Peabloggy

A very interesting article in Teacher Magazine online by a teacher named Anthony Cody provides some helpful hints for new teachers. The essence of the article is contained in this passage:

The secret to behavior management is really about having the students fully engaged in the learning process, and it involves more than just rules and office referrals.

I completely agree with Mr. Cody, and with the large majority of recommendations he makes in his article. The interesting thing is, the points are not highly intellectual, nor are they counter-intuitive, yet they are so important for new teachers to learn. What’s more, it seems that in the years I’ve taught, new teachers rarely, if ever, arrive with the simple set of skills Cody tries so fervently to drive home.

Where I come down on the issue is this: notwithstanding the fact that Cody’s “tricks” of behavior management sound like common sense, in practice they are quite difficult to achieve. In many cases, it’s much easier to hear about them than to do them, and the averse reactions that come from students when behavior expectations are enforced often serve to negatively reinforce progress in the arena of behavior management.

The topic has become a passion of mine as I’ve reflected on my own progress as a teacher, particularly when it comes to working with children who have severely challenging behavioral issues. For me, it took sincere, focused, hardlined supervision - functionally, the kind that put my very career on the line - to push me far enough into my challenge zone that I really engaged in the kind of change that needed to happen within myself before I began to see change in my students. Once I learned to engage myself - my weaknesses, my reluctance to do the work that I needed to do - my students began to engage me. Once I and my students moved from being adversaries to being partners with a focus on behavior change, I found they were able to engage themselves as well.

In my book, a teacher is only a teacher who teaches others to teach themselves -

- Peter Beddow

A recent article in Cleveland’s Plain Dealer online was entitled Rule lets schools not test disabled.

New No Child Left Behind Act regulations (published in April) allow up to 2 percent of students to take a modified version of the state assessment. The modifications are intended to provide a valid assessment for students who are ineligible for the alternate assessment but for whom the general assessment would not yield valid results because of a disability.

Scott Stephens, the author of the article, draws what strikes me as a glaring misconstrual of both the intended and the likely consequences of the 2 percent regs:

Whatever you call it, the change allows schools to exempt more of their hardest-to-educate children from standardized exams. Officials in school districts with high percentages of those students believe the exemption could provide a more accurate reflection of their progress.

For some special education advocates, that low-hanging fruit is more like the biblical apple, a temptation that has more to do with raising a school’s ranking than providing children with disabilities the education they need.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks back, this summer, researchers convened at Peabody for the second phase of a major project aimed at validating the 1 percent “alternate” assessment from seven states and modifying general assessments to satisfy the validity requirements of the “2 percent” assessment.

The primary form of modification the participating state assessment experts plan to use is to reduce the number of distractors - or wrong answers to a multiple choice question - from 4 to 3. Other common modifications are increasing the size of the text, adding pictures (e.g., if the question refers to 7 pennies, a drawing of the coins might be included to the side of the question). A third modification may involve reducing the number of items on a page for easier readability, ensuring text is written concisely and with grade-level vocabulary, increasing color contrast, implementing simple interfaces for computer-based tests, creating Braille versions for blind students, etc.

Despite Mr. Stephens’ implication, the 2 percent assessments are standardized. In fact, the questions for the modified assessment are drawn from the exact same standards as the general assessment. In other words, the material being tested in the modified assessment, if the test is valid, remains the same. To as large an extent as is possible (due to the fact that the test is being altered), the skills being assessed are not what is modified. The test is simply being filtered through a strict set of accessibility checks that ensure the test measures only what it purports to measure.

In all of the conversations I’ve heard in meetings with state administrators from Hawaii, Indiana, Idaho, Arizona, Mississippi, and Nevada, no one has ever mentioned wanting to generate a test that increases their state test scores. In fact, recent validity studies have shown that the rate of students reported as proficient is actually lower for students who took alternate assessments than for students who took the general assessments.

In short, extant evidence does not support the notion that states are designing assessments for students with disabilities with the aim of increasing their proficiency rates.

As I’ve mentioned previously, there certainly are problems to be found with No Child Left Behind. Simply hearing the word “modified” and making inaccurate assumptions as Mr. Stephens has done, however, precludes honest debate from occurring.

-Peter Beddow

Previous:
From taking tests…
NCLB: Creating a new gap?
NCLB: When in doubt, bake cookies
Investigating the validity of alternate assessments

The new NCLB regulations released in April detail the newest form of alternate assessment. In sum, the government now allows states to report up to 2 percent of their annual Annual Yearly Progress data based on student performance on a modified version of the grade-level assessments in reading and math. By 2011, this will include science as well.

Currently, most states have general assessments (those “bubble tests” we’re all so familiar with) and some form of an alternate assessment for students who are unable, due to significant disabilities of a variety of sorts, to sit for these tests. Alternate assessments generally involve some sort of evidence collection to support a school’s conclusion as to whether a student with a disability is proficient in reading or math when his or her performance is judged against grade-level academic content standards. Based on current law, 1 percent of student AYP data from these alternate assessments may be reported as part of NCLB’s requirements.

As I’ve written about previously, I’ve been involved in a major consortium study, the first aspect of which was an examination of the validity six states’ alternate assessments. The second aspect of the consortium was a study of how to modify existing grade-level test items to increase their accessibility to students for whom the general assessment may not be valid but who are not eligible for the alternate assessment. On July 12-14, the consortium convened in Wyatt for a 3-day working session to modify existing test items. Essentially, the purpose was to create a test that we will look at experimentally. One of the primary questions will be to ask whether our “modified” test items are more accessible for students with disabilities. Additionally, we will plan to examine whether conclusions based on the modified items are as reliable as those drawn from scores on the original items.

This was my first experience leading a group of teachers and education professionals on the seemingly monumental task of changing test items to allow children with disabilities to really “show what they know”. It was, at times, an arduous process, but overall it was a terrific weekend. As always, I’ll keep you all posted on how this and our other related projects progress in the near future.

-Peter Beddow

Previous: Investigating the validity of alternate assessments

eSchools is reporting that Baltimore County Public Schools has installed a system of on-demand videos on high-capacity computer servers that are accessible by all 169 of its schools.

Since my first days as a teacher in an urban middle school in Los Angeles County, I’ve seen so many changes in education as a result of technological advance. Then in about 2003, I began to see my creativity match the resources available to me; that is, if I could think it, I could do it with my students. This kind of immediate access to videos on nearly any topic imaginable is a prime example of this.

It is terrifically fun to release the limits of curricula and begin to play with technology. Some examples: When I designed a unit on owls for my little classroom of eight students, I procured sounds of various species of owls online and played them for the students on my computer. When Jason McElwain, a student with Autism, scored 20 points in 4 minutes in the final game of his Rochester, New York high school’s basketball season, I showed my students the video on YouTube.

For fun one evening, I photoshopped the movie poster for “The Incredibles” and posted it on my classroom door, like so:

In 2005, I ordered five Painted Lady butterfly larvae from an online nature store and as a classroom, we bred butterflies. At the same time, a rare massive Painted Lady Butterfly migration began to move through our area. In a perfect coincidence, my students released their fully-developed butterflies just prior to the arrival of the migration. For days afterward, my students ran around shouting, “I just saw one of our butterflies!” What began as a little science project became a sensational and memorable social studies lesson.

I could not have done this without the internet.

In case you haven’t seen it, prepare to be inspired. Here’s Jason’s phenomenal performance:

- Peter Beddow

At one point in Mr. Robert Hill’s Poetry class at Middlebury, we studied Frost’s poem For Once, Then, Something. Hill engaged our class in a lively debate about the title and last phrase of the poem. What did it mean? How does it relate to the totality of the poem? And most important: How should it be read?

As wise college students, we had so many ideas about how to read that line:
“For once, then, SOMEthing.”
“For once, then…something.”
“For ONCE, THEN, SOMETHING!’

After an hour or so of discussion, Mr. Hill informed us that he had in fact heard Frost himself read the poem at the Breadloaf Writer’s Conference one summer. The class was hushed as he described leaning in to hear how Frost would finish the poem, aware that he was about to learn the answer from the master himself.

According to Hill, Frost read the poem beautifully, adding brilliantly musical inflection to every line - that is, until the end of the poem. When he came to the final line, he deepened his voice, paused and said robotically, “For. Once. Then. Something.” He never looked up, giving no tell whatsoever.

I do not know whether Robert Frost the man actually was how Hill characterized him, or if Hill just liked to characterize him that way. What I do know is that I’ve never thought of Frost the same way since. I wish ol’ R.F. were here to defend himself…

The point of my including college anecdotes such as these in the context of a weblog post by a Special Education major is simply to demonstrate how important it is for us to recall our own learning experiences as we endeavor into teaching students ourselves. I fear that too often academics become so schooled in their own fields that they forget where all of their students have come from, and - worse yet - where they may be going. In my view, our own collective love of learning is essential if we’re to teach students who may come into our classrooms with little or none for themselves.

- Peter Beddow

Previous: Robert, we hardly knew ye (link fixed)

Last semester, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont, my childhood stomping ground) introduced a budget amendment that would have increased IDEA spending by $44 billion, beginning with a $10 billion increase effective 2008.

Mikulski’s and Sanders’ selling point for the amendment was that the funding would be paid for by eliminating “President Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy” (“Special Education must not be a hollow promise”, from Mikulski’s weblog).

Certainly we would (should) all agree that promises should be kept. If the government has promised to shoulder the financial burden of adherence to federal education legislation, it should keep its promise, and Congress should hold itself to account for that.

Mikulski wrote:

The federal government is supposed to pay 40 percent of a state’s special education costs, with the rest subsidized by the state and local governments.  However, the federal government has not made good on its commitment!  This means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special education, cutting from other education programs, or raising taxes.

The amendment was denied by a vote of 35-58.

Others - not only libertarian-minded folks but others on both sides of the aisle - feel that education is a burden that states should bear alone, and federal money only serves to generate leveraging power from above. Essentially they argue that a central Department of Education is unconstitutional.

This is not a political blog by any stretch, but the issue of funds is an important one. With NCLB extending its reach deeper into state education systems with the inception of AYP requirements for Science beginning shortly, Mikulski and Sanders certainly make a good point about funding, even if Congress doesn’t agree with them (at least in practice.) I honestly don’t know where to stand on the issue.

What do you all think? Does the government “owe” states more money for special ed? Is anyone suggesting states go it alone, sacrificing their federal dollars for freedom from what some may see as the oppression of the powers-that-be? If the federal government is able to regulate education at the state level, should it also subsidize the implementation of these regulations to a greater extent than it does currently?

- Peter Beddow

Hat tip: Charles Fox, an Illinois attorney with a special needs child who maintains a blog about Special Education.

Hanne Denney, a special education teacher in Maryland, has written an article about teaching her students to write Shakespearean sonnets. An exerpt:

All freshmen, as part of the introduction to William Shakespeare, have to write an original sonnet. They choose the topic, and I help them mold it to the correct form of three quatrains, one couplet, and iambic pentameter. I have a love/hate relationship (to use an oxymoron as per Shakespeare) with this assignment. The students start out saying, “I can’t do it”, and I wonder if they will. But by the end all the students do it. It is such a great experience for them.     

I remember when my seventh-grade teacher, Mrs. Donoghue, assigned our class to write sonnets. I wrote mine about stuttering, and it turned out to be the first “publication” I ever had, in a newsletter by the National Stuttering Project (now called the National Stuttering Association) called Letting Go. Is this not what teaching is all about? It’s about moving kids beyond what they think they can do, so they begin to understand that many of the greatest challenges in their lives are not imposed externally, but they are in their minds. When someone can prove to a student without hope that what seems impossible is actually possible, he or she will never again believe those perceived limits are immovable. Rather, he or she may begin to test those limits and find that the apparently impossible road is the one with the greatest rewards.  

- Peter Beddow 

For Christmas, my mom gave me a little iron puzzle - one of those “remove the ring” types. My dad and I had a kick trying to figure this iron spring puzzle out. It took an hour or so, but we did it. Good thing, too - I suspect I would have stayed awake for days trying to free that darn ring. This is essentially what it looks like:

For years, I’ve enjoyed brain teasers, including those in video games, books, or situational/conversational puzzles (ever heard of the “albatross soup” riddle?) Anyway, I found a couple of online stores (here and here) with all sorts of these “disentanglement” puzzles. They’re usually called Tavern or Parlor Puzzles. Unfortunately, they’re a little expensive (usually about $15 each for the nice iron ones) but I figure if I purchase one or two each year, I’ll have quite a collection in no time.

I’ve got my Christmas puzzle up in my office in Wyatt 407 if anyone wants to visit and try it. Bring one of your own if you like and we’ll try and stump each other - that is, if you don’t mind causing a man to lose sleep!

These are wonderful items to have in the classroom. They can be made available to students who finish worksheets early, or given to those who need a little extra boost of self-confidence. I’m a believer in giving students tasks that intrinsically increase self-efficacy upon completion, but such tasks must be of appropriate difficulty that students are both challenged and encouraged simultaneously. As a teacher, this takes an element of finesse, as some might tend to give the answer away (eliminating the opportunity for growth) while others may offer too few hints when the child is in need of a momentary hand. These kinds of brain teasers can be found for many levels of difficulty, so even the Super Puzzle Genius in the classroom can be kept satisfied.

Since it’s summertime, I suspect someone out there is due for a little brain exercise. In case I’m correct, I’ll leave you with a classic situational puzzle:

Bob and Bill, who were identical twins, sat down and ordered drinks. Their drinks were identical. Bob drank his quickly and felt fine. Bill sipped his slowly and died. Why?

If you need a hint, I’ll answer yes/no questions via the comments on this post. You can probably find the solution on the internet within a few clicks - so no cheating!

- Peter Beddow

This Spring, the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) online newsletter included an interesting article entitled Teach Students How to Study - It Doesn’t Come Naturally! which essentially expounds on the notion that children - particularly those with learning disabilities - do not know how to do many of the things we ask them to do until we teach them how.

Of all the cultural trends that have taken place in recent years, the one that I find the most troubling is that of parents and teachers who simply expect children to know right from wrong while they allow them to “find their own way”, utterly devoid of moral and practical instruction. It strikes me as odd that we have come to a point where we need PhDs to remind us that we must teach our children.

- Peter Beddow

I was front-row center (literally in the first seat to the right of the aisle - no political implication intended) for Newt Gingrich’s IMPACT lecture on March 20 in the Student Life Center. The Tennessean covered the event here (why did they choose such an uptight photo? He was so relaxed in person!)

I have a number of thoughts on Mr. Gingrich’s speech and on the experience in general, but since I am no student of politics, I primarily want to relate the portions of his comments that relate to my studies at Peabody.

Mr. Gingrich’s recurring theme seemed to relate to the backwards nature of government spending, particularly in terms of how projects are funded. His characterization of NASA in its current form, for instance, was that of a bloated beast that can’t go anywhere very fast. NASA claims to need such-and-such billions of dollars for a manned mission to Mars to be completed 10 years from now; by the time the project actually gets underway, Gingrich said the estimates will have ballooned and timelines will have been extended many times over. Instead, he says, the government should offer what he called “prizes” for targeted goals. The first person (or team) who meets the goal gets the prize. He suggested that if the government offered $20 billion tax-free to whomever can get to Mars and back, you’ll have 20 teams competing, all of which would put bases on the Moon (because, according to Gingrich, it’s the only feasible launch point for a trip to the red planet) and it will be exciting.

“People will become engineers again,” Gingrich said.

In terms of scientific research, Gingrich proposed a complete overhaul of the current system of grant-disbursement, by which researchers (many of which reside at degree-granting institutions such as Vanderbilt) propose projects based on what they think will get funded. Under the current system, researchers receive a certain amount of money for a certain project based on anticipated costs, and they may spend that money only on said project; Gingrich referred to these as “process-oriented” prizes. Gingrich’s reversal would go something like this: the government funding agencies would propose a goal (e.g., find a cure for cancer) and offer up an enormous prize for the project that reaches the goal. By funding what we need to accomplish, Gingrich believes the competition would spur much more efficient work, in terms of both time and money. Along the same lines, Gingrich proposed a $1 billion tax-free prize for the first private citizen or team who can design a mass-producable vehicle that runs on hydrogen fuel.

Admittedly, I was too shy to ask the question (even though microphones were available) but I wondered whether Gingrich would propose a similar overhaul for the Special Education system, in research and in practice. Would he favor the current disability-diagnosis-before-funding system, or would he suggest more money be placed into other kinds of preventive interventions?

Would Gingrich be so bold as to propose a prize for the researcher who can find a “cure” for learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, autism, or ADHD? For non-biologically-based disabilities (and I’m making no claims about those I’ve mentioned) it seems research is incremental and based on prevention and intervention, not whole-hog cures. If my assessment is correct, I can’t see how Gingrich’s goal-based prize system would work. Some lines of research take years to develop, and progress may be practically measurable only when analyzed across a series of studies, research teams, and findings over a period of years. After all, researchers are expected to ground at least some of their hypotheses in prior research, and with the current peer-review process, research may take months or years to see the light of day in publication.

(Now I really wish I’d asked my question!)

I enjoyed Mr. Gingrich’s speech and appreciated the ease with which he addressed audience questions. Thanks to the student IMPACT organizers for setting up the event.

- Peter Beddow