students who exhibit negative and/or socially unacceptable behavior. If you think back to your childhood, you will remember knowing who were the class brains and the class dunces. We did not have formal labels for these kids, but we know who was strong and who was weak at all manner of activities. To think that kids will not discern differences because they are in the same room is also misguided. Kids will know. We need to teach them that those differences are part of the human condition. That people have different strengths and weaknesses. That humans are valuable for the sake of being human. We can teach how to treat people, but tolerance should not be mistaken for friendship.
Yes, some students with disabilities will be friends of peers without disabilities, but just putting them in the same room will not make it so. We can facilitate acceptance and friendship but cannot require it. We cannot say that one setting is right for all people anymore than we can say that we will be friends with everyone we work with. Kavale and Forness have it right that any program that puts all students in one setting is misguided. These decisions need to be made on a case by case basis with input from parents, school staff and children. We need to not present parents with a Pollyannish view of inclusion. There are costs and benefits to it. Some students will thrive around typical peers, others will not. Peers may not become friends with those with disabilities. Some will. Some will see these students with differences as targets. Some will defend them. Others will simply ignore them.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
The Illusion of Full Inclusion with James Gallagher part 2
The Illusion of Full Inclusion is a series of essays about inclusion edited by James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. In it, James Gallagher penned The Pull of Societal Forces on Special Education. He discusses the social setting of PL 94-142- civil rights and racial discrimination being in the forefront of our collective conscience. One of his concerns is that full inclusion equates with equal outcomes. He states that
His premise is that when we look at a 6 year old with significant cognitive challenges, we recognize that they are not going to law school or med school so providing an education that ideally prepares students for that setting is wrong. Students with low functioning levels need functional skills and we do them a disservice by not providing them. Most students benefit from more inclusive environments at an early age, but that may need to change as they age and the curriculum becomes more academically strenuous.
In full disclosure, I have a multiply disabled brother. He has cognitive and daily living skills between those of a 1 and 2 year old. In addition, he has cerebral palsy and a visual impairment. I remember my mother talking about when he became old enough to enter the junior high and the school sent a letter with a proposed schedule and locker number. She called school and asked if they wanted her to bring his diaper bag in separately or if it could be sent in with him. It was a tongue in cheek suggestion; everyone was on board with him attending a special school with a class ratio of 12:1:4 (students: teachers: aides) in which he had an individual one-on-one aide. Although class size would have permitted it, I do not think there were ever more than eight students in the class, usually fewer than six. They focused on communication, dressing, eating, physical therapy, occupational therapy, functional reading, motor skills, preschool educational goals and direction following. Until age twenty-one he attended this program, learning how to dress, developing his motor and communication skills. Would his life have been enhanced by letting him look at microbes through a microscope? No, but several microscopes would have likely been damaged. Would he have been better off sitting in a class covering algebra? No, and it would have been disruptive to those around him. My brother was never going to be employed. Exposing him to the standard curriculum would not have benefited him. Other students would not benefit from being in a classroom where one student either was sidelined to different activities or needed constant care of others for basic needs and behavior maintenance. Admittedly he represents the extreme end of the spectrum of disabilities.
I attended a study abroad program in Denmark in the early 90's. They had been a country of full inclusion. I will never forget going to a classroom with moderately functioning students and talking with the teacher. He said, yes, they had been able to teach his kids to read, but giving them the mindset of equal opportunity was a fallacy. Denmark had a 10 % unemployment rate at the time. Employers with that much choice in employees were unlikely to pick one who needed extra support and training. The students were increasingly depressed upon graduation about their failure to be gainfully employed. Now they separated the students; different outcome expectations left students happier. I am not saying that we should condone blanket placement of anyone, but careful assessment of placement is important. Outcomes need to be considered.
In the beginning of my career, I interviewed for a job in a district that used full inclusion. At the time, I was teaching summer school in a special school setting with a maximum of six kids and one paraprofessional because of extreme behavioral needs. I was asked if I thought that all students could be successful in the mainstream with "the proper support and behavior modification plans." My answer of "no, everyone cannot have their needs served in the mainstream classroom" probably cost me the job. Professional organizations like CEC, NCLD, and NAD for example all argue for a spectrum of placement options. I still believe this.
I have heard countless parents moan that their child who has tried so hard at high school just cannot pass the exit exams and so will not be able to earn a diploma. Both the parents and the students are devastated. While I applaud the increase in graduation rates for students with disabilities, not all students will pass the tests and be able to earn a diploma. Would these students be better off in separate classes that allow a focus on functional classes and vocational skills? Would job shadowing, job coaching and school to work programs not be better than sitting in algebra class and algebra support class one more time? The decision to shift students to functional pathways cannot occur too early, but it is an individual decision. My brother did not need any Common Core ELA or math. He is not alone.
We need to think carefully about the paths we put our students on. We need to be realistic about outcomes, but since we cannot predict the future, we cannot give up too early. This decision should not be made by the state saying all kids need to have meaningful interactions with the Common Core. Nor should it be made by parents who refuse to see the hideously painful struggle their children experience on a daily basis. It needs to be made by a team of professionals and family members working in concert, looking at both the data and the subjective experiences of the child. It should not be an all or none decision at the beginning, we should gradually reexamine the situation on an at least annual basis. We need to think about realistic outcomes for our children and provide an education to help them realize this. If this means how to put on pants, then that is what the curriculum should entail, not the major economic products of the Midwest states.
Few children with disabilities will go to law school or medical school, or even to college, so somewhere in the developmental progression in education these children should be separated from their nondisabled peers. How and when should this be done? p. 75
His premise is that when we look at a 6 year old with significant cognitive challenges, we recognize that they are not going to law school or med school so providing an education that ideally prepares students for that setting is wrong. Students with low functioning levels need functional skills and we do them a disservice by not providing them. Most students benefit from more inclusive environments at an early age, but that may need to change as they age and the curriculum becomes more academically strenuous.
In full disclosure, I have a multiply disabled brother. He has cognitive and daily living skills between those of a 1 and 2 year old. In addition, he has cerebral palsy and a visual impairment. I remember my mother talking about when he became old enough to enter the junior high and the school sent a letter with a proposed schedule and locker number. She called school and asked if they wanted her to bring his diaper bag in separately or if it could be sent in with him. It was a tongue in cheek suggestion; everyone was on board with him attending a special school with a class ratio of 12:1:4 (students: teachers: aides) in which he had an individual one-on-one aide. Although class size would have permitted it, I do not think there were ever more than eight students in the class, usually fewer than six. They focused on communication, dressing, eating, physical therapy, occupational therapy, functional reading, motor skills, preschool educational goals and direction following. Until age twenty-one he attended this program, learning how to dress, developing his motor and communication skills. Would his life have been enhanced by letting him look at microbes through a microscope? No, but several microscopes would have likely been damaged. Would he have been better off sitting in a class covering algebra? No, and it would have been disruptive to those around him. My brother was never going to be employed. Exposing him to the standard curriculum would not have benefited him. Other students would not benefit from being in a classroom where one student either was sidelined to different activities or needed constant care of others for basic needs and behavior maintenance. Admittedly he represents the extreme end of the spectrum of disabilities.
I attended a study abroad program in Denmark in the early 90's. They had been a country of full inclusion. I will never forget going to a classroom with moderately functioning students and talking with the teacher. He said, yes, they had been able to teach his kids to read, but giving them the mindset of equal opportunity was a fallacy. Denmark had a 10 % unemployment rate at the time. Employers with that much choice in employees were unlikely to pick one who needed extra support and training. The students were increasingly depressed upon graduation about their failure to be gainfully employed. Now they separated the students; different outcome expectations left students happier. I am not saying that we should condone blanket placement of anyone, but careful assessment of placement is important. Outcomes need to be considered.
In the beginning of my career, I interviewed for a job in a district that used full inclusion. At the time, I was teaching summer school in a special school setting with a maximum of six kids and one paraprofessional because of extreme behavioral needs. I was asked if I thought that all students could be successful in the mainstream with "the proper support and behavior modification plans." My answer of "no, everyone cannot have their needs served in the mainstream classroom" probably cost me the job. Professional organizations like CEC, NCLD, and NAD for example all argue for a spectrum of placement options. I still believe this.
I have heard countless parents moan that their child who has tried so hard at high school just cannot pass the exit exams and so will not be able to earn a diploma. Both the parents and the students are devastated. While I applaud the increase in graduation rates for students with disabilities, not all students will pass the tests and be able to earn a diploma. Would these students be better off in separate classes that allow a focus on functional classes and vocational skills? Would job shadowing, job coaching and school to work programs not be better than sitting in algebra class and algebra support class one more time? The decision to shift students to functional pathways cannot occur too early, but it is an individual decision. My brother did not need any Common Core ELA or math. He is not alone.
We need to think carefully about the paths we put our students on. We need to be realistic about outcomes, but since we cannot predict the future, we cannot give up too early. This decision should not be made by the state saying all kids need to have meaningful interactions with the Common Core. Nor should it be made by parents who refuse to see the hideously painful struggle their children experience on a daily basis. It needs to be made by a team of professionals and family members working in concert, looking at both the data and the subjective experiences of the child. It should not be an all or none decision at the beginning, we should gradually reexamine the situation on an at least annual basis. We need to think about realistic outcomes for our children and provide an education to help them realize this. If this means how to put on pants, then that is what the curriculum should entail, not the major economic products of the Midwest states.
Monday, March 23, 2015
The illusion of full inclusion James Gallagher
The Illusion of Full Inclusion is a series of essays about inclusion edited by James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. In it, James Gallagher penned The Pull of Societal Forces on Special Education. He discusses the social setting of PL 94-142- civil rights and racial discrimination being in the forefront of our collective conscience. Special education classes then, and to a lesser degree, now were highly overrepresented by minorities. He asks an interesting rhetorical question:
He is implying that African-American students grow up in environments unfavorable to education and thus should not be expected to achieve at the same rate as other students and also it should not be surprising that they are disproportionately identified as needing special education. Apart from the racism in this statement, we need to look at the underlying aspects of it.
The problem emerges when we assign these traits to a culture or race. If these are the values that will make school easier for students, should not we try and intervene far before the child is struggling in school? Early home visits with school personnel to help with establishing education friendly policies might be helpful. Many families with struggling students do see education as the brass ring- the tool that will help their children escape the poverty they live in. These families do not need to be taught to value education- they already do. They may need to be shown that education, schools, teachers and principals have their backs and how home can have school's back.
Very few home environments lack valuing long-term goals. Homeless families have goals of getting a stable place to live. People addicted to drugs often have long term goals of getting clean. People in poverty want their families to live better lives than they do. How many poor kids seek to find their riches through the world of professional sports? If they can work toward a long term goal of athletic excellence, they can work toward other long term goals as well. What is more often lacking are the skills to achieve these goals in a meaningful way. Support systems, health care, mental health services, quality nutrition and hosing, academic problem solving skills, knowledge of "the system" and reading and math skills to name a few areas in which deficient systems, knowledge and skill sets sabotage success.
When it comes to compliance to demands we have a huge can of worms. Some would argue that compliance is a bygone educational goal. Schools need to involve students in rule creation and achieve social contracts that do not require compliance so much as buy in and negotiation. Others may argue that compliance in and of itself is not a good thing. Hitler achieved compliance, but that was not an admirable accomplishment. Some would argue that rather than compliance we need thinking children to evaluate the rules and use civil disobedience to fight what they consider as unjust rules.
To complicate matters more, what if compliance with adults at home contradicts compliance at school? What is a student to do when the parents say you need to stay home and watch the little sibling so I can go to work, interview, doctor,... but school says you need to attend? What choice does a student have when parents say in order to eat you need to work in the restaurant when you get home from school, you should not have to bring homework home? There is no end to the competing stories students must navigate around to survive.
While students in poverty more often struggle with these areas and minorities tend to be overrepresented in the poverty roles, we cannot allow this to justify poor performance in school. We can acknowledge that these challenges exist, but that is not an excuse to avoid exerting extra effort to maximize potential.
If children grown up in an environment unfavorable to education- or to the valuing of long-term goals, or of compliance to adult demands- then why should we be surprised by that more youngsters form such families would be in educational difficulty than their proportion in society? p. 71
He is implying that African-American students grow up in environments unfavorable to education and thus should not be expected to achieve at the same rate as other students and also it should not be surprising that they are disproportionately identified as needing special education. Apart from the racism in this statement, we need to look at the underlying aspects of it.
- Is it reasonable to say that if the home environment degrades, discourages, or interferes with education, that one should expect the children from that environment will more likely experience educational difficulty than those from home environments that support, encourage, and reinforce education? This seems an appropriate assumption.
- Is it reasonable that if the home environment does not value, promote, establish or work toward long-term goals, then children will struggle more with school than those who are exposed to "persevere through challenges" and "keep your mind on the prize" mind sets? Again this is not preposterous.
- Is it reasonable to think that children who do not grow up in environments where compliance to adult demands is emphasized will be less likely to thrive in schools where this is a central tenant of our educational system? Again, likely.
The problem emerges when we assign these traits to a culture or race. If these are the values that will make school easier for students, should not we try and intervene far before the child is struggling in school? Early home visits with school personnel to help with establishing education friendly policies might be helpful. Many families with struggling students do see education as the brass ring- the tool that will help their children escape the poverty they live in. These families do not need to be taught to value education- they already do. They may need to be shown that education, schools, teachers and principals have their backs and how home can have school's back.
Very few home environments lack valuing long-term goals. Homeless families have goals of getting a stable place to live. People addicted to drugs often have long term goals of getting clean. People in poverty want their families to live better lives than they do. How many poor kids seek to find their riches through the world of professional sports? If they can work toward a long term goal of athletic excellence, they can work toward other long term goals as well. What is more often lacking are the skills to achieve these goals in a meaningful way. Support systems, health care, mental health services, quality nutrition and hosing, academic problem solving skills, knowledge of "the system" and reading and math skills to name a few areas in which deficient systems, knowledge and skill sets sabotage success.
When it comes to compliance to demands we have a huge can of worms. Some would argue that compliance is a bygone educational goal. Schools need to involve students in rule creation and achieve social contracts that do not require compliance so much as buy in and negotiation. Others may argue that compliance in and of itself is not a good thing. Hitler achieved compliance, but that was not an admirable accomplishment. Some would argue that rather than compliance we need thinking children to evaluate the rules and use civil disobedience to fight what they consider as unjust rules.
To complicate matters more, what if compliance with adults at home contradicts compliance at school? What is a student to do when the parents say you need to stay home and watch the little sibling so I can go to work, interview, doctor,... but school says you need to attend? What choice does a student have when parents say in order to eat you need to work in the restaurant when you get home from school, you should not have to bring homework home? There is no end to the competing stories students must navigate around to survive.
While students in poverty more often struggle with these areas and minorities tend to be overrepresented in the poverty roles, we cannot allow this to justify poor performance in school. We can acknowledge that these challenges exist, but that is not an excuse to avoid exerting extra effort to maximize potential.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Presentation Zen and the powerpoint presentation
I remember the first major assignment for my AP English class was to develop a presentation about the women in Macbeth, Death of a Salesman, All My Sons, and Cyrano de Bergerac. The instruction we were given was to not be boring. This was before the advent of laptops, power points and easy projection technology. I still can see Dan's presentation where he dressed as an old lady darning a sock and talked about the women in these plays. It was fascinating. To grade it, our teacher had a rubric and had to pay attention because it was ephemeral. Within a minute of the presentation, the grading was done and the next student was on the hot seat. Today, I feel certain the request would have been for a power point or Prezi on the topic. Unfortunately, most of the presentations would be word for word on the screen, the teacher could grade it without the student presence and the other students could sleep in the darkened room.
Garr Reynolds' book PresentationZen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery looks scathingly upon the typical power point and describes how to improve presentations with the use of visuals. Typical student presentations, and other business presentations for that matter, are a series of bulleted slides that encompass every detail to be discussed. While we want students to discover and describe the indirect characterization of the protagonist, their presentations had better not have anything indirect about them. We want it spelled out and read- but then we are bored and disgusted with their presentations. If my presentation removes me from having to be an expert about what I am talking about, if I do not even need to be there because you are literate, what is the point of my being there? This is certainly one of the main themes of the book. Power point is to support, bring emotion to and enhance a presentation, not to be the sum total of information being presented.
As teachers, this is a lesson we need to take to heart. If we are preparing students for the real world, presentations cannot be about animated lists, colorful backgrounds and slides with more words than a children's book. Yet we demand that they demonstrate use of animation (kids need to know how to do this), intense detail (we have to grade the content) and the kids can read it verbatim to us and that is good enough. In fact we argue that such a presentation is better for our struggling readers and writers because they do not need to write an organized essay. We are being so misguided.
First, we are doomed to bad presentations if we do not teach presentation skills. Erik Palmer's PV-LEGS concept embraces this idea. He breaks presentation skills into poise, voice, life, eye contact, gestures and speed. More ideas around this concept can be found at his website here. This is the beginning of teaching kids that a strictly read, head-down, lifeless presentation is bad no matter what. Reynolds touches on many of these points- mostly around engaging with the audience and having visuals reinforce what you say, not say what you say.
Second, Reynolds points out that an effective presentation is well-organized and well understood. A student needs to play with the information to get it to be focused and organized. Reynolds suggests one theme and up to three supporting points. (Think a five paragraph essay- introduce theme, three paragraphs to support it, and wrap it up with a conclusion.) This format makes the presentation equitable with the essay. The key being that every detail is not written, but the details are fleshed out in speech. The student must really understand what he is talking about. For struggling learners this may be even more intimidating.
A third point that Reynolds focuses on is the simplicity of the slide. Little text, few bullets, only pictures and animation that reinforce the theme. We have all been to presentations where the font size of the slide was such that it was illegible. If we cannot read it why put it there? If we can get away with only reading it, why do you need the presenter? Slides must be error free. I remember a presentation a student put on for the school board. It lasted about 5 minutes. There was a there-their error. I immediately thought less of the student. All the animation that the student had spent lots of time on became meaningless in light of the error in grammar that every senior in high school should be aware of checking for. Fewer words per slide may mean you need to know your material better, but it does allow less opportunity for errors. Use slides to build emotional connection with the audience, identify key terms, bring pertinent quotes to life, and showcase powerful data not list what you are saying.
A fourth point was that there should three things prepared- the power point slide deck, the notes for the presenter, and a takeaway packet meant to be read by the audience with links to where more information can be found. When I first was introduced to this idea I thought- what about my students who cannot get the information from the lecture? Where will they be if they cannot fall back on reading the information. Research says that reading the slide takes away from the cognitive capacity to listen to the speaker. Yes, my students need a takeaway but overloading with information in a lecture is not the way to do it. Smartboards detract from achievement if they are not used to increase opportunities to respond and reinforce learning. If we are only using power point to restate what I said, we are wasting the Smartboard's potential. The takeaway is where my students get what they missed. A good classroom presentation has lots of opportunity to interact with the presentation through activities like think-pair-share, journal an idea, live polling and checking for understanding questions and activities.
Another takeaway was on building a presentation- especially a group presentation. Reynolds suggests having ideas written on post-it notes. Rearrange the notes to identify the key theme, organize the ideas and remove the extraneous ones. A presentation cannot include every good idea. It needs to be streamlined. Writing on paper, moving around the notes and adding comments to clarify and fill in holes is a great organizational tool to use BEFORE getting to the computer.
This book is artfully crafted. It weaves stories, slide examples, quotes and information together in an easy to read format. It provides guidance on designing powerful slides- something we as teachers need to take to heart, especially if we are asking students to give presentations. We want to prepare them for the real world. We must, therefore, prepare them to create presentations that do not bore us senseless or render their presence meaningless. We must teach them how to talk and how to present information. The first step is in not asking ourselves to be movie producers or list builders, but to be high quality presenters ourselves. We need to change our status quo and move on to something more effective and meaningful.
Garr Reynolds' book PresentationZen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery looks scathingly upon the typical power point and describes how to improve presentations with the use of visuals. Typical student presentations, and other business presentations for that matter, are a series of bulleted slides that encompass every detail to be discussed. While we want students to discover and describe the indirect characterization of the protagonist, their presentations had better not have anything indirect about them. We want it spelled out and read- but then we are bored and disgusted with their presentations. If my presentation removes me from having to be an expert about what I am talking about, if I do not even need to be there because you are literate, what is the point of my being there? This is certainly one of the main themes of the book. Power point is to support, bring emotion to and enhance a presentation, not to be the sum total of information being presented.
As teachers, this is a lesson we need to take to heart. If we are preparing students for the real world, presentations cannot be about animated lists, colorful backgrounds and slides with more words than a children's book. Yet we demand that they demonstrate use of animation (kids need to know how to do this), intense detail (we have to grade the content) and the kids can read it verbatim to us and that is good enough. In fact we argue that such a presentation is better for our struggling readers and writers because they do not need to write an organized essay. We are being so misguided.
First, we are doomed to bad presentations if we do not teach presentation skills. Erik Palmer's PV-LEGS concept embraces this idea. He breaks presentation skills into poise, voice, life, eye contact, gestures and speed. More ideas around this concept can be found at his website here. This is the beginning of teaching kids that a strictly read, head-down, lifeless presentation is bad no matter what. Reynolds touches on many of these points- mostly around engaging with the audience and having visuals reinforce what you say, not say what you say.
Second, Reynolds points out that an effective presentation is well-organized and well understood. A student needs to play with the information to get it to be focused and organized. Reynolds suggests one theme and up to three supporting points. (Think a five paragraph essay- introduce theme, three paragraphs to support it, and wrap it up with a conclusion.) This format makes the presentation equitable with the essay. The key being that every detail is not written, but the details are fleshed out in speech. The student must really understand what he is talking about. For struggling learners this may be even more intimidating.
A third point that Reynolds focuses on is the simplicity of the slide. Little text, few bullets, only pictures and animation that reinforce the theme. We have all been to presentations where the font size of the slide was such that it was illegible. If we cannot read it why put it there? If we can get away with only reading it, why do you need the presenter? Slides must be error free. I remember a presentation a student put on for the school board. It lasted about 5 minutes. There was a there-their error. I immediately thought less of the student. All the animation that the student had spent lots of time on became meaningless in light of the error in grammar that every senior in high school should be aware of checking for. Fewer words per slide may mean you need to know your material better, but it does allow less opportunity for errors. Use slides to build emotional connection with the audience, identify key terms, bring pertinent quotes to life, and showcase powerful data not list what you are saying.
A fourth point was that there should three things prepared- the power point slide deck, the notes for the presenter, and a takeaway packet meant to be read by the audience with links to where more information can be found. When I first was introduced to this idea I thought- what about my students who cannot get the information from the lecture? Where will they be if they cannot fall back on reading the information. Research says that reading the slide takes away from the cognitive capacity to listen to the speaker. Yes, my students need a takeaway but overloading with information in a lecture is not the way to do it. Smartboards detract from achievement if they are not used to increase opportunities to respond and reinforce learning. If we are only using power point to restate what I said, we are wasting the Smartboard's potential. The takeaway is where my students get what they missed. A good classroom presentation has lots of opportunity to interact with the presentation through activities like think-pair-share, journal an idea, live polling and checking for understanding questions and activities.
Another takeaway was on building a presentation- especially a group presentation. Reynolds suggests having ideas written on post-it notes. Rearrange the notes to identify the key theme, organize the ideas and remove the extraneous ones. A presentation cannot include every good idea. It needs to be streamlined. Writing on paper, moving around the notes and adding comments to clarify and fill in holes is a great organizational tool to use BEFORE getting to the computer.
This book is artfully crafted. It weaves stories, slide examples, quotes and information together in an easy to read format. It provides guidance on designing powerful slides- something we as teachers need to take to heart, especially if we are asking students to give presentations. We want to prepare them for the real world. We must, therefore, prepare them to create presentations that do not bore us senseless or render their presence meaningless. We must teach them how to talk and how to present information. The first step is in not asking ourselves to be movie producers or list builders, but to be high quality presenters ourselves. We need to change our status quo and move on to something more effective and meaningful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)