State School Reform: ‘It’s the Teaching Stupid’
December 24, 2009
What follows are excerpts from an article appearing on December 23, 2009, in the San Jose Mercury News that was written by two San Jose State University professors, B. Kumaravadivelu and Revathi Krishnaswamy.
As the California legislative battle lines are drawn over school reform, and as attempts are being made to put the state on track to Race to the Top by seeking its share of the $4.3 billion federal fund, what seems to be sorely missing is any informed discussion on the strategy to improve teaching.
Our public school systems are blessed with well-conceived curricula, textbooks and constructed tests. The weakest link in this educational chain is classroom teaching.
Our conversation with teachers, parents and students associated with top public schools in the South Bay reveal a clear pattern: They are all concerned about what actually happens in the classroom.
Burdened with large classes, limited resources and loathsome paperwork, teachers are not able to give their full attention to teaching. They spend a substantial amount of class time conducting test, with little time left for giving students sufficient practice or feedback. They bitterly complain that in a system where only test scores matter, teaching takes a back seat.
If we are serious about improving instruction in our public schools, we need to devise an effective in-service program that will help teachers develop the knowledge and skill necessary to observe, analyze and evaluate their own teaching.
California can compete more effectively for top dollars by articulating a comprehensive strategy for teachers to improve their everyday practice of teaching. As legislators and negotiators wrangle over parental freedom, charger schools, accountability and other issues, they should remind themselves, “It’s the teaching, stupid.”
Effective Teachers Work Smart and Use Leverage to Move Students Forward.
December 16, 2009
Archimedes, the Greek mathematician who lived from 287 to 212 B.C. said, “Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the earth.”
Leverage is “doing a lot with a little” and may be defined as the ability to influence a system, or an environment, in a way that multiplies the outcome of one’s efforts without a corresponding increase in the consumption of resources.
Leverage, from a teacher’s perspective, is having the ability to influence a student’s performance or behavior with little effort, which raises a question. How does one gain this ability? Answer, by inviting students to participate in the use of the ”Circle of Education,” which is a strategic model that is introduced during the initial classroom orientation. This new paradigm displays the factors that move a class forward and those that hold it back.
However, models are not a panacea. We must be mindful when attempting to influence the learning curve of another. This is where leadership comes in. Leadership is an energy that others find interesting, enthusiastic, supportive and productive.
Tools, from a screw driver to a copy machine create efficiencies in our work. The “Circle of Education” is an awareness tool that provides leverage to teachers when attempting to adjust the classroom environment.
Co-active Teaching Revs Up the Energy.
December 14, 2009
“Co-active teaching” is a collaboration between teacher and student. The purpose of this arrangement is to generate mutual respect, interest and participation, which leads to the creation of educational moments.
Image your students:
- Being aware of the qualities that move a class forward and hold it back.
- Being mentally present.
- Making conscious choices.
- Being in harmony with their studies.
Teaching is a team sport. Team sports have coaches who call the plays. Plays have an order to them and are designed to move the team forward. There is an order to teaching and instructors who are co-actively skilled employ an axiom that just about every coach would agree on, “When you start true, you end true.
The Heart of The Matter?
December 14, 2009
Unbelievable as it may sound, every year, nearly one third of all the high school students in this country, drop out. A massive leak in our educational system is filling our cities, towns and neighborhoods with those who are likely to: be unemployed, receive public assistance or be involved with crime. And here’s the sad part, we don’t understand the human condition well enough to fix it.
For example, in the report, The Silent Epidemic that was prepared for the, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” boredom and being uninspired were listed as the two primary reasons why students drop out of school.
Whether it’s reading a book, watching a movie, hanging out with a friend or being a student ourselves, we want to be engaged. We want that connection and when it’s not there, our minds wander.
So what steps can teachers take to inspire that connection?
- Explain the co-active role students will play in creating educational moments.
- Communicate the goal of each class before instruction begins.
- Ask open ended, thought provoking questions that support the goal and its underlying principles.
- Stimulate the hopes and dreams of their students.
- Link the subject matter to a student’s interests.
- Celebrate a student’s progress.
Educators’ impact lives. You never know when a word, a phrase or a look, becomes that invisible spark that motivates a student to complete their education and go on to do wondrous things.
If we are nibble enough to capture a student’s heart, there is a good chance, their diploma will follow.
Study: Poor Kids Likelier to Get Antipsychotics
December 13, 2009
“Research suggests many kids get powerful drugs they do not need,” says Duff Wilson of the New York Times.
Below are excerpts from his article that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on 12/12/09.
“New federally financed drug research reveals a stark disparity: Children covered by Medicaid are given powerful anti-psychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. Finding from a Rutgers and Columbia team is almost certain to add fuel to a long-running debate. Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them, but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
Part of the reason is insurance reimbursements. Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insureers do. Families who are financially challenged are less likely to attend these sessions than their counter-part even when such sessions are available.”