Peabloggy

I am by no means an expert on charter schools, so I hesitate to post on this topic. But, as I look for teaching jobs for next year, I’ve been thinking about unconventional approaches to education and the possibilities they hold. I spent eight weeks in a comprehensive high school student teaching with 12th graders, and I learned firsthand about many of the limitations involved with teaching 130+ students in 55 minute class periods every day. So, when I heard about Big Picture High School, I was intrigued.

The Big Picture Company, based on a school model based on The Met Center in Rhode Island. The Met model, which is being replicated at Big Picture Schools around the country - including one here in Nashville - focuses on tailored curricula with a vastly smaller number of students than typical students. Teachers are assigned 14-15 students, and they work with those students over the course of four years to develop projects and secure internships that address each student’s unique interests. Teachers have time and opportunity to invest in students’ lives - “one student at a time” - and students see a direct correlation between school and the things that are truly important to them in life.

I’m sure there are drawbacks to the approach Big Picture schools take, but I am intrigued enough to find out more. Eliot Levine’s book, One Kid at a Time, catalogues the Big Picture model as it originated at the Met School, and is worth a read.

- Rachel Bowers

Today, I had my first experience with Tennessee’s annual state mandated assessment, the TCAP. I proctored the Language Arts section of the test for a seventh grade class of 27 students, and I watched them diligently read and bubble. Most of the students seemed to fare well - this school has historically positive TCAP results. And while I have often questioned the validity of tests such as these, I am surprised (in spite of myself) to find that a school can teach to the test and also ensure a good deal of useful learning for students. After the test, the kids were incredibly fidgety for the rest of the day (and I would argue that TCAP week should come with an abbreviated schedule of half-days), and they certainly did not enjoy the test, but it seems like the opportunity for this kind of assessment provides a sense of accomplishment for students and teachers alike.

I don’t think test scores should be used to punish teachers or schools or blame anyone in particular for the ills of a school or district, but I am coming to the conclusion that standardized tests aren’t all bad. I may yet change my mind, though. I still have three more days of testing to proctor.

- Rachel Bowers

I was reading the Village Voice (I will warn the reader here that some content in the Voice is not child friendly) today because the cover story caught my eye. I like to read the Voice because I think the Social and Political writing is usually very good. The honesty of the voice and the transparency of the research involved generally make for an interesting read. That said, I started reading because the article was about home-schooling in New York City in the African-American community.  I was a little disappointed, though, that the article didn’t really delve into complexities of home-schooling, both in terms of its affect on the students and the commentary on the public school system.  Draw your own conclusions.

Yes, parents home school their kids because of religious views, concerns about quality and safety, and personal convictions about how their children are to be raised, I’m well aware.  Home schooling is not a solution, though.  It may work well for educated parents with time and resources to provide their students with a base of learning that will prepare them for the professional and social world outside their doors.  But, to be honest, I don’t trust any parent I don’t personally know to be able to do that, and I don’t trust a lot of them that I do know to be able to do it. Sorry friends.  The one thing I’ve learned at Peabody is that teaching is a complex profession, and doing it well is hard for the professionals.  To teach my own future children everything I think they should know about everything would require more time than I could ever give them.

As an M.Ed student I can understand how I might seem probably somewhat biased in my views.  I do want to be a teacher at an evil, corrupting Public School (wringing hands maniacally).  Let me explain away why I’m not.  I’ve had a lot of terrible teachers in my life.  Terrible.  Lots of them.  I was bullied in school.  I consider myself Christian (and I hope others do too). I think there is a lot wrong with public schools.  Yet, here I am, with a bachelor’s degree and honors from a major university and getting a master’s degree from a prestigious ed. program.  I have four brothers and sisters who would all be excellent poster children for surviving in spite of the system.  I attribute all that success to our parents and our upbringing.  All five of us have been in school since we were old enough to be sent to daycare/pre-school because my parent’s were relatively young and working long hours to support us.  Home schooling was never an option, and even when they had the resources to offer my youngest brother private school he turned the offer down, much to their consternation.

Why all the rambling, I hear those of you still reading asking yourselves?  I believe public schools are dying for the very same reason our politicians rush into things like wars or the open arms of lobbyists, because we are letting them.   What is the largest factor determining a student’s success and the improvement of neighborhood schools?  Parental and community involvement.   Everything else like funding, spending, and environment depend on what the taxpayers and voters of our democracy demand.  Lacking the funds to chose the best schools for my siblings and I, my parents taught us to love knowledge and be responsible independent people.  Lacking the parents to guide and raise their children with all the money in the world we get citizens like the Spears family or the Jacksons (of Michael, Latoya, Jermaine etc…).  There are exceptions. There are shades of gray.  There are no rules.  There is only motivation, understanding, and kindness.

Teach your own children if you want, that’s your prerogative. I don’t think there are enough lifeboats for all of us.  Maybe we should fix the whole instead.

–Luke Webb

One of the major problems I’ve had with No Child Left Behind from the very beginning, before the law even had a chance to prove its inadequacies, was its reliance on numbers; numbers that could be manipulated with remarkable ease by administrators looking to mask their school’s shortcomings.

Case in point, when NCLB was instituted in Texas, while W. was governor there, principals disguised the number of daily student absences by reporting that chronically absent students had transferred to other schools or districts.  NCLB requires a daily attendance percentage in 90’s, and for schools in high poverty areas with high levels of transience and student turnover that number was a bad joke and nightmare all rolled up into one.  The principals did what they had to in order to survive.  I don’t blame them for that.  I also can’t fault NCLB for wanting to enforce what data shows to be a highly determinate factor in student success.  Both were, however, treating the symptoms and not the disease.

The New York Times website ran an excellent article today reporting on the ridiculous amount of manipulation that states do when compiling graduation rates.  One more example of how NCLB uses flowery language to fill stump speeches, while leaving real world implementation of those mandates up to politicians and administrators who will act with their own best interest in mind.

The solution?  Exactly what NCLB asks for.  Implementation of scientifically based teaching methods by highly qualified teachers.  I am writing this blog entry from an education library filled with thousands of ways, stated in theory and proven by practice, to motivate and involve students of every type and persuasion; and help them graduate with an education that prepares them for a competitive global job market.

And this is the moment at which this polemic comes full circle.  Better results need better students need better teachers need better education requires money teachers/schools need more money government needs to give more money government spends money on fruitless tactics (a war maybe?) cuts budgets schools lose teachers/resources students get left behind graduation rates plummet to 60’s public demands better results government demands better results…

I have a headache

–Luke Webb

During his campaign, Dean stressed improving Nashville’s public schools. It appears he may be keeping his word, unlike many politicians paying lip service to the importance of education. Dean has created an education task force of parents, students, teachers, educational experts, college administrators, and political pundits committed to improving Metro schools. (A full listing can be found here.)

During a faculty meeting at one of my student teaching placements, three members from Mayor Karl Dean’s education task force came to visit. These members requested candid feedback from the teachers on parental involvement, communication between school and parents, and Metro’s troubling drop-out rate, among other topics. Earlier in the day, the task force engaged students in the same conversation.

I am very excited to see Dean making initial efforts to understand the deep-seated issues within Nashville public schools, but I hope that this valuable feedback actually results in positive changes for students, families, and teachers.

–Katie Harris

For many students, the price of a college education appears daunting. Without accumulating so-called “good debt” through loans, financial assistance does not always cut it. Frugal parents, a wealthy uncle, and 18 years of saving babysitting or snow-shoveling money many help some students, but the cost of education still affects where many can even attend in the first place, keeping in mind that private schools are typically more expensive than state schools (not always, though). That’s why when I read the Opinion piece in the USA Today about a discount for some students attending Harvard and Yale, I imagined a tiny, dotted-lined coupon in the Sunday insert. Directions would instruct students to cut along the lines and redeem as the private school of their choice (void where prohibited).Also, I thought of a giant red-tag sale on education, with yellow-caution signs warning customers that prices have been slashed and that all four years of education must go. Everyone loves a bargain–as long as it’s not a going-out-of-business sale.

-Teresa Bagamery Clark

I heard an interesting presentation in a class the other day on KIPP schools.

KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) schools are charter schools that focus on serving extremely low SES communities with an emphasis on completing schooling all the way through college.

For all the aspiring teachers out there, KIPP schools generally pay relatively high salaries, but have much longer school days, meet for a few hours on Saturdays, and go almost year round. But if you are interested in serving in a high need area, in an environment that will allow you to be very free with your instruction and method, I would recommend giving them a look –>here<–

–Luke Webb

As I was walking through the parking lot behind the Commons rushing to class in Payne, I noticed something new: the Commons “Composting Center.” Right behind the dumpsters, three large open bins contain organic waste at various stages of decomposition, along with a short description of the purpose of the center. I’ve written in the past about the efforts within the Peabody community to “go green,” but this endeavor is especially heartening to me. Stop by and check it out!

Read more about this and other work toward environmental sustainability at Vanderbilt at “Sustain VU.”

- Rachel Bowers

Previous: Peabody’s Green Commons

As promised, I would like to respond to Jane Shaw’s comment on my last piece, “Going green for education.” Shaw points out that sometimes environmental education in schools is inaccurate, taking time away from learning basic skills. I am not familiar with the situation in Scarsdale, but the examples cited in the New York Times article (replacing incandescent bulbs with compact flourescent, etc.) are in fact proven to be more energy efficient and better for the environment. Likewise, the examples Shaw provides in her comment (not all recycling is good for the environment, etc.) are also true, but I fail to see how this justifies cutting environmental responsibility from schools. To me, Shaw’s point only underscores a need for valid green practices and accurate environmental information in schools. I agree with her that activities “not based in reality” are a waste of time; educators shouldn’t provide false information to students, but this shouldn’t be added as fuel to the anti-environmentalism fire.

I’m also not sold on this idea of children needing “basic skills” alone, and neither are students. This current trend in education disappoints me. Everyone knows that basic skills are acquired in order to achieve larger purposes. A curriculum that focuses only on minute basic skills does not provide students with those motivating goals. Green curricula potentially can. Not only that, but I truly believe communities need to engage in greener lifestyles and reduce rates of consumption, and the school can be an effective avenue to develop these habits in students.

—Katie Harris

Last week, the New York Times published an article entitled “Schools Embrace Environment and Sow Debate.” This story describes schools going green while teaching students lessons about community and environmental responsibility. From replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent, to designating a “No Idling Zone” in the school pick-up line, students are working to reduce their carbon footprint. While these efforts have been praised by both parents and school administrators, others have criticized these programs for taking time away from learning in the classroom.

This is a fair enough assertion, but one education researcher’s comments caused me to take up my dueling pen and write. Jane S. Shaw, executive vice president of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, stated, “Students need very basic skills, and those are so much more important than getting an emotional high because they’ve done something supposedly for the environment.”

Not so, Ms. Shaw. For many of us, it took a pivotal educational experience (a.k.a., “emotional high”) to turn us on to learning and to becoming productive members of the community. Moreover, these key moments vary from person to person; different things motivate different people. This belief of mine, however, seems to be missing from the current movement of standardized testing and the push for basic skills. Shaw’s comments reminded me of a student I had the pleasure of working with a couple of years ago in a wilderness adventure program. Daniel, a 15 yr. old who had spent the last few years bouncing between boarding schools due to failing grades, seldom responded positively to anything, and certainly not the idea of making a difference in the world. However, after a canoe trip down a river that included some pretty dramatic evidence of pollution, he was inspired to act, to protest, to work for something. I wouldn’t claim this moment changed his life forever, but I saw a big change in his involvement in our program from that moment on.

—Katie Harris