Choice is fair for teachers and students

Last night I spoke with a woman whose friend (we’ll call her Bonnie) was in her final year of teaching special education.

Before Bonnie retired, another special ed. teacher moved into the area and the school hired her to take Bonnie’s position, knowing she’d be leaving the next year. They moved Bonnie to a classroom with severely disabled children, some with behavioral disorders, most of her class was non-verbal and many needed physical assistance throughout the day.

Bonnie was qualified to teach them. She knew how to work on communication skills and understanding and behavior, but she felt completely unable to handle the physical side, which was very important. She was an older woman and physically could not restrain children or lift those children who needed help getting to the restroom.

This wasn't at all fair to her as a teacher or to the students who needed that assistance but weren't receiving it--or as much as they needed--through no fault of the teacher.

House and Senate Democrats in Missouri are saying that instead of giving students with disabilities a choice to find a school that truly helps them, we should just pay for more teacher training, but Bonnie's experience is exactly why that approach would not work. She is not going to be able to receive training in her last year of teaching, not to mention her obstacle is not teaching--it's the lack of an assistant like many private facilities have who is able to care for students physically.

Students who are not getting that kind of essential service should have the right to transfer immediately out of a situation that is not working, rather than wait, losing precious developmental years, while the state trains their teacher.

Teachers should have the right to work in an environment they're comfortable with, and relieving schools from the burden of having to educate every student whether they have the capacity to or not it the way to do it.

Graduate Crisis

The Turner Report says that public schools cannot turn around low graduation rates on their own, citing problems at Joplin public schools. By now, with statistics that over one million kids are dropping out, we have an obvious problem that can’t be ignored and isn’t going away. If we’ve ever turned away from this issue, or tucked it under a rug, that luxury is gone. It’s far too big to ignore and our schools need critical attention, and as the Turner Report notes, we have to do everything in our power to keep them in school.

Oh, except extending more choice to students. That would be going too far. The blog brings up the staggering problem, then immediately takes swings at the idea of school choice that many believe will offer some relief for the students who are in danger of failing.

It is not “ridiculous” to believe that offering more choices in education will help improve graduation, because it has already happened in other states that have passed legislation providing more educational options. And while there are many factors that keep children from succeeding, and they take a community effort, helping children get paired with the right education environment is one part of that effort.

I think that having a seamless support network that catches children before they slip through the cracks—or drop out—is a huge part of the solution. As a community, however, we have an obligation to make choices more plentiful for the next generation; help them be more likely to succeed. The current Missouri legislation aimed at giving more choices to special needs children is neither taxpayer funded nor detrimental to public schools, but it can give students with special needs the connection to a service that will help them learn.

Ignoring the potential benefit that school choice programs can have to combat the staggering dropout rate is painfully short-sighted. Deciding to forgo even the discussion that school-choice proponents are generating flies in the face of “doing everything we can to keep students in school.” I don’t think we can afford to not give it our all when so many children’s futures are at stake.

Instilling Character

I’ve been giggling lately at how often we use computer metaphors. I try to imagine someone from another century trying to understand what “reboot the system” might mean. That’s exactly what some Georgians want for their state’s character program.

Georgia has been implementing a character-building curriculum called Character First! Since 2000, but there is a public outcry that the program is not going the distance. Critics say the push for character stops at the doors of some schools, and that the programs aren’t being followed through with in the classrooms.

It seems from the quotes in the Augusta chronicle that character building gets an initial, emotional response, but the pressure to sustain that momentum is quick to die away. It’s easy to see how the pressure of test scores and evaluated programs can usurp something vague and unable to be tested like “character”.

Tony Warenzak from Richmond County is offering his own model that he hopes to bring into schools in a much more meaningful, long-lasting way.

"For us, character is more than just a word on a marquee. It's a way of life. It's a paradigm that everybody buys into, with one voice."

There is more than just an epidemic of bullying in schools at stake when children learn values like respect, fairness, honesty and compassion. These are the seeds of the inheritors of our democracy, and to sustain it (let alone make it greater) requires a view that looks beyond one’s individual needs and wants and sees a greater good, a society that benefits from honesty, a neighbor who benefits from compassion, or a business that thrives because of an employer’s fairness.

Making a program, however, that instills good character traits is not as simple as planting a seed or passing a test. I particularly like Mr. Warenzak’s “inside out” approach of letting classrooms and teachers and schools develop their own words and ways of conveying them—a way to own the process as children will eventually be responsible to their communities and actions therein.

In the end, character building programs do not really build character—only people can do that. And there are times to be meek or defer to an adult, and there are times when we should stand up for ourselves or someone else. It can, though, help kids recognize when they have a choice between something right or wrong. That is until they go to college and take a class on moral relativism.

Looping?

Looping is the term for keeping a group of students with the same teacher for more than one school year. That was how AP Literature and History classes worked in my high school (not science or math). From my perspective, this worked very well, but I liked my teachers. Maybe if I hadn’t, I’d feel differently, but I think from my experience it gave my teachers a longer time to build on the progress they had made. I think I still have my semester progress reports from my Literature teacher, and she was able to show me a more comprehensive look at what I had learned and where I could still improve. It was much the same in American History; I had a great teacher and because the class was in effect two years long, we were able to study much more in-depth. My History and Lit teacher also coordinated projects that drew from both disciplines, which was great for analysis and synthesis skills. Overall, it was very challenging and comprehensive and I believe I benefitted from it.

Some districts in Minnesota are questioning if looping is a fad, or if it really does help student achievement. Parents seem to be in favor of looping, see it as a valuable tool and a way to build stronger teacher-student relationships. School districts in metro Minneapolis view it as a “best practice”. Studies, on the other hand, say there is no real difference in test score, teacher ratings or attendance rates between comparable schools that loop/do not loop.

My guess is that I would have learned the same amount of facts from two teachers or one, but other skills I learned (reasoning, analysis, writing) were better served by looping, and I developed great relationships with my teachers. I still talk to them today.

It looks like Minnesota schools may jump-start more studies on the benefits of looping. An interesting tactic with an interesting name!