Take this simple survey!

Today, a simple, short post, about why schools subject their students to crappy state achievement tests.


It's the money, stupid.

Ok, well, thanks for reading, and I'll be back later with more.

What's that? You'd like a little bit more of an explanation? Ok, but only because I'm generous.

Schools in most states are financed locally, another hold out from the Northwest Ordinance of 1785. Historically, this caused massive funding inequities. Starting with LBJ's "Great Society" programs of the 1960s, the federal government attempted to fix some of these inequities, especially through programs such as Title I.

The federal government told you how to spend the money (actually, on what types of things you could spend the money on), but if you qualified for the money, you generally got it.

All of that changed with the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001. That legislation tied federal money to a state's willingness to subject it's schools to the tests I ranted about on Wednesday. So, you logically ask, if the tests are so onerous, why not just ignore the mandate.

It comes back to that local funding. You see, schools are loath to raise taxes, in those states in which they can, and in many states, schools have to ask the voters to approve increases in taxes. Schools know that you can only go that well so often, so they take those federal funds, and the strings that are attached. The strings are, in this case, the tests.

How much money is it, you ask? In 2004, the most recent year I can find decent information for (Thanks, Census!) (page 9) the federal government contributed just over 41 billion dollars to American schools. This seems like a lot, and then you realize that in fact, it's only 8.9% of total school funding.

So, we've changed everything we do as educators to chase 8.9% of our funding. Better yet, that includes money for schools that receive a much higher percentage of their funding from the feds. So, lots of "well-off" schools actually change everything they do and make their students dumber (remember this?) for less than 10% of their funding.

In essence, I think that state departments of education have clicked on a banner ad, which asks them to take a simple survey (the test) in exchange for which they have the chance to win $10,000 (the pittance of federal funding). Now, I'm guessing that you never click on those ads. Why are our educational "leaders" clicking on them?

May the odds be ever in your favor

This week marks the beginning of my personal favorite time of the year; testing. I, like some the vast majority of teachers, am going through two weeks of special schedules and reading instructions out of books. This week also marks the end of The Hunger Games' four week run as the most popular movie in America. You're hopefully wondering what these two things have in common. Well, dear readers, wonder no longer, because I'm about to draw a long and convoluted analogy between the imagined dystopia of Panem and the very real dystopia of testing in America.

(editor's note: This is probably a good time to mention that if you haven't read all three books in the Hunger Games trilogy, this post will have some significant spoilers. Also, get off the internet and start reading those books. They aren't like Twilight. They're actually engaging and good.)

Imagine, if you will, the scene unfolding as the Tributes are selected for the Hunger Games. Effie s standing on the stage, in front of the assembled people of District 12. However, instead of simply drawing one boy and one girl's names from the many names, she keeps drawing names. In fact, she keeps drawing names out the globe until she has drawn the name of every single child. That is testing today in American schools. The only people not available to be tributes are those whose parents keep them home or opt them out of testing. The stakes aren't quite as high (instead of fighting to the death in a custom world they are fighting boredom in a sterile classroom), but I think that, in this case, popular young adult fiction can help us to illuminate the very real world of high-stakes testing. 

The Hunger Games are State Tests

Let's start at the top, shall we? For what reasons do the Hunger Games exist in Suzanne Collins' uber-successful novels? They exist to remind the people of Panem that they are still under the rule of the Capitol, and that they must sacrifice themselves for greater good. In our elaborate and all-too-long analogy, the tests that students are subjected to are the Hunger Games. Schools that do well are rewarded with awards and assemblies. Plus, as an added bonus, they get to keep their meager allotment of government funds (just as the victors in the arena received accolades, and their districts some extra food).

The tests serve to remind those average people, teachers, (and their unions, which I've attacked before) who is really in charge - the state. Just as the poor districts must be reminded that the Capitol is still in charge, teachers must be reminded that the state is still in charge (and by extension, the voters. Or corporations that use organizations like ALEC to write legislation. You know, whichever you choose). Schools are forced into giving tests because they rely on the state for funding, and the state threatens to remove that funding if the schools don't give the tests. 

But the Capitol doesn't roll out the same Game every year; if they did, tributes would know exactly how to prepare, and that would mean that they would improve. So the Capitol pays a man known as the Gamemaker to create new and exciting ways to challenge the tributes as they fight to the death. In The Hunger Games, this is a man named Seneca Crane. Crane is a true believer in the Game. He wants to put on the best show possible. Seneca Crane in real life is a bevy of reformers led by Michelle Rhee. The BlazeBlog has profiled Ms. Rhee before, and it wasn't exactly glowing. She is the front for testing and "accountability." She wants to move toward more charter and private schools. You might be wondering why I made her The Gamemaker and not the much-more-insidious President Snow. I made that decision because just like Seneca, Ms. Rhee isn't in charge. She's working for someone. 

In the novels, the Gamemaker's boss is the much-maligned and previously mentioned President Snow. He pulls the strings and manipulates the people of Panem. He works behind the scenes to make sure that he will be able to stay in power. In U.S. education today, there is a force just as underhanded and unlikeable as President Snow, albeit much less visible; the major testing corporations. The four major corporations, Pearson, Harcourt, Riverside, and CTB (who also happen to be major players in textbook publication), are estimated to make between $400 million and $700 million annually from administering tests to help the states comply with No Child Left Behind. They have a vested interest in making sure more and more students take more and more tests. So, you can believe that they have heavy interests in lobbying. Yeah, you read that link right; Pearson alone spent more than a million dollars lobbying last year. It really is as clever as wearing a rose to disguise the scent of death on your breath; they take money from the states, then use some of that money to bribe lobby the politicians who then mandate more testing. Genius; really, really evil genius. Was that link gratuitous? Yup, just like most testing. (Zing!)   

But what represents the evil that President Snow serves to lead, the wealth and privilege of the Capitol? Why, dear readers, that's clear to me. No Child Left Behind is the driving force behind this, just as the Capitol is the driving force behind the Hunger Games. And just as the Capitol isn't forced to send any tributes to the arena, the writers of NCLB were never subjected to its onerous mandates for testing.

This whole terrible show (killing children for amusement, not testing) has to be sold to the people of Panem. How can it be done? With a slick talk show host, of course. In the books he is Caesar Flickerman; charming, debonaire, and witty- he is the perfect foil for the inherent evil in making young people commit murder. Who fulfills that role here in America? Why, the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. He sells America on these ideas, even on talk shows. Coincidence? Probably, if I'm being honest.

OK, so we've got the broad analogy out of the way. Shall we delve further into this admittedly stretched comparison? Why not, lets go all English major and see if we can't really get to comparing!

The Participants in the Hunger Games are Students

There are two types of tributes in the Hunger Games; tributes and "careers". The tributes are selected at random to be sent to the arena, without special training or other advantages. The careers, on the other hand, come from districts with more resources and have spent their entire adolescence training to complete in the arena. Obviously, the careers win the vast majority of the annual contests. It is rare and noteworthy when someone from outside the career clique wins.

And so it is with testing. Some schools have enormous advantages. They are in wealthy areas, perhaps. They have large percentages of parents who have college degrees. Their schools are in communities that traditionally value education. In short, their students have great advantages. On the other hand, the majority of schools in America don't have those vast advantages. They are trying to educate students. But they're also dealing with larger problems. Slashed funding. Increasing class size. Kids who come from broken homes. Kids who come to them homeless. And yet, just like in the arena, all of these kids compete directly against one another.

In the Hunger Games, the tributes have people to help them prepare. They have mentors and stylists. In the case of District 12, it is a drunk named Haymitch serving as mentor and Cinna as the stylist. These two men do the best they can to help their charges survive, but they are working with limited advantages, namely the natural abilities of Katniss and Peeta. In our world, the stylists and mentors are the most important people in the room not taking the test; the teachers. Just like Haymitch and Cinna, teachers are making the best product they can with the resources and tools they have. And just as Katniss, especially, resists any change, many students resist change. And just like Haymitch and Cinna, teachers in the end send their charges out as prepared as they can be, but it is up to those children to perform.

(This is admittedly where the comparison starts to fall apart. You see, in the books, Haymitch and Cinna aren't punished (or haven't been punished in the past) when their tributes fail to be victorious. In education, teacher of students who don't comport themselves well are ostracized, criticized, and in extreme cases terminated. However, just like a good English major, I'm going to ignore this small detail and keep on trucking!) 

If you've read all three books, you know that rebellion is coming, aided by former insiders turned rebels.  "How will they fit into this comparison?" you're asking. Well, I'm glad you asked, because here it is:

Bad test questions are Mutts and will cause the rebellion which dismantles NCLB

In The Hunger Games there are creatures designed by the Capitol to help them keep track of their "citizens" and to attack the participants in the arena. They have been intentionally mutated from their original forms, and the outlying citizens call them "mutts". When we look at testing, all we see are mutts, because the tests are made up of them. That's right, the thing that started out natural and good, which is now used to keep the people in check: the questions.

Sure, questions are a natural part of the testing process, but teachers and students have become slaves to the questions. We spend an inordinate amount of time teaching not the material that will be covered, but test taking strategies. We talk about how to eliminate wrong answers. We look at every available released question. On top of that, with the massive boom in the number of tests, the publishing companies have taken to writing questions best described as "mutated". If you haven't clicked that link, it's important that you do so. For my argument and for a good laugh.

And just as the Mockingjay was a mutt that became a symbol for the revolution, so the pineapple may become a symbol of a growing rebellion against testing. You see, as more and more of these epically ridiculous questions become public knowledge, more and more parents will see that these tests aren't actually testing the things they claim to be testing. They might not take up arms against the Department of Education, but they will opt their students out of the tests, which is a small act of rebellion that could have lasting impacts, just like Katniss showing up as the Mockingjay.

In the novels, the rebellion is aided by a Gamemaker who has seen the error of the Capitol and works to fight to bring it down. Thankfully we have a Plutarch Heavenbee in America, a person who helped to create the hated game NCLB who now spends a life trying to undo it's damage. Our hero (or heroine) is Dianne Ravitch. Ms. Ravitch helped to write No Child Left Behind, but has now emerged as a leading critic of the law. 

That, friends (and enemies who read my blog out of spite), is the good news. Just as the rebellion rose up, crushed the Capitol and ended the Hunger Games, American education is poised to do the same. Certainly, there will be lasting damage from our ongoing experiment with testing, but in the end we will probably see the error of our ways and fix the system. 

However, until we do, I'd like to propose a change to those standardized directions I've spent the last week reading. Instead of "you may begin" I think I'd rather use "may the odds be ever in your favor". Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

This hole isn't deep enough! More digging!

Ok, dear fans of the BlazeBlog, here's a fair warning: This post is basically a poorly researched political rant. So, if you come here for a dose of educational theory or just some insights into my day, you should probably just skip to the end, where I will plop in a short pithy observation about high schools. Until the end, you're getting a screed about Rick Perry.

So grab something and prepare to get angry. At me. Or at Rick Perry. Or at the Tea Party.

Before I delve into my screed, some back story. At the end of the dark days of George Bush's presidency, a legacy of deregulation (thanks, Bill Clinton!) and an attitude of government neglect (thanks, Dick Cheney!) led to a melt-down of the financial sector. Now since the financial sector writes enormous checks to campaigns is vital to American economic stability, the government made numerous "loans" to large international banks. These loans had no strings attached and no rules (thanks, Henry Paulson!) and actually did very little to help fix the problem.

Out of this, a band of fiscal conservatives sprang into action. They called themselves the Tea Party. Aside from giving us one of the greatest collections of terribly spell-checked signs in history they have also introduced some "interesting" political ideas. A return to the gold standard. Outlawing Social Security and Medi-care. Letting people without insurance die. Thinking that Sarah Palin would be a good president.

If we're honest, most of their ideas are far to fringe to really have much impact directly on America. However, their original and oft-repeated (at high volume) message of fiscal conservatism. Most politicians have interpreted this message to mean "cut spending". Since the Tea Party is on the far right of the spectrum, the people catering to them are Republicans. And if we know one thing about Republicans, it's that they hate them some taxes (fun note about that clip: He actually did the fiscally responsible thing and raised taxes). So the Republicans in Congress, and across the country have moved dramatically to the right, and are now demanding that all new spending be off-set by cuts.

Realistically, that shouldn't matter. Shouldn't. But it does because I, and most other teachers, are paid from those funds. Our schools are lit with electricity paid for by tax revenues. I print on paper bought with tax money. When the copier breaks, do you know what kind of money pays the repairman? Tax money. This isn't just true for schools. It's true for all government spending. If you cut it, you cut that money flowing into the private sector. Now, you'll point out that schools don't need increased funding. Then, I'll point out that yes they do, because people do it like they do on the Discovery Chanel, and there are more kids than ever. Now there are even more. You get it. We need more money for schools because there are more kids.

So, we find ourselves in a situation where the economy is stagnant. The Conservative Right's demand for cutting spending is about to make things worse. How? Well, they think that if you just cut taxes, companies will start making and hiring more. I don't know what the reasoning is behind that, and I'm honestly so over the Republicans that I'm not even going to bother to read through the Google results.

What I do know is that by cutting funding to base level government spenders (schools, fire departments, police departments) you're actually hurting private business, because we buy a lot of things from private companies, and now we aren't.

Sure, it sucks that our classes are getting bigger and our checks aren't. It sucks that it takes longer for the fire truck to show up when your house is burning down. It sucks that the police can't really spare the extra manpower to look for your stolen car. But that suck is personal, and Republicans don't care about that. They care about stimulating the economy. You know how? It's a 2 step plan:

1. Cut taxes and spending (again, I'm not sure what this will do)

2. Vote for  this guy.

You know him, you love him, it's the adorable governor of Texas, George W. Bush Mr. Rick Perry! And what is his plan for getting the American economy rolling again? Let's take a look at his webpage, shall we?

Hmm, what did we see?

Perry’s pro-growth agenda, combined with real spending reductions, will lead to a new era of economic growth and the creation of millions of American jobs.

(emphasis mine)

Real. Spending. Reductions. 

Do you know what that meant for teachers in Texas? Well, now some of them get to clean their own classrooms. That's a good solution, since the other one was to lose their jobs, along with thousands of other Texas educators.

(I'm not even going to touch that his entire page for the issue of "jobs" ( which I assume is his economic plan, since his website doesn't have a link for "economy" or "economic issues") consists of only 163 words, of which 7 are "Rick" or "Perry". That's good. 163 words can solve the whole economy. I swear that somewhere Aaron Sorkin is already writing pilots about this)

I can't pretend to know what Rick Perry would do to schools if he were (shudder) elected President. But I do know that in Texas, where he touts his job-creation record, public-sector employees are losing their jobs. And I can figure out that when schools are cutting teaching positions, they have probably cut everywhere else they could and still stay functional. That means millions of dollars no longer going to private companies, which would have had to employ people to service those schools. It also means that those employees aren't spending money. To add insult to injury, those public employees then qualify for unemployment benefits. What pays for those benefits?

FREAKING TAX DOLLARS!

Why not just use the tax dollars to pay them to teach? Certainly the unemployment benefit is a much lower cost than full time employment. However, there is benefit to society when the teacher is teaching. When they are getting an aid check and bagging groceries? Not so much.

Anyway, you're tired of reading my poorly reasoned and negligently researched rant, and you're looking for a little bit of giggles to get you through the evening. Here it is:

Freshmen smell terrible. Really really terrible.

So terrible, I'm going to link to Charles Barkley saying terrible in a video. Over and over and over again. 

You're welcome.

The Cost of Public Education

For the five of you that have been following the BlazeBlog since the beginning of time, please forgive the next 5 or six sentences. For the rest of you, here's the short version:

When I started this blog, I didn't intend for it to become a place for me to talk about educational philosophy and vaccines. Instead, I started it to complain about the general non-sense that public school teachers deal with on a daily basis. Don't believe me? Fine, don't. But don't think that I won't link to that post anyway. BOOYAH! 

I think the closing paragraph in that post sums up most of my complaints. I've never been angry about the kids being dumb. It's the people that make larger decisions that frustrate me. I told you, my not-at-all-random reader, that I was going to write about dumb decisions from above. Then, I didn't do that. I mostly talked about Jenny McCarthy and the socialization function of schools. I also put up some videos. These things were fun, but they missed the point. 

Meanwhile, the school district I work for was busy making all kinds of stupid decisions, and here I was, not ranting about them. I'll be honest, I'm more disappointed with myself than  Howard Dean after he got too excited in Iowa. 

But now, the board has served up a pitch so in my wheel-house that I have to swing for the fences.

Our board is currently dealing with a financial crisis. The voters haven't approved a new bond or property tax increase in several years. As state funding has fallen, we have found ourselves short of cash. This has led to many cutbacks. In fact, a recent press release acknowledged that "financial stress is the new normal". We will ignore what that says about society in general for today, because I have more pressing things to complain about. To help make ends meet, our board voted to end bus service for the 2011-2012 school year. This is a savings of $3.5 million. 

I could launch into a tirade about how cutting bus service hurts the students most in need; I could talk about how those are the students schools most need to help; I could drag you along for yet another discussion about diversity and schools and society. I won't. Why, you ask? Because the board followed up that cost cutting measure with a decision so mind-numbingly, reason-defyingly, undeniably bone-headed that I can't even get to busing today. 

My school district has recently begun to institute a "innovation" plan. (I know this doesn't seem like a good segue; stick with me.) This plan will move control of hiring, firing, and money spending from the central office to the building level. This seems like a good idea. In fact, I think it's a pretty good idea. However, to implement this "innovation plan" (which is really an attempt to "charterize" the public schools), some central office employees need to become obsolete, and therefore get eliminated. 

No, not "eliminated" like an enemy of the State in Soviet Russia, but they'll need to look for new work. The problem is that they negotiated contracts which would last through the end of the world May of 2012. So, to move forward more quickly, and honor contracts made by the previous board (even though at least one board member was on that board as well), the board bought out three contracts. The cost?

$760,000.

Yes, you read that correctly. Three upper level administrators, losing 18 months of their contracts, will be paid more than $230,000 each, including retirement benefits. That means that they were making, if we get rid of the benefits part, and round down to an estimated $200,000 for those 18 months, $11,000 per month prior to taxes. I make around $35,000 a year. These goons were making more than my yearly salary over summer break. I haven't had a raise, not even a cost-of-living adjustment, in 3 years. I work at a school with a plain concrete block room with folding chairs that is called an auditorium. We won't have transportation next year, but the head of our IT department was making superintendant money.

But, you know, teachers' unions are the problem. Wait? Did I just link to myself sarcastically? Hang on. Ok, how about this one? Yes, that story is better. Problems in education funding are all about those evil unions. Definately not about Boards of Education making bad decisions. I mean, that's just non-sense.

Enough of that, lets get down to the part where the board explains their reasoning.

The board defended its decision by saying they would rather just honor the contracts and eliminate the positions, instead of keeping people in obsolete positions, doing menial tasks.

Now, I would note that obviously I'm in favor of cutting these positions. But why pay these three folks for the remainder of their contract, and let them walk? Hell, I'll stop working and take the next 18 months of my salary while I search for a new job. Where do I sign up?

I don't give a damn if you make these three clean toilets (or perhaps drive buses), but for 3/4 of a MILLION dollars, you probably shouldn't cut them free. I'm sure you can find something for them to do. 

In fact, to demonstrate what they could do, I've compiled a partial list of things I would do, for $233,000, which is about what they will each take home:

1. Clean every toilet in the district.
2. Shave my head.
3. Eat a sandwich made entirely of rotten eggs.
4. Teach.
5. Take over public relations for the district. In fact, to demonstrate my qualifications for this role, some free advice, just for Board of Education: The order of the two things you did in the last month should have been contract buy-outs, THEN cutting services)
6. Create an entire curriculum on fiscal responsibility.
7. Grade every single thing I assign.
8. Buy a Corvette.
9. Buy a Chevette.
10. Throw a really bitching prom.

Now, our board couched their decision in some bureaucratic language about "the business model" and how change always incurs some cost. Is this the future of education?


Well, if it is, it won't be long until schools are back where they started, because this kind of news from an "innovative" school district will kill "innovation". Actually, you know what? Buy out more contracts! Bankrupt the district! But do it all in the name of "innovation". That way the people know exactly what to blame.

The Seven Most Dangerous Words In Education

Sometimes, an educator will get sent to a conference. They'll go somewhere sunny and wonderful, like Omaha, and when they come back, the school will want to see a return on the money they spent.

Their co-workers, wondering why there was an elderly woman reading mystery novels in the class next door while children ran crazy, will ask the educator where they've been. The educator will respond with:

"I just got back from a conference"

These are the Seven Most Dangerous words in Education. Why? Because when an educator goes to a conference, they go away from school. While away from school, all things seem possible. You can go to the bathroom whenever you want. You can have free coffee and fruit.

At many conferences, there is AN HOUR for lunch. 60 whole minutes. Most educators can't even begin to imagine 60 minutes for lunch. And so, overwhelmed by this world that they don't understand, educators write everything down, and come back, ready to change the world, convinced that what they learned today really is the magic bullet.

Because someone at the conference has BRAND NEW IDEAS. And now, your school is going to implement those ideas. However, we don't have the funding to bring in the expert from the conference (Dr. Dick Johncock is actually available! Email him for details Seriously!) So, the person who went to the conference is going to lead an inservice, and we're going to implement this.

So, on the inservice day, the kids go home at lunch, you get lunch and meet in the library. At this point, a PowerPoint is projected, apologies are made for the small text, we watch a movie, get three handouts stolen from the Internet, and people walk away confused. Meanwhile, new jargon has been added to our educational lexicon. Because more jargon = better learning.

Seriously, I was once in a curriculum map planning meeting, and the leader (love you!), wanted us to develop a Vision Statement for Social Studies. I suggested that we put it in the "Random Educational Catchphrase Generator" and see what it spat out. Here's an example:

We will empower students, through experiential and differentiated lessons, to become masters of their education in an ever-changing world. Students will be supported by norms based, standards referenced, horizontally and vertically aligned, real-world applied, and community created lessons.

Far too often, administrators really buy into this stuff. They're looking for ways to improve test scores RIGHT FREAKING NOW, and these lessons from conferences seem like the real deal. That leads to administrators basing everything on jargon that teachers got exposed to for 2 hours at the end of the day in the library. (Honestly, the teachers probably graded and did the crossword, so they're just as much to blame in this deal)


You know what? The Internet is better at explaining this rant than I am.

 Here's a video, it does a better job than I ever could:



So, are conferences bad, and are they hurting education? No, probably not. the problem is that the conference gets people all excited, and then they come back to school full of piss and vinegar, but that enthusiasm doesn't translate to us mere mortals. Indeed, there's even jargon for this. It's a "lack of buy-in".

What can we do about it? First, lets all calm down. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the problems of American education, as I think I've shown, are largely systemic, and won't be fixed by the ideas you're bringing back from the conference. Now that we're all calm, lets go ahead and implement these good ideas, in moderation. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every 10 months with a new set of acronyms and discipline plans. In fact, we might be well served to self-asses, or use that conference registration fee to bring in someone from outside to evaluate how we're doing.

But if we did that, no one would get to go to Omaha.

Money, money, money

Roughly 18,000 years ago, there was a little rock and roll band that came from Liverpool, England. Perhaps you've heard of them. Now, there's a slim possibility I'm referencing them because they have had a massive impact on society or education.

Nope. I just wanted to put them out there because they recorded a little ditty that has become the clarion call for most educators. Are you a communist, and don't know what I'm talking about? Check out this video. 

You see, that song, and this post are about the same thing. They're about money. Public school teachers (and I speak with considerable authority here) are chronically underpaid. I haven't had a pay increase, even for cost of living, in three years. My first year teaching(2002-2003), I made $27,072. I would have made more managing a Taco Bell. (sad but true)

Often, reformers make the claim that if we could simply find a way to pay teachers more, we would attract better candidates, and all of the research shows that better teachers equals more learning. 

I'm not sure that's true, but that's a post for another day. Today, I want to talk about the money schools get (or in most cases, don't get) for spending on things that aren't staffing. 

Education is a fantastically expensive thing. In America, we make it even more expensive by using educational facilities to also build community and foster youth athletics. Schools are facilities that receive exceptionally heavy use. In many communities, they house more people at one time than any other building. They need to be heated and cooled, to serve the needs of an extremely varied population, and to foster that always hard to capture "school spirit". We expect them to be safe and to inspire creativity and learning. They house bands, and artists, host theater productions, and teach the basics of home repair and construction. They are warehouses for books (often tens of thousands of them) and computers. They are often lit and heated or cooled for 14 or 15 hours a day. 

They serve as the home for athletic opportunities for young men and women who could never afford those opportunities in a private club setting. They offer facilities for clubs that could never meet anywhere else. They have gyms, and weight rooms, and locker rooms, and facilities to feed a thousand teen-aged mouths a day. In short, schools are the greatest community centers ever envisioned; when they work properly. Even when schools don't work properly, they're still better than 75% of community centers.  

Schools do all of this on your dime. They are supported, in great part, by tax dollars. Generally those tax dollars are local. More and more often, local people are unwilling to support schools when the schools ask for more money. I personally feel that this is because schools are being held more "accountable". As I've addressed before, these measures are misguided, because the tests which are used to demonstrate accountability are deeply flawed. Now, it may be admirable to let the taxpayers see where their tax dollars are going.

The problem is that many admirable things are also stupid. You see, people will only look at the numbers, and won't think about all of the things that schools are doing for that money. I think schools are a great value. American schools routinely spend less per student than other developed nations, expect our schools to do much more (especially extra curricularly), and we still manage to score in the top 20 versus our peers. (according to this data, we rank 43rd in the world per pupil spending as a percentage of GDP). So really, public schools are a great value. 

But, because people are stupid (see the hair-dryer corollary), they don't think about the value. They think about the $6 extra dollars a month that they'll have to pay on their property tax. I actually work with a teacher who voted against a bond which would have completed our building. Why? He felt as though he already paid enough in taxes. Seriously. So, thinking about those higher taxes, and not the benefits of them, taxpayers often defeat school funding bills.

People need to be protected from themselves. I think education is like politics, which in turn is like sausage making. No one really wants to know what's going on, unless they understand. For example, my building uses $10,000 worth of paper a year. You (and many people) might think that is a lot, but it's less than $1 per student per class. This a prime example of facts that average people don't need to know. They will freak out about this expense, without thinking about the second half of it. Schools are generally pretty good with money. It's just that the job they're doing is expensive.

Listen, I don't want the schools to have hallways paved with gold. I don't need a Hogwarts. But I think schools should have enough money to not worry about the amount of money they spend on paper.

Or on the furnishings for the teachers' lounge; which should of course be cashmere couches. Oh, and while we're at it, there should be a masseuse there too. And free gummy bears.

 

Now that would be money well spent.

Does class size matter?

Oh, hey there.

I have an article I want you to read. Now, I know that generally, when I ask you to read an article it's dry and boring. This one might be those things, I don't know. However, I do know that it made me think, and that's not all that common. Normally when I read things written by charter or privitazation advocates, I just get angry. I expected that to be the case in this situation. I expected to react violently to her mere thesis.


Instead, I scratched my head, tilted my head to the side like a confused dog, and actually thought for a moment.


By this point, you're wondering what this article could be about. You're confused that your humble author would admit to opening his mind, and consider other opinions. You're hopeful that the article is about something really, really groundbreaking.


Perhaps it is, but for that to be proven (or disproven), perhaps I should get around to linking to the article. Here, read it for yourself.


Interesting conceit, no? She puts forth a very logical argument, and one that, as an educator, I can see as making sense. She doesn't go on and on about performance pay or merit hires and fires (unlike many of her "fire 'em all" cohorts). In fact, as I previously admitted, she makes a lot of good and salient points, even if she does take a cheap shot at the teachers' unions.


Her school uses those per pupil funds pretty well. They build better classrooms, they hire people to do non-education things, so that educators can do what we're best at, and educate children.


There are several small issues, however. She bases her numbers on New York's per pupil funding. In New York, schools evidently recieve $13,500 per student. Since she runs a charter school, that's probably all of the money they get.  In Colorado, where I teach, the number is a lot closer to $6500. That means that for everything she can do with one extra student, we must have two.


She also doesn't address the problem of diminishing returns for her strategy. At some point, the money isn't worth the extra student. I already have classes that average over 30. I know it might not seem like a big deal to those of you who are just looking at numbers, but adding 2 students to that class would make a significant difference, especially at the high school level. Remember, every high school teacher actually teaches 7 classes (or 6 if they're lucky). So, adding 2 students per class is actually adding 14 students to the teacher's work load. 14 more essays. 14 more tests.


However, for all of that quibling, I will agree that being fixated on class size can do considerable harm. It is only one of many things that schools must look at. Indeed, I think her editorial puts into stark relief one of my most significant beliefs about school reform. No, not that we should "trust the experts", but that one reform might not work everywhere.


You see, there is danger in seeing what Ms. Moskowitz has achieved and saying to ourselves, "By gum! That's the solution we've been looking for this whole time! Bigger classes!" (although, since I am a lecturer, this would play into my hands. Excellent.) That danger is the general danger of school reform. If we're willing to move away from the traditional socialization role of schools (and it appears that we are), then we must protect our students from the urge to look for magic bullets. Yes, these reforms and plans work in Harlem, but will they work in Houston? In Hell (Michigan)? In Helena?

We must realize that students are the products of their upbringing and surroundings. Therefore, school reforms must be tailored to the experiences of the local community to really have great success. 

How do you choose who to fire?

Up until this week, the worst the financial crisis had done to me was to make it basically impossible to sell my house. I haven't been hit particularly hard. Until this week, that is.

This week, my school district announced that they were, in a cost-cutting move (brought on by falling revenues from the state), going to eliminate 143 jobs. They further said that they hoped "most of this would come from attrition", which further muddied the waters. Panicked teachers all over the district were trying to figure out if the person next to them who was retiring counted. Did that person who was moving back to Indiana count? Will I still have a job in August? Will I still make enough money to pay for my mortgage?


However, this is hardly the first time that their has been massive confusion from my district, so that wasn't a surprise. In fact, except for when people get their letters in the next twenty-four hours, there's very little surprise in any of this. People want less taxes, houses lose value, teachers lose jobs. It is a nationwide pattern.


But it did raise an interesting question: How do you decide who gets the axe? Do you fire the long-time teacher because they cost too much? Perhaps you go into LIFO mode, and fire the youngest. Maybe, in a fervor of righteousness, you fire the "worst" teachers.


How do you determine who is the worst? Do you depend on test scores? On grades in their classes? On parent complaints?


Perhaps you use their evaluations. Never mind that, most evaluation forms are flawed, and that many experienced teachers only get evaluated formally once or twice a year.


(At this point, you might be wondering how I dare to be so outspoken. Well, the short answer is that I can't be fired, because I already quit.)


In my district, the VIPWM (Very Important People Who Matter) have made the decision to eliminate as many "non-classroom" jobs as possible. While this seems on the surface like a reasonable decision, I think that there are major flaws in it.


Think about the people who are "non-classroom". Janitors, lunch ladies, the secretarial staff. These people don't have teaching licenses, and they never lead a field trip or a lecture. They don't proctor tests and they don't show up as anybody's teacher of record. In fact, many students don't even know their names. But to eliminate them because that will have less of an impact on the classroom is a bit of a fallacy. Let's be honest, teachers can't do a good job in a broken down, filthy school. Teachers would struggle if the secretaries weren't screening calls, because, as we all know, parents can be a bit crazy.


I know that there isn't a good solution to this problem. I know that every way to eliminate jobs is fraught with problems. I know that no matter who gets the axe, they'll think they were wrongly eliminated. I know that if they were going to fire all teachers and no support staff, I would be complaining about that too.

I know that 143 people in my school district are losing their jobs. I know that sucks.

Now, you might say that this is how it works. I know that. I know that people lose jobs. But these people aren't losing their jobs because they're incompetent. They aren't being fired for misconduct. They're being fired for the fiscal mistakes of others. Indeed, the people who are responsible for the financial crisis which has devoured school funding, which has caused these people to lose their jobs.

The really bitter part, for me at least, is that those people, those bankers got saved when they should have been laid off. The government bailed them out, declared them to be "too big too fail". Why can't the federal government do the same thing with schools? Are we not too important to fail?

I suppose what this whole fiasco shows us where the nation's priorities are. So it's good for that.....

I Renew My War Against Charter Schools.

Hello, dear reader, and welcome back to the "Dirty Dozen"; a list of the problems that I see facing American education, and occasionally a suggestion for how to fix it.

Today, I renew my clarion call against charter schools. But before I do, a little explanation about my background, and the background of charter schools, in case you are unfamiliar with either one.

I have spent the last decade nine years of my life teaching in public schools. When I started in public schools I didn't do it for any great philosophical reason, but because that was who offered me a paying position and benefits. At the time, especially in Indiana, charter schools were largely a non-issue. In my time in public schools, I have come to value that they are the bedrock of American democracy. Public schools, at their best and worst, provide equal opportunity for their students. This is the value that Americans value above most others; that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on our own efforts.

Charter schools have risen in demand for "better" schools. They began as a movement to allow parents and teachers who were frustrated with mostly urban public schools to leave and start their own schools. These schools, unlike private schools, would be granted charters, and would operate as "public". This means that they received public funding, and had to admit students regardless of race, gender, creed, or color. However, they could do many things that "regular" public schools could not. For example, they could place a hard cap on enrollment, allowing them to turn students away if too many students wanted to enroll. These schools have been gaining popularity and are growing across the nation, despite the fact that their results are the same as the public schools which they are an alternative to. (check out this story, about 1/4 of the way down).

Anyway, I've gone on at great length about charter schools before (read here, if you haven't before), so I'll try to avoid repeating that rant. Why? Because I have a new rant.

A new rant? But how? I work in education, there's always material for a new rant.

I'm currently on the warpath against online schools. Sure, I don't like charter schools, with their playing by different rules, and their touting results produced with different rules. I don't like how they segregate society by who's parents care. I don't like that people see them as a solution, instead of working within the system to affect change for all students. But "brick-and-mortar" charter schools seem like bastions of educational sanity compared to online schools. 

Online schools are charter schools which, by and large, offer classes statewide, and allow students to complete their learning at home, in a self-directed manner. (full disclosure: I am good friends with several people who work for online schools, and I don't hate them as people. But I also know that they could do better. I'm just saying, ladies.......)

You might be wondering why these schools would do this. For the money. You see, every student in a state carries with them money from the state. Online schools claim this money for those students whom they enroll. However, in general, online schools have much lower overhead costs, since they tend to not have much in the way of buildings or staff, since the learning is self-directed and on the Internet. Thus, they are money makers. Some other time, I'll let loose on how schools shouldn't make money, but should try their hardest to just break even.

Now, I'm not going to spend my evening writing a scathing critique of the academic achievement records of these schools, because it has already been done for me . Instead, I plan to attack them for the one thing they generally fail at more than teaching kids. Socializing kids.

For a moment, let us be honest. School was full of embarrassment. I, for one, made tragic hair decisions from about 1992-1999. For those keeping track, that was when I was in middle and high school. I'm sure many of you can also remember / regret choices you made socially while you were in school. Your peers probably made you suffer for it. That's a good thing. Wait, what? Suffering is good? Yes.

I know that no one wants their child to be picked on. No one wants suffering. In fact, suffering, on occasion, creates great tragedy. Ask anyone who attended school or taught in Colorado post-Columbine. 

However, in the vast majority of cases, the suffering leads to some tears, maybe a fight. And learning. Oh yes, learning. No, this isn't on any test, but it's learning. It's social learning. And social learning is one of those untested things that schools provide which is so important. You see, by allowing our children to make low-impact bad choices, and suffer socially in a pretty safe social environment, they grow, and society continues to have people who can interact with one another.

This aspect is lost in an online charter school. Since students are self-directed, they are free to be as odd and off as they want to be, with no social ramifications. In some cases, their only face-to-face interactions will be with their immediate family. If you've read my manifesto on parents, you know that I'm not sure that is all that healthy. ( MANIFESTO ).

So, now, you've got an entire group of students, who probably need the social interaction more than most students, in a school with very little social interaction.

Well, that seems like a good plan.

And now, to reward you for getting to the end, a mini u-boat.

Q: Why did the missionary Narcissa Whitman go into the west?
A: To spread her face to the Indians.

The Follow-up Follow-up

There are times when the only way people would believe my life is if they were following me with a camera crew. For example, I was once yelling at a marching band when the top plank of a scaffolding flew off and tried to kill me. Also, I was once in a boat, with a tank full of emptied Porta-John, when it ran out of gas (I'll let you make your own alternative fuel jokes, but trust me when I say that those are pretty easy).

Another one of those occasions happened last Wednesday, when we had a professional development meeting. We have these during our planning hour, one day a month. I had of course forgotten that we had a meeting and arrived 5 minutes late. What did I walk in on? The exact video of Sir Ken Robinson I had posted here the night before. (check it out here) Better yet, the next day IT blocked youtube, making the link of the video the administration team had sent out inaccessible to us. I love public education.

Anyway, I bring this up not to illustrate how far ahead of the curve I am (about 12 hours, evidently) but because I think that Sir Ken Robinson might miss the boat on some of his claims, and that while his speech is often used as a motivational tool, there are parts of it that I'm not on board with, and further parts that are simply code words and restatements of educational philosophy that have fallen out of favor.

Actually, that's not fair to Sir Robinson. I think his view, on the larger scale is somewhat more nuanced than that video might lead us to believe. However, I think that nuance is often lost on the school leaders who watch the video online, and then decide to use it to motivate their staffs. I think the loss of nuance makes Sir Robinson's speech, in the wrong hands, dangerous. 

And so I offer my experienced but not expert opinion on Sir Ken Robinson's speech:

The Good

Passion: I think Sir Robinson obviously has a passion about schools, and about educating young people of all types. This passion is why he is such a persuasive speaker on education.

His grasp on history: Sir Robinson has a good grip on education as a tool of socialization for the factories of the world. He misses the role of schools as creators of common culture (admittedly more important for American schools with their large, diversely backgrounded populations than for British schools.) However, I think he then veers off into a place I don't love. But, I guess I'll get there in three or four paragraphs.

His take on the way parents, doctors and schools anesthetize children: His take on the over-prescription of ADD and ADHD drugs is spot on. Also, his belief that the Arts suffer because of this is, I think, pretty accurate.  I'm not sure his other conclusion is one I agree with, but again, I'll put that in the "the Bad" section of this rant.

The division by ability instead of age: Back in the dark ages (the 1980s and 90s), schools did this. It had a name which has become tantamount to cursing in education circles. We called it "tracking". In a tracked school, students took classes based on their ability, and were grouped in that way. Surely you remember this. Your school offered classes like "English 4" and "College Prep" English. Students on the non-collegiate track took classes which were intended to prepare them with life skills (like writing for applications, and reading the news critically) while "college prep" courses spent more time on material and skills which would be useful in the collegiate setting (like writing annotated research papers).

Obviously this division is one that Sir Robinson would like to avoid, since he puts for the idea that schools fail when they divide kids as intelligent (academic intelligence) and not (other intelligences). In fact, this seems like a good point for us to transition into "the Bad" with.

The Bad:


His ideas about divergent thinkers and different types of intelligence: Sir Robinson is a creative thinker, in fact, should you choose to google him, you'll note that one of the top videos is him talking about how schools kill creativity. Ok, on the surface this makes sense. But what does it mean on a practical level? How should we structure schools to address divergent thinkers? He uses the example of the paper-clip. He points out that younger children come up with more uses, because they don't bother to define the paper-clip in a set way. He thinks this is good. I'll be bold and disagree. Not because I think that I'm smarter than he is. Not because I want to stifle creativity. No, I'll disagree because I'm practical enough to understand that society needs its members to agree on certain things. We want to all have the same basic understanding of how society works, what side of the road to drive on, how to tell time, what acceptable behaviors are at work. Divergent thinkers, unbridled and unchecked by the socialization of schools, would not learn these social norms. Indeed, society would break down.

I know it makes me sound like a crotchety old man to say these things, but they're true. Schools serve this vital purpose. Now, they may too aggressively force children into certain boxes, but I think that's more a symptom of the emphasis on sending all students to college than it is of the structure of schools. In fact, I suspect that I have written about this before........ (I HAVE!) I think that schools that offer more hands-on learning don't need to restructure as dramatically as many of the people who watch Sir Ken's video would tend to think. Now, perhaps society should readjust its views on the worth of people in those traditionally non-academic jobs, and perhaps schools have to help lead that adjustment; but to advocate wholesale change because of the assertion that schools don't reach divergent styles of learners is foolish.


His (I feel) willful ignorance of the socialization role of schools: Sir Robinson, near the end of the video, says that traditional education is a myth (the cartoonist draws a nice little man with a sword, waiting to strike down evil, evil academic education). I think he's wrong. Even in an economy and society changing as quickly as ours, schools still provide a vital socialization function. You see, no matter how pie-in-the-sky we may want to be, in the end our job as teachers is to prepare our students to function in the "real" world. Now, we may want to let every student have the freedom to choose their course of study, and work independently (a very collegiate model). There's a problem with this view; it ignores the fact that teenagers are terrible decision makers. Don't believe me? Look at these. Those were some of the oldest, and one assumes "wisest" students in their respective schools. I rest my case.

So, we want to let the same kid who chose to pose with his chainsaw pick his course of study, when he's 13? That seems like a recipe for failure. Sure, Sir Robinson doesn't make that statement, but it is a short step for viewers of his video to take. Further, that's not how life works very often. Indeed, most of the time even the most creative and brilliant people have to operate within the confines of society. Look at Bill Gates. He didn't become brilliant totally outside of the box. He found a way to harness his creative spirit and use it to profit within the system. That's what schools need to do. They need to socialize their students to express creativity within the framework of society.     

Finally (I know, I know, too much in one sitting), his idea that schools are too boring for the modern teen: Really, I think he makes a valid point. I think that schools have to do a better job of engaging students who operate in a constant world of stimulus. However, they have to balance that with their job to create young people ready for the world.

An example: It's great when classrooms use text-messaging to conduct polls of students (see, I'm not so crotchety). It's not great when students text during class. We must find a way to balance the two. That is the great demand on public schools. Not raising standards. Not getting enough funding. No, the great challenge, for educators from elementary school through graduate classes is to find the appropriate balance between technology and society.

That scares me, and not just because I know that the average teacher is 97 years old (approximately). It scares me because that's an awesome responsibility.

Copyright 2011, G.B. Trudeau. All rights reserved by the author.

 Used blatantly without permission. I'll claim fair use, though it won't stand up.

I know what happened with Snooki, with Abe Lincoln, not so much.

And now, friends of the BlazeBlog, we're going to enter into a realm of educational "problem" outside the realm of the school.

That's right. I'm going to blame something outside of schools for problems in schools. It's not even parents (they're going to get their own post). I'm going to blame society. I realize that this is dangerous, because old codgers like myself can often slip into the habit of decrying everything new as bad, and glorifying the "good old days". Hell, the Republicans have made that their message for 40 years. I'm going to attempt to make the point that fundamental changes in society have undermined education.

Now, I've already documented my beliefs on Americans getting dumber, and being glad ( don't remember? Check it out!), so I'm not going to revisit that particular rant. Instead, I'd like to look at 5 (other than the aforementioned getting dumber and being happy about it) things which have changed relatively recently, and which I feel are murdering public education like being on Happy Days murdered Anson Williams' career (he was Potsy) Too arcane? Ok, fine, insert your own pop culture joke while I move on to the 5 things which have changed in society that are killing public education:

1.The celebrity / constant contact culture
The internet's invention radically changed world culture. I don't think I'm overstating it to compare the revolution in how we find and consume information to the Industrial Revolution. Whenever there is change on this scale, average people (consumers, if you will) play a large part in determining how that change plays out. To meet their demands, the agents of change will change to profit most, and provide goods that the people want.

In the early industrial era, this led to a massive increase in home goods and "processed" foods. In general, prior to the rise of the Progressives, these goods and foods were not of the highest quality. I think we're living in that era for information.

There's lots of it, and it's tailored to a generation of people who want to know about "famous" people. To exacerbate the situation, people now are "famous" not for any accomplishment or skill, but for being caught in the constant circle of celebrity. Far too many students see this, and believe that they are entitled to a life of luxury, which they have not earned. This attitude of entitlement, often shared by parents, causes more angst in parent-student-teacher meetings than anything else. Students increasingly feel that simply "doing the work" means they should pass. I beg to differ. Doing the work well means you should pass. Turning in crap should result in failure. You're welcome (they'll thank me later, I tell myself)

The second part of this information revolution is that parents and students have constant access to grades. On the surface, this seems like a godsend. Now, parents can keep track of their child's grades, and punish them accordingly. Many parents do this, and it can be a powerful tool. But, especially for high school kids, it's a disservice. Prior to this system, students were responsible for their grades, and for keeping track. When the grade card came home (once every 6 or 9 weeks), it was a time of reckoning. And if the student screwed up, the world might end. Now, parents can keep constantly on their children. This takes away an element of independence that children should be developing (in a safe environment) in high school, and replaces it with a short term system of little rewards and punishments (turn in your missing work, and get your phone back).

It also makes life harder for teachers. Grading, like it or not, is time consuming. But, with constant access, parents want things graded RIGHT FREAKING NOW. As a bonus, they can also email you, to ask why it wasn't graded RIGHT FREAKING NOW. And since it's written communication, a teacher has to be very diplomatic in explaining that it takes time to read essays, and it'll get graded when I get it graded, dammit. Because if you're not diplomatic, you'd better believe every principal in your building is getting that email forwarded to them. Have I mentioned that I have an entire post coming on parents? Because I do, and friends, it's a dandy. 

2. Changes in taking responsibility
Well, this explains itself, but I think I'll spell it out anyway, because I teach, and explaining things that appear self-explanatory is a big part of my job.

In American society, for a long time, high school students were treated as "young adults". If they didn't do their work, they failed, and that was on them. But we teach in a brave new world, and that world ( of accountability!), and that world demands that schools teach all students. You know, No Child Left Behind. Oh, see, that second word is part of the problem. We now teach young people (many states won't let you drop out until you're 17 or 18) as though they are children. Schools share some of this blame. In order to get more of them to pass, and to boost precious graduation rates, we've simply lowered the bar. Didn't do the work? Ok, I'll take it late. If I won't, just get your parents to bitch loudly enough, far enough up the food chain, and I'll get told I have to take it.

This is a true story: I was in a department chair meeting several years ago, and we were arguing about letting students turn in late work for full credit. I was in the "no late work, no late credit" camp, and fighting against an assistant principal in the "as long as they do it, full credit" camp. At one point she said "they're only 16." I retorted with "that means they can drive, when would you like us to start treating them like adults?"

Needless to say, a directive came down that we were to take late work for some credit.

3. Litigation
This ties in nicely with the disappearance of taking responsibility.

Lets say a kid doesn't turn in work, and so I don't give points, and so the kid fails. Mom/Dad/Guardian is upset. Perhaps it turns out that the kid was Special Ed, and had an IEP that promised extra time on tests. Now, just as an example, lets say that during tests, this kid routinely fell asleep on his test, and when the test time was over, I took the test from him.

Well, Mom/Dad/Guardian decides that I was out of compliance, because I didn't give their precious angel the "extra time" he was entitled to. Now, do they come in and chat with me, and have an honest discussion about the shortcomings of their child? No, they send an email to the counselor, the principal, and probably the poor Sped teacher.

If they really want results, they threaten to sue. That'll get some grades changed. You know why? There are two reasons. The first is that administrators often work on single year contracts, without the protection of a union, and so, are concerned about being sued, because the district could easily decide to simply mollify the angry parents by dismissing the administrator. The other reason is that lawsuits are expensive, people in education aren't made of money, and so we take the easy out. "We're not letting him into Harvard" is a common phrase when a grade gets changed.

Now, I think that we cheapened the high school diploma, and changing grades for kids whose parents complain the loudest will just result in graduates who can't read, which is what got this whole accountability nightmare started in the first place, but what do I know, I'm just a history teacher.

4. The self-esteem movement
Everybody gets a ribbon. That's the crux of this problem. You see, society doesn't like conflict or tears. So, to avoid that, we tell every young person that they are special. And they are. But not more special than anybody else. So, when they get to my room, and I tell them the truth ("you're average", "you're a weak writer"), it causes major crises.

When children fail, parents want their child to feel better. I understand, I really do, but at some point you have to let your child fail. We're a nation of birds stuck in nests. Wait, what?

Think about this marginal analogy: We've progressed to a point where we don't want our children to fail, or even to feel like an average part of society. This is as though birds never left the nest. Do you think a tiny chick just one day jumps out of the nest, and flies, because they just knew it was time to go? NO. The mother bird gives them a shove. And then, it's fly or fail. Birds learn from failure. Why can't we?

(I happen to think this is also the reason for 85% of college students telling Pew that they're moving back home after graduation, and for the so-called Quarter Life Crisis. They've never had a chance to fail, since Mom/Dad/Guardian have always been there to back them up. So, once it comes time to set out, they fail, and move back home)

An added bonus of this is that every parent thinks that their kid deserves individual attention. If you want that, hire a tutor. Your kid is in school, and part of school is learning to ask for help when you need it, and learning to work in groups. Educators are constantly hearing from business that business wants graduates to be able to critically think, and to work collaboratively, but when you try to teach those things, parents complain that their kid isn't getting enough attention.

5. Lack of respect for educators
I'm sure that the older educators who read this blog will counter my assertions in this point, and say that they've never been respected. To some degree I understand this point. Society has always played great lip-service to "respecting and honoring" educators, but has never shown that respect by fixing working conditions or funding buildings or higher pay.

However, I think that parents and students have, in many cases become more brazen in their disdain for teachers. Though I'll write at greater length about specific times that I have been questioned by parents at a later time; suffice it to say that, perhaps due to the increased access to both teachers and information, parents feel comfortable questioning everything from content to how that content is delivered. And they're willing to do it in pretty confrontational ways.

They'll call it advocating (if they're smart enough to know that term), but it's questioning. Do they question the doctor when he diagnoses them, the lawyer in front of the judge, the dental hygienist? I doubt it. But since they've all been students, they think that qualifies them to question how I teach (or what I teach, or how I discipline, or what the seating chart looks like) .

How about this? You go to school, you learn about education theory, you get at least 3 years in the high school classroom, and then I'll accept your complaints as valid. I'm willing to take suggestions, but you have to trust me to do my job. You trust so many other important people in your life to do their jobs, trust us.

(this isnt' to say that every teacher is great every day. We aren't. But, I've written about that too I'm linking all over this post!)

Thanks for sticking it out to the end. I hope that this made sense. Please, feel free to share this if you like it, and if you don't, feel free to comment and counter-point what I've said.