A Blog About School

Redistricting, the Superintendent, and other things to comment on

2012-03-07T01:35:00.000-06:00

Another busy week without much time for blogging. In the meantime, a few items of interest:

The Iowa City school district will hold forums to hear public comment on its latest redistricting proposal from 7:00 to 8:30 pm this Thursday, March 8, at City High, and from 7:00 to 8:30 pm on March 21 at Northwest Junior High. You can also comment via email.

Also, the school board is soliciting comment about Superintendent Murley’s performance via an online survey here. I found the survey frustratingly worded, but I suppose it’s better than no survey at all.

The legislature is seeking public comment on the proposed education bills via email to lioinfo@legis.state.ia.us. Type “Testimony” in the subject line.

Karen W. has a great post about the limitations of educational empirical research – a topic I plan to chime in on again soon, too.

Also, check out NorthTOmom’s post, and the ensuing comments (including by me) about discussing social justice in school.

Finally, my apologies for the way the comment form has been acting up lately. Blogger has made some unfortunate changes to its comment system, and still hasn’t gotten all the bugs out. I appreciate that people have continued to comment anyway.
.

Mad scientists

2012-03-05T01:04:00.000-06:00

Karen W., who reads lengthy and tedious legislative documents so we don’t have to, has been posting updates about the education bills making their way through the Iowa legislature over at her blog, Education in Iowa. She recently posted about Iowa’s application for a waiver from the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Others have written (for example, here and here) about how these waivers are a cure that’s as bad as the disease, and this waiver application seems to bear that out.

I got a kick out of Karen’s suggestion to the drafters: “Please do not find yourself in the position of claiming to hold high academic standards for all students while failing to competently proofread a document you plan to submit to the US Department of Education.” But the trouble is far worse than typos and misspellings. Karen points out, for example, that the waiver application makes it clear that Iowa intends to focus on statewide implementation of PBIS. Moreover, the entire document seems designed to demonstrate just how lost you can get in a faulty paradigm – in this case, the idea that empirical research in social science can dictate indisputable policy solutions that we just need to impose uniformly on all of our schools.

Here’s just one passage I came across, pretty much at random, on “Universal Supports”:

All schools will engage in school improvement through the Seven Characteristics of Effective and Improving Schools, the C-Plan, and the System for Improving Student Success. All schools will be supported in the following ways.

Response to Intervention (Turnaround Principles: strengthening school’s instructional program and using data to inform instruction): From 2003 to 2011 Iowa implemented a process called Instructional Decision-Making (IDM) which was a prototype of Response to Intervention (RtI). IDM was developed by a team of Iowa general educators, special educators, and administrators and information was disseminated to a contact person in each Area Education Agency (AEA). With this train-the-trainer model (AEA contacts provided training to individual schools), IDM was not implemented consistently across the state. In some schools where IDM was in place, it was not integrated into practice as an on-going approach to improving learning. Because of the lack of success of IDM, it became apparent a more concentrated and prescriptive approach to RtI implementation was necessary.

As presented in Principle 1, RtI is a multi-tiered framework by which schools use data to identify the academic supports each and every student needs to be successful in school and leave school ready for life. In their review of 13 studies investigating the impact of RtI on academic achievement or performance, Hughes and Dexter (2011) found some level of improvement in all studies, primarily on early reading and math skills.

Should I go on? Needless to say, the conclusion is that “it is imperative that RtI be implemented with fidelity in each Iowa school” – even though the one previous attempt to implement the program apparently resulted in a “lack of success,” even under its own almost certainly reductive definition of success. When our “robust universal instruction,” “data-based decision making,” “intensive interventions,” and “progress monitoring” fail, it must mean we need to do even more of them!

Once you hack through the bureaucratese and the management guru jargon (I particularly like that C-minus Plan), this program appears to be designed to catch students who are falling behind academically and give them “intensive” forms of attention. Don’t look for any reflection on the definition of “successful” or its susceptibility to measurement. Don’t look for any concern over the need for buy-in by parents and teachers. Don’t look for any limits to the faith in our state bureaucracy to know what’s best for everyone. Don’t look for any inquiry into just how this intervention and monitoring might affect the kids’ long-term attitudes toward school and toward learning, or any recognition that few of us welcome “intensive interventions” into our own lives. There is a citation to a study, after all, which certainly proves that imposing this program uniformly on teachers in every school in every district is better for children than allowing individual districts to make their own decisions about how to help struggling students, and better than allowing teachers to use their experience, judgment, and wisdom instead of applying a centrally-dictated, “concentrated and prescriptive” (i.e., idiot-proofed) “System” to whatever challenges come their way.

Yet the use of “data” in this way is widely accepted and practiced on all sides of the educational debate.

We have seriously lost our way.
.

Musical chairs

2012-03-02T23:26:00.000-06:00

In the past, when elementary schools in our district were declared “schools in need of assistance” (“SINA schools”) under No Child Left Behind, their families were given the option of transferring out to other, non-SINA schools. A few years ago, my kids’ elementary school took in dozens of new students that way.

Now, the state is applying for a waiver from the requirements of No Child Left Behind. Apparently, if the federal government grants the waiver, districts would no longer be required to offer the transfer option to families at SINA schools. This would mean that the kids who were allowed to transfer to our school could be required to return to their designated attendance area. Rumor has it that our district would, in fact, take advantage of that rule and require those students to switch schools a second time – if only because the school district would then have more control over how many kids attend each of its schools.

This strikes me as a good example of the kind of unintended consequence that “education reform” proposals are apt to lead to. The government invited these kids to switch schools on the theory that they had been disadvantaged by their existing school assignment. Many of the SINA schools had a fairly high degree of turnover already, so some of the students who transferred to our school may have already switched schools before. Now, just a few years later, the government may force those kids to switch schools yet again – meaning that some of them may end up having switched schools twice or even three times just during the course of elementary school. How can that possibly help disadvantaged kids?

I hope the speculation is false, and that our district will allow any child who transferred out of a SINA school to finish out elementary school at his or her current school.

More coverage of the waiver proposals is available here.
.

Teacher: “It is as bad as you think and probably worse”

2012-02-26T14:12:00.001-06:00

Commenter “Another Chris” posted a comment on the previous post (“Are liberal homeschoolers hypocrites?”) that deserves a post of its own, so I’m reprinting it here in full:

Chris, I have to side with you on this one and I am a public school teacher. From an insiders perspective it is as bad as you think and probably worse in many respects. Teachers have lost all control over what happens in the classroom.

In many places we now have “walkthroughs” which is the latest fad quick-fix and principals and boards love them because they are all about keeping teachers “accountable” and under control.

Administrators and district employees do frequent, short drive-bys in classrooms with checklists of what they “should” be seeing in “effective” classrooms. There is no discussion before or after in most places but rather a notice in your mailbox of how badly you were out of compliance and how short a time you have to remedy this error.

The very idea that a 3 - 5 minute inspection provides even a tiny snapshot of the dynamics of teaching and learning with a group of diverse children is offensive yet this is a major tool in evaluating teachers now in most of the country. Horror stories from teachers abound, from kids hiding under the desks when the “scary people” come through to kids challenging the visitors on their rudeness in interrupting their learning.

Curriculum is carefully controlled from on high and one of the checklists’ major foci is to make sure each teacher is doing the prescribed lesson in the prescribed way at the prescribed time. You will be penalized if off track no matter how well-reasoned your explanation, such as individualizing instruction.

Our president, whom I campaigned and voted for, stated in his big education speech last month that teachers need to “stop teaching to the test!” which was very cognitively dissonant since his own education department’s Race to the Top program has required all participating states to make test scores anywhere from 40 - 60% of a teacher’s evaluation, which elevates a single test score to prime importance. So we’re supposed to ignore the biggest part of the decision on whether we get to remain employed or not and/or even retain our teaching license and risk losing years and years of college education, continuing education, and thousands of dollars invested in both?

Discipline was married to test results by the political and business “experts” and created such monstrosities as PBS. Teachers are held accountable for everything from reducing incidents to attendance as part of our yearly evaluation and pay package. I guess we should awake before dawn and make home visits to make sure kids are awake, fed, dressed, and sent to school?

You already know about the time crunch test prep has created in our day and how recess, arts and crafts, music, and PE have suffered. We are told quite frequently that we are free to leave and find employment elsewhere if we don’t like the current models since they are based upon “research” (which is anything that is published and uncritically accepted as gospel truth).

Hucksters by the dozens are making millions off school boards by selling untried, unproven, and unfounded reforms that sound politically appealing but have no basis in reality. The new Common Core Standards are a good example -- they will be in full force by 2014 and they have already subsumed every educational publisher and training system yet they have no proven record of success.

Because I care so much about children I would urge any parent who can to remove their child from public school. It is a sick, deteriorating system that is only getting worse and the forces arrayed against it, from Bill Gates to Arne Duncan have billions of dollars backing their interference. There will be no good change anytime soon, at least until they succeed in destroying the system completely and losing a generation of children in the process of proving their political theories.

Are liberal homeschoolers hypocrites?

2012-02-22T00:20:00.000-06:00

I recently went to an interesting talk by Heather Gerken on the various ways that political minorities can influence policy within a federal system like ours. I won’t go into her specific thesis here, but she built on the work of earlier scholars such as Albert O. Hirschman, who recognized that people can influence institutions through both “voice” and “exit.” In other words, you can try to change the system from within by speaking up – though, if you’re in a political minority, you might find yourself outvoted. Or you can influence the system by voting with your feet; if enough people “exit,” the institution might eventually have to change.

I thought about those ideas when I read Dana Goldstein’s article titled “Liberals, Don’t Homeschool Your Kids.” Goldstein argues that liberals are violating their own ideals by withdrawing from the public schools. If they really cared about “society as a whole” and not just themselves, she says, liberals would “flood” the public schools with their kids, “and then debate vociferously what they ought to be doing.”

I suppose I’m someone who has taken the “stay and fight” approach, though more because of circumstance than principle. But I think Goldstein’s argument is myopic. She ignores the potential of “exit” to bring about positive change, and overestimates the potential of “voice.” Unlike Goldstein, I fully expect that for all my attempts at vociferousness, my kids – like those of countless people who have “stayed and fought” – will graduate thirteen years later from an utterly unchanged institution, if not one that has changed for the worse. If you were trying to design an educational system that would minimize parents’ “voice,” it would look a lot like this one.

Goldstein argues that if people who can afford to homeschool sent their kids to public school instead, less advantaged kids would benefit from their presence. I think that’s probably true, at least to some extent. But she doesn’t acknowledge that there are costs to that choice as well – not just to the kids who would have been homeschooled, but to society as a whole. Goldstein seems to think that liberals should send their kids to public schools no matter how illiberal those institutions are, and no matter how successfully they are instilling illiberal values in the kids who attend them. I think today’s schools are profoundly undermining liberal, humane, and democratic values. Why should that ever change if liberal parents continue to patronize them regardless of what they dish out?

Again, I’m not a homeschooler, and I don’t particularly care whether anyone thinks I’m sufficiently liberal. But I certainly don’t judge anyone who chooses to take their kids out of these schools. There’s no one right answer to how to make this world a more humane place, and the homeschoolers’ answer seems at least as wise as Goldstein’s. If anything, I instinctively distrust the idea that we can create a more liberal and humane society by putting our kids into less liberal and humane environments. By treating kids as instruments for social improvement, that argument mirrors the very same instrumental treatment of children that I object to when it’s practiced by “reformers” who treat kids as soldiers in the battle for global competitiveness. The homeschoolers think that you build a more humane society not by using kids to achieve this or that social end, but by treating kids humanely, one at a time. Can Goldstein be so sure that they are wrong?

More on liberal homeschoolers here. Related post here.
.

Too sane for us?

2012-02-16T19:17:00.001-06:00

Busy week, not much time for blogging. In the meantime, check out Diane Ravitch on Finland’s sane, humane educational system, and on the determination of American “reformers” (including both major parties) to learn exactly nothing from it.
.

Angry citizens violate school board’s “expectation” of “respect”

2012-02-08T01:28:00.000-06:00

Readers of this blog know that I’m concerned about authoritarian, anti-democratic attitudes that have crept (or stormed) increasingly into our educational policies and practices. One small way that these attitudes have manifested themselves is through the distortion of the word “respect.” The kids are taught that respect means obedience to authority. And now our local school board is brandishing the word in its discussion of whether to allow public comment at school board meetings.

Our district has a few citizens who don’t mince words when they comment at board meetings. Some of them have taken to naming the names of the district employees who they claim are responsible for specific ongoing problems that the district has had. (Believe it or not, I am not one of those people, at least yet.)

The school board’s response, on the whole, has been to act as if an unwashed anarchist had crashed their afternoon tea. According to the North Liberty Leader, the board would consider eliminating the public comment period altogether, if people can’t be more “respectful.” The board chair said:

The Board expects the community comment time to be a productive and respectful way for community members to voice their concerns about current school district issues to assist the board in making decisions that help our district be the best place possible to educate the students of this community.

When community comments address concerns about district departments or issues and are done so in a timely manner, the information given can be very helpful. It is the School Board’s desire to continue to have community comment as part of future agendas as long as the emphasis on ‘productive’ and ‘respectful’ are adhered to by all participants.

Seriously? These elected officials will shut down public comment at board meetings if the public isn’t sufficiently “respectful” and “productive”? Is it really the business of an elected body to protect itself, or the community, from public speech that it finds uncomfortable? What are they so afraid of?

Some board members have suggested that the district might be liable if a speaker at the public meeting defames someone. I’m no expert on that subject, but I’m very, very skeptical that such a claim against the district could succeed, given the First Amendment issues it raises. The government is not ordinarily responsible for the conduct of people who speak in its public forums. (For example, the government is not promoting religion by permitting evangelists to speak in the public square.) Can anyone cite any legal support for the theory that the district would be liable in such a case?

One of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is that free and unrestrained debate on political issues will lead to better policymaking. I would like to think that the people in charge of educating my children were aware of that principle. Unfortunately, there are few institutions that need to relearn that principle more than the school system, where parents and the public are constantly admonished to leave the policymaking to the experts and are encouraged to tiptoe around any disagreement, or drop it entirely, for fear of seeming “unsupportive.” Require everyone to be calm and polite, not to get personal, never to express anger, and never to use strong rhetoric or, God forbid, a “bad word”: a great way to protect the status quo, a lousy way to make good policy.

In my view, our educational system’s discomfort with basic democratic values – unrestrained political debate, personal autonomy, pluralism, federalism, negative liberty, civil liberties, and self-governance, to name a few – is at the root of most of its many problems. Democracy can be messy, disconcerting, even chaotic. But maintaining order is not the only value, or the highest one. Our schools’ embrace of control over freedom at every opportunity is not only harming our kids’ education, it’s creating a nation of people who seem more and more comfortable with authoritarian government with each passing year.

School board members: If people want to rant and rave and name some names, suck it up and let them talk. The world won’t end, and might even improve.

Related posts here and here.
.

Skyrocketing rate of discipline at Hoover School

2012-02-02T02:28:00.001-06:00

It turns out that parents who thought that our school’s use of disciplinary measures was skyrocketing were not imagining things. After a series of email exchanges with the principal and district administrators (starting here), I submitted this formal request for information. Here’s what the district’s response to it showed:

Last academic year, from the start of school until Winter Break, the school sent 15 written disciplinary reports home to parents. This year, during that same period, the number was 196. Yes, that’s a twelve hundred percent increase.

Last year, during that time, there were no in-school suspensions (technically called “in-school restrictions”). This year, there were 17.

Last year, during that time, there were no out-of-school suspensions. This year, there were three. There were no expulsions in either year.

The superintendent’s office included a letter arguing that no one should use these data for comparison purposes because of the many variables that affect how disciplinary incidents are recorded. I don’t find the argument very convincing, and I’m especially put off by its attempt (foreshadowed by the principal’s emails) to scapegoat the previous principal. Both the superintendent’s letter and the principal’s emails were quick to imply that the previous principal was doing something wrong, but they couldn’t quite get their story straight about what she was doing wrong. On the one hand, the superintendent’s office, like one of the principal’s emails, implies that the previous principal did not keep accurate records of disciplinary incidents. The superintendent’s letter says that last year’s numbers seem “unlikely,” and so it is “likely that the parent contacts were made but not recorded.” At the same time, though, the principal’s emails repeatedly emphasize that there is “a difference in how those behaviors which are bad choices are being handled this year” and that there were “behaviors that should have been worked through in the past and never were.” (And again, many parents have commented on the increase.) So was there a big increase, or not?

It’s true that the numbers for the second half of last year are higher (though still far lower than this year’s): 1 out-of-school suspension, 1 in-school suspension, and 50 disciplinary reports sent home to parents. But it also seems reasonable that the numbers would naturally be higher in the second semester, since you would expect that there would be some warnings given early in the year before the reports kicked in. One can only imagine what the numbers for the second half of this year will be. In any event, you can read the superintendent’s letter, below, and see if you agree that the reported numbers shed no light on whether discipline has steeply increased from last year to this year.

Here’s what I think the most plausible hypothesis is: Last year, we had a principal who used a lighter hand with discipline. Maybe when kids were sent to the principal’s office, she had a serious talk with them, and then sent them on their way. Maybe she put a high value on remaining approachable. Maybe she contacted parents only for serious problems, and then often by phone or in person instead of through an impersonal letter. Maybe she would have balked at the idea of accusing a third-grader of sexual harassment. I certainly had my disagreements with the previous principal, but that approach to discipline seems perfectly reasonable for elementary-school-age children.

This year – although the new principal herself acknowledges that misbehavior has not increased, and that the kids are, “overall, very well-behaved” – somebody decided to step up the use of discipline by several orders of magnitude. Why? We can only guess. The principal seems to believe that this heavy-handed law-enforcement approach to behavior is just what kids need. Another theory is that the district is worried about the racial disparities in its discipline numbers, and has decided to address the issue, not by treating minority kids better, but by treating all the kids harshly. In any case, nobody involved seems interested in how the kids are experiencing this disciplinary crackdown, or how their attitude toward school is affected by this constant emphasis on behavior and discipline, or what values they learn by being subjected to this increasingly authoritarian approach, or whether this policy is creating a negative, adversarial environment in the school.

If the district really believes that this kind of steep increase in discipline and punishment is good for the kids, why doesn’t it just say so? Why does it try to evade the question of whether there’s really been an increase? Why doesn’t it directly address people’s objections to the policy, and defend it publicly? Why didn’t it announce the increase in advance, and try to persuade the community that it was a good idea before imposing it? If it’s such a great idea, what are they worried about?

I should point out that the district did not charge me for compiling the information, as it initially said that it would. Its letter makes a point, though, of saying that the district is under no obligation to compile any more numbers for me. To read the full response, click on the “Read More” link.

The district’s cover letter read:

Attached is a response to your request for information including the three behavior report templates. The behavior report and follow-up agreement are the templates being used this year. The office referral is the template from previous years.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I’ve posted each page of the response as a JPEG file. Click the pictures to enlarge them.

A request for information about discipline at Hoover School

2012-02-01T01:09:00.000-06:00

As I described here, I’m concerned that our local elementary school has ratcheted up its focus on behavior and discipline this year, to the point where it’s creating a negative atmosphere at the school and needlessly stressing out the kids. When I asked the principal just how much the discipline numbers have gone up from last year, she told me that I would need to make a public records request to get that information. In the ensuing series of email exchanges I had with the principal and district administrators, it became obvious that the district was not interested in hearing what parents might have to say about how the disciplinary system is affecting the kids. So I figured it was time to go ahead and get the numerical information – even though, as the assistant superintendent had reminded me, I would have to pay the cost of gathering the data.

So, in place of the relatively simple question I had asked the principal, I drafted a more detailed information request. I asked about four types of discipline: behavior reports sent home to parents, in-school suspensions (technically called “in-school restrictions”), out-of-school suspensions, and expulsions. For each type of discipline, I asked for this year’s numbers up until Winter Break, and last year’s for that same period, as well as last year’s year-end total. I also asked for copies of the paperwork that accompanies a behavior report.

To be continued.

To read the full request, click on the “Read More” link.

Dear Superintendent Murley:

I’m writing to follow up on my email questions about how frequently certain disciplinary measures have been used at Hoover Elementary School both this year and last year. As I explained in my earlier emails, I’m concerned that Hoover has intensified its focus on behavior and discipline to the point where it is creating a negative atmosphere at the school and leading the students to view the adults at the school (particularly the non-classroom-teachers) as their adversaries. I would just like to get a sense of how much the use of serious disciplinary measures has changed from the last academic year to this one.

I thought I could simply ask for the basic numbers in an email to the principal, but the district responded that I could get the information only by making a formal public records request. I’m still a little puzzled by that response, since I’m not asking to look at any records, and I assume that individual disciplinary records are confidential anyway. All I’m asking for is information. I know I can’t expect the district to engage in extensive or time-consuming tasks just for my benefit, but I’m guessing that the district already keeps track of disciplinary data. In any event, this letter is to make a more formal, detailed request for information, which you can treat as a records request if necessary.

If you’re unable to answer any of the questions, please just let me know and provide whatever partial answer you can. I’m happy to clarify any of the questions if you need me to. Again, I’m really just asking for the numerical information, and not to inspect any records myself, given the student confidentiality concerns. However, an alternative would be to provide me copies of the relevant records with all confidential information redacted.

A couple of terms to clarify: When I use the phrase “behavior report,” I mean a written communication from the school notifying a student’s parent or guardian that the student has engaged in misconduct or misbehavior. When I use the phrase “in-school restriction,” I mean the type of discipline described in Board Policy/Administrative Regulation section IV(A)(11), while I mean “out-of-school suspensions” to refer to the type of discipline described in section IV(A)(12).

If you do treat this as records request, I’d like to take you up on your offer to provide me a cost estimate before you start answering the request. I’d appreciate it if you would give separate estimates for each of the five numbered requests; I can submit them as separate requests if necessary.

Here is the information I am looking for:

1. In-school restrictions

Please state:

(a) The number of in-school restrictions of Hoover students between August 18, 2011 and December 20, 2011 (inclusive)

(b) The number of in-school restrictions of Hoover students between August 19, 2010 and December 20, 2010 (inclusive)

(c) The number of in-school restrictions of Hoover students during the 2010-11 school year

2. Out-of-school suspensions

Please state:

(a) The number of out-of-school suspensions of Hoover students between August 18, 2011 and December 20, 2011 (inclusive)

(b) The number of out-of-school suspensions of Hoover students between August 19, 2010 and December 20, 2010 (inclusive)

(c) The number of out-of-school suspensions of Hoover students during the 2010-11 school year

3. Expulsions

Please state:

(a) The number of expulsions of Hoover students between August 18, 2011 and December 20, 2011 (inclusive)

(b) The number of expulsions of Hoover students between August 19, 2010 and December 20, 2010 (inclusive)

(c) The number of expulsions of Hoover students during the 2010-11 school year

4. Behavior reports

Please state:

(a) The number of behavior reports sent to parents/guardians of Hoover students between August 18, 2011 and December 20, 2011 (inclusive)

(b) The number of behavior reports sent to parents/guardians of Hoover students between August 19, 2010 and December 20, 2010 (inclusive)

(c) The number of behavior reports sent to parents/guardians of Hoover students during the 2010-11 school year

5. Behavior report form. If the school ever used a standard form to send behavior reports to parents/guardians during the 2010-11 or 2011-12 school years, please provide a blank copy of that form.

Thank you,

Within a few days, I modified the request slightly:

I would like to clarify the request in one respect: I would like to make it clear that, by “behavior reports” in Requests 4 and 5, I mean to include the “Follow-Up” materials mentioned by the principal in the “Hoover Headlines” of January 6, 2012.

A parent asks a question (part six)

2012-01-31T00:04:00.000-06:00

After five email exchanges (starting here) with our elementary school’s principal and district administrators, I felt no closer to an answer about how much the school had increased its use of disciplinary measures this year. In her last message, the assistant superintendent offered to arrange a meeting to explain the district’s “curriculum” to me, but showed no interest in hearing what parents had to say about what’s actually happening in the school. I wrote back:

Well, I’m getting the strong impression that you’re not interested in hearing what parents have to say about what is actually happening at Hoover. (Please correct me if I’m misreading you.) The possible meeting that you’re describing is sounding awfully one-sided.

In any event, I think it makes sense to get the numerical information before having any kind of meeting. Could you send me the forms that I would need to get information about the increase in incident reports and suspensions at Hoover from last year to this year?

Thanks,

The reply:

Good afternoon, Mr. Liebig. Thank you for writing.

Please find attached the district’s guidelines for submitting a request for public records. If you would like us to provide an estimated cost associated with your information request, you may request this at the same time you write the specific nature of your request to the custodian of our district records, Superintendent Murley.

If you have any questions about this procedure, please let us know.

Thank you again,

Yes, I outright invited her to correct my impression that the district is not interested in what parents have to say. Invitation declined.

To be continued.
.

A parent asks a question (part five)

2012-01-30T00:07:00.000-06:00

When I finally asked our school’s principal whether other parents had also complained about the school’s intensified emphasis on discipline, the reply came from the assistant superintendent, who offered to arrange a meeting with “district leaders who support the methods being used” at the school. Of course, that didn’t answer my question, and I wasn’t sure why I’d want to meet with people who have apparently already made up their minds about the issue. So I wrote back:

Thanks. That was my next question – how much of this new policy is being dictated by the district? There’s no point in me complaining to the principal about things that she is being made to do. Still, it’s not clear to me just who the decisionmaker here is – something I have always found hard to pin down in the school system.

I think a meeting with concerned parents could be a good idea. But I worry that it sounds like you have already decided that you “endorse the methods the methods being used at Hoover,” before you’ve even heard what parents have to say. What are you thinking the purpose of that meeting would be?

The assistant superintendent’s reply:

Good afternoon, Mr. Liebig. Thank you for writing. You are correct in your notation that the social-emotional system used at Hoover and all other elementary schools is a district-endorsed curriculum. I was not suggesting that we must have a meeting you with, but offering the idea if you wanted to learn more about the curriculum.

Again, thank you,

Readers, there is a reason why the background of this blog is a brick wall. Is the district completely impervious to input from the public about how its policies are working? Are the central administrators at all curious about how individual principals are actually implementing their policies, or about how kids and families are experiencing them? Apparently this is the district’s idea of engagement with the public: they’re happy to talk to you, but don’t expect them to talk with you.

To be continued.
.

One question too many

2012-01-29T00:05:00.000-06:00

Having tried three times (reported here, here, and here) to get a sense of how much our school’s use of disciplinary measures has increased this year, I still felt no closer to an answer. The principal’s last response blamed her predecessor for not “working through” behavioral issues, and then explained why the school can’t just ignore misbehavior – which, of course, I never suggested. I wrote back:

Thanks. I’m not sure it explains much to say that there “should have been” more discipline in previous years. Previous principals apparently used a lighter hand, which seems perfectly defensible.

I would think that whether we “should” have this new policy ought to depend on the actual overall effect it ends up having on the children – not just on their behavior, but on their attitude toward school. If it really is creating a negative culture at the school, and making the kids see the adults who run the school as their adversaries, I would think that that would weigh pretty heavily against the policy.

Again, it’s my impression that it is having that negative effect, but I realize I’m only one person. Have other parents raised similar concerns?

The reply came not from the principal but from the assistant superintendent, Ann Feldmann:

Good afternoon, Mr. Liebig. I write to offer to arrange a meeting with our district leaders who endorse the methods being used at Hoover Elementary and all other elementary schools in our district. If you would like to discuss our system further, I know that there is an interest in hearing your concerns and sharing our perspective.

I also ask that you direct your further questions on this topic to Becky Furlong and me, rather than to Ms. Bradford. I will ask Ms. Bradford to acknowledge your emails but to forward them to one of us for a response.

Certainly, if you have other questions pertaining to your child, a correspondence with Ms. Bradford should proceed. However, on this topic (general student discipline methods, practices, inquiries, concerns), I would ask that we have an opportunity to address your thoughts at a systems level.

Thank you for your polite emails (the ones I’ve been fortunate to see). It truly makes a difference when there is civil interaction with each other.

Thank you,

A meeting with “our district leaders who endorse the methods being used”? The writing teacher in me wondered whether there are also district leaders who don’t endorse the policy, and why I couldn’t meet with them, too. But the parent in me wondered: if you were a district administrator, and a parent expressed concern that a school practice was creating a negative, stressful, and distrustful school atmosphere, would you announce in advance that you support the practice, before even meeting with the parent?

Notice that, once again, the question I asked – have other parents complained? – went entirely unanswered.

To be continued.
.

A parent asks a question (part three)

2012-01-28T00:13:00.000-06:00

When I emailed our school’s principal to ask how much disciplinary measures had increased this year, I found her initial responses (here and here) unrevealing. So I emailed again:

Thanks. I wasn’t really asking whether there was an increase in misbehavior – I wasn’t thinking there’d be any reason for that to change significantly from one year to the next. But if the level of misbehavior is basically the same, I don’t understand why there’d be a lot more discipline going on, which seems to be the case.

I understand that you consider a lot of the discipline to be “processing” rather than punishment, but I don’t think the kids are experiencing it that way. I wouldn’t either, if I were them – if, for example, the principal of the school sent a report home about my behavior, which my parents then had to sign and return. I certainly wouldn’t experience suspension as anything but a punishment.

My concern is that the kids are increasingly seeing the adults at the school (especially the non-classroom-teachers) as their adversaries. I don’t want my kids to fear and distrust the adults at their school. Even if everyone’s a little better behaved, it’s not worth it.

It doesn’t seem like you’re taking into account the way the kids are experiencing the increase in discipline, or the negative atmosphere it’s creating at the school. Do you at least agree that there are downsides to this intensified focus on behavior and discipline?

The principal’s reply:

Mr. Liebig -
By no means is my objective to scare or cause mistrust from the students I talk with. As I said, the behaviors (I believe) are the same- some of these behaviors, however, are behaviors that should have been worked through in the past and never were. That puts me in the position of having to work through the appropriate expectations when such behaviors do occur - so that the students, as a whole, are safe and respected by others. As I mentioned before, some of the students I have talked with, in the office or outside their classroom door, have never interacted with the principal before and, yes, If this is their first interaction, I do think that can cause some stress and fear (even if my tone is calm and non-threatening). This does not mean, however, that I should not address these concerns with these students. When I walk the hallways at Hoover or work in classrooms or with small groups of students, I do not have the feeling Hoover has a negative atmosphere - nor do the teachers and many of the parents I do see volunteering at school.

This response, like the previous one, seems to be responding to something I did not say. No one is suggesting that the school should not address misbehavior when it occurs. It doesn’t follow, though, that a draconian law-enforcement approach to discipline is the answer. There is more than one way to address misbehavior. Some ways are needlessly punitive, and some punishments don’t fit the crime. The school has a choice about how to handle discipline, and I’d like to discuss why it’s making the choice that it’s making, whether that choice has been needlessly extreme, and how that choice is affecting the kids and their experience of school. As a first step, I’d like to find out just how different this year’s approach is from last year’s.

Of course the principal herself doesn’t think the atmosphere is negative, just as other principals in our district didn’t see anything wrong with having kids rush through their lunches while bundled up in parkas and snow pants to preserve precious “instructional minutes.” Unsurprisingly, school administrators tend to overestimate people’s satisfaction with their policies. (The Synesi audit, for example, found that only 8% of our administrators think that the district is unresponsive to the needs of the community, while 44% of parents do.)

To be continued.
.

A parent asks a question (part two)

2012-01-27T00:28:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I posted my email to our elementary school’s principal asking how much of an increase there had been, compared to last year, in the number of disciplinary incident reports and suspensions. She replied that I would have to file a formal public records request to get an answer to that question. (She also cc-ed the superintendent and two assistant superintendents, who were then included in all of the correspondence that ensued.) My email in reply:

Well, I’m a little puzzled by that response. I’m just trying to get a sense of whether there’s been an increase in the disciplining of students this year at Hoover. I haven’t asked a lot of questions – maybe three emails this year? – and in the past I’ve always appreciated your willingness to answer them, even if the answer wasn’t what I wanted to hear. I’m not sure why your answer this time is so different. I don’t know any more now than I did before I asked the question.

As I’ve said before, I’m concerned about what Hoover is teaching the kids, and about the atmosphere the school is creating, through the way it handles discipline. Those are certainly issues that people can disagree about. But if it’s true that the school is issuing a lot more incident reports and suspensions than it did in the past, that would be an important thing for people to know as they think about whether Hoover should be handling discipline differently.

It’s true that, like most parents, I’m not active in the PTA, but I hope that doesn’t disqualify me from asking questions. I do read the PTA’s website and haven’t seen those questions answered in any of the material posted there.

I certainly didn’t think I was making a public records request. I’ve asked questions before about things happening at Hoover, and no one ever suggested that I had to make a public records request to get an answer. I don’t really understand how you’re deciding which questions you can just answer, and which ones require a public records request. In any event, without digging up the actual numbers, can you tell me whether it’s your impression that there’s been a significant increase in the number of incident reports and suspensions at Hoover this year?

The principal’s response:

In response, I have been advised to ask for public records paperwork to be completed if you would like specifics. As per the general question - no, I do not believe there has been an increase in behaviors at Hoover. The students, overall, are very well-behaved. There is, however, a difference in how those behaviors which are bad choices are being handled this year. This does affect our student discipline numbers - which are accurately being entered this year.
Thanks for your inquiry and if you would like more specifics I would be happy to send the paperwork request to you.

I found that response a little frustrating. I hadn’t asked whether misbehavior had increased; I asked whether incident reports and suspensions had. The principal’s response seems to imply that there’s been an increase – but doesn’t actually say it. And it seems to imply that it wasn’t her decision to insist on a records request (“I have been advised”) – but doesn’t actually say it. And it seems to imply that the previous principal didn’t keep accurate records -- but doesn’t actually say it. So has there been a significant increase, or not?

To be continued.
.

What’s going on at Hoover School? (continued)

2012-01-26T01:32:00.000-06:00

As I wrote here, a lot of the parents at our local elementary school have noticed an increase in the school’s use of disciplinary measures this year. In my view, the school was already overemphasizing behavior, to the point where school seemed to be more about being quiet and obedient than about inquiry or critical thought. But this year, the school seems so focused on behavior and discipline that it’s creating a negative, stressful atmosphere in which the kids increasingly see the adults at the school (especially the non-classroom teachers) as their adversaries.

I’ve written elsewhere about the school’s excessive emphasis on unquestioning compliance with school rules, and also about the atmosphere in the lunchroom, where the lunch attendants are constantly yelling at the children to be quiet during the few minutes they get to socialize over a meal. What’s new this year is the added layer of over-the-top discipline.

It’s hard to get a fix on what’s happening, since of course the school can’t talk about specific disciplinary incidents, but I’m certainly hearing things I haven’t heard in past years. I hear, for example, about the school accusing a third-grader (eight, nine years old?) of sexual harassment, requiring him to attend behavior classes, and threatening to expel him – all by letter to his parents. I hear about kids getting written up not for bullying, but for failing to report other kids for bullying. One parent told me that, after one particularly bad interaction her son had with the school, she has told her sons that if they are sent to the principal’s office, they can refuse to answer any questions until their parent arrives. I hear about whole groups of kids being punished because a few are too loud, and the kids being encouraged to police each other’s behavior if they want to avoid punishment themselves. One of the only two parents on the school’s PBIS Committee recently quit the committee because she felt that the school’s approach to behavior management was making the kids anxious and stressed out, and that the committee wasn’t taking those concerns seriously. I hear about more and more incident reports being sent home to parents, and suspensions, both in-school and out-of-school.

So last month I sent this email to the principal:

Hi – I’m just writing to ask about discipline at Hoover. It seems to me that there’s been a marked increase in the emphasis on discipline this year, and I’ve never heard so many stories of kids getting suspended or having incident reports sent home, etc. Is this just my imagination? If not, what is the rationale for the increase?

Is it possible for you to tell me how many incident reports and suspensions Hoover has had this year compared to last year? Of the suspensions, how many have been out-of-school as opposed to in-school? Again, it just sounds like it’s happening a lot more, but I don’t really know how to compare to previous years.

Thanks for any information,

The response, which was cc-ed to the superintendent and two assistant superintendents, was this:

Mr. Liebig -
I do post and share information in a public forum during PTA meetings. You are always welcome to attend these on the second Thursday evening of each month. Unfortunately, we are not meeting in December. The next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2012. I am referring you to the superintendent’s office, as this is a public records request. If you feel this is the route you would like to take, I can get the administrative procedure document from his office to send to you
Thank you

A public records request? Really? So much for transparency.

To be continued.
.

Can’t do

2012-01-25T20:36:00.001-06:00

Today’s Press-Citizen has a front-page article reporting on people’s complaints about the short, unpleasant lunch period at our local elementary schools. I am quoted in the article, but, as a Facebook holdout, I cannot post a comment on it. So I’ll do that here.

First, there is one factual inaccuracy that I must correct or I may never live it down. The article states, “Chris Liebig, a parent of three students at Hoover Elementary, said he packs his children’s lunches every day to ensure that they have the most time to eat it as possible.” In fact, my wife usually packs the lunches, not me.

Second, I wish the newspaper had fact-checked the district’s assertion that all the kids now get a full fifteen minutes to eat after going through the lunch line. I won’t say they haven’t made any efforts, but the fact remains that the kids who go through the lunch line still often end up with less than fifteen minutes to eat. (Not to mention that fifteen minutes is inadequate anyway.)

Third, the district asserts that “to allow more time for lunch, the district would have to lengthen the entire school day. “We need a longer school day,” [the assistant superintendent] said. “We would like that not only for a longer lunch but for the academics and also time for all the other things — art, music, P.E. — all the good things that happen at school.”

I don’t like the idea of lengthening the school day, because I don’t agree that, when it comes to school, more is better. Six and a half hours is enough time for kids to learn what they need to learn to make it to age twelve, and I think kids benefit from getting away from school, especially because our schools are becoming increasingly stressful places.

More importantly, it’s just baloney to suggest that the only way to add five minutes to lunch is to lengthen the school day. Six-year-olds could live with fifty-five minutes of math every day instead of an hour, and that’s just one example. (Much of the “guidance” program is another example.) Before the district panics at the effect on test scores, it should take a look at Finland.

Finally, why should anyone believe that the additional time in a longer school day would be devoted to anything other than what the existing time is devoted to? The reason there’s not enough lunch, art, music, etc., right now isn’t because there’s no time for it; it’s because the district has decided that raising standardized test scores is a higher priority. If you add more time to the day but fail to change that way of thinking, the extra time will ultimately go to more test prep. On the other hand, if you do change that way of thinking, there’s no need for the extra time.

We saw with the Longfellow class sizes what the district can do when it sets its mind to something. On the lunch issue, though, the administrators’ attitude is strictly can’t-do.
.

Different drummer

2012-01-20T20:09:00.000-06:00

I confess that I’m nerdy enough (and old enough) that one of my childhood idols was the once and future California governor, Jerry Brown. His girlfriend was Linda Ronstadt; he flirted with Eastern philosophy; he lived in an unfurnished apartment instead of the governor’s mansion, and dined on the floor; he was the Un-Candidate for President.

As youthful enthusiasms go, that one embarrasses me far less than most. (Ditto for Linda Ronstadt, come to think of it.) I even ended up voting for Brown years later, in the 1992 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary, which, surprisingly, he won. And now he’s governor again, and it turns out he’s the voice of reason on educational “reform”:

Deviating sharply from education reform policies championed by President Obama, California Gov. Jerry Brown is calling for limits on standardized testing and reduced roles for federal and state government in local schools. . . .

Besides taking on testing, Brown called for getting the federal and state government out of the details of schooling.

“What most needs to be avoided is concentrating more and more decision-making at the federal or state level,” Brown said. “We should set broad goals and have a good accountability system, leaving the real work to those closest to the students.... We should not impose excessive or detailed mandates.” . . .

The tests take “too damn long,” Brown told the [L.A. Times]. “Second-graders take five days of tests. That’s longer than I spent on the bar exam. I think that’s absurd. You’ve gotta have some room for creativity.”

He was similarly insistent about limiting the role of Washington.

“The federal government should butt out,” Brown said [last year]. “You have more and more people who aren’t teaching, who are managing the flow of the money and all the various rules and mandates.

“They have this idea that schools are like businesses and if you set the right metrics, can you reward and punish and you get the outcome,” Brown said. “I don't feel things quite work that way.”

Maybe this will earn Brown a new generation of young fans?

(Link c/o Mandy. Photos c/o Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.)
.

How education bureaucrats think of parents

2012-01-19T00:00:00.000-06:00

I want to thank Karen W. again for her post summarizing the governor’s education proposals. When I talk up the idea of meaningful local control over education, a lot of people are wary. Many people who are dissatisfied with their local schools think that the state should step in and fix them – until they see what the state wants to do. I hope people who have mixed feelings about local control will read through Karen’s post, or for that matter, will try dipping randomly into any literature generated by our state’s educational bureaucracy.

Karen linked, for example, to the state’s “Parent Information Resource,” so I clicked and took a look around. It wasn’t long before I was reaching for the Dramamine. The site is overflowing with the worst kind of bureaucratic edubabble (click here for a discussion of how to “assist district and building leadership in forming, developing, and facilitating an action team to make decisions and implement family engagement as one strategy to increase student achievement in the district or building”). Blogging about it extensively would be like shooting fish in a barrel, but I had to comment on this link, identifying “messages educators and community members can deliver to families regarding specific actions they can do that can impact their children’s school performance.” The theory is that if enough people deliver these messages “loudly and often” – “verbally and in writing” – then “student achievement may increase.”

Here are some of those “messages”:

Dear Families, this is what you can do at home to help your child do well in school! Teaching your child the names of colors will help him/her do better in school. Talk about colors when you are driving in the car, playing, or looking at pictures—anytime, any place! Our world is full of colors. When you are first teaching your child colors, name the color for him/her, “That car is red.” “The plate is red.” After you have done that several times, and for many days, ask your child to tell you what color the car is. Thanks!

Dear Families, this is what you can do at home to help your child do well in school! Children can learn new words at any time, in any place. Talk with children a lot. For example, when buying milk, “There are many kinds of milk. There is white milk (point to it), chocolate (point), and strawberry (point).”

Describe what you are doing. When cooking say, “I am going to stir flour into the melted butter. Then we will add sugar and chocolate chips.” Children who know and understand lots of words will be great readers!” Thanks!

Dear Families, this is what you can do at home to help your child do well in school! Tell your children often that school and learning is important. “Do your best in school! It is important to learn all that you can so you can get a good job when you grow up.” Thanks!

Dear Families, this is what you can do at home to help your child do well in school! Help your child get to school on time! You don’t want him/her to miss a minute of school!

Dear Families, this is what you can do at home to help your child do well in school! Many teachers have a system they follow for assigning homework. Some use assignment notebooks, folders, or sign-off sheets. Find out what the teachers want. Support the system by making sure you and your child do your part. Thanks!

And so on. The patronizing tone and infantilizing content epitomize the state’s attitude toward parents, and for that matter toward school boards, teachers, and kids. These are the people who should step in and tell us how to run our schools?

That one link could inspire a dozen rants, but I’ll just focus on just one aspect of it here: In the minds of our state educational overlords, what do struggling or disengaged parents need? Messages! Instruction. If those parents would just do as we say, the problem would be solved! It’s hard not to be reminded of the way our schools think about behavior and discipline. Forget about any effort to understand why people are acting as they do, to ask them what their needs are, or to address the root causes of their trouble. Just tell them what to do, “loudly and often.” (PBIS is the embodiment of that approach.) It’s an attitude that quickly segues into “If we make the instructions really clear and they still don’t follow them, then they get what they deserve.” All the worse when it’s aimed at seven- and eight-year-olds.
.

Guest Post: World-Class Schools?

2012-01-15T00:20:00.000-06:00

Karen W., who regularly comments here, has done us the service of wading through the details of Governor Branstad’s education proposal. Here is her summary and some of her thoughts. (One apology about the post title: I packed a lot more irony into that question mark than perhaps any one character ought to bear.)

The Branstad-Reynolds administration recently released a legislative brief describing their education reform recommendations for the 2012 legislative session. The details are now available in the 156 page Senate Study Bill 3009 available here. The recommendations, in a nutshell, are to further centralize control of Iowa public schools in the Iowa Department of Education (DE). (Note that I am summarizing primarily from the legislative brief—I haven’t had time to wade through SSB 3009 yet).

Section I—Great Teachers and Leaders. Proposes to have the DE control a statewide job listing and application system which would include the results of a required personality and disposition assessment of the applicant (even though 80% of districts voluntarily use another listing service). Proposes to require a 3.0 cumulative college GPA and a passing score on unspecified exams (likely Praxis exams) for admission to teacher preparation programs and to obtain a license without any serious public discussion about what prospective elementary teachers learn in the teacher preparation programs (hint: it isn’t the five components of science-based reading instruction—see the NCTQ report here). Proposes to bring educator licensure under the DE and relegate the current Board of Educational Examiners to handling ethics complaints. Proposes to create uniform systems of educator evaluation, lengthen teacher/administration probationary status, end judicial review of dismissals (lawyers make things complicated), and end seniority-based layoffs (introducing the opportunity for arbitrary decisions). Proposes to expand a School Administration Manager program (DE wants principals to be assigned other duties). Proposes that the DE will decide what professional development (PD) should be done each year and DE approval will be required for all PD programs (one-size-fits-all comes for teachers/districts). Proposes to create a task force on teacher leadership and compensation (which presumably will make the same recommendations already rejected at public meetings around the state).

Section II—High Expectations and Fair Measures. Proposes to provide model curricula to aid districts in implementing the Iowa Core standards (remember that the Iowa Core began as voluntary, model standards). Proposes to “expand the Iowa Core into other areas that have been neglected for too long, such as music and other fine arts, foreign languages, entrepreneurial education, physical education, applied arts, and character education” (note that there is no reason to think that school districts have neglected these areas so watch for recommendations for new assessments aligned to these new standards so teachers of these subjects can be drawn into standardized-test driven evaluation and accountability). Proposes more assessments: kindergarten readiness measures, high school end of course exams, PISA, and college and career readiness measures ($6.3 million). Proposes a value-added measure for accountability that will take student demographics into account. Proposes a statewide literacy program to support high-quality reading programs (from the same people who wrote balanced literacy into the Iowa Core) that includes a controversial third-grade retention component.

Section III—Innovation. Proposes an Innovation Acceleration Fund (amounting to $3.94 per student enrolled in public and accredited non-public schools). Proposes a pathway to competency-based education systems. Proposes expanding online learning opportunities. Proposes removing restrictions on charter schools, but just the ones limiting them to school districts so that universities, community colleges and nonprofit organizations could also apply. Proposes that the director of the DE have authority to waive compliance with rules and statutes to provide flexibility for school districts trying to improve learning (note use of the rule of man approach introduces the likelihood of arbitrary decisions—why not use a rule of law approach to create more certain flexibility by repealing rules and recommending the repeal of statutes that are identified as preventing districts from improving instruction?). Proposes a task force on time and schools even though Iowa students have more compulsory hours of instruction than students in Finland (see here and click on table—maybe we should be looking at more effective use of time rather than just adding more of it). Proposes a statewide parent engagement network. The legislative brief refers to the ISPIN program and IPIRC, which offer tips on how parents should take responsibility for homework completion, and what questions we should ask our children about school. SSB 3009 (p. 127) requires the DE to create a Statewide Parent Advocacy Network with parent representatives identified by the District Boards of Directors.

To what extent do we have “public” schools in Iowa anymore, in the sense that the public (local community to be served by the school district) has any meaningful participation in decision-making about the educational program offered by the district? The Iowa Core mandates what, when, and how students should learn. The Iowa Core favors use of technology, constructivism over instruction, balanced literacy over direct, explicit, systematic, and complete instruction in phonics, and has rejected traditional math and science. Is there any compelling reason these decisions (or any of the ones raised by the Branstad-Reynolds proposal) should be made at the state level rather than the local level?

Any thoughts on the Branstad-Reynolds education reform proposal are welcome. What action would you like to see the legislature take on education this session?
.

If only these boys could be more like girls

2012-01-13T01:23:00.000-06:00

A friend recently told me about her son, who graduated from our local high school a year or two ago. He had struggled throughout his school experience. He didn’t apply to college, but his mother hopes that he might eventually enroll in a vocational or technical program and learn a trade that he might enjoy. His school experience was so negative, though, that he’s reluctant to sign up for any more of it.

A few days later, another friend told me how concerned she was about her grandson, a high schooler here. He, too, had always struggled with school, even though he was a smart kid. He had had enough behavioral problems that he had been medicated for a large part of his childhood. His family finally decided that the medication was making him miserable – it was “killing him,” his grandmother said – and insisted that he be taken off it. Now he was trying to adjust to high school. He had found a subject that he liked – Chemistry – and she hoped that he might finally get some enjoyment from school. When she talked about the behavior problems he had experienced, we joked that there was a scientific name for it: it’s called “being a boy.”

I think of what it must be like to be a boy at my kids’ school. Of the sixteen classroom teachers at the school, one is male. The remaining fifteen are women, as are the principal, the office staff, the guidance counselor, the nurse, the gym teacher, the music teacher, the art teachers, the lunchroom staff, and the recess attendants. One of the special ed classrooms has a male teacher, and there is a male custodian that the kids seem to like.

I’m certainly not suggesting that you need to be male to teach boys, or that men are better teachers than women. Many of the school’s teachers are great at what they do, and the kids – both boys and girls – respond well to them. But kids are very aware of gender, and the virtual absence of men at the school must have an effect on them. It doesn’t help that the school’s administration has decided to ratchet up its emphasis on behavior and discipline. To any boy who has trouble meeting “expectations,” school must seem like the place where you go to have women lecture and scold you about your behavior and tell you to sit still and be quiet. What does that do to a kid’s self-concept? What does it do to his attitude toward women?

(And what does this atmosphere do to the girls’ conceptions of gender? The qualities most rewarded by the school – docility, obedience, quietness – are the very qualities that have served girls in particular so poorly. The “problem kids” are punished for not learning those qualities, and the “well-behaved” kids are punished by learning them.)

Shouldn’t the school at least reflect on this gender disparity, even if it can’t change it? If the school’s “expectations” are hurting, rather than helping, a significant number of kids, shouldn’t they be reexamined? Is it possible that the absence of male staff has an effect on how the school conceives of what is age-appropriate behavior? Does a group of women reach the same conclusions about what’s “appropriate” behavior as a group of men would?

Boys need role models – not just to show them what good behavior is, but to show them how good behavior can be consistent with masculinity. Who wouldn’t trade a thousand lectures on bullying for one instance of a respected male teacher treating a socially marginal kid as one of the guys, or de-escalating a conflict without losing face, or challenging a racial or homophobic slur? Not every male teacher could do that effectively; but even the best female teacher cannot model compassionate, kind, intelligent masculinity.

Unfortunately, it’s not always easy for a boy to be kind, or book-smart, or respectful of women, or tolerant toward people who are different, and still be accepted by his male peers. Boys need some examples to see how it can be done. Instead, at our school, they get lectures and behavior prizes and law-enforcement-style disciplinary practices. None of it addresses their need. If they have to choose between being good and being boys, I know what they’ll choose – even if it means deciding that they’re not cut out for school.
.

District addresses overcrowding issue

2012-01-07T12:59:00.001-06:00

In response to parents’ concerns about large class sizes, our school district has decided to dip into its cash reserves to hire ten new teachers, effective (almost) immediately. They will be hired as long-term substitutes; presumably the district will reevaluate the school-by-school numbers next year. Details here and here.

Three of the new teachers (one of whom will be part-time) will teach at Longfellow Elementary, where the parents’ petition originated, and where some classrooms had as many as 34 students. When I find out just how much smaller the affected classes there have become, I’ll report it in a comment to this post.

It would have been nice if the district had addressed the problem before it occurred, instead of waiting until enough parents made a stink about it; switching teachers in the middle of January has to be a little disruptive. But still, it’s great that the district made a real effort to respond to the parents’ concerns. Now when will they address lunch?
.

What is going on at Hoover School?

2012-01-05T21:24:00.000-06:00

I recently received this email from the parent of another child at our elementary school:

Hi, Chris.

I wonder if you’ve heard anything about kids at Hoover being suspended. I’ve just talked to a third parent who has mentioned it as something they've endured OR something they have been threatened with (via a letter, of course). In all three cases, the interaction with the administration at Hoover was dismal.

OK, here’s what I want to know: If PBIS is about POSITIVE behavior support, why are eight and nine year old kids getting SUSPENDED at Hoover? Isn’t suspension a punitive reaction? I keep hearing that it is a district policy but on what grounds are kids this age being suspended from school, losing that precious instructional time? In the cases I’ve heard of, the kids involved have been rough (hitting on the playground) or disruptive (walking around the classroom) but I cannot FATHOM how out-of-school suspension is the answer. Do you think we’re not hearing about it because those of us who are outraged at this idea have kids who don’t get in that kind of trouble?? I’m tempted to go straight to [Superintendent] Murley and ask about this.

Have you heard anything?

The school definitely seems to have intensified its (already over-the-top) focus on behavior this year, as I’ve described, for example, here and here. I have also heard more reports of disciplinary incidents and notes being sent home to parents. My sense is that the kids have experienced these changes as anything but “positive.” I think this parent’s question is a good one.

Update here.
.

Parents think our school district is unresponsive; administrators disagree

2012-01-04T17:31:00.000-06:00

As part of its audit of our school district’s operations, the auditing firm surveyed parents, community members, school teachers, staff, and administrators on several issues. It’s interesting to note the disparity between parents and administrators in some of the responses.

For example, half of the administrators agreed with the statement “School lunches are nutritional,” while only 37.5% disagreed. Among parents, though, only 21% agreed, while 54% disagreed.

Almost one-fifth of the parents disagreed with the statement “Overall school climate is positive and productive,” while 0% of the administrators disagreed.

As for “District is responsive to the needs of the community,” 44% of parents disagreed, as compared to only 8% of administrators. Only 30% of parents agreed, compared to 64% of administrators.

The teachers as a group generally fell between the parents and the administrators – but closer to the parents.
.

When will Iowa City give its schoolchildren a decent lunch?

2012-01-04T00:11:00.000-06:00

The school district has now released the outside audit it recently commissioned of district operations. The report contains all of the comments that people from the community submitted. What I found most striking was the number of comments, mostly negative, about the district’s school lunches. Many commented that the kids aren’t given enough time to eat. Many others complained about the food quality or the lunchroom atmosphere. Here are just a few of the comments:

I wish the kids had a little more time to EAT their lunch. I don’t like that kids get only one recess per day in the upper grades.

Lunches at the elementary level are HORRIBLE all the way around: * Children are not allowed enough time to eat. * The para-educators in charge of lunch run it like it’s a prison. * The “fixed somewhere else” and “warmed-up at the school” lunches are not appealing * The lunches all seem to be some variation of bread and cheese. Get rid of the behavior management system with tickets - or at least only put it in at schools with behavioral issues. It alienates good students and they think it is stupid.

Lunch time is also not adequate enough for kids to eat. I have to remind my daughter that it is not a race at the dinner table. We do a great disservice to our children by not teaching them to sit down and relax, enjoy the meal.

The students have way too little time to consume their lunches. We are teaching them to grab whatever can be “downed” quickly to be able to have something to eat at lunch.

Children need more time for lunch. They currently do not get the minimum amount recommend by the US government. Also healthier foods take longer to eat. With less than 15 minutes to actually eat, we are setting our children up to make poor eating choices and increasing the risk of obesity.

While some attention has been paid to improving the quality of the school lunches, there is little attention paid to the time children can eat their lunches. For elementary school kids, 15 minutes is not enough time. Many school kids (and parents) have indicated this in past years - and physicians and pediatricians know this. Why has the ICCSD done nothing about this?

I can not stand to be in the lunchroom during lunch at our school.

Then even the atmosphere of the lunch room was not good. They hurry the kids along to gobble their food down, without even being able to enjoy it, and then to get the kids to quiet down when it is time to dismiss for lunch, THEY RING A VERY LOUD AND ANNOYING WINDCHIME!!! That is probably one of the WORST lunch experiences I have ever had!

Lunches...too little time for k-6 to eat, even lunches from home aren’t finished because there wasn’t enough time.

More time to eat should be provided for kids instead of herding them through lunch like cattle.

I feel school lunches are a very negative time. Students are forced to be quiet and wear their coats while they eat.

I also hear from my children how they feel extremely rushed to eat and sometimes don't have enough time to eat their

School lunches are horrible!!! Everything is cunned or frozen or full of chemicals (like meat). I wouldn’t feed this to a dog.

Students must NOT be rushed through lunch.

Also, my child doesn’t get enough time to eat and the kids eat while having whistles blown in their ears. It is not a relaxing atmosphere for eating. It promotes rushing and gives my child a headache with all the shrill blows of the whistle.

I visit my kids regularly at lunch time and am appalled with the content and quality.

Lunch time was a concern for us. The past two years seemed to us like the children were being rushed out of the lunch room. . . . We were lucky if our child had 10 minutes to eat.

The school lunches are a joke, and worse, the time provided for elementary kids to eat lunch is embarrassing, dangerous, and conducive for unproductive afternoons. I realize time if finite, but food and nutrition matter. They matter to learning. . . . And really ... chocolate and strawberry milk? Why even offer that? Wouldn’t it be easier to just create a pill that causes diabetes and obesity and force them to take it?

Why do we invite the Extension office in to talk about “Pick A Better Snack” while simultaneously feeding our children preprocessed, greasy, unappetizing food for lunch?

The school lunches are awful and I will not let my children eat them.

From the report’s conclusions: “There are near universal complaints in regards to the quality of food at the elementary school level from community and school-based staff, but the Food Services department does not agree.” No mention, in its conclusions, of how short the lunch periods are (though the auditors may have seen that issue as falling outside the scope of their review).
.

Year-end blog roundup

2011-12-28T17:23:00.000-06:00

Batocchio at Vagabond Scholar has posted his annual list of Best Blog Posts of the Year (Chosen by the Bloggers Themselves). Batocchio’s list is a nice way of promoting small blogs (I’ve been getting a lot of new visitors today as a result of my own entry) and can lead you to some interesting finds.
.

Our school’s message to students

2011-12-22T02:16:00.000-06:00

I’m afraid our elementary school’s recent message to students on its website is more revealing than inspiring:

Students: We are proud of your accomplishments so far this year! Congratulations on completion of the many assessments that have occurred: DIBELS, DRAs, Iowa Assessments, and the District Writing Assessment. Your behavior and academic achievements are to be commended!

I know a lot of kids at this school. There are so many things to be proud of them for. Being well-behaved test-takers is very, very low on that list.

(Via Doris.)
.

“Kids as grist for the law enforcement mill”

2011-12-21T17:23:00.000-06:00

Charles Pierce at Esquire, reflecting on youth arrest rates, writes that “something is seriously out of whack in the way we’re asking our law enforcement community to interact with our children”:

We have raised, and are now raising, generations of children who are completely ignorant of the rights they have as citizens, and we are doing it through the application of the most coercive powers the state possesses.

Read the whole post.
.

Does Jason Glass know better than you do?

2011-12-20T23:54:00.000-06:00

The latest “education reform” talking point is that class size doesn’t matter. It’s been empirically proven!

[Economist Roland] Fryer found that class size, per-pupil spending, and the number of teachers with certifications or advanced degrees had nothing to do with student test scores in language and math.
. . .

Schools that focused on teacher development, data-driven instruction, creating a culture focused on student achievement, and setting high academic expectations consistently fared better.

I remember taking an SAT prep course when I was in high school. We all listened as the instructor worked through exercises designed to get our test scores up. I suspect it was all very data-driven. If that’s your vision of education, it’s probably true that class size is largely irrelevant. And who could want more for their children?

One of the people arguing that class size is unimportant is our State Director of Education, Jason Glass. “Given where class sizes currently are in most schools in the United States, I am willing to trade holding the line or even slightly increasing class size in exchange for improving educator effectiveness.” With that stance, Glass couldn’t get elected to any school board in the state of Iowa. Yet he has more control over our kids’ education than any school board has. What’s wrong with this picture?
.

A more human scale

2011-12-19T23:31:00.000-06:00

Detail of Leviathan, from Giacomo
Rossignolo’s fresco, “The Last Judgment.”

Mark Mitchell writes this about the European economic crisis:

Ultimately, the issue turns on matters of scale. Through this lens, the current crisis (and this is merely part of a broader crisis that extends beyond Europe) appears as a failure to appreciate the fact that optimal human institutions—those that facilitate human flourishing—cannot exceed a certain scale, and when they do, they will inevitably suffer.

Europe’s problems, then, present an opportunity to reconsider ideas that have been ignored for too long. A renewed commitment to the principles of political decentralism, economic localism, and cultural regionalism is a radical prescription for a Europe haunted by the specter of unity, but it would provide the opportunity for Europeans to reconsider the meaning of citizenship, culture, and community on a scale that is meaningful, which is to say, suited to human beings.

Couldn’t he just as easily be talking about America’s approach to education? Anyone who’s had any interaction with their local school system knows how un-local it actually is: there’s always someone higher up to blame for whatever is being done. The federal government has effectively dictated a uniform philosophy of education – one that sees its only goal as raising standardized test scores – and the states have filled in the blanks by dictating what local school systems can and cannot do. Even within a school district, it’s never clear exactly where the buck stops – The principal? The superintendent? The school board? In the face of such a huge, increasingly centralized bureaucracy, the natural response is resignation and learned helplessness.

Isn’t that more human scale a part of what you get for your tuition dollars at a private school? Why deny it to public school students?

The concentration of policymaking power in the hands of federal officials (and to a lesser extent state officials) seems to reflect nothing but a prevailing sense that ordinary people cannot be trusted to make good decisions and need to be told what to do, for their own good. This attitude infects the entire educational system – from the way the federal government treats the states, to the way the states treat the local school boards, administrators, and teachers, and most of all to the way everyone treats the kids. It equates power with superior judgment. Why give people autonomy when you know better than they do?
.

Some company in Maine

2011-12-17T11:33:00.001-06:00

In the comments to this post, Emily G. mentioned that she was working on an article about parents’ objections to PBIS in her small town in Maine. That article is now available here.

The parents’ objections to the program are very similar to those raised here:

“It felt to me like they were frequently sort of at risk of getting in trouble for being too loud,” [one parent] said. “Of all the things I would like my kid’s school to emphasize, I would like them to emphasize academic effort ... and being a good friend,” not quiet and obedience.

Parents also complained about lunchroom aides “yelling into microphones for students to be quiet,” and the “a huge disconnect between the culture of the school this year and the culture of the schools last year.” The article also contains the usual euphemisms and excuse-making on PBIS’s behalf – that it’s about feedback to create “social confidence,” and that if there’s any problem, it must be with how the program is being implemented, not with PBIS itself.

Check out the article’s sidebar as well – apparently a school board member criticized teachers for presenting only a one-sided picture of PBIS rather than discussing both the program’s strengths and drawbacks. The board member later apologized for using terms like “dog-and-pony show” and “rah-rah session” to describe the teachers’ presentation, but maintained that the school department had highlighted only “the positive side of an issue rather than making a balanced presentation.”

Sound familiar? The main difference seems to be in how actively the school board members are scrutinizing what’s going on their schools.

Maine readers: A more complete statement of my objections to PBIS appears here.
.

Some thoughts on “bullying”

2011-12-12T02:07:00.001-06:00

Glenn Greenwald has a post up about the use of the word “terrorism.” An excerpt:

This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they’re Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they’re Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they’re Terrorists, etc. etc. It’s a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.

I wonder if a similar phenomenon is starting to occur with the word “bullying.” Of course, no one likes a bully, and we’d all like to see less bullying in schools. But when I hear people talk about a “War on Bullying,” and about “crackdowns” and “zero tolerance,” and when I hear the word applied to an increasing range of conduct (see Iowa City’s definition here), I get an uncomfortable sense of deja vu. I can’t help wondering whether the word “bullying” is being used as a rhetorical tool to generate support for – or quell opposition to – the schools’ use of increasingly authoritarian practices to “manage behavior.” Is policing more conduct and punishing more kids the best way to teach kids to treat each other well?

I don’t think we should take the War on Drugs, for example, as our model for how to address a social problem. Bullying, like drug abuse, is a real problem, but it doesn’t automatically follow that a heavy-handed law enforcement approach is the solution.

This is particularly true in the context of bullying, because the more schools use coercion to address bullying, the more they are modeling coercive behavior. The school, after all, is telling the kids how to act, giving them no say in what it demands of them, then policing their behavior and punishing them if they don’t comply – sometimes even casting them out of the community (via suspension or expulsion). Schools can’t avoid doing some of that. But consider how often “bullying” resembles those same actions. Is it possible that some of the bullies are acting out what they see around them? How confident can we be that, if the school intensifies its focus on punitive enforcement, the kids will start to treat each other better instead of worse? And shouldn’t we be concerned about the other values that end up getting taught – even to the “well-behaved” kids – the more the school starts resembling a police state?

Greenwald and others have also written about the double standard that often applies when the words “terrorism” and “torture” are used to refer only to what other people do, and not to what we do. Similarly, it’s hard to come up with a fair definition of “bullying” that wouldn’t apply to some of what schools do to kids in the name of compulsory learning. When one kid coerces and intimidates another, it’s “bullying.” When the school coerces and intimidates the kids, it’s apparently something else – maybe “enhanced education techniques”?

The first step to addressing bullying should be to model humane treatment of other people. Schools, given the power they have over the children who attend them, are in a particularly good position to model humane treatment of those who are weaker and more vulnerable. Wouldn’t that necessarily involve giving them some say over their own treatment? Wouldn’t it involve treating them more gently, and with more understanding, dignity, and compassion, than one could get away with? What else is bullying but a disregard, through superior force, of those principles?
.

Questions you’re not supposed to ask

2011-12-06T21:14:00.001-06:00

The Answer Sheet reports on a school board member who decided to take his state’s high-stakes standardized tests and make his scores public, because of his growing doubts about the tests’ value:

“I won’t beat around the bush,” he wrote in an email. “The math section had 60 questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but managed to guess ten out of the 60 correctly. On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.

He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate.

“I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities.

. . .

“It might be argued that I’ve been out of school too long, that if I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material would have been fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took.”

Yet the unquestionable “need” to raise those test scores now drives everything that happens in our schools. How much drudgery and obedience training have been imposed on kids for the sake of it? The article continues:

My school board member-friend concluded his email with this: “I can’t escape the conclusion that those of us who are expected to follow through on decisions that have been made for us are doing something ethically questionable.”

I can’t escape that conclusion either. Read the whole post. My related thoughts here.
.

How many classroom teachers would this pay for?

2011-12-03T01:45:00.000-06:00

There is a now just a year-and-a-half left in the federal grant that funds our district’s pervasive behavioral rewards program, PBIS. Apparently it’s unthinkable to stop the program now – regardless of whether it’s harming our kids’ educations – because then we might have to give some money back. But isn’t it time for the school board to start thinking about whether it will continue this program – with district money – once the federal funding runs out?

Of course, I think the program has been an unmitigated disaster, and outright harmful to the kids. But even those who feel less strongly will have to ask: does the district really want to pour resources into a program like PBIS when it could devote those same resources to other goals – such as reducing class sizes?
.

Treating kids like pets, continued

2011-12-03T01:30:00.000-06:00

I.P. Pavlov in his laboratory

Commenter Hienuri’s mention of Stalinist Russia reminded me of this passage from A People’s Tragedy, Orlando Figes’s history of the Russian Revolution:

In October 1919, according to legend, Lenin paid a secret visit to the laboratory of the great physiologist I.P. Pavlov to find out if his work on the conditional reflexes of the brain might help the Bolsheviks control human behaviour. “I want the masses of Russia to follow a Communistic pattern of thinking and reacting,” Lenin explained. “There was too much individualism in the Russia of the past. Communism does not tolerate individualistic tendencies. They are harmful. They interfere with our plans. We must abolish individualism.” Pavlov was astounded. It seemed that Lenin wanted him to do for humans what he had already done for dogs. “Do you mean that you would like to standardize the population of Russia? Make them all behave in the same way?” he asked. “Exactly,” replied Lenin. “Man can be corrected. Man can be made what we want him to be.”

Whether it happened or not, the story illustrates a general truth: the ultimate aim of the Communist system was the transformation of human nature. It was an aim shared by the other so-called totalitarian regimes of the inter-war period.

Obviously Iowa City is not Soviet Russia. But when you hear someone theorizing about the potential of operant conditioning to make everyone behave in a standardized way, it’s hard not to think of PBIS. And when you look at PBIS’s promotional materials, it’s hard not to recognize some of that transformational utopianism that seems to go hand in hand with a totalitarian mindset. The common link is a view of people as objects to be manipulated, rather than thinking autonomous beings to be engaged.
.

What is our school teaching about liberty and justice?

2011-11-28T22:41:00.001-06:00

Reproduction of a poster that appears
in the movie “Brazil,” purchasable here

In America, if you commit a crime, the state can jail your friends and neighbors. In America, the state can punish an entire group whenever it is too hard to sort out the innocent from the guilty. In America, you have to monitor your neighbors’ conduct, and you can be punished if you fail to report their crimes. In America, it is your duty to pressure your fellow citizens into obeying the authorities, even if you have no say in what the authorities demand. In America, you must always be willing to sacrifice your freedom in the name of law and order.

Any school that taught those false statements in a civics class would be guilty of gross educational malpractice. I worry, though, that my kids’ school is teaching them every day, in the way it handles discipline. In its zeal to enforce behavioral rules, the school is willing to punish the innocent along with the guilty, and to coerce the kids into serving as informants on one another.

Take the lunchroom. As I described here, our school is engaged in a baffling War on Lunchroom Noise, even though both parents and kids report that the lunchroom is not all that noisy, and even though no one even bothers to close the door to the room during lunch, and even though the gym classes held in the same room are significantly noisier. To achieve this dubious goal of a needlessly quiet lunchroom, the lunchroom attendants make a special point of telling the kids that their whole table (of up to sixteen kids) will be punished – by having to eat in silence – if any of them are too noisy, and so they had all better pay attention to how their table-mates are behaving. If the room gets “too noisy,” the person in charge tells the kids to raise their hands if their “neighbors” are talking.

Similarly, if the school catches a child bullying another child, it doesn’t stop at disciplining the bully. Now, apparently, the school has taken to disciplining kids who happened to see the bullying and did not report it. In such a case, the school sends an incident report to the bystander’s parents, telling them to sign it and return it to the school.

Last year, as I described here, a teacher told a roomful of kids to search each other’s desks and backpacks to find an eraser that had supposedly been stolen from the teacher’s desk.

Why would a school choose to model values and practices that are so contrary to those that our country stands for?

Collective punishment – that is, punishing an entire group for the actions of a few – has a long, ugly history. In the American criminal justice system, its use would be unconstitutional. Its use during armed conflict is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. The International Committee of the Red Cross, in its commentary on the Convention, explains that collective punishment defies “the most elementary principles of humanity,” and that collective punishment and related measures “strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice.”

Requiring people to police each other’s conduct, and to report each other’s offenses to the authorities, also raises serious concerns about individual civil liberties. The general rule in America is that citizens have no legal duty to report crimes that they witness. Though such a duty would certainly have some positive effects, American law has generally rejected it, and for good reasons. Such a duty would greatly expand the power of the state over the individual. By requiring everyone to mind everyone else’s business, such a duty would make every citizen an involuntary agent of the police, and would give the state a pretext to arrest any number of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The practice evokes images of the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy era. Like collective punishment, it is one of the hallmarks of a police state.

It makes sense for the school to encourage kids to report bullying, but the school shouldn’t punish kids for not reporting other kids. Better to cultivate kids’ empathy for the victims of bullying than to depend on their fear of being punished. (When it comes to discipline, it sometimes seems like our school knows of only two ways to engage with children: carrot and stick.) As for the lunchroom, it seems like the school is going out of its way to teach these authoritarian values. The “problem” of lunchroom noise is one invented by the school; the kids in surrounding classrooms aren’t bothered by it, as the school basically acknowledges by leaving the lunchroom door open. And besides, is it really that hard to figure out which kids in the lunchroom are the noisy ones, without enlisting the other kids to become informants?

The school preaches that kids should resist peer pressure. But with these practices, it employs and encourages peer pressure as a tactic to enforce compliance with school rules.

Do the school personnel think that their treatment of the kids has no effect on what the kids will come to see as normal and acceptable? That what they model has no effect on what the kids learn? Or is it that they don’t care what the kids are learning, as long as they’re quiet and following the rules?
.

PBIS: Inherently bad, or just badly implemented?

2011-11-28T22:06:00.001-06:00

I received this email today from Dan Howard:

Hey Chris....Originally intended this as a comment on the blog, but it was too long:

I’ve been reading your blog for a few months now, and have been meaning to comment on many of your posts, and to thank you for creating a great forum that points out many of the problems with “rewards” based systems like PBIS. Having worked in many schools that utilize this model, and also having been a part of the early development of PBIS back when it was used primarily in organizations that provide services to people with intellectual disabilities, I have some insight into how and why PBIS has developed into something that it was never intended to be in the first place. Your assertion that it circumvents moral reasoning and fails on many levels is completely and sadly accurate. But if people understood what PBIS was really intended to do and be, it would be different.

PBIS was never intended to be a “system.” When it was first put forth back in the late 80’s, it was intended to help instill a set of *values* that would guide the actions, responses, and priorities of the *adults* and other people providing services-i.e., teachers. It was a simple introduction to the notion that it’s important to focus more on what kids are doing right than on what they’re doing wrong. The whole “5 positives to 1 negative” thing. And most importantly, it was designed to break negative behavioral patterns of the adults who were getting more and more frustrated by the behavior of their students, and reacting in an angry manner that virtually always made things worse.

Unfortunately, over the years, a few things have happened that have shifted the focus of PBIS onto student behavior. First, in every school that I’ve ever worked in (and that number is well into the dozens now), there exists a core group of teachers/staff who simply do NOT want to hear that the behavior of teachers has anything to do with the problems that exist. They are completely and utterly unwilling to listen to the idea that if they were to actively change the way they approach students, they might experience positive results. Instead, they choose to believe that all of the problems come down to the students themselves, their families, and/or lack of administrative support for the old, “tougher” policies that used to govern student behavior. They see this whole “positive behavior support” stuff as utter nonsense, and they refuse to integrate it into their way of doing business. The program is undermined before it even starts.

Secondly, PBIS is its own worst enemy because it selects the wrong metric by which it measures “success.” Specifically, it looks at out-of-classroom referrals as an indicator of whether or not the program is having a positive impact. This is absolutely a ridiculous barometer. Many teachers, who don’t buy into the program, know that they’re being evaluated on the number of students that they send to the office, so they simply “go underground” and refuse to ever send anyone down, even when the behavior merits such an action. This skews the data in a way that makes it impossible to reach meaningful conclusions, and it also leads to an increase in the amount of time lost to behavioral intervention in the classroom because those students are no longer being removed when appropriate. A better metric would be “academic time lost to behavioral intervention,” but that would be another discussion entirely.

PBIS, in and of itself, has the potential to do wonderful things for schools, staff, and most importantly, students. But it has to be implemented in a manner that’s far more sophisticated than what most schools are doing today. And sadly, I believe that most schools lack the capacity to implement it in a truly meaningful way.

Ultimately, is it harmful? Probably not. Most of us that get upset by the way it’s implemented are the parents of kids who don’t need a system like this in the first place. We find ourselves most upset by the inequity of the reward system. How can my daughters, who haven’t been “in trouble” a single time in their entire school careers, have fewer of those stupid reward bracelets than the juvenile delinquent that sits next to them? It’s maddening, and it creates a situation where the parents who are most likely to become active and involved are furious about the program before they even have a chance to understand its intent.

But that doesn’t harm *our* kids. The kids that pay the price are the ones who really need to be integrated into a system that focuses exclusively on teaching what positive behavior looks and feels like-which is what PBIS was intended to be. Unfortunately, we’ve stopped focusing on the more sophisticated aspects of behavior (in large part because we simply don’t know how to teach it), and have instead resorted to the notion that simply “following the rules” is what constitutes good behavior.

It’s sad, because PBIS has so much more potential than that. It’s really the people that are implementing the program that are to blame, not the program itself......

All the best....

A lot of interesting material to discuss in there. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

1. First, I want to thank Dan for that thoughtful and informative email. Needless to say, I share a lot of his concerns – though not his enthusiasm for the basic PBIS concept. I’m sure there’s a lot of truth to the interaction he describes between teachers who are willing to consider whether their own conduct toward the kids might have an effect on making the situation better or worse, and those who aren’t. On the other hand, as anyone who reads this blog knows, I have some sympathy with people who see “positive behavior support” as utter nonsense, and I suspect that some of those resistant teachers might have some good points – especially about whether PBIS is more “positive” in any meaningful sense.

2. Dan’s point about the spuriousness of “office referrals” as a measure is one I’ve wondered about myself. Any genuinely scientific approach to evidence would be concerned with ruling out plausible alternative explanations for the data. How can any of the empirical studies about PBIS rule out the dynamic that Dan identifies: teachers naturally referring fewer kids for office referrals if they know that’s what the boss wants?

3. When Dan talks about teachers “getting more and more frustrated with the behavior of their students,” I’d like to hear his thoughts about why that’s happened. Have kids fundamentally changed? Or have schools’ expectations of them ratcheted unrealistically upward? Given the increasing pressure the government has put on schools to “show results,” the latter strikes me the likelier explanation.

4. I can’t agree with Dan that PBIS in its originally intended form would be a beneficial program, though I can’t know for sure what everyone’s original vision for the program was. In my view, PBIS is simply too inextricably tied to the use of extrinsic motivation – i.e., obtaining the desired behavior through the use of material rewards – and thus too divorced from actually engaging the students’ minds about their own conduct.

5. I have heard other people make Dan’s point that PBIS is really there to get the teachers to change their behavior toward the kids. I can see how this is a (relatively) enlightened take on the program, but it’s not borne out by what the program actually does, even in its ideal form. If all we cared about was trying to get the teachers to be more positive toward the kids, why all the emphasis on material rewards to the kids? Why wouldn’t verbal praise – in particular, a genuine “thank you” – be enough? Why the weekly prize lotteries, and why focus the kids on accumulating as many rewards as they can? Why wouldn’t we just keep track of how positive the teachers are – why not give them the material rewards and the weekly prizes? In other words, it’s a nice way to put a happy face on the program, but it’s always struck me as more of a public relations talking point than an actual description of the program’s goal.

6. I agree with Dan that PBIS is harmful to kids who have trouble “behaving,” but I can’t agree that it doesn’t do any harm to well-behaved kids. I think it harms all kids because of the authoritarian values that inevitably get taught whenever the school ratchets up its focus on behavior, and because it pays no attention to why the kids behave the way they do, and because of what it models about how to interact with other people, and because of what it teaches about what it means to be “good” (to name just a few reasons!). I think it’s possible to be too “well-behaved” and too mindlessly obedient, and to be well-behaved for bad reasons (such as greed, fear, or excessive deference to authority), and to be too people-pleasing rather than to think for oneself. PBIS encourages and rewards all of those things, and I do worry about the effect it’s having on my kids.

I think we’re too often asked to believe that what schools do well will have a lasting effect on the kids’ lives, but what they do poorly is harmless and won’t make any difference.

7. No discussion of discipline should be allowed to sidestep these two questions: First, are the school’s behavioral rules necessary, realistic, and age-appropriate? Second, what is the school teaching and modeling by the way it approaches discipline? I don’t think that school officials take either of those questions seriously. Dan mentions the staff who refuse to consider that their own conduct can have anything to do with the problems that exist. I think that problem extends to school in general: the assumption is that the problem cannot possibly be with what schools are demanding of kids. If the kids can’t comply with the expectations, the problem is always with the kid, not the expectations. The school’s idea of scrutinizing its own role is limited to examining whether they have made the rules really, really clear -- and the only result is the overemphasis on “expectations” described here.

The school decides that the kids need to eat more quietly, because – well, just because. Then they do whatever they think they can do to make the kids be quiet, regardless of what it teaches.

This post is now officially way too long, but these are great issues to discuss. Again, thanks to Dan for his thought-provoking comments.
.

Nobody noticed

2011-11-27T20:30:00.000-06:00

LAB’s comment on a recent post seemed worthy of a post of its own:

I have a child with ASD, and this kind of nonsense is the cornerstone of special education in the public schools. Teachers and aides are breathing down the necks of special ed kids in this country, making sure they don’t “disrupt” or do something unusual. Now the schools have expanded on this idea, called it “PBIS,” and are applying these ABA-style reward/punishment behavior modifications to all students. Nobody noticed when special ed kids were being treated this way for years, but now that the icky approach used to keep them in line is being used with all kids, some people are sitting up to take notice. Thank god! So-called “positive behavior supports” are simply threats and punishments dressed up as lessons of respect and harmony. We fought for positive behavior supports for our son (as opposed to outright punishment) in public school...until we actually saw what this entailed. It’s just another way to punish kids for being less than perfect. Worst of all is that, for something like PBIS (or any ABA or reward/punishment system), it matters who is doing the punishing and the rewarding. It’s often random, at the whim or mood of the teacher or lunchroom aide, or something the same “good” kids benefit from and the same “bad” kids suffer at the hands of. You are describing our public school exactly when you say they have become obsessed with monitoring every aspect of the students’ behavior. Pure hell for both my kids. We pulled them out.

I think this comment raises some good questions. I hear about what goes on in the special ed classrooms in our elementary school, and I recognize a lot of the things I’ve been writing about on this site – except taken to an even greater extreme. I haven’t written about it here, though – not because I haven’t noticed it, but because I don’t feel sufficiently informed to make a judgment about what kids in special education need. I can’t be sure what I’d do, or what I’d want, if I were in those parents’ shoes, so it seems presumptuous to express a strong opinion about it. But I’ve wondered whether that means that I’m turning a blind eye to the treatment of kids in special ed – passively deferring to “expertise” in ways that I never would for kids in general education classrooms. How should parents like me think about our schools’ special education practices?
.

Talking down to kids

2011-11-21T00:13:00.000-06:00

I went to work the other day and there was a sign posted near the faculty offices. On the sign was a photo of smiling faculty members walking single-file down the hall. Under the picture, it said: “I walk quietly down the hallways. I never run, talk on my cell phone, or disturb people who are working in nearby offices.” Above the photo, in big letters, it said, “Hallway Expectations.”

Actually, that never happened. If it did, you can bet that there would be a minor uprising. Not because the “expectations” themselves would offend, but because the sign would be so condescending.

Yet there are signs just like that one throughout my kids’ school. “Restroom Expectations,” one sign says. It then elaborates:

I use a 0 or 1 voice level.

I flush the toilet when I am finished.

I wash my hands with ONE pump of soap and TWO pulls for a paper towel.

I take care of my business quickly!

I report inappropriate activities.

Above each “expectation” there is an instructive photo of one of the school’s students, including one of a second-grade boy flushing the toilet.

Why do people think that kids prefer, or need, to be addressed in such an infantilizing way? What would be wrong with a sign that said simply, “Please flush the toilet,” or “Please keep your voice down in the bathroom?”

I wonder whether those signs serve the needs of the adults who make them more than of the kids who read them. I wonder the same thing about the euphemisms that are so common at the school, such as calling rules “expectations,” and calling obedience “respect.” Maybe the proliferation of rules, the ubiquitous reminders of them, and the obsessive emphasis on behavior make the school staff uncomfortably aware of how much the school is starting to look like an obedience training academy. Much better to pretend that the kids themselves are issuing the rules – with smiles on their faces, no less.
.

“The point is that it works!”

2011-11-18T00:05:00.000-06:00

I’ve posted before about how our school’s elaborate behavioral rewards program, PBIS, teaches the kids to adopt the most primitive form of moral reasoning: “I should do as I’m told because then I’ll get a material reward.” In fact, by attempting to elicit automatic, unthinking responses to the prospect of a reward, the program arguably tries to short-circuit moral reasoning entirely. When I point that out to people who work in the schools, though, they inevitably respond with some variation of “But it works!” What they mean is that it increases compliance with school rules and reduces office referrals. They have no idea what effects it might be having on the kids’ values, and on their sense of right and wrong, and they don’t care. If it increases compliance and reduces office referrals, how could anyone object?

I couldn’t help but think of those conversations when I recently re-watched parts of A Clockwork Orange (prompted by my mention of it in this post). The story, as you probably already know, is set in a dystopian world in which violent young hoodlums roam the streets raping and murdering. One of them, Alex, is caught and subjected to an elaborate behavioral modification treatment designed to make him physically ill whenever he is tempted to do wrong. In one scene, the Minister of the Interior demonstrates the effectiveness of the treatment by bringing Alex, who has been “cured,” in front of an audience of government officials. A man comes on stage and insults and assaults Alex, but Alex does not fight back. A nearly naked woman appears on stage, but Alex’s arousal makes him fall ill. At the end of the demonstration, the prison chaplain protests:

Prison Chaplain: Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest – the fear of physical pain – drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice!

Minister of the Interior: Padre, these are subtleties. We are not concerned with motives, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime! And with relieving the ghastly congestion in our prisons. He will be your true Christian, ready to turn the other cheek, ready to be crucified rather than crucify, sick to the very heart at the thought even of killing a fly. Reclamation! Joy before the angels of God! The point is that it works!

Wouldn’t that Minister of the Interior make a great PBIS Facilitator?
.

Overcrowding at Longfellow Elementary

2011-11-16T22:06:00.001-06:00

Parents at Longfellow Elementary are concerned about the school’s unusually high class sizes, and have started a petition to bring the issue to the attention of the school board and superintendent. Some Longfellow fifth-and-sixth-grade classrooms, which are smallish rooms to begin with, have thirty-four kids in them. By comparison, my daughter’s fifth-and-sixth-grade class at Hoover, a few blocks down the road, has twenty-five students in it. Here’s the petition. From the Press-Citizen’s coverage:

“I feel as a parent, as someone who’s volunteered in the classroom every year, there’s a level of stress in the building that I haven’t felt,” said [Maeve] Clarke, the mother of a Longfellow second-grader. “There’s an overemphasis, out of necessity, of focusing on being quiet, staying in line, at the expense of focusing on learning.”

A few observations:

First, I support the petition. Thirty-four kids is way too many for one classroom, and it’s hard to understand why one school should have such a disproportionate number of large classes. Unfortunately, smaller class sizes, like those at Hoover, haven’t prevented the additional stress on the kids and the overemphasis on being quiet and staying in line, because of PBIS. Longfellow is just now in its second year of using PBIS.

Second, the superintendent points out that class size is driven in large part by the legislature’s determination of annual “allowable growth” for school district spending. It seems at least worth asking why state law should prevent a school district from choosing, through its elected representatives, to raise and spend more than the state-mandated amount of money on public education.

Third, if the overcrowding gets any worse, Longfellow parents might want to try what Detroit parents tried.
.

Do they think that kids think?

2011-11-15T22:03:00.001-06:00

I would think that educators of any stripe – and anyone who has any interaction with children – would agree on one thing: Kids are constantly trying to make sense of the world. Though they may not always be learning what adults want them to learn, kids’ minds are working overtime to figure out the people and things around them – from the workings of an iPod to the subtleties of their parents’ and teachers’ facial expressions and tones of voice, or the way a basketball bounces, or the way their friends react to them, or the sorts of things people do and don’t do, believe and don’t believe, value and don’t value. This project of understanding how the world works – processing, synthesizing, considering and reconsidering, weighing cause and effect, testing one’s understanding against reality and adjusting it accordingly, making sense of things – is practically the essence of childhood.

That’s one reason I’m continually puzzled and disappointed by our school’s embrace of PBIS, its elaborate behavioral rewards program. This program, under which the school is continually giving the kids token rewards and prizes for complying with school rules, evinces absolutely no interest in the workings of kids’ minds. To PBIS, a child is simply a collection of behaviors. If offering material rewards evokes the desired behaviors, then mission accomplished!

But what do the kids make of this extensive, openly manipulative intervention in their lives? How do they understand it? Why do they respond the way they do? Do they conclude that “good behavior” means doing whatever leads to profit? Do they devalue “being good” as something you would do only for payment? Do they learn to passively accept the moral choices made for them by others, rather than to make their own? Do they learn that the best way to influence others is by bribing them? Do they internalize the school’s conception of them as easily manipulated, as unworthy of being reasoned with, as incapable of the most basic aspects of good behavior without remedial training and conditional treats? Do they accept as normal the constant scrutiny and micromanagement of their conduct? Do they learn that unquestioning compliance with rules is the highest value? Under PBIS, nobody cares.

Under the program, the kids trade in their rewards for tickets into a weekly prize drawing. A few weeks ago, as I described here, several kids won prizes who had not put any tickets in, including a girl who had registered for the school but never attended it, and another girl who had moved to South Dakota weeks before. The kids noticed that this happened. It completely contradicted what the school had told them about how the drawings would be run. When I asked the principal about it, she explained that someone had decided to give prizes to all the kids who hadn’t yet won any. She concluded, “This has been discussed and we have moved forward.” Notably missing from this forward movement was any effort to address the questions the incident must have raised in the kids’ minds. What must they be thinking about what these adults are up to?

When they announced the prizes that day, one girl, who knew she didn’t have any entries in the drawing, was surprised to hear her own name called. The girl – who was apparently among those kids who had never won the weekly prize for good behavior – went straight to her teacher and told the truth: “But I didn’t put any tickets in.” The teacher (who presumably had no idea what had happened either) sent another girl to accept the prize instead.

What does that child make of that episode? Does anyone care?

So shines a good deed in a weary world.
.

The quietest kids of all, continued

2011-11-12T21:44:00.001-06:00

A couple of weeks ago I posted about a strange occurrence in the weekly prize drawing that is part of our school’s behavioral rewards program (PBIS). Under the program, the teachers are continually giving kids rewards for “good behavior” (which usually means being passive and quiet), and then the kids turn those rewards in for entries into a weekly prize drawing. (I dislike the program for the many reasons stated here.) But that week, the prize-winners included one girl who had moved away weeks before, and one girl who had registered to attend the school but had never actually attended. I said that it raised questions about whether the school was being honest with the kids about how the prize winners are chosen.

I emailed the principal to ask about it, and she explained how it happened. The school keeps track of which students have won the weekly prizes. That week, when the principal happened to be out, someone decided to give prizes to all the kids who hadn’t won any so far this year. No one realized that the list contained the names of some kids who weren’t actually enrolled.

I consider that a pretty understandable and well-intentioned mistake. Once they’ve told the kids how the drawings work, they shouldn’t rig them; but I have a good deal of sympathy for the person who decided to make sure that nobody went that long without a prize. To me, it shows that not everyone at the school is entirely comfortable with the reality of PBIS. (It’s interesting that it occurred during a week when the principal was away.) Under PBIS, the rewards are supposed to be entirely conditional; otherwise, the incentive for the kids to comply with the school’s desires would be undermined. The natural result is that some kids will get more rewards and prizes than others, and that some may never get a prize. PBIS advertises itself as a “positive” alternative to punishment, but watching everyone else get rewards and prizes, while you’re getting none, seems a lot like punishment to me -- and apparently to someone at the school, too.

Of course, some things in school will inevitably be conditional, and schools can never avoid punishment entirely. But that doesn’t mean we need to invent reasons to treat children like lab rats. School should be about engaging the students’ minds, not about manipulating their behavior. It should develop the kids’ ability to think for themselves, not encourage them to mindlessly chase whatever reward is dangled in front of them. It should focus on intellectual inquiry, not on unquestioning obedience.

Here’s what I really don’t understand. From the way the school sometimes acts, you’d think it was swarming with hordes of juvenile anarchists just barely being restrained from revolution by the school’s behavioral interventions. It is, in fact, a collection of relatively well-behaved kids in a relatively tame Midwestern college town -- not without its problems, but much closer to It’s a Wonderful Life than to A Clockwork Orange. On the whole, the teachers are good and the kids are trying hard. So why not make school about what goes on in the classroom -- where the school’s real strengths are -- instead of slathering everything with this thick layer of manipulative bullshit?
.

A thousand words saved

2011-11-03T18:11:00.000-05:00

Here’s one reason why I prefer local control over educational policy to federal control (click to enlarge):

Article here. Image from here.
.

The quietest kids of all

2011-10-30T21:24:00.000-05:00

As readers of this blog know, our elementary school uses an elaborate behavioral rewards program called PBIS. Under the program, teachers reward “well-behaved” students with little string bracelets. The kids can then exchange the bracelets for entries into a prize drawing that occurs at the end of each week. The more bracelets they earn, the better their chance of winning a prize. The school announces the prize winners over the public address system every Friday afternoon.

Last week, though, when the winners were announced, people noticed something strange. One of the winners was a kindergarten-age girl who had registered for school over the summer, but whose parents then decided to keep her in pre-school for an additional year. She doesn’t attend the school. Another winner was a girl who moved to South Dakota several weeks ago.

One can only imagine how two kids who don’t attend the school, but whose names may appear on an outdated school roster, could have won the weekly prize drawing. It certainly makes you wonder whether the school is being honest with the kids about how the winners are chosen.
..

Perpetual, unwinnable wars (junior edition)

2011-10-28T20:23:00.000-05:00

Defenders of PBIS, the behavioral rewards program that our elementary school uses, emphasize how “positive” it is; after all, it aims to reduce the use of punishment by making the school rules very clear and then repeatedly rewarding students who comply with them. (Not getting rewards, when others are getting them, apparently doesn’t count as punishment.) The tradeoff for this “positivity,” though, is that the school has become obsessed with behavior, behavior, behavior, reminding the kids at every opportunity -- in assemblies, in “guidance” class, in the hallways and lunchroom, on the playground, on posters and signs throughout the building, and every time rewards are given -- of its behavioral “expectations.” The (unintentional?) message to the kids is that school is first and foremost about behavior, compliance with rules, and obedience to authority.

Most of these kids were not getting punished much, if it all, before PBIS came along. Now the school is not only continuously reminding them of school rules, but also continuously obsessing over and passing judgment on their behavior. That this might not feel like a “positive” change does not seem to have occurred to anyone.

Moreover, PBIS seems to have generated new “expectations” that didn’t exist before. Take the lunchroom. Before PBIS, the kids got the same measly fifteen-minute lunch break, but were at least largely left alone while they ate. There was an adult present, but that person pretty much stayed in the background unless there was a problem -- for example, helping the younger kids open containers or milk cartons.

With PBIS, though, came the Perpetual War on Lunchroom Noise. We have a lunchroom, so we must have lunchroom expectations, and we must make them clear and insist that they be followed. Suddenly it became the lunchroom attendants’ mission to reduce the noise level. This entails frequently yelling at the kids to be quiet, and usually turning down the lights to make the point. If some kids don’t comply, their entire table has to be silent. There are days when the entire lunchroom is required to eat lunch in silence, because some of the kids have been too noisy. Tables at which the kids are too noisy may be dismissed last, thus getting less time at recess; sometimes the lunchroom attendants expressly threaten to hold the whole room in from recess until they are quieter. Plastic cups of different colors are placed on each table; a green cup means the kids can talk, but if they’re too loud, they get the yellow cup, and can only whisper -- forget about talking to your friend across the table. And if they are still too loud, they get the red cup, which means they have to be silent for the rest of lunch.

A couple of weeks ago, the lunchroom attendants began threatening that if the kids weren’t quieter at lunch, they would start to have assigned seats. This threat came after more than two years of constant scolding about the lunchroom noise levels. For all the yelling and darkening and threats and plastic cups and missed recess time and enforced silence, there is no indication that this lunchroom full of young children is any quieter than it ever was. If anything, judging from the elevation of the threats, it may even be noisier.

Some questions: How did the school go about deciding what an age-appropriate “lunchroom expectation” was? Will the failure to reduce lunchroom noise, after over two years of trying, lead them to reconsider that decision? Or just to adopt increasingly heavy-handed interventions? What’s been gained? Even if noise had been reduced, would it have been worth the price? What is the school modeling about how public institutions should interact with the people they govern? Is the lunchroom now a more “positive” place?

UPDATE: Today the lunchroom attendant had a new, police-like whistle, which she blew loudly to get the kids’ attention. “I’ll blow it again if you don’t quiet down,” she said, prompting some kids to put their hands over their ears. Then she blew it again. What a positive development.
.

Occupy Iowa City on education

2011-10-27T02:08:00.000-05:00

Occupy Iowa City encampment, College Green Park

A reader points out that Occupy Iowa City, our local offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement, has posted a statement of principles that includes these paragraphs:

We witness the degradation of public schools which do not provide the skills needed for creative and free thought, or for full participation in economic or political systems.

. . .

We affirm the necessity of affordable public education for all people, so that they may be fully informed, creative and curious participants in a just society.

I’m very sympathetic to a lot of the concerns that the Occupiers have raised, if not to all of them in every particular. Those statements about education are, of course, unspecific and designed to appeal to a broad range of people. But I don’t think I’m projecting -- especially given their other principles -- when I conclude that the protesters would probably share my concern about public schools that seem designed to produce compliant subjects of a totalitarian state rather than skeptical, questioning citizens capable of participating in a democracy.

I’m also glad to see any acknowledgment that the disturbing economic and political trends in our country -- the increasingly authoritarian view of government, the decline in civil liberties, the two-tiered system of justice, the disproportionate influence of the wealthy, the militarism, the pitting of people against one another to fight over a smaller pie -- might be related to how schools are treating our kids.

I don’t know where this movement will go, but right now, these people are saying some things that need saying.

Related post here.
.

School district survey due tonight

2011-10-24T11:52:00.000-05:00

I just received this message from Julie Van Dyke about our school district’s survey on district operations:

Hi Folks,

The crucial ICCSD survey will close at midnight tonight, Monday, 10/24. Please fwd this request and info to as many ICCSD stakeholders as possible. We can be candid in our comments, as long was we phrase them without indicating who we are, because the surveys go directly to the audit consulting firm - not to the school district. The consulting firm will combine the multiple choice scoring and comments into a report they provide to the district.

Survey at https://proact.wufoo.com/forms/iowa-city-school-district-operational-survey/

The beginning of the end for No Child Left Behind?

2011-10-21T22:56:00.000-05:00

The Times reports that the Senate Education Committee, chaired by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, has approved a bill that “would greatly reduce Washington’s role in overseeing public schools.”

[The bill] would continue to require states to test students in grades 3 through 8 annually in reading and math, but would eliminate most provisions in the law that put the federal Department of Education in the position of supervising the performance of the nation’s 100,000 public schools. The department would continue to closely oversee how states manage their worst-performing schools.

Apparently the bill would release states from the “mandate that schools be deemed failures if all their students were not proficient in reading and math by 2014.” Further, it “would not require states to set any student achievement targets,” and it drops “the requirement that schools evaluate teachers based on student test scores and other methods.”

Civil rights and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the legislation would so thoroughly eviscerate the federal role in school accountability that they could not support it. But powerful groups representing superintendents, principals, teachers and school boards said they were delighted.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan criticized the bill, which is a point in its favor.

It was a bad idea to put the federal government in charge of our schools, and it would be an even worse idea to keep it in charge after the disaster that was No Child Left Behind. Best of luck to Harkin and the other Senators who support this bill.
.

What is PBIS teaching our kids about moral reasoning? (continued)

2011-10-21T08:58:00.000-05:00

Under our district’s behavioral rewards program, PBIS, teachers give out token rewards to kids who they “catch” complying with the school’s “expectations” (that is, obeying school rules). Each time a student gets a reward, he or she is entered into a lottery at the end of the week to win a special prize. At our elementary school, for example, the prize might be toy sunglasses, lip gloss, a notebook, some special pencils, candy, or the like. I have many objections to the program; one is that it teaches that the reason to “be good” is to get a material reward -- the most primitive form of moral reasoning, if you’d call it moral reasoning at all.

Recently, at another elementary school in our district, the weekly prize was a pair of tickets to a University of Iowa football game, a prize that might easily have been worth hundreds of dollars. (The tickets had been donated to the school.) Football is big in Iowa City, to put it mildly -- especially among boys. Some of the kids started competing to get behavior rewards like never before. Then, at the end of the week, one student, a kindergartner, won the football tickets. At least one boy was in tears after learning that his week of good behavior didn’t pay off as he had hoped.

If you see a child as nothing but a collection of behaviors, that story might not bother you at all. The prize had exactly its desired effect, after all, in getting kids to comply with school rules. This is precisely how PBIS is supposed to work. Good behavior is up! Office referrals are down! How could anyone complain?

But if you see kids as having minds, and if you care not only about what they do but about why they do it, and if you think that how they understand their world matters, then you might find that story pretty disturbing. On the one hand, I suppose the kids might have learned a valuable lesson about gambling. What they learned about good behavior and moral reasoning, one can only imagine.
.

Public forum on school district “operations”

2011-10-14T14:46:00.000-05:00

Julie Van Dyke asked me to let everyone know about this:

Iowa City Community School District Seeks Public Input On Operations Audit

The Iowa City Community School District will host a public forum Monday, October 17 at 7:00 p.m. at City High Opstad Auditorium to gather input on what community members see as areas needing improvement in the School District Operations. The District has retained an outside firm to engage in a process audit to help look at how the school district does business. The audit will include interviews of District personnel and community members in individual, small group, and open forum settings. It is vital for community members to provide open and honest feedback in the areas of human resources, technology, business, custodial and food services.

I’m not sure exactly what types of issues fall under the category of “Operations,” which, on its face, would seem to describe everything the school district does. Is it safe to assume that this event is not directed toward such things as curricular concerns or redistricting issues? If anyone has more information, please chime in in the comments.

UPDATE: And a reminder from Julie's earlier comment: There will be a "Town Hall" meeting with representatives of the Governor's office this Sunday at 1 p.m. at West High about the proposed Education Blueprint.
.

And it’s only the first day of Testing Week

2011-10-10T21:15:00.000-05:00

Today the lunchroom ~~guards~~ attendants at our elementary school told the kids (for about the millionth time) that they were being too noisy at lunch. This time, though, they said that if the kids weren’t quieter at lunch tomorrow, there would be assigned seats at lunch for the rest of the year.

I’m sure this had nothing to do with the fact that while some groups were in the lunchroom, other groups were taking the ITBS, our state’s annual week-long high-stakes standardized test.

Completely unrelated cartoon here.
.

Quote for the week: Iowa Test of Basic Skills edition

2011-10-09T18:07:00.000-05:00

“Getting through another year of AYP successfully is like passing a ridiculously large and hard stool. You do it because you have to, there’s a modicum of relief when it’s done, and you pray you haven’t done too much damage when passing it.”

-- Michael Doyle, on the annual gauntlet of standardized testing to meet No Child Left Behind’s “adequate yearly progress” requirements. This week in Iowa City, students will spend hours every day taking standardized tests.
.

Does the Governor love my child?

2011-10-08T23:51:00.000-05:00

“I love my child,” a homeschooling mom once said to me. “Does the teacher love my child?” That’s as good an explanation as I have ever heard for homeschooling. It’s also, I think, a good argument for local control over educational policy. The teachers, in my experience, do at least have relationships with the kids and care about them as individuals. Do the school administrators? The superintendent? The Secretary of Education? The Congressperson?

The best way to put power in the hands of the people most likely to treat kids humanely -- that is, parents and teachers -- is to give local communities real control over their schools.

(I didn’t want to let the blog’s second birthday go by without a post. Looks like I just made it under the wire.)
.

Why is school choice so unappealing?

2011-10-05T20:43:00.000-05:00

I don’t think all schools should be the same. One of my complaints about No Child Left Behind is that it imposes a single educational philosophy on every public school in America: school is about raising short-term standardized test scores, period. That strikes me as wrong not just because I disagree with that philosophy, but because I value pluralism. Moreover, it seems short-sighted: why put all of our eggs in any one basket? Why turn educational policy into a nationwide winner-take-all battle -- especially if there’s a good chance you might lose that battle?

If it were up to me, I’d allow genuine local control over educational policy. There’s no reason that schools in Iowa City should have to follow the same approach as schools in, say, rural Texas, or even schools in more conservative parts of Iowa. Why not let each community do it in its own way? Wouldn’t more people be satisfied that way?

But this idea raises one of the age-old tensions in law and politics. To get more freedom for myself, I have to grant more freedom to other people. Many people in Iowa City might dislike the choices made by that Texas town, and want to put a stop to them. But you can’t have it both ways. Is it more important to preserve our community’s freedom to run its schools as it chooses, or to stop that Texas town from doing its own thing? Remember, if everything is decided at the federal level, it might end up that the Texans are the ones telling Iowa City what to do, not the other way around. Arguably, that is exactly what has happened, and I’m thinking of one Texan in particular.

So you would think that I’d be drawn to the idea of school choice, and at least in theory, I am. But school choice is complicated by yet another issue: we’re making choices about what to do with a completely disenfranchised set of people -- children -- who have no choice in the matter at all. Suppose our district starts up the Corporal Punishment Magnet School, filled entirely by kids whose parents choose it. No one would be forcing me to choose it, so could I object? I think I could.

So even in theory, it’s hard not to have some ambivalence about school choice. Then you see what passes for school choice in practice, and ambivalence turns to skepticism and suspicion. Though some people are making valiant efforts to create charter schools that follow humane educational principles, they can’t escape the law’s requirement that all schools are ultimately judged solely on their success in raising standardized test scores. The kind of choice I’d like to make is simply not allowed.

Meanwhile, though, consider some of the choices that are allowed. When our current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, was the head of the Chicago school system, he “oversaw the controversial move to bring full-fledged military academies to the Windy City.” Andy Kroll reports:

Today, Chicago has six military high schools run by a branch of the armed services. Six smaller military academies share buildings with existing high schools. Nearly three dozen JROTC programs exist in regular high schools, where students attend a daily JROTC class and wear uniforms to school one day a week. And at the middle school level, there is a JROTC program for sixth, seventh- and eighth-graders.

Chicago may have the nation’s biggest JROTC program, but it is no longer an anomaly. Due to increases in federal funding for JROTC programs, the military’s presence in public schools is greater than ever before. More than a dozen academies partly funded by the Department of Defense have sprouted up from Philadelphia to Oakland, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 passed last year will increase the number of JROTC units nationwide from 3,400 to 3,700 by 2020, at a cost of $170 million. (Peacework magazine obtained a list of schools that have requested JROTC programs.) The Marines are in discussions to open new JROTC academies in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and New Orleans, helping to expand a program that critics contend has blurred the line between education and recruitment. . . .

Now that Duncan is the nation’s top education official, anti-recruitment activists worry that he will use his position to promote the expansion of JROTC and military academies as solutions for cash-strapped or underperforming school districts. . . . “These are positive learning environments,” Duncan said in 2007. “I love the sense of leadership. I love the sense of discipline.”

Meanwhile, former Defense Secretary William Cohen is reported to have called JROTC “one of the best recruiting services that we could have.”

Can a pluralist object?
.

Cartoon of the day

2011-10-05T08:12:00.000-05:00

. . . is here.
.

Guest post: Authoritarian Education Styles and American Competitiveness

2011-10-04T20:45:00.000-05:00

Justin Birch has been reading this blog and asked if he could write the following guest post, which seemed right up this blog’s alley. He tells me that he wanted to be a high school teacher, and then a college professor, before encountering the difficulties of graduate school and professional academia. Now, as a writer and editor, he works to promote the quality and availability of undergraduate education in America.

Americans are known for their competitive spirit. Whether the conversation is politics or sports, arguments can quickly grow heated. What happens when we turn that competitive nature to our education system?

It has long been a topic of conversation that changes need to be made in the education system in order for our students to compete on the international stage. Much attention recently has been devoted to the promise of charter schools or online colleges to outperform public institutions. However, it’s helpful to know what’s being compared. The perception reflected by rhetoric about other countries’ education systems is that they churn out perfect little soldiers, able to recite documents and perform complex mathematical functions by rote, but incapable of creativity and free thinking. Although this perception is quite inaccurate, it continues to be propagated by news media and creeps into the consciousness of our educational leaders, influencing their decisions on how best to compete with other countries.

The prime example of the influence of this thinking in action is the No Child Left Behind Act’s requirement that schools must perform according to certain national standards in order to receive funding. Should student scores not reach a minimum acceptable mark, the school is designated “failing” and faces sanction. Progress is only measured in one way, however: standardized testing. The most common criticism of standardized testing is that the only thing it can effectively measure is students’ ability to take standardized tests.

What skills are required to take a standardized test? The ability to follow instructions, memorize isolated facts, and then regurgitate information on demand. By the same token, what does standardized testing fail to measure? Creativity, imagination, emotional intelligence, innovation — all the values that have traditionally been measures of American success.

Professor Yong Zhao of Michigan State University has studied the problem of standardized testing and expressed concern that by forcing our kids to conform to measurable standards through testing of only readily quantifiable subjects (math, science, and reading) Americans are tossing away the very talents that have always given the United States a competitive edge in the world.

The other problem that surfaces when so much emphasis is placed on the results of testing and numbers is that someone will always find a way to game the system. In 2011, a scandal rocked the Atlanta public school system when it was discovered teachers and principals had actually been altering tests taken by students to make it appear test scores were better than they actually were. Who does this benefit?

What kind of future America are we creating with our heavy emphasis on standardized testing? Do we really want a workforce only excellent at obeying instructions and short-term memorization? Do we want cheating and lying to be the only effective way to get ahead? Or do we want creative workers adept and deeper learning who can think around corners and come up with innovative solutions to problems?

To make matters worse, not only are we putting all our eggs in the basket of quantifiable education results, we aren’t even doing it well. The reality is that when it comes to quantifiable test scores we are consistently outperformed by countries like Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. However, once again we aren’t truly comparing apples to apples. Students in other countries may begin formal education at different ages, and other factors may lead to the differences in test scores.

In our efforts to create a more authoritarian framework in our schools and thanks to our competitive nature we find ourselves whipping our students to produce better numbers and teaching to the tests, or altering the numbers when they don’t suit us. Students and teachers are sacrificing their innate drive to learning in order to score higher in arbitrary measures of success. If we wish to truly remain competitive in the global market, we must harness the creativity and talents that embody American spirit and teach to those, even if they aren’t so easily quantified.
.

Love it or leave it?

2011-09-30T20:07:00.000-05:00

A commenter on this post asked, “Why exactly do you send your children to public schools? It seems as though your tone throughout much of what I have read is that of exteme disbelief in the public school system as a whole. If this is the case, then why not homeschool or send your children to private schools?”

That’s a reasonable question, and I’m afraid the answer isn’t very profound. If I were independently wealthy, and my wife would agree to the idea, and my kids were willing to give it a try, I’d be homeschooling (probably along these lines) in a minute. Unfortunately, I can’t get past even the first item on that list. I’m not willing to give up my career, which is not one that I could just step back into after ten or twelve years away. As for private schools, they are often governed by the same educational philosophies that I’ve objected to on this blog. In any event, there are very few private options here, and none of them excite me enough to justify spending three tuitions times thirteen years (much of which would probably end up coming out of our already inadequate college funds). So here we are.

So I’m certainly not claiming any altruistic “stay and fight” motivation for staying in the public schools. That said, would we really be better off if anyone who was unhappy with the public schools simply took their kids out and paid for private schooling? How would the schools ever change or improve under that approach?

More importantly: taking my kids out of the schools wouldn’t fix what I’m concerned about. Even if I were focused only on my own self-interest, and didn’t care at all about any kids other than my own, I’d still have to worry about what goes in our school system, because I live in a world run by the people who go through it. I worry that authoritarian educational approaches naturally lead, for example, to things like this and then to things like this. I don’t want our schools to model authoritarian values, because I don’t want to live in an authoritarian society. That’s true regardless of whether I happen to have any kids in the system.

When I get asked why I don’t just homeschool, I do wonder about one thing. We’re constantly hearing from school “reformers” who want to make school even more coercive, who want to pile on the schoolwork at younger and younger ages, who want to extend the school day and the school year, and who want ever more intervention into kids’ lives. Do they get asked the same question?
.

School board chair: Rewards are unnecessary gimmicks

2011-09-27T22:39:00.000-05:00

Our school board tonight elected Marla Swesey, the top vote-getter in the recent school board election, as its new chair. In response to my candidate questionnaire, Swesey, who was a teacher here for twenty-six years, had this to say about using rewards in school:

I have never been a believer of stickers or prizes used to reward students for good work or behavior. Students should be motivated to feel the intrinsic worth of doing a good job on their schoolwork or doing a good deed. Students are capable of feeling pride in their accomplishments without prizes. Students are naturally curious and should get excited about learning without all the gimmicks. There are times when classes need to celebrate in some way for accomplishments or great deeds that the class achieves. But these celebrations would not be done on a regular basis.

Yes, she did go on to say that “this is not a decision for the school board to make but it certainly can be a discussion with the Superintendent so that he can pass on the discussion with the school principals, who in turn can discuss the issue with the teachers.” I think even that approach would be a step in the right direction. Not that long ago, it was probably true that the district itself had no policy about rewards, and the practice probably varied a lot from school to school and teacher to teacher. But I wonder if the new chair realizes that that’s no longer the case, and that the district is now requiring schools to use rewards extensively, and whether that would affect her conclusion about whether the board should have some say in the matter.

I won’t get my hopes up that anything will change, but nonetheless it’s nice to hear someone connected with the school system -- the school board chair, no less -- talking sense about the use of rewards in school.
.

Data vs. judgment

2011-09-22T18:28:00.000-05:00

Gary Gutting has some sanity -- “critical thinking,” even! -- about the limitations of standardized test score data. This passage in particular caught my attention:

There is also the question of whether any standardized test is adequate or needed to evaluate certain sorts of student learning. There was a time when we were happy with Miss Goodteacher’s judgment that her class knew how to read. There are doubtless cases where we can’t trust instructors’ judgments. But is there reason, especially in college-level work, to think that this is generally the case?

Sometimes, when I complain about the effect that high-stakes testing is having on K-12 education, I get asked: “But how else can we tell if students are learning, or if teachers and schools are performing well?” I’m never sure what to say first in response to that question. Part of me wants to say, “Yes, it would be great if there were an objective measure of those things, but wishing doesn’t make it so.” Another part wants to say, “But the benefits of using such an imperfect way to assess those things might be far outweighed by the ill effects of using it -- for example, by the increasingly narrow focus of schools on one or two goals -- ‘teaching to the test’ -- at the expense of all others.”

But usually what I end up saying is: “Hire good people, give them enough pay and enough autonomy that they’ll stick around and develop wisdom and judgment, and then let them use their wisdom and judgment.” Many people seem to find that unthinkable, and would much prefer the false security of a number, regardless of what that number represents and how that assessment distorts the educational process. Yet my answer is a pretty close description of how our higher education system works. It’s also a pretty good description of Finland’s vaunted educational system. Is it so outlandish to think it might work in our K-12 schools?

I think people distrust that approach because they don’t have faith that our K-12 teachers would have the good judgment necessary to make it work. But isn’t that a self-fulfilling prophecy? We rely more on standardized tests, and teachers are forced to teach to those tests, and their teaching itself becomes standardized, and they have less autonomy in the classroom, and their jobs become less satisfying, and good teachers leave the profession, and fewer qualified people become teachers, and so we trust them even less to have good judgment, and so on. Is that a recipe for good education?

It sometimes seems like people are desperate to find some scientific substitute for individual human judgment. But if we can’t count on our educators to have good judgment, how can we count on them to make good use of standardized test data?
.

Junk food as a reward, continued

2011-09-19T22:28:00.000-05:00

In response to my emails about the use of candy and junk food as a reward in our school, the superintendent forwarded to me an email that went out to all district teachers today (I’ve turned the attachments into links):

Dear Teachers,

This e-mail is to remind you of the district’s Wellness Policy, which states that the district supports and promotes proper dietary habits contributing to students’ health status and academic performance. This includes foods in the classroom. The complete policy is on the district web page, under Health Services and Food Services/ Nutrition. Attached to this e-mail are guidelines for you to follow in implementing the policy, as well as a parent handout.

** Please note the following highlights from the policy as you plan your classroom celebrations, request or bring classroom snacks, plan fundraising with student-sponsored clubs, and consider using foods as rewards for students.

Classroom celebrations and snacks in the classroom:

• limit foods and drinks brought for celebrations during the school day to a list of snacks that meet the nutrition requirements for ala carte/ student vending foods and beverages (see below).

• see handout (Healthy School Celebrations) attached for healthy classroom snacks/ treats and share with parents

• incorporate physical activities into classroom and building celebrations

Food as rewards in the classroom:

• if rewards need to be given for academic performance or good behavior, it is best to use non-food items as rewards

• see handout attached for ideas of non-food items that can be used as rewards

• if food must be used as a reward, then that food must meet the guidelines of ala carte/ student vending foods and beverages (see below)

Bake sales/ fund raising

• encourage that healthy foods be sold at bake sales and other fund-raising activities, similar to guidelines of ala carte/ student vending items (see below)

• bake sales and other fundraising activities with foods are NOT to occur during the school lunch period

• see handout (Healthy School Celebrations) attached for a list of healthy foods to sell for fundraising

Nutrition requirements for ala carte/ student vending food items (also apply to classroom celebrations and fundraising):

• will contain no more than 35 percent of its calories from fat (excluding nuts, seeds, peanut butter and other nut butters)

• and no more than 10 percent of its calories from saturated and trans fat combined;

• and no more than 35 percent of its weight from added sugars;

Nutrition requirements for ala carte/ student vending beverage items (also apply to classroom celebrations and fundraising:

• no or low calorie beverages with up to 10 calories/ 8 ounces;

• fruit and vegetable juices and fruit-based drinks that contain at least 50 percent fruit juice and that do not contain additional caloric sweeteners;

• light juices and sports drinks with no more than 66 calories/ 8 ounces;

• unflavored or flavored low-fat or fat-free milk and nutritionally equivalent nondairy beverages (as defined by the USDA);

• offer only beverages up to 12 ounces per serving, with the exception of water

Thank you for your help in implementing the district Wellness Policy in an effort to promote healthy lifestyles and healthy choices for our students. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Susie Poulton, RN, MSN

Director of Health and Student Services

I still think it would be a better idea not to use food as a reward at all, but if this policy is followed, it will be a big improvement over the current practices in our school. The superintendent deserves a lot of credit for being so responsive on this issue.
.

Buy now, pay later

2011-09-18T14:07:00.000-05:00

One thing that drives me crazy is when people use a narrowly-defined short-term “gain” to justify intervening in kids’ lives, without regard to the long-term consequences. Using elaborate reward systems means fewer referrals to the principal’s office! Piling on homework will raise third-grade standardized test scores! Even if there were evidence to support these assertions, who would define success so narrowly? I’d much rather raise a kid who enjoys reading than one whose third-grade test scores are higher but who thinks of reading as a chore.

I’ve been meaning for some time to link to this article by Marcia Angell in the New York Review of Books. It reviews three books that discuss the increasing diagnosis of mental illness and the corresponding increase in the use of psychiatric drugs. If what the authors say is true, the story is basically one long parade of short-term thinking at the expense of long-term well-being, with a big dose of corporate avarice and bad government policy driving it all:

For obvious reasons, drug companies make very sure that their positive studies are published in medical journals and doctors know about them, while the negative ones often languish unseen within the FDA, which regards them as proprietary and therefore confidential. This practice greatly biases the medical literature, medical education, and treatment decisions.
. . .

Whereas [Irving] Kirsch concludes that antidepressants are probably no more effective than placebos, [Robert] Whitaker concludes that they and most of the other psychoactive drugs are not only ineffective but harmful.
. . .

Moreover, Whitaker contends, the natural history of mental illness has changed. Whereas conditions such as schizophrenia and depression were once mainly self-limited or episodic, with each episode usually lasting no more than six months and interspersed with long periods of normalcy, the conditions are now chronic and lifelong. Whitaker believes that this might be because drugs, even those that relieve symptoms in the short term, cause long-term mental harms that continue after the underlying illness would have naturally resolved.

The review then specifically focuses on the increasing use of psychiatric drugs on children:

What should be of greatest concern for Americans is the astonishing rise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness in children, sometimes as young as two years old.
. . .

The apparent prevalence of “juvenile bipolar disorder” jumped forty-fold between 1993 and 2004, and that of “autism” increased from one in five hundred children to one in ninety over the same decade. Ten percent of ten-year-old boys now take daily stimulants for ADHD—“attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder”—and 500,000 children take antipsychotic drugs.
. . .

One would be hard pressed to find a two-year-old who is not sometimes irritable, a boy in fifth grade who is not sometimes inattentive, or a girl in middle school who is not anxious. (Imagine what taking a drug that causes obesity would do to such a girl.) Whether such children are labeled as having a mental disorder and treated with prescription drugs depends a lot on who they are and the pressures their parents face. As low-income families experience growing economic hardship, many are finding that applying for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments on the basis of mental disability is the only way to survive.
. . .

In December 2006 a four-year-old child named Rebecca Riley died in a small town near Boston from a combination of Clonidine and Depakote, which she had been prescribed, along with Seroquel, to treat “ADHD” and “bipolar disorder”—diagnoses she received when she was two years old.
. . .

Rebecca’s two older siblings had been given the same diagnoses and were each taking three psychoactive drugs. The parents had obtained SSI benefits for the siblings and for themselves, and were applying for benefits for Rebecca when she died. The family’s total income from SSI was about $30,000 per year.

The whole thing is really a must-read. Part 1 is here; part 2 is here.
.

Mandatory patriotism

2011-09-17T00:13:00.000-05:00

I’ve posted before (here, here, and here) about the irony of trying to teach democratic values using authoritarian methods, so this Op-Ed in today’s Times, on “Constitution Day,” caught my eye. It focuses on the federal law requiring schools that receive federal funds to provide educational programming to observe Constitution Day. (As I went to link to it, I realized it was written by an old friend with whom I’ve fallen out of touch.) An excerpt:

Since Constitution Day is not a particularly well-known holiday, its mandatory patriotism may not seem like a big deal. But mandatory patriotism is corrosive even if accomplished bit by bit.

Consider the Pledge of Allegiance, recited by tens of millions of students every school day. Most schools are obligated by state or local laws to start the day with the pledge, but the real target of the pledge laws are the kids. Children have a constitutional right to opt out, but a refusal is so fraught with social risk that it is not a real alternative for most. The reaction to the rare child who refuses proves the point: last year, for instance, a Maryland teacher yelled at a 13-year-old girl who refused to recite the pledge and called a school security officer to escort her from the classroom. . . .

We should recall Justice Robert H. Jackson’s words from almost 70 years ago, in his opinion protecting the right of students to refuse to recite the pledge: “To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.”

Read the whole piece. As I noted here, our school’s new principal has decided to personally lead the kids in saying the Pledge every day. Why?
.

What is PBIS teaching our kids about moral reasoning?

2011-09-14T22:32:00.000-05:00

From Engaging Troubling Students: A Constructivist Approach, by Scot Danforth and Terry Jo Smith (emphasis mine):

An important question for educators to ask involves the distinction between “shaping” students’ behaviors and promoting their moral development. Lawrence Kohlberg (1967, 1984), a developmental psychologist, developed a hierarchical schema of moral development through which he believes children evolve. . . .

Thomas (1992) explains that in the first stage of the Preconventional [or Premoral] Level, referred to as the Obedience and Punishment Orientation, a child judges whether an action is good or bad based on whether it results in a punishment. Doing the “right thing” is equated with avoiding punishment. This judgment does not involve the human meaning of the act, just its consequences. The second stage of the Preconventional Level is referred to as the naive instrumental level. This stage involves actions based on what “pays off” for the child, not on a sense of justice or loyalty. . . .

The second level of moral development in Kohlberg’s schema is the Conventional Level and involves conformity to the expectations of the family, group, or nation. The third level is the Postconventional Level, in which moral behavior is first defined in terms of individual rights but advances toward universal principles of justice.

Behavior modification is the systematic enactment of the Premoral Level of development. This is particularly problematic in light of Kohlberg’s beliefs about how moral development is fostered. . . . Kohlberg theorized that the environmental aspects affecting children’s moral development are “(1) the child’s opportunities to learn social roles and (2) the form of justice in the social institutions with which the child is familiar” (Thomas, 1992, p. 503).

The behavior modification systems commonly used in schools, according to Kohlberg’s schemas, do not involve moral reasoning at all. Drummed into students’ heads all day is the morally bankrupt message of “behave and you’ll be rewarded.” If the form of justice in social institutions affects moral development, as Kohlberg has suggested, then classrooms provide promising opportunities to promote moral development. In particular, a classroom culture that is based on the concept of a community has the potential to promote moral development that involves rights and responsibilities, as well as relationships between the individual and the group. We are deeply concerned by the long-term impact of classrooms that operate on premoral principles.

I don’t know if I buy completely into Kohlberg’s theory. But “premoral” sounds like just the right word for PBIS. Why are our schools modeling and encouraging this “morally bankrupt” way of thinking?
.

Live-blogging the school board election results

2011-09-13T10:02:00.001-05:00

Consider this your source for nerdy commentary on the school board election returns as they come in tonight. For precinct-by-precinct results, read the updates that appear below the tables. For information on the candidates, click here.

For the four-year term, the top four candidates will be elected. With 100% of the votes counted, the results are:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage*
√ Swesey	2976	66%
√ McGinness	2856	64%
√ Hoelscher	2305	51%
√ Fields	1910	43%
Hemingway	1821	41%
Porter	1589	35%
Alden	934	21%
Tate	572	13

*The third column doesn’t add up to 100% because every voter can cast up to four votes.

For the two-year term:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
√ Cook	3165	70%
VanDyke	850	19%

UPDATE 9/17<.b>: I just updated the chart with the figures that are now on the Auditor's website. I assume the changes reflect a few extra ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but arrived afterward. Hemingway ends up 89 votes behind Fields.

UPDATE WEDNESDAY P.M.: Hemingway is not ruling out a request for a recount.

UPDATE WEDNESDAY A.M.: Interesting piece from Sarah Swisher in today's Press-Citizen.

UPDATE 11:50: Time to sign off for the night. Congratulations to Marla Swesey, Jeff McGinness, Sally Hoelscher, Patti Fields, and Karla Cook. The good news is you’ve won the election; the bad news is you’ve won the election. Thank you, Julie VanDyke, Phil Hemingway, Bob Porter, Jim Tate, and Jeff Alden for running.

UPDATE 11:40: Just spent some time looking through past election returns to see how often incumbents have been defeated. Going back thirty-five years, I could detect only one: Dale Shultz in 2002. He won in 1999 with 42% of the vote, then lost in 2002 with 56% of the vote -- go figure.

UPDATE 10:15: Gazette coverage here.

UPDATE 10:08: Ninety-three write-in votes? Tell us more, Johnson County Auditor!

UPDATE 10:05: On average, people used only 3.3 of their four possible votes for the four-year seats. That's 2,930 votes that went uncast -- almost as much as the first-place finisher received! Also, 456 people -- more than ten percent of those voting -- chose not to cast a vote for the two-year seat.

UPDATE 9:45: Porter was endorsed by the teacher's union, the Federation of Labor, and the Press-Citizen. What went wrong?

UPDATE 9:30: Hemingway beat Fields by only 66 votes at City High, his home precinct. She beat him by 314 votes in North Liberty and Coralville. She got at least 34% everywhere except in Hills; his percentages were as low as 23%. Having some town-wide appeal makes a difference. Then there's the fact that, even though the election is "non-partisan," it was no secret that both Hemingway and Alden are registered Republicans. Johnson County is a hard place to be a registered Republican running for office. It was an obstacle for a lot of people I know. I wasn't against the idea of having a Republican on the board -- again, someone to break up the groupthink can be a good thing -- but I did wonder how much of the Republican party's attitude toward education he would bring along with him. (Alas, I can't say I'm all that much more impressed with the Democratic party's attitude.) He might have reassured me a bit if he had ever gotten around to answering my candidate questionnaire. On the other hand, maybe his answers would have lost any chance of getting my vote . . .

UPDATE 9:28: Press-Citizen coverage here.

UPDATE 9:25: Almost forgot to mention: Turnout was 5.95% -- not beating 2009 after all.

UPDATE 9:20: The Kirkwood bond issue passed overwhelmingly, with ~~85% of the votes~~ 81% of the county-wide vote; in the ICCSD it was supported by 85% of those voting on it.

UPDATE 9:20 Only 86 votes separate Fields, who won, from Hemingway, who lost. That number seems big enough that it’s unlikely to change with a recount, but small enough to be awfully painful to Hemingway. You’ve got to feel for the guy.

UPDATE 9:15: It’s hard not to see this election as a victory of the Establishment over the Upstarts. VanDyke, Hemingway, and Porter were the candidates who seemed to stand more clearly for a different, more hands-on approach to running the district. I don’t know too many people who were crazy about the way the board operated over the past two years, but apparently not enough people could bring themselves to vote for candidates who seemed too anti-establishment. To me, it seems like people are using the same strategies for candidate selection that they’ve used in the past -- putting a lot of weight on experience and on moderation and on seeming reasonableness -- but hoping for a different result. Time will tell -- maybe the result will be genuinely different.

UPDATE 9:00: More precinct results. Precinct 6 (Twain School) is southeast Iowa City; it contains parts of Twain, Grant Wood, and Longfellow attendance areas, and makes up 8% of the total voters. They chose Swesey, McGinness, Hemingway, and Hoelscher, in that order. Fields was at 40%.

Precinct 7 (City High) is the central east side, and contains parts of Hoover, Lucas, Longfellow, and Mann attendance areas. It makes up 12% of the total voters. It’s Phil Hemingway’s precinct. (Mine, too.) They chose Swesey, Hoelscher, McGinness, and Hemingway. Fields was at 38%.

Precinct 8 (Lemme School) is the east side, farther out. Lemme, Lucas, and the outer parts of Longfellow attendance areas. Makes up about 7% of the total voters. Home precinct of Patti Fields, Sally Hoelscher, Marla Swesey, and Karla Cook. They chose Swesey, Hoelscher, McGinness, and Hemingway. Fields was at 34%.

Precinct 9 is Hills and surrounding areas. It makes up about 1% of the total voters, and is Julie VanDyke’s precinct. They were the only precinct to go for VanDyke (69-31%). For the four-year term, they chose Swesey, Hemingway, McGinness, and Porter (by one vote over Hoelscher). Fields got 11%.

Early voting: In recent years, early voting has made up about 10-12% of the total votes cast. In 2009, the early voting totals came pretty close to predicting the winners of the election, though not in exactly the right order. This year, early voters chose the four winners in the same order that they won district-wide: Swesey, McGinness, Hoelscher, and Fields. Hemingway was at 37%.

UPDATE 8:50: Some precinct-by-precinct results. Precinct 1 is Coralville. It makes up about 14% of the total voters. It’s Jeff Alden’s precinct. They chose McGinness, Fields, Alden, and Swesey, in that order. ~~(I think I read on John Deeth’s blog that Fields has a home in Coralville, despite her east side mailing address.)~~ Hemingway did very poorly here: 23%.

Precinct 2 is North Liberty, making up about 12% of the total voters. In the 2009 election, this precinct was something of a counter-indicator; Anne Johnson got 77% here, but lost; Sarah Swisher got only 25%, but came in first district-wide. This year, they chose McGinness, Alden, Swesey, and Fields, in that order. Hemingway at 25%.

Precinct 3 (Lincoln School) is downtown, Manville, west University campus, and the Foster Road area. It contains parts of Lincoln, Mann, Longfellow, Horn, and Roosevelt attendance areas, and makes up 21% of the total voters. They chose Swesey (with 81%!), McGinness, Hoelscher, and Porter. Hemingway at 34%, Fields at 40%.

Precinct 4 (Horace Mann School) is northeastern Iowa City: Goosetown, areas north of Rochester Avenue and east of Dubuque Street. It contains all or part of Shimek, Hoover, and Mann attendance areas, and makes up 10% of the total voters. They chose Swesey, Hoelscher, McGinness, and Hemingway, all of whom were above 50%. Fields was at 36%.

Precinct 5 (West High) is the west side, not including Manville. It includes parts of Horn, Mann, Roosevelt, Weber, and Twain attendance areas, and makes up 15% of the total voters. It’s the home precinct of Jeff McGinness and Bob Porter. They chose McGinness, Swesey, Hoelscher, and Fields. Fields was at 47%; Hemingway at 37%.

More to come in a few minutes.

UPDATE 8:40: West High continues to be the bellwether district: For the second election in a row, the candidates who won at West High also won district-wide. Not true of any other precinct in either year.

UPDATE 8:32: City is in and Hemingway is still narrowly in fifth place. I'll get the numbers up in a minute. But for now, it looks like the winners are Cook, McGinness, Swesey, Hoelscher, and Fields.

UPDATE 8:30: Wow, votes come in fast. All we're waiting for now is City High -- Hemingway's home precinct.

UPDATE 8:00: The polls are now closing. I don’t know how quickly the results will start coming in when they come, so I’m going to concentrate on keeping the district-wide vote totals as up-to-the-minute as I can, and then add some precinct-by-precinct commentary down here when I get a spare moment.

One of the most interesting questions of the night will be how Patti Fields does. Because she’s the only incumbent, she’s been the lightning rod for people who are discontent with the current board. If the voters were asked which candidate they would most like to see lose, I think Fields (or maybe Alden) would come in first -- but that’s not how this election works. She has a core of supporters, and all she needs is fourth place or better. I have no idea what to predict.

As for the rest of the field, we might get some ideas by looking at the 2009 results. Though people tend to talk of the district as being split between east and west sides, the reality is more complicated. In 2009, the east side precincts all voted pretty similarly. But the west side voted very differently than North Liberty and Coralville did. This is probably because the third high school appeals more to those who will be in its attendance area than to those who will be left behind at West. The result is that the candidates that appealed to the east side had the advantage of a unified support base. Mike Cooper and Anne Johnson both did well on the west side, North Liberty, and Coralville, but Cooper’s win came largely because he did much better than Johnson on the east side. But just appealing to the east side alone won't do the trick; Jean Jordison’s support was so heavily concentrated on the east side that she lost.

Ironically, I think that principle gives our west-side candidates an edge this year. McGinness lives on the west side but grew up on the east side, so he seems well-positioned to draw on multiple parts of town the way Mike Cooper did. And Bob Porter, though he lives on the west side, doesn’t come across as a “west side” candidate; his background is in working for the district administration, and he doesn’t currently have any kids in school. Meanwhile, five of the eight candidates for the four-year term are east-siders, which means they may be fighting over the same set of votes. The remaining candidate, Jeff Alden, whose support for a new high school will probably appeal mainly to North Liberty and Coralville voters, seems likely to be this year’s Anne Johnson.

But I’m probably way off. It’s crazy to make predictions.

UPDATE 7:00: I’ll take this moment of down time to link to my latest non-election-related post. You wouldn’t know it by following the school board election, but there really are different ways to think about how kids learn, about how motivation works, and about the messages we send kids by the way we treat them. The choices we make on those issues could make big differences in how we operate our schools. What choices is our district making? Are they even conscious ones?

UPDATE 6:30: Am passing the time by looking up Iowa election recount laws. (Not that I'm hoping for a good storyline to spice up the evening . . .) They look pretty liberal -- I'd have to spend more time reading through them to be sure, but it looks like anyone can get a recount if they’re willing to put up a small bond (in this situation, one hundred dollars -- big deal!), and even that requirement gets waived if the election is close enough. With eight candidates competing for four seats, it seems very possible that we could end up with some closely bunched vote totals. Of course, all that really matters is the difference between fourth and fifth place.

UPDATE 5:24: Having ten candidates in the race could also have a negative effect on turnout, I suppose. Too many people to read about and figure out?

It might also have an effect on how many votes are cast by the people who do vote. In the election for the four-year seat, each voter can cast four votes. If everyone who voted were to cast all four of them, no candidate could win with less than 50%. But there are always some people who don’t use all their votes. In 2009, voters could cast three votes, but on average cast only 2.7. As a result, Mike Cooper won by a comfortable margin even though only 47% of the voters chose him. So, if we get about 5000 voters this year, maybe someone could take fourth place -- and thus win -- with only about 2300 votes? I could see that number going even lower this year; a lot of people are coming out to vote for a particular candidate, but may not know anything about the other candidates. In particular, I’ve noticed a lot of people struggling to decide how to cast that fourth vote.

UPDATE 3:35: Thought experiment: How do you think the outcome might differ if we held the election in November, when the City Council elections are held and when turnout is usually several points higher? How about if we held the election in November in a Presidential year, when turnout gets up toward 80%? Who gains and who loses from the fact that we choose a date for the election that seems designed to minimize participation?

UPDATE 3:20: Turnout as of 3:00 is 2.39%, as compared to 2.2% at that time in 2009. If turnout progresses at the same rate as in 2009, we'd end up at about 6.5%. That would mean about 5000 voters voting.

UPDATE 12:30: Turnout as of 11 a.m. still a little higher than 2009: 1.1% versus .98%. Is it because people are more riled up about school issues? Or just because we've never had so many candidates (ten) getting out the vote?

According to the County Auditor, this is the highest 11 a.m. turnout since 1995, when the bond to construct Wickham School was on the ballot. The Auditor also reports that 349 early ballots have been received. In 2009, there were 415. I suppose more may still trickle in, though.

UPDATE 10:00 am: Turnout by 9 a.m. is slightly up from 2009: a whopping .56%, as opposed to .51% in 2009. (which was a very high turnout year). By the end of the day, maybe we will break 2009's mark of 6% turnout.
.

Misguidance

2011-09-12T23:05:00.000-05:00
During the first week of school, as part of our district’s “guidance curriculum,” the fifth- and sixth-grade classes started a unit on study skills. To introduce the unit, the teacher put a page up on the overhead projector with the heading, in large letters:

The page then contained a list of statements, including:
Your performance in school determines the quality of your future life: size of income -- person you marry -- station in life -- satisfaction from spare time activities -- etc.

Up to one third of your life is spent in school.

Your main job at this time is studying, being a student.

You are “paid” with knowledge and grades for going to school.

Getting high grades is only one of many rewards of a good student. Even more important is the satisfaction that comes from a job well done -- the best job you are capable of doing! PRIDE!

Studying will be a burden unless YOU do something to make it enjoyable.

The skills you learn and the habits you adopt will remain with you throughout your life.

You become an expert only after continual practice.

Unless you work with each skill repeatedly, the skill will be lost!

Reward yourself if you do a good job.

Where to begin? How about with the outright falsity of what they’re teaching these kids? Your performance in school -- in fifth grade, no less! -- determines the quality of your future life? The person you marry? The satisfaction you get from spare time activities? These are the kind of pseudo-scientific factoids that our kids should learn to be skeptical of. Instead, they’re encouraged to swallow them whole: YES, IT’S A FACT! Please, show me the empirical research supporting these assertions.

I’m sure one could find studies showing correlations between, say, high school or college grades and income. Correlation, of course, doesn’t prove causation, because another cause -- socioeconomic status? -- might be driving both variables. But even if you could prove that getting good grades in college has, for many people, some independent effect on income, it would still be false to say that your performance in fifth grade, or any grade, “determines” the quality of your future life.

As one girl said to her friend, “You should have brought up Einstein.” Or, I thought, George W. Bush.

Second, “station in life”?! Does the district really mean to teach that everyone has a “station in life” that is fixed by the time they finish school? And to pass that “fact” along without any reflection on whether it is just or unjust?

Third, what a vision of school! Did anyone stop to consider that portraying school as a thirteen-year sentence in a labor camp, preceded by a stern lecture, might not be the best motivational strategy? (The word “job” appears six times.) What does it say about the district’s faith in the quality of its classroom experiences that it chooses to use fear as the main motivator for going to school? What does it say about the district’s understanding of motivation? What does it say about the district’s own attitude toward the learning process?

As another parent said after reading the list, “It’s as if they’ve never been intellectually interested in anything in their lives.”

Finally, what about the kids who are struggling? What will this do to their motivation? If they’re trying hard and still not “performing well,” what message -- other than frustration and despair -- will they take away from this presentation, as they anticipate their lowly, inevitable, and apparently deserved “station in life”?

Click the image to see the whole sheet.

.

Candidates’ responses: Patti Fields

2011-09-12T12:52:00.000-05:00
Patti Fields, who had contacted me a week or two ago to say that she was working on my candidate questionnaire and hoped to finish her answers in time to reply before the election, just sent me a response to most of them:

1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
I am going to answer this question in two different roles.

As a board member, this is not an appropriate issue for the board to review. It is a programming, staffing and building-level decision. There is an appropriate process for this issue to come the board through the Board Complaint process. This process is available to anyone with a concern that they do not feel has been handled appropriately in the district.

As a parent, of course I want my child to have enough time to eat lunch for healthy eating habits and choices. The difference is between respecting the appropriate roles of a board member and a parent.
2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

I think that the overall intent of No Child Left Behind was positive as it requires all public schools to be accountable for achievement and constantly look to improve. The problems have come with implementation and consequences rather than incentives.

The first challenge is that Iowa utilizes ITBS and ITED as our accountability measures, which are normative tests that compare students to other students. Other states use end of course exams and criterion-based testing—which measures what a student has learned.

Schools may be labeled a SINA school for several reasons including not having enough students take the tests or for a sub-group’s test scores. The consequences enforced make it difficult to ever get off the list and in our school district lead to an inaccurate perception of “good schools” and “bad schools.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
I just answered above regarding the use of normative vs. criterion-based testing. I don’t think that standardized tests are the best way to get the full picture of education and achievement in our district. Since the board did not create the laws that require the reporting, not having the tests is not an option. However, there are several things the board can do. The board can advocate on the state level to move away from normative tests as a reporting method. Developing criterion-based testing will take money and that will have to be a state level. The board can advocate for better testing or building a multi-state collaborative for test development at the federal level during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB). And, the board can review more than the standardized scores for review and monitoring of the district achievement. As the board, we can do better and reviewing and discussing data.
4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)
I think that I continue to answer multiple questions as one time. There are increasingly more state and federal mandates for public schools and while it is frustrating and seems contrary to local control for making decisions for what is best for our students. Due to the consequence for non-compliance, I do not think it is in the best interest of students to refuse to comply. However, the board should take a strong advocacy role to provide data and information on the effect of the mandates and take a proactive approach to make state and federal changes. The board must be a leader in advocacy for our students.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
I have learned a lot from the training and implementation of PBS in the schools. I think there is great value in the approach PBS takes on focusing on the positive behaviors of our students instead of focusing on the negatives. I also like that it establishes a common language that students will use and hear throughout the district and when they matriculate to junior high and high school.
I am not a big believer in a token economy system and I have seen personally that it really is not a motivator for my children. I think there are practices and components that are really good about PBS and that the schools will end up with hybrid systems that utilize what has worked with their students and will weed out what has not.
Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
..

Why I’m voting for Julie VanDyke

2011-09-12T02:10:00.000-05:00
The geeky political junkie in me has enjoyed covering the school board election on this blog. But to the parent and voter in me, it’s felt more like a duty than a pleasure. I think what our schools need more than anything is an infusion of local democracy. School board elections are our best shot at translating our community values into educational policy, so I wanted to make as much of that opportunity as I could. Yet as I attended the forums and read the candidates’ statements and profiles in the paper, it was hard for my eyes not to glaze over. There was some good discussion of budget and oversight issues, and some real disagreement there. But on most everything else, there were platitudes and bland agreement. (The most common answer, by far, at the candidates’ forums was “I agree with the other candidates.”) And there was the usual conspicuous absence of any discussion about how our kids are actually being educated: about the choices a district faces in how to help kids learn and grow.

It would go too far to compare the candidate forums to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. But to me, the biggest issue in education, by far, is the way that No Child Left Behind is dumbing down and impoverishing our kids’ education -- not just by putting negative labels on schools and teachers, but by changing the content of what goes on in the classroom, and the way kids experience and think about learning. That issue strikes me as far more important than, say, where to put the boundary between City and West. Yet most of the candidates made little or no mention of NCLB in their personal statements or at the candidate forums.

Yes, I know -- school board members don’t have the power to repeal NCLB. But I think that’s a lame rejoinder. They can minimize the harm only if they’re conscious of how bad it is. Moreover, precisely because they don’t have the power to change NCLB, and precisely because they’re tasked with carrying out its damaging mandates, they should be raising hell about it at every opportunity. Where is the outrage?

At one of the forums, the candidates were asked about the use of standardized test scores by our schools. Incredibly, only one candidate mentioned NCLB in her answer: Julie VanDyke. Until she did, I had begun to feel like the candidates and I were looking at two different school systems on two different planets.

I had that same response to VanDyke’s responses to my candidate questionnaire. I don’t mean to disparage the other candidate’s responses; I admire the other four candidates who responded, especially given how unresponsive some of our current board members have been to people’s questions. And several other candidates did recognize that NCLB has had harmful effects. But only when I read VanDyke’s response did I feel that I was in the presence of a person who is seeing the same world I’m seeing:
NCLB has lead to a nationwide culture of shame, blame, negativity, hopelessness, and punishment in K-12 education. . . .

Teaching to the test, almost a requirement at this point, has further decimated time and funding spent on all areas with the exception of reading and math. Art, physical education, science, history and the humanities in general have been reduced or cut entirely. The most gifted students have lost access to resources and teaching staff they need to excel, while the below average children have the life and joy stripped out of their school day replaced by preparation for standardized tests. . . .

The culture of failure labeling and impossible goals that has grown out of NCLB has negatively impacted the morale of the entire public education system: from administrators-to teachers-to students-to parents-to communities.
It’s about time! This was the only statement I heard from any candidate that came close to recognizing the full disaster that is No Child Left Behind.

In general, I thought VanDyke’s other answers also exhibited a humane and thoughtful understanding of education. I also remain struck by the fact that in Iowa City, home of one of America’s great research universities, the candidates for school board are unwilling to say (in response to my question 6) that indoctrination has no place in education, period. VanDyke’s answer came closest to my feelings on that issue as well.

Yes, as many people have pointed out, VanDyke is not Ms. Diplomacy. She can be combative and “uncivil.” I don’t deny that, and I hope that she can find a way to focus her strong feelings clearly on issues and not on people. But I hope she never becomes so civil that she’s unwilling to denounce in the strongest terms possible the things that need denouncing, like No Child Left Behind. I’d rather have a board member who errs on the side of strong feeling than one who is so polite and civil that you’d barely know anything is wrong. This is especially true given the temptation that board members face to be hands-off and let the district run itself. VanDyke certainly sounds like someone who can resist that temptation.

I plan on casting four votes in the election for the four-year seats, too -- probably for Hoelscher, McGinness, Swesey, and either Hemingway, Porter, or Tate. (Although I wasn’t crazy about Hoelscher’s responses to my questions, she grew on me at the candidate forums. And she did answer the questions, after all, which counts for something.) I’m sure that if any of my candidates are elected, I’ll probably be giving them a hard time in this space before long. So let me give them all their due right now: being a board member, or even running for the board, is a huge and largely thankless sacrifice. As someone who can barely find time to write a blog post every week or two, I don’t know how they do it. We should all be grateful that anyone would take it on.
.

Candidates’ responses: Julie VanDyke

2011-09-11T14:02:00.001-05:00
1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
Given the attention span of most small children I know, 15 minutes for lunch is unacceptably short. Given the attention span of ADD/ADHD, 15 minutes for lunch is inhumane and counterproductive. The ICCSD’s Wellness policy includes the following:

“The school district provides a comprehensive and integral learning environment for developing and practicing lifelong wellness behaviors. The entire school environment, not just the classroom, shall be aligned with healthy school district goals to influence a student’s understanding, beliefs and habits as they relate to healthy nutrition and regular physical activity.”

“The school district supports and promotes proper dietary habits contributing to students’ health status and academic performance.”

Neither of these assertions is evidenced in by the district’s 15 minute lunch. Everything I read on healthy eating indicates that food should be eaten slowly and chewed one bite at a time, not inhaled and rushed down with milk. I assume that the shorter lunch periods are a direct result of NCLB’s pressure to spend every possible moment in class towards more progress on standardized testing. I don’t think the board can mandate a longer lunch but I think elementary students need a minimum of 20 minutes to be able to eat enough food in the healthiest manner. I would do everything I could to help the Superintendent and district administration re-evaluate the lunch period towards extending it to 20-25 minutes. I would have gladly signed the petition to do so. This isn’t going to make me popular but then, honesty is more important to me than popularity…I would like to see High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) containing foods and condiments removed from the breakfasts and lunches provided by the school district. Frequently eating foods containing transfats, lots of added sugar, high saturated fat, HFCS, pesticide residue, MSG and artificial dyes is not healthy. I believe they are at the root of the obesity crisis and the skyrocketing number of ADD/ADHD cases (maybe even the increase in autism spectrum incidence) in this country. One of the main problems with HCFS is that it interferes with leptin and insulin which subsequently impairs the body’s ability to properly regulate and store energy. Please see this link for the most recent research from Princeton http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/. These studies are also helpful: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385 and http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/94/5/1562.full.pdf . I hope to see more research published on HFCS’s affect on behavior in the future. Since fructose and HFCS have not been integrated into food processing/manufacture in the European Union, as opposed to the United States, it would be interesting to compare the two in regards to increases in prevalence of obesity, ADD/ADHD, and Autism Spectrum Disorders.
2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

No. The emperor has no clothes and everyone in this country knows it. NCLB has lead to a nationwide culture of shame, blame, negativity, hopelessness, and punishment in K-12 education. At the minimum, it has not provided an accurate way to measure teaching effectiveness or the skills of our children. “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) measured solely by standardized test scores, including those taken by special education students with learning disabilities (who may not receive adequate accommodations) and ESL students (tests are rarely given in any language except Spanish and even then only in a few states) and disparate state by state defined “proficiency” standards (set well above grade level in many states and quite low in others) provide an unreachable, undesirable goal. 100% “proficiency” by almost every child by 2014 is not possible. I would say the outcome of NCLB is harming our children’s outlook on the future and ability to meet the demands of a 21st century world.

Teaching to the test, almost a requirement at this point, has further decimated time and funding spent on all areas with the exception of reading and math. Art, physical education, science, history and the humanities in general have been reduced or cut entirely. The most gifted students have lost access to resources and teaching staff they need to excel, while the below average children have the life and joy stripped out of their school day replaced by preparation for standardized tests. Reading and math are VERY important, but should be approached in balance with other subjects, methods of teaching, and high level reasoning skills. Every child is a complex individual, all learn differently, but the standardized tests don’t measure why a student is having trouble with a question or provide guidance or resources that can help.

The culture of failure labeling and impossible goals that has grown out of NCLB has negatively impacted the morale of the entire public education system: from administrators-to teachers-to students-to parents-to communities. Out of this comes a lack of optimism and hope for the future. Is this what we want to teach our children? No. We need a system that enhances and develops everyone’s strengths, desire to learn, and belief in the chance of a more positive future.

I support the positions of the Forum on Educational Accountability’s “Empowering Schools and Improving Learning” and the Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind. “The signatories to the ‘Joint Statement’ emphasize the need to shift the No Child Left Behind law from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting states and localities and holding them accountable as they work to make the systemic changes that improve student learning”.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
Yes. Standardized testing measures only a student’s ability to take the test. That alone is not an accurate measure of success. Standardized testing should only be a small part of measuring the educational success of a child, teacher, school, or district. The current frequency of mandated testing is far too high. I would like to see it drop to, at the most, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th grades. Money saved from such frequent testing would be better used towards smaller class sizes, lower teacher to student ratios, and other invaluable resources. The measuring of success and learning must include information from multiple sources to include teacher input, student progress, classroom work, and other evidence of student learning.

I will do everything possible with the board, and in my own life, to help effect the recommendations of the Forum on Education Accountability in the district, the state, and the country. See http://www.edaccountability.org/Empowering_Schools_Statement.html. As they shouldn’t be the primary source of the evaluation of the student, I will also fight standardized testing results being used as the primary evaluation source of teachers, principals, and schools. Working on this with our state and federal leaders, and the Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is imperative.
4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)
Work to satisfy them only as much as necessary to receive continued funding, look for other sources of funding, bringing hypocrisy out into the light, and actively engage the entire community in placing pressure on the state and federal government to make positive change now.

“Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids?” Of course we do, a board member’s obligation is to serve the best interests of their schools and their entire community regardless of their personal views or governmentally mandated current opinion.

Boards need to exemplify the very best examples of careful reasoning and effective, appropriate action.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
Candy should never be given as a reward and goes against the district’s wellness policy. Little tickets seem unimportant to many children as evidenced in the collection of them extracted from the laundry. When my child “wins” a prize, his only talk is of the prize and his memory does not seem to equate the reward with what he did to earn the ticket that won it. Rewards should always be relevant to the desired effort – if not, they mean nothing. While I think there is a place for PBIS in the schools, I think that we should work with the teachers, administrators, students, and parents to determine what that should be. Quality time or a healthy 20-25 minute lunch with a teacher or principal, where there is discussion of good choices and praise of achievement, would be a better reward than another soon forgotten piece of non-biodegradable plastic. We should be giving rewards that will be remembered, valued, and associated with the best effort or choice made. The board can work with the superintendent towards this as soon as possible and report back to the public on changes and progress.
6. How should the schools approach the teaching of moral or ethical values? (See this post and this post.)
Teaching of moral or ethical values could too easily become proselytizing. Without parent involvement, how are we to know if our children are being taught the values shared at home? Chris – your first description in the blog “A parent’s thoughts about school, in Iowa City and beyond” is the style of teaching I learned the most from in school, the kind I benefited the most from, and what has served me best throughout my life. I not only remember those lessons in self-discovery and reasoning, but I remember those teachers the most of all. Dr. Workman and Mrs. Nancy Petersen come to mind first. From Dr. Workman I learned the process of working something out for myself, of self-examination of thought. From Mrs. Petersen I learned how to convey that well in writing and to others. The two skills served me well in college and throughout my life. At the elementary school level, and higher, a child who comes to a point of view through discussion and dialogue will remember that experience and be able to apply that process throughout their lives. That is a 21st century skill; one that can’t be measured on a standardized test. Not one where we can be told the “right” answer, but a process to be used continuously.
7. What should the district’s plan be as the number of SINA schools grows and the number of schools into which those students can transfer shrinks?
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one “surprised” by the district’s unfolding policy towards SINA busing. My impression is that SINA transfers have primarily been used in by the more affluent and, therefore, less in need. More affluent families are likely better able to provide transportation in the first place. SINA transfers have segregated our schools even more than city planning and redistricting. In a somewhat perverse reverse on what SINA was “meant” to do, it would be better if all schools were SINA so this selective segregation could stop. In the meantime, I support the district’s choice to dramatically decrease money spent on SINA busing so long as it continues to be available to those most in need that choose to go to a school that is a better opportunity for their children, i.e., with smaller class sizes, lower FRL, or better resources. The money our district can save from busing SINA transfers is burned in the gas the buses use to increase traffic and pollute our environment. That money should be used to provide better resources and smaller class sizes in our schools. If the public pressure for change on NCLB doesn’t improve the situation first, all schools becoming SINA will force a change. We all know the state and the federal government can’t and don’t want to run our schools – they haven’t been showing much success in what they are supposed to control and they certainly aren’t helping that by micromanaging the public school system.
Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
.

Junk food as a reward

2011-09-09T23:03:00.001-05:00
I just sent this email to our school superintendent:
Hi -- I’ve noticed with increasing frequency that our elementary school is using junk food -- candy, bubble gum, licorice, etc. -- as a reward for “good behavior.” I dislike the district’s pervasive use of rewards to get kids to obey school rules, but using junk food for that purpose is particularly objectionable, especially in a society where childhood obesity is becoming an epidemic. It also seems to violate the district’s wellness policy. Would you be willing to make it clear that ICCSD schools should not use junk food as a reward?

Thank you for your consideration.
I'll post any reply that I receive.

UPDATE 1: Here is the superintendent's reply:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. While in my previous district I worked to end the sale of all pop during the school day and eliminate the use of candy and other related food as rewards in classrooms. We develop a very comprehensive Food and Beverage Guideline. I cannot locate a copy of that this morning, however, I will do so and bring that to Susie Poulton, Director of Health and Student Services.

I know that you have been very active in working to improve the nutrition focus in our District. I recently worked with Assistant Superintendent Becky Furlong to review with our principals the current lunch practices. Some of the changes made last year seem to be working at some schools. Others are not working as well. Becky is working with the Elementary Principals to gather a comprehensive records of the current lunch room practices so that the schools can learn from each other and work to provide the best environment for the children. One promising practice that has been reported is the movement of recess prior to lunch. I know from the reports at my house that at both the elementary and junior high school levels that students still have concerns about the length of the lunch period. While we have not identified a solution that meets all expectations, we are working to that end.

If you have further input on either of these issues, I would welcome additional correspondence or a call.
Readers, is that a “No”?

UPDATE 2: My reply:
Thanks for the quick reply. What I'm after is an authoritative statement from the district prohibiting the use of junk food as a reward in school. I don't think that would require the passage of a new policy; just an application of the existing wellness policy. I can certainly understand wanting to hear from Susie Poulton on the issue first, but am I right to assume that you make the ultimate call on how to interpret that policy? If so, how long do you anticipate it will take to make that decision? The practice of using junk food as a reward seems so plainly indefensible that it would surprise me if there had to be a lengthy consideration of the issue. Would we be talking about a few days?
His very quick reply:
Good Afternoon Chris,

The short answer is yes, I make that decision and yes, that should not require a lengthy re-write of policy.

I want to make sure that appropriate members of the administrative are part of the decision and on board with enforcement to insure that it is not a proclamation in name only.
My reply:
Sounds reasonable. Any time frame?
His reply:
I have to meet with Susie on another issue on Monday morning. If we have enough time we will add this to the agenda. If not, I am sure we can make some determination before the end of the week.
To which I responded, "Terrific -- thank you." Stay tuned . . .
.

The incredible shrinking lunch period

2011-09-07T08:43:00.000-05:00
I currently have a guest post over at The Lunch Tray on the so-far discouraging story of our local effort to get the schools to allow more than a measly fifteen minutes for lunch.

The Lunch Tray, by the way, is a great source of information on the topic of improving school lunches, both system-wide and one family at a time. It’s written by a concerned parent, Bettina Elias Siegel, and features an occasional terrific rant of the type that is right up this blog’s alley (for example, here, here, and here). It’s worth checking out.
.

Scenes from the first week of school

2011-09-01T17:35:00.001-05:00
I’ve written many posts here complaining about our district’s extensive use of rewards to manipulate the kids’ behavior, and about its overemphasis on obedience at the expense of critical thinking. I’m afraid, though, that those posts sometimes get a little too abstract; it’s hard to fully convey my objections without providing a more concrete sense of what is happening in our elementary school. So here is a description of a few of the things that happened during the first week of school.

____________

On the first day at our elementary school, all the kids had to attend a school-wide assembly, at which the new principal made several announcements.

First, she said that every morning on the public address system, she would be leading the Pledge of Allegiance and the Hoover School Pledge, after which there would be a “patriotic song.”

Second, she told the kids that there would be changes in the behavioral rewards program (PBIS) that the school has been using for two years. Instead of receiving red tickets for good behavior, the kids would now receive colorful rope bracelets that they could wear on their arms. The red tickets used to end up in people’s pockets or desks, she explained; now people will be able to see just by looking at a child that he or she has been congratulated. She explained that the kids could choose whether to keep the bracelets or turn them in for entries into the weekly prize lottery. Unlike in previous years, when the prize was usually a special lunch with the principal, the prizes would now be material goods -- little toys, for example.

Third, she explained that there would be a new system for addressing behavior in the lunchroom. Each sixteen-person lunch table would have a plastic cup placed on it. If the kids at that table were well-behaved, the cup would be green, and the kids could talk in normal conversational voices (“voice level 2”) for the duration of the fifteen-minute lunch period. If the kids were too noisy, though, they would get a yellow cup, and would be allowed only to whisper. If they continued to be too noisy, they would get a red cup, and all the kids at the table would have to eat their lunches in silence.

____________

The next day, each classroom of kids was taken on a lengthy tour of the “Expectation Stations,” to be told the “expectations” (translation: rules) for each area of the building. In the hallways, for example, they were to be completely silent, and to walk only on the right side, and only in single file -- no stepping out of line. Even when they’re outside the building on their way to the temporary building, they should be totally quiet and follow the hallway rules. The teacher told them that in the junior high, the students walk chaotically and noisily through the halls, and that they wouldn’t like that at all.

The groups of kids -- even the sixth graders, who are eleven years old and in their seventh year of elementary school -- were then taken into the girls’ bathroom, where the guidance teacher told them not to hang on the stall doors, not to write on the walls, to use no more than two pushes on the towel dispenser, and only one or two squirts of soap (unless it’s really low; then you can use a third). “If you sprinkle when you tinkle,” the teacher told them, “be neat and wipe the seat.” “If it doesn’t look nice, flush twice.” The kids were taken on similar tours of the lunchroom expectations (those cups again), and the playground expectations.

“They treat us like babies,” one child said afterward.

____________

In several classrooms, the teachers introduced reward systems (sometimes called “Classroom Cash”), under which well-behaved kids would win prizes of various kinds.

____________

One mom complained to the principal about the school’s excessive focus on behavior and obedience, citing the kids’ tour of the girls’ bathroom as being particularly, in her words, “disrespectful of the kids.” “When there are sixth graders who know how to read, you don’t take them all back and work on the alphabet with them,” she said. “They’re going to come away from all this thinking, ‘This is the level they think I’m capable of.’”

The principal said that all kids need to know what the expectations are, and that the kids had spent only “ten minutes” in the girls’ bathroom. Another adult who was present in a classroom, however, was surprised that they had “spent hours” talking about “expectations.”

____________

In the lunchroom, two girls were trying to talk, but the boys at the table were being noisy. Soon the red cup came down. Everyone, including the two girls, then had to be silent for the remainder of lunch.

(Thus teaching the valuable civics lesson: It’s okay to punish everyone whenever it’s too hard to sort out the innocent from the guilty.)

____________

Mid-week, the principal announced that they running out of bracelets, because too many kids were choosing to accumulate them, rather than trade them in for the lottery tickets. (The school doesn’t use the term “lottery tickets,” but I don’t know any other way to describe them.) The principal asked the kids either to turn the bracelets in for tickets right away, or to take them home and leave them there.

____________

One mom was concerned about her daughter being asked to recite daily pledges, because the kids “are just mindlessly reciting the words and have no idea what Pledging means let alone what allegiance is.” She suggested that her daughter ask her teacher about the pledges and “maybe have a class discussion.” After school the next day, her daughter told her that “she asked and didn’t get much of an answer and they had to get to math.”

____________

Other Iowa City schools are reportedly also increasing their emphasis on behavior and obedience. At a nearby elementary school that serves relatively affluent families and had previously escaped much of the behavior management craze, the kids are now being given rigid “hallway expectations,” and there are even assigned seats at lunch.

One mom, whose daughter just started junior high after attending a private elementary school, was “appalled” by all the focus on behavior management.

____________

As I walked to the school one afternoon to pick up my kids, I was approached by a sixth grader wearing the orange-and-yellow vest of the after-school safety patrol. The boy hesitantly, but very politely and courteously, asked me not to walk on the grass and to use the sidewalk instead. It is against the rules for kids or parents to walk unnecessarily on the grass in front of our elementary school.

____________

The guidance teacher visited the fifth-and-sixth grade classrooms to begin a three-week lesson on the importance of study skills. She lectured the children that if they did not work hard and perform well in school -- elementary school -- they would not go to a good college, would not get a good job, and would have an unhappy life. (More on this “guidance” in an upcoming post.)

____________

At the end of the week, the lottery drawing was held, and one child in each classroom won a prize. The prizes included candy, sunglasses, lip gloss, notebooks, etc. The winner in one classroom happened to be my daughter. The other winners had taken all the candy, so she got a notebook.

____________

I hardly know where to begin in listing my objections to the atmosphere that the school has created. The constant use of tangible rewards encourages materialism and acquisitiveness. It sends the message, “We know you wouldn’t choose to behave well; it’s something you would do only if you’re paid to do it.” The use of candy as a reward is particularly disturbing: teaching the kids not only that good behavior is a chore, but that candy is what everyone should want.

The program is infantilizing and demeaning to the kids. It insults them: treating them all as if they’re incapable of good behavior without dumbed-down instructions and prizes. Rather than give the kids a chance to behave well on their own, it assumes in advance that they all need remedial instruction.

The program teaches authoritarian values. The message in our school is loud and clear: reflexive obedience to authority is the highest value. The prizes aren’t distributed for originality, for asking good questions, or for thinking critically about the class material. It couldn’t be clearer what the school cares most about. “Being good” means being quiet, docile, and obedient.

The entire approach is fundamentally anti-intellectual. The rewards are designed to produce an automatic response, not a thoughtful one. They are treating the kids the way Pavlov treated his dogs. Rather than do the hard work of helping kids think and reason about their own behavior and about right and wrong, PBIS cares only about getting compliance, long-term consequences be damned.

I don’t know anyone who thinks that kids should be taught to obey every adult, regardless of what they’re told to do. They can’t escape having to use their own judgment about what they should and shouldn’t do. Our school’s approach gives them no help at all in developing that judgment; the message is simply, “Do what we say and you’ll get a prize. If we say something else tomorrow, do that.” If critical thinking means anything at all, it means judging for yourself the things you are told to think and do, and not just complying in a spirit of passive obedience.

The program is absurdly restrictive. I don’t know anyone who walks single-file in silence down a hallway.

The “pledging” is simply indoctrination. What’s the theory behind it? That putting words in the kids’ mouths will make them think what we want them to think?

I could go on (and I do, here). Ultimately, the cumulative effect of all of these so-called educational practices is to turn school -- and, by extension, learning -- into a petty, dreary, small-minded, joyless enterprise. School is where you go to be constantly scrutinized and judged, to be treated like a baby (or a dog), to be told what to do and what to think. Greed (prizes, “cash”) and fear (unhappy life) are the reasons you do it. Learning, and treating other people well, can’t possibly have any intrinsic appeal, or the school wouldn’t put so much energy into making you do them. Is this what we want to teach our kids?
.

Candidates’ responses: Marla Swesey

2011-09-01T17:34:00.000-05:00
1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
School lunch time has been an issue for a long time in the ICCSD and I suspect other districts, too. Although, it isn’t a school board decision to be made- it still deserves discussion as it is something that can be approached by the Superintendent when he talks to the principals about scheduling. At the beginning of the school year, the principals have to decide on the scheduling for all the specials, including the lunch/recess times for all classes. It is a tough job. Most schools have 15 min. for eating and then 15 min. for noon recess. The rationale behind the recess after the lunch time is to provide whatever extra time is necessary for kids to finish their lunches before they go out for recess. If a slow eater takes longer to eat, the extra eating time is taken off of their recess time. In all the years that I taught, I didn’t see too many students giving up their recess time to finish eating. Many times, I saw students rushing to eat so they would get more recess time. Some schools or classes in schools, have recess before lunch so that there is no extra time for the students to eat if they are only given 15 minutes. It would be nice to have 20 minutes of eating time and 15 minutes of recess but principals would have to do some creative scheduling to make that happen. Is it possible? Perhaps one of the meetings scheduled for the Superintendent and the principals could be used to talk about some of the creative ways that more time for school lunch could be accomplished.
2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

No and yes is my answer to the NCLBA question. No, because it produced SINA schools which labeled schools that have wonderful programs for students but allowed students to leave the schools labeled when it wouldn’t necessarily be the right move for the student. Bussing students away from those wonderful programs has been a costly nightmare for the district. And no, because it also made students take tests on level that they were not ready to take because of having English as a second language or a disability that made the test demoralizing for the student to the point that they would think they were dumb or not able to learn for a long while after the test. Motivation and excitement about learning are essential for student achievement. Students that took off level tests for those reasons before the NCLBA, at least had a fighting chance to catch up with their peers and feel good about themselves as learners when they did take the on level tests in a year or two. I say yes to NCLBA only because it pushed schools to have tutoring for students after school that has been a good thing for students who need extra help.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
Standardized testing has been around for a long time and if used properly, can be a good experience for students and teachers. If students start taking the standardized testing in 3rd grade, it can help give them the experience in testing which will happen throughout their school years. Teachers can use the scores to help guide curriculum to make sure there are no gaps in the sequencing of skills for particular classes. If the tests are used for these purposes, there is no reason to worry. When standardized tests are used for judging schools, making teachers feel like they have to teach to the test, or testing students that should be testing off level because of the reasons stated in question 2; the tests are being used inappropriately.
4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)
Yes, I think school board members do have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for students. I think school board members should be good ambassadors for the ICCSD and go to the legislative bodies that are making poor decisions and make their concerns heard whenever necessary. If they can’t get to DesMoines physically, they should make calls, emails, whatever is available to let legislators know what they think.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
I have never been a believer of stickers or prizes used to reward students for good work or behavior. Students should be motivated to feel the intrinsic worth of doing a good job on their schoolwork or doing a good deed. Students are capable of feeling pride in their accomplishments without prizes. Students are naturally curious and should get excited about learning without all the gimmicks. There are times when classes need to celebrate in some way for accomplishments or great deeds that the class achieves. But these celebrations would not be done on a regular basis. Once again, this is not a decision for the school board to make but it certainly can be a discussion with the Superintendent so that he can pass on the discussion with the school principals, who in turn can discuss the issue with the teachers.
6. How should the schools approach the teaching of moral or ethical values? (See this post and this post.)
This is a loaded question. Loaded because it would take me a tremendous amount of time to explain my thinking and all the research I’ve read about the subject. I’ll try to give the short answer version and hope it will make sense. Schools and classrooms are like a community. To get along and not waste time on inappropriate behaviors in the community, rules need to be in place so that everyone understands the expectations of the community. Morals and values are part of the discussion when setting the community rules. Should schools teach character skills to accomplish this task? It depends on what those character skills are and whether or not the community using them needs them. Yes, I think the diverse population of students we have in our school communities, who come with diverse experiences, need to know what’s acceptable and what’s not. Character education is one way to address this need.
7. What should the district’s plan be as the number of SINA schools grows and the number of schools into which those students can transfer shrinks?
Earlier this month, Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, stated that he was waiving the NCLB law’s proficiency requirements for states that have adopted their own testing and accountability programs and making strides toward better schools. The guidelines for applying for the waivers should be coming out soon to all states. I think our district should be pushing the state of Iowa to move quickly on getting this waiver so that we won’t have to worry about more SINA schools in our district.

While waiting to get the state to get a waiver on NCLB- the school board should help get the word out that the SINA schools are by the nature of the brute going to increase in number and parents should not over react and take their kids out of good schools! I really think if parents knew how those schools are designated, they would relax a little about the label.
Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
.

One-stop shopping for the school board election

2011-08-28T12:03:00.017-05:00
I want this post to serve as a collecting spot for information about the candidates in our local September 13 school board election. I will keep adding to it as more information becomes available. I’m sure I’m missing things; please feel free to suggest additional links in the comments or via email. (I hope you’ll also feel free to check out some of the site’s other posts while you’re here.)

ELECTION RESULTS

For live-blogging of the election results as they come (as well as early reports on turnout), click here.

THE BASICS

Eight candidates are competing for four at-large seats on the board. In addition, voters will choose between two candidates, Julie Van Dyke and Karla Cook, to fill the unexpired term of Mike Cooper. As a result, five members of the seven-member board will be chosen in this election. Here's what the ballot will look like. Find your polling place here. (Go to your “school precinct,” not your “regular precinct.”)

The polls will be open from 7 am to 8 pm on Tuesday, September 13. Same-day voter registration is permitted. Absentee ballots must be requested by Friday, September 9, and postmarked by Monday, September 12.

Voters will also decide whether to approve a new bond for Kirkwood Community College.

QUESTIONNAIRES

This blog’s questionnaire to the candidates, with links to their responses
The teachers’ union’s questionnaire and responses
Press-Citizen’s “Questions to Ask School Board Candidates”

DEBATES

I know of four scheduled debates:
Monday, August 29 at 7 pm, Hills Community Center, 100 E. Main Street, Hills;
Thursday, September 1 at 6:30 pm, Iowa City Public Library;
Tuesday, September 6 at 7 pm., City High (focused on curriculum and funding); and
Thursday, September 8 at 7 pm, West High (focused on redistricting).
The September 1 debate is available here as a podcast.

The September 6 debate will be replayed on local cable channel 21 on:
September 7 at noon, 2 pm, 4 pm, and 9 pm;
September 8 at 10 am, noon, 2 pm, 4 pm, and 9 pm;
September 9 at 2 pm;
September 10 at 8 am, 5 pm, and 9 pm; and
September 11 at 8 am, 5 pm, and 9 pm.
The September 8 debate will be replayed on local cable channel 21 on:
September 9 at 10 am, noon, 4 pm, and 9 pm;
September 10 at 10 am, 3 pm, and 7 pm;
September 11 at 10 am, 3 pm, and 7 pm; and
September 12 at 10 pm, 2 pm, and 9 pm.
The September 6 and 8 debates are organized by the District Parent Organization; historically, those debates have had a pretty tightly constrained format. The September 1 debate is sponsored by the Press-Citizen and the Iowa City Education Association; historically, their format has been more of a free-for-all.

COMMENTARY

This blog’s posts on the election
Commentary by John Deeth here and here
The teachers’ union summary of the candidates’ pros and cons
Press-Citizen: Reasons to learn more about the school board election
Iowa City Patch: Live-blog commentary on September 1 forum
Another local blogger's take on the September 1 forum
Press-Citizen: Vote yes on the bond issue
Press-Citizen endorses Cook, Swesey, McGinness, Hoelscher, and Porter
More commentary by Mariaconz
The Gazette: Why to vote
Mariaconz's election eve thoughts
Iowa City Patch: Live-blog commentary on the September 8 debate
Press-Citizen: Daunting tasks face everyone who wins today
This blog's choice: Why I'm voting for Julie VanDyke

NEWS COVERAGE

Press-Citizen: Ten candidates seek school board seats
Gazette: Plenty of candidates for school board
Coverage of August 29 debate here
Press-Citizen: Hoelscher to hold forum
Press-Citizen: School board hopefuls sound off at forum
Hoelscher to host listening posts
Federation of Labor endorses Tate, Fields, McGinness, and Porter
Coverage of the September 6 debate is here
Press-Citizen: Teachers' union endorses Cook, Swesey, Fields, Porter, and Hemingway
Coverage of the September 8 debate is here
McGinness to attend coffee event Sunday
John Deeth: McGinness Top School Spender
Daily Iowan: School Board candidates discuss transparency, enrollment

CANDIDATE STATEMENTS AND PROFILES

Jeff Alden: Statement, statement, profile
Karla Cook: Statement, statement, profile
Patti Fields: Statement, statement, profile
Phil Hemingway: Statement, statement, profile, profile
Sally Hoelscher: Statement, statement, profile
Jeff McGinness: Statement, statement, profile, profile, interview
Bob Porter: Statement, statement, profile
Marla Swesey: Statement, statement, profile
James Tate: Statement, statement, profile
Julie VanDyke: Statement, statement, profile

CANDIDATES’ CONTACT INFO

Available here.

CAMPAIGN WEBSITES

Patti Fields
Sally Hoelscher website, Facebook page
Jeff McGinness
Marla Swesey
Julie VanDyke
.

The teachers’ union on the school board election

2011-08-27T00:28:00.005-05:00
When I sent out my questions for school board candidates, I mentioned how most such questionnaires tend to focus on “budgets, buildings, and boundaries,” with little, if any, attention to the district’s educational philosophies, approaches, and goals. The Iowa City Education Association (i.e., the local teachers’ union) has its own questionnaire -- the responses to it are here, and their summary of the candidates’ pros and cons is here -- which I think demonstrates my point. Eleven questions, and not one that invites any discussion of what the district’s educational mission should be, or even acknowledges that there might be more than one way to think about educating people. (Number 7 arguably qualifies, but is pretty narrowly focused on accommodating socioeconomic diversity.)

Don’t get me wrong: I think the ICEA is asking about important issues, and I’m happy to link to them here. But as a parent, what I most want to know is: Why is the district treating my children this way? Why does it seem to be striving so hard to teach my kids that learning is an unpleasant chore? Why is it so bent on turning my kids into quiet, obedient little worker bees who will score high on standardized tests and fear authority, instead of skeptical, questioning citizens who will speak up and think for themselves? Why does the district have such a blinkered idea of how people learn, and such an impoverished conception of what it means to be well-educated?

As I’ve made clear before, I don’t mean this as a criticism of the teachers. This approach to education is being imposed on the teachers partly by the district and partly by individual principals. We have no way of knowing how the teachers really feel about it, and I think many of them strive to keep as much joy in the learning process as they can, under the circumstances.

Deborah Meier frequently talks about how schools should be striving to create a “feisty, democratically savvy citizenry.” Our district, though, seems to want to stamp out all traces of anything resembling feistiness from the kids. For the kids who are deemed “disruptive,” we’ve adopted million-dollar programs and entire curricula to train them -- and all the kids -- not just to obey the rules, but to internalize and agree with them. For the kids who are too people-pleasing, too quiet and docile, too unquestioningly obedient, too happy to be told what to think, too fearful of authority -- nothing. The district doesn’t see those kids as a problem. In fact, they appear to represent the district’s ideal student.

Why?
.

Candidates’ responses: Karla Cook [Updated 8/29]

2011-08-26T20:20:00.002-05:00
Karla Cook just sent me a partial response to my candidate questionnaire, and said that she “will continue to work on your concerns and questions,” which I hope means that more responses will be coming. In the meantime, here are her thoughts on two of the questions:

1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
As to the lunch time issue, I talked with a parent at Hoover and 2 grandmothers in the district. The parent thought the time was appropriate. However, the grandmothers indicated that they thought the children appeared to be rushed. I would be in favor of allowing the children to finish their lunches whether that was 15-25 minutes. It would be taken out of the lunch recess or whatever activity that was planned for that extra time. I would hope that no school personnel would encourage students to eat too fast or throw away needed food.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
When I taught at City High, we were concerned with "teaching to the test" in order to make our schools look good. We determined that it would not encourage students to become life-long learners - just momentary-learners, enough to do O.K. on the test. I know that happens in other states and districts. From the number of schools on the SINA list in Iowa City, I think that is not happening here. I am not in favor of "high stakes" testing in any part. Standardized testing is supposed to be a measure of how much progress a student is making. It is not always a good measure as some students do not test well for what ever reason.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
I read some of the blogs and while I agree that students should not be rewarded for what should be normal good behavior, I know that some students have not received the appropriate parenting before attending school. This is still obvious in some students at the high school level. That leaves the schools to deal with teaching the behaviors that are needed in school. It is hard to have a group of students treated differently than the rest. I would imagine that the teachers have decided that all students will be rewarded so that the ones who are in need of the instruction will not stand out.

I would hope that the reinforcement of the behaviors by giving token rewards would taper off as the student population becomes accoustomed to the rules.
Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
.

Candidates’ responses: Sally Hoelscher

2011-08-26T17:40:00.009-05:00
1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
It is the responsibility of the School Board to make policy decisions, not operational decisions. Therefore, the amount of time designated for lunch is not under the purview of the Board, but rather a decision of the administration of each school. As a parent, you are entitled to (and I believe, correct to) be an advocate for your children on this issue. Building principals and the superintendent are the officials to address these concerns to, as you have done. When my children were in elementary school, I also acted as an advocate for them on lunch issues. I do know that some elementary schools have made some in their lunch procedure for this school year.
2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

While I agree with the idea behind the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), its assessment method is flawed and therefore it has not proven to be beneficial. Yes, we need to assess whether our children are learning what they need to learn. NCLB has made administrators and educators more aware of this, which is a good thing. However, the act uses a single standardized testing each year for this assessment. There are many factors affecting student performance that are not measurable by standardized tests. NCLB is also set up as a punitive system, rather than focusing on providing the help and resources needed. Additionally, the goals of NCLB in Iowa are unachievable, as by the year 2014 the goal is 100% proficiency, which means that by that time all of the schools in the ICCSD will be labeled as schools in need of assistance. Hopefully if/when the legislature reauthorizes this act in 2014, some of these issues will be addressed.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
Standardized tests do serve a purpose and can be helpful in assessing achievement when looked at as a part of the whole picture. I don't think that we should stop giving standardized tests to students. We do need to be careful about the way these scores are used. (See answer to question number 2.)
4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)
Just as School Board members have an obligation to be knowledgeable about state and federal mandates, they also have a responsibility to think independently and assess those mandates. The School Board also has a responsibility to ensure those mandates are being followed. In cases where School Boards disagree with the mandates, they need to work at the state and federal level to make changes. School Boards often act as a liaison between school districts and the legislature.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
As I mentioned in answering question number 1, it is the responsibility of the School Board to make policy decisions, not operational decisions. The use of reward tokens does not fall under the responsibility of the Board.
6. How should the schools approach the teaching of moral or ethical values? (See this post and this post.)
Even if it were advisable, I think it is impossible to quantify moral and ethical values. We strive to teach our children to be independent thinkers, but it is a reality that we also need rules and therefore must teach children to follow those rules. It is important that schools recognize they are partners with parents and guardians in this area.
7. What should the district’s plan be as the number of SINA schools grows and the number of schools into which those students can transfer shrinks?
The District needs to evaluate all schools and provide resources and assistance where needed to meet challenges specific schools may be facing. We are fortunate to have excellent schools in the Iowa City Community School District and we need to work to maintain that excellence. As I alluded to in my answer to question number 2, the method for designating SINA schools has some flaws. The School Board can be an advocate for the schools in this district by educating the public about how the SINA designation is determined and by bringing to the public's attention the wonderful things that occur at our schools on a daily basis.
Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
.

Candidates’ responses: Jeff McGinness

2011-08-22T16:29:00.008-05:00
Jeff McGinness, one of our school board candidates, is the first to reply to my list of questions. Here are his responses (I’ve added a link to the article he mentions):

1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)
Unquestionably, yes. My oldest Gavin, now in second grade at Weber, requests home lunch everyday because he knows his time is limited if he has to stand in line for school lunch. If an 8 year old recognizes the problem such that he changes his own habits I question how the district cannot similarly recognize the issue. I know the administration is finally starting to look at the issue because I had a conversation with Steve Murley in which he mentioned his own kids doing the same thing.

One option being talked about is placing the scheduled recess following lunch, instead of before or at some other time. It has had some success at a few of our schools and gives kids more time. The obvious concern is that kids may then voluntarily shorten their own lunch to go play. Thus, they should look at extending the time by 5 minutes in addition to moving around recess times.
2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

NCLB and its accompanying designations have been extremely harmful to our district and the communities’ perception of many of our schools. Jason Lewis, Twain PTO President, recently wrote a very good op-ed piece in the PC that talked about the issue in depth. The jist of the piece was to stop calling his school a failing school just because of a designation. Like Jason, I am very critical of a designation that implies the school, teachers, or administration of a particular school are solely to blame for underperformance. The reality is that we have an ever shifting population with accompanying shifts in demographics in many of our schools.

As a district, we need to get past the negative perceptions created by SINA designations and focus on the many positive things we have happening in our district. Simultaneously, we need to use the SINA designations as they arise to insure we have adequate teachers and programming in place to address the unique needs of each school.
3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?
Standardized testing is a fact of life and will never go away completely. It provides a measuring stick for performance and gains, as well as a tool for identifying students with specific or heightened needs. It also identifies students who are learning faster, thus keeping them engaged through placement in higher level classes.

I do not think our current testing protocol is excessive. While we do have a number of tests, we have not as a district gone the way of many others by teaching to the test. Our curriculum is based up what is needed to best equip our students for either the next level of education, or the real world.

This issue will obviously have to be reexamined if merit pay becomes a reality as there would be heightened incentive for teachers to teach solely to the test. (p.s. I am against merit pay based upon standardized tests or student performance in part for this reason.)
4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)
The board’s job and mandate is to look out for the best interests of all of the children in the district and insure that all of them have the best opportunity for success. When faced with a state or federal mandate that runs counter to that obligation it is the board’s duty to work to address the issue on a state or national level. Our district, like many across the country, is part of associations focused on the betterment of our schools. These associations not only provide resources for boards and districts, but they also serve as a lobbying voice for its member districts.

We also have a community that is very passionate about education. Rather then wait and respond to potentially negative mandates, it would be my goal to be proactive and utilize passionate community members to talk to legislators about and kill bills before they become law.
5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?
Pervasive is a very subjective term. Confounding the problem is the assumption built into your question it is truly pervasive across the district. My oldest is now in second grade at Weber and I have not found his teachers use of rewards to be either excessive or pervasive. He seems to appreciate the system not because it is a form of bribery, but it provides him added incentive. Thus, I think we need to examine first whether use of these programs is truly pervasive by talking to the teachers and, more importantly, the students and the parents.

In the instances that it is truly being used excessively, based upon feedback from groups of parents, I think it would be the obligation of the board to work through and with the administration to address the issue.
6. How should the schools approach the teaching of moral or ethical values? (See this post and this post.)
The best way I can answer your question is through balance and deference. We need to balance the desire for having free and critical thinking young adults with the desire for having students with certain moral and ethical values. There is no bright line and as both your post and the critiques of your alternative statement show drafting a policy needed to accomplish that balance is perhaps impossible. Coupled with that is the need for deference to parents own moral and ethical guideposts. Teaching of moral and ethical values is a very slippery slope and has the potential to run afoul certain populations’ religious beliefs.
7. What should the district’s plan be as the number of SINA schools grows and the number of schools into which those students can transfer shrinks?
The districts most recent action on this issue is a step in the right direction. Specifically, they opted to shift the 10% discretionary funding from busing to tutoring. Thus, more of the money is being spent on programming rather then transportation. As we continue to get more SINA schools, however, additional steps are needed. Of particular importance to me is the need to strengthen the PTO/PTAs of our allegedly underperforming schools. In addition, more alternative education opportunities need to be explored. One such option is converting one or more schools to year round alternatives – assuming there is sufficient community support.
McGinness also asked that I include this link for “more general information about my background, motivation and goals.”

Links to other candidates’ responses are here.
.

Questions for school board candidates, continued

2011-08-22T00:01:00.006-05:00
The list of candidates for our local September 13 school board elections is now final. There are ten candidates for five seats: incumbent school board chair Patti Fields, Jeff Alden, Phil Hemingway, Sally Hoelscher, Jeff McGinness, Bob Porter, Marla Swesey, James Tate, Karla Cook, and Julie VanDyke. (Some interesting commentary here.) I have just sent all of them my list of questions for school board candidates, prefaced with this introduction:
I find that most school board candidate questionnaires tend to focus on what you might call the “three Bs” -- budgets, buildings, and boundaries. Those are certainly important topics, but one of the reasons I started blogging is that I think we don’t hear enough discussion of what the mission of our schools is, and about how that mission is reflected in our kids’ day-to-day experience of school. The questions below are my attempt to get at some of those issues in a concrete way.
The questions, slightly revised since I first posted them, are:

1. Should the school board ensure that elementary school students get more than fifteen minutes for lunch? If so, what should the minimum lunch period be? (See the petition about this issue here.)

2. On balance, has the No Child Left Behind Act been good for Iowa City’s public school children?

3. Do you think that standardized testing plays too large a role in our school system? If so, what should the school board do about it?

4. Local school boards have been increasingly subject to state and federal mandates. Do school board members have an obligation to think independently about whether those mandates are good for kids? If so, what should a school board member do if he or she concludes that those mandates are not in the best interests of the kids, or are contrary to our community’s values? (See this post.)

5. Do you support the current pervasive use of token rewards to get students to comply with school rules? If not, what role should the school board take in reining that practice in?

6. How should the schools approach the teaching of moral or ethical values? (See this post and this post.)

7. What should the district’s plan be as the number of SINA schools grows and the number of schools into which those students can transfer shrinks?

My hope is that the candidates’ responses will not only reveal their thoughts on these issues, but will also tell us something about they will respond to public questions when they are in office. I’ll post responses as I receive them. Feel free to suggest additional questions in the comments.

UPDATE: Here are responses from Jeff McGinness, Sally Hoelscher, Karla Cook, Marla Swesey, and Julie VanDyke.
.

Choices

2011-08-20T00:13:00.000-05:00
Imagine two approaches to teaching ethical reasoning to elementary schoolers (or to anyone, for that matter):

In the first, teachers would pose questions to the students about ethical quandaries. The teacher would solicit opinions from the students, and in response, would ask further questions. At first, the hypotheticals might be relatively easy: for example, the students might be asked how they would respond to a friend who pressures them to shoplift. But, as the discussion progressed, the questions could become progressively more challenging: What if a teacher asks you to reveal something that a friend told you in confidence? How much money would you give or lend to a friend who needs it more than you do? Throughout the discussion, the teacher would refrain from dictating any “right answers” to the questions (which are, after all, questions of opinion). Instead, the teacher would use further questions to get the kids thinking about right and wrong and developing their own nascent codes of moral reasoning. The teacher would also point out patterns in the kids’ responses, giving the kids a vocabulary for talking about ethical choices.

In the second approach, the teachers would tell the students rules about what kind of behavior is right and what is wrong. The teachers would spend large amounts of time and effort to make the rules as clear as possible, so everyone will know them. Throughout the day, the teachers would give token rewards to students who they “catch” following the rules: a paper ticket, say, or a string bracelet. Kids would use the rewards to enter into weekly drawings to win prizes -- the more rewards you accumulate, the better your chance to win. Classrooms, too, would compete against each other to get the highest number of rewards. The use of material gain as an incentive for the kids to obey the rules would be defended on the (empirically suspect) grounds that eventually the kids will internalize the “right” attitudes. The implicit message would be that the highest value is to always do as you are told, and that people in positions of authority are automatically the arbiters of ethical right and wrong.

Unfortunately, you don’t need to imagine the second approach; it is the reality in Iowa City public schools (and in many other places as well). I doubt that the people administering PBIS, and all the similar authoritarian behavioral programs (examples here and here), think of themselves as teaching ethical reasoning -- and granted, what they’re doing is barely worthy of that label. But there’s no question that those programs are teaching kids lessons about their ethical obligations -- about what it means to be “good” -- and those lessons are: always do what others expect of you, always obey whatever rules you are given, let the people in authority tell you what to think. When, exactly, did our community choose that approach?
.

Treating kids like pets, continued

2011-08-18T21:37:00.015-05:00
Our school has a new principal this year, and I took the opportunity to ask if she would consider making some changes to the way the school administers the heinous PBIS program, under which quiet and obedient students are given token rewards which they use to compete for weekly prizes. The good news is that she wrote me a substantial, candid reply responding to the concerns I raised; I really appreciated her willingness to give a direct and candid answer, which (ahem) has not always been my experience.

The bad news is that the new principal is a big supporter of PBIS. (I later learned that she was previously a “professional development facilitator” for PBIS.) She defended the use of PBIS because it “establishes a desire by students, who wouldn’t normally think about behaving appropriately in school, to think otherwise.” (On that point, I have never disagreed.) But she also wrote that “The PBiS program is meant to get students ‘thinking’ about appropriate behaviors and ask questions about why these expectations are in place.”

Again, I really do appreciate her response. But on that last point, I have to conclude that she is simply in denial. Few people want to think of themselves as promoting unquestioning obedience to authority, but a close look at PBIS reveals that that is exactly its mission. It is entirely devoted to making the rules very clear and then using tangible rewards to train kids to reflexively obey them, whatever they might be. It is one hundred percent about obedience training, and zero percent about getting kids to think for themselves about what’s right and wrong and about how to behave. Scan their extensive website in vain for any evidence to the contrary.

In my view, that is a horrible, harmful, and dehumanizing thing to teach children, the kind of “education” you’d expect to find in an authoritarian state or dictatorship, not in a participatory democracy. I know that in any school setting there will inevitably be some emphasis on the importance of following instructions. But to make unquestioning obedience the entire focus of a school’s behavioral program, to the complete exclusion of teaching the kids to think for themselves and develop moral reasoning of their own, is to do the kids an egregious wrong. It is anti-educational, anti-intellectual, and fundamentally inhumane. It’s how we treat dogs, not how we treat people.

We just lived through the Twentieth Century; it’s not hard to think of occasions when authorities have told people to do things that they should have refused to do. This is true even of school officials and teachers. The examples aren’t confined to Nazi Germany or totalitarian societies; just look at the American South during the civil rights struggle, or to the sexual abuse scandals that have plagued Catholic schools, or to what you read in the current news, or even to things that have happened here in Iowa City schools. I certainly don’t send my kids to school to learn that they should accept everything the teacher says and do whatever he or she commands, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. But that is exactly what PBIS is designed to teach, and I’m afraid it’s exactly what they are learning. (The unfortunate “character education” program simply drives the message home.)

A while back, our district invited suggestions as to whom a new elementary school should be named after. At the time, I joked that I would suggest test-prep magnate Stanley Kaplan. But I’m beginning to think this would be the most fitting choice:

.

I command you to take a course on freedom

2011-08-12T09:58:00.001-05:00
Erik Voeten reports on a study allegedly showing that “exposing students to an enhanced civics curriculum increases the students’ knowledge of the constitution and civil liberties but it does not increase their support for civil liberties.” From the study’s abstract:
More than 1000 students in 59 high school classrooms were randomly assigned to an enhanced civics curriculum designed to promote awareness and understanding of constitutional rights and civil liberties. The results show that students in the enhanced curriculum classes displayed significantly more knowledge in this domain than students in conventional civics classes. However, we find no corresponding change in the treatment group’s support for civil liberties, a finding that calls into question the hypothesis that knowledge and attitudes are causally connected.
As much as I’d like more people to take civil liberties seriously, I’m uncomfortable with using instruction to try to indoctrinate kids into certain political beliefs. The goal of the school should be to encourage intelligent, informed discussion of different value choices, not to dictate which values are right and which are wrong.

That said, this particular attempt at indoctrination must be the lamest ever recorded. Confine the kids to an institution dominated by authoritarian practices, deprive them of virtually any civil liberties of their own, and then require them to take special civics classes. Darn, why doesn’t it work?

The sorry state of schoolchildren’s civil liberties is partially surveyed here. If we wanted to accustom kids to a world without civil liberties, we couldn’t be trying any harder than we are, with or without an “enhanced civics curriculum.”

Can I suggest another study? Forget the civics course, and try giving the kids the right to some privacy, some freedom, and some due process in school. Then see if the civil liberties thing catches on. Doesn’t every parent know that modeling is a better bet than lecturing?

Related posts here, here, here, here, and throughout the site.
.

“Wishing doesn’t make it so”

2011-08-03T10:37:00.005-05:00
Freddie deBoer has some good, if painful, advice for school “reform” enthusiasts:
Educational policy is the graveyard of superb ideas.

. . .
Every year, a new, supposedly revolutionary text emerges that challenges our core understandings of pedagogy, which asks us for an entire new educational philosophy, which is sure to spark massive change in our schools....

. . .
We have to consider the possibility that improving educational outcomes will always be expensive, frustrating, and slow, and the gains tenuous. We have to consider that this might be reality.

. . .
Among the most frustrating elements of debating education reformers is that many tend to speak as though they are the first to ever “put their foot down.” When you study the history of education reform, you will find that one thing that has never been lacking is earnest, well-meaning white people talking loudly about how something must be done. I assure you: if the presence of impassioned, minimally-involved liberal strivers in the education debate guaranteed progress, we’d have achieved far more than we have. I expect and welcome discussion of education reform from passionate popular/generalist sources. That’s democracy. But I do wish people would understand that it is no coincidence that teachers and administrators at public schools tend to have a much more limited and skeptical view of reform. They live where education happens.

. . .
Educating is hard. Doing responsible social science is hard. This debate is desperately in need of modesty. Adjusting your expectations downward is not nihilism, and it’s not despair. It is reacting to decade upon decade of discouraging data.
I like deBoer’s call for modesty. I admit, though, that I’d be less bothered by the grand schemes of education reformers if they involved treating kids with more respect and giving them more independence and autonomy, if they were less burdensome and coercive, and if they were less likely to model authoritarian values.

The unspoken premise of most educational debate is that the ends justify the means. If it will “improve outcomes” -- that is, raise test scores -- then we should do it, period. It’s an ethically questionable premise at any time -- God help us if research ever shows that corporal punishment raises test scores -- but it’s a particularly questionable one when we know so little about the real long-term effects of any educational proposal. Especially in that context, doesn’t it make sense to let our treatment of children be driven by our values, rather than by pie-in-the-sky hopes that treating kids harshly will “improve outcomes”?

Read deBoer’s whole post.
.

A new principal at Hoover School

2011-07-26T12:01:00.001-05:00
Details here. An older article on the new principal is here.
.

Theirs is not to question why

2011-07-21T15:55:00.000-05:00
Apparently the people who want to “reform” education have realized that they need to reform education schools, too, to make sure that all those aspiring teachers won’t start asking hard questions about the assumptions of the day and the interests that are served by them. The Times reports today on efforts to remove all intellectual content from the process of becoming a teacher -- er, I mean, to shift education schools to a “nearly single-minded focus on practical teaching techniques.”

The Times, for example, describes “Teacher U,” an education graduate school started by three “charter school chains,” including KIPP. No lofty debates about the goals, purposes, or social functions of education for these future teachers; this program is “tightly focused ‘on stuff that will help you be a better teacher on Monday.’” Unsurprisingly, being “a better teacher” is defined entirely in terms of raising standardized test scores, and nothing else.
There was no mention of John Dewey, Howard Gardner or Paulo Freire, the canon of intellectuals that tend to take up an outsize portion of the theory taught at traditional education graduate schools. But that seemed fine with the students, who chatted avidly about their own experiences.
It’s funny, just yesterday I was complaining to my wife that our kids’ teachers have spent too much time reading Paolo Freire, are too intellectual, and have put too much energy into thinking about what it means to be well educated. Oh wait, no -- actually I wasn’t saying that at all. What I was saying, like a broken record, is that our schools don’t seem to reflect any concern with getting the kids to think critically about the world around them, and seem designed simply to produce obedient little worker bees who will score high on standardized tests and fear all authority.
The goal, [said the president of a new education school], is to reach beyond the charter school world, and for half of its students to be traditional public school teachers. “The techniques and strategies that you are learning here are applicable to all settings and to all types of kids,” he said. “However,” he allowed, “if you believe that children shouldn’t have homework, or you believe that testing is evil, this probably isn’t the best program for you.”
God knows education schools have their problems. But any place worthy of calling itself a “school of education” should encourage its students to think about and debate the value of homework and the role of standardized testing in our schools, rather than start with an ideological premise and discourage non-believers in that premise from enrolling. Good teaching and good public policy don’t come from enforcing an unquestioned party line. But what better way to prevent the kids from learning to think critically than by making sure that their teachers don’t learn it either?
.

Is this how public education in Iowa City will wither and die?

2011-07-19T02:45:00.009-05:00
I recently heard the following argument, which I’m paraphrasing here as best as I can (with perhaps a little embellishment):

Iowa City has two large high schools. People naturally compare them. Historically, both have been considered “good schools.” There are some disparities between what the two schools offer; people can argue about how bad those disparities are, but they’re there. One of the disparities is in the percentage of students who receive free and reduced-rate lunches, a rough measure of how many kids are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The disparity is currently not very large, but it is there. The school board has toyed with boundary plans to try to keep that disparity from growing, but it has also vacillated and backtracked, and the longer it delays, the more there is a real possibility that the disparity will grow.

Given that there are two high schools populated by two different parts of town, there is the possibility that politics will aggravate the existing disparities between them. Whichever side of town has fewer motivated voters, or less political influence, might be likely to bear the brunt of hard fiscal decisions more than the other. People focusing only on their own narrow, short-term interests might be likely to vote for school board candidates who will benefit the schools on their side of town at the expense of those on the other side.

This thinking, however, is not in the best interests of people on either side of town. Here’s why. If the schools on one side of town become sufficiently worse off than those on the other side, a domino effect will ensue. People who live on the “wrong” side of town -- or at least the better-off ones -- will start withdrawing from the public system and sending their kids to private schools. The high school on that side of town will then have fewer students, and will thus receive less money, employ fewer teachers, and provide fewer offerings, causing more families to abandon it, and so on.

The effect will be to reduce the number of people with an incentive to support the public schools politically -- which will affect the schools on both sides of town. When it comes time to approve a bond issue or a school tax increase, there will be fewer people motivated to support it. As the schools struggle more for resources, more families will abandon them for the privates, accelerating the trend. Eventually, the schools on both sides of town will decline, and what was once an innocuous division between one side of town and the other will become an invidious division between the rich families in the private schools and the middle-class and poor families in the struggling publics.

The upshot: People who care about the future of Iowa City’s public schools -- regardless of which side of town they live on -- should do two things. First, they should forswear the “our side vs. their side” mentality. Second, they should make it a priority -- for the sake of all parts of the district -- to minimize the disparities between the schools on each side of town. Otherwise, the system is destined to cycle downward into decline.

Reactions? What’s wrong with that logic?
.

Asbestos removal at Hoover School [Updated]

2011-07-12T20:43:00.002-05:00
Another parent at our elementary school sent the following email to the school board and the superintendent tonight:

Dear Board Members,

I am writing to enquire about the recent asbestos abatement at Hoover Elementary. It is my understanding that in the classroom(s) where the abatement work has been done that there has been residual dust left on items on which students would have close contact: ie, carpet, textbooks, desks, chairs. Is this normal procedure when removing asbestos? It is alarming when there is a warning sign stating that you cannot enter the classroom without respirators and protective clothing, yet the afore mentioned items were not covered.

Thank you for getting back to me.

When I hear more, I’ll post it.

UPDATE: Here is the response of Paul Schultz, forwarded by Superintendent Steve Murley:

Steve,

There was no asbestos abatement performed in the room.
Any dust that may have been not cleaned up is not asbestos containing. It is normal construction dust from work done in the room. The signage was in place in case the non-friable glue, which the chalkboards were originally mounted with, contained asbestos. The chalkboards were removed to access the glue for testing. The glue was tested, and did not contain asbestos. If it had been found to contain asbestos, the glue would have been abated per AHERA regulations, keeping it in a non-friable manner during abatement. The glue was never in a condition to create dust, including during the removal process, even though it did not contain asbestos.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Paul Schultz

Director of Physical Plant

UPDATE II: Another parent passed along this helpful link about the federal government’s requirements about asbestos management.
.