Monday Maslow

A teacher calls an off-task student to attention, “Jack, please listen to these directions.”

The student continues to carry on his conversation with a classmate, so a little more directed the teacher says, “Jack, listen to the directions and you can talk after we get started.”

With a nod, the student acknowledges the teacher and verbally assents, “o.k.” but turns immediately back to his friend to finish.

“Jack, I’ve asked you three times already, you need to listen so that you understand the task, if I have to speak to you again I will move your seat.”

The student responds as asked. He stops talking, puts his head on the desk and refuses to participate for the rest of class.

Can anyone other than teachers identify with this?

For goal-directed individuals with high achievement motivation this is irrational behavior. “Better” students don’t do this. My AP-level seniors articulate as much every day. These students have no problem describing why they hate a given teacher (too much work, negative attitude, unfair treatment). But, their attitude toward the teacher makes no difference in their willingness to follow policy and work.

Two years ago I taught “Jack.” Jack was in my government class with his girlfriend, “Jill.” They both came from an economically disadvantaged background. At seventeen, they lived a lifestyle usually more likely to be associated with twenty-somethings. They lived together with extended family. They both worked to contribute income to the family. Jill missed school often. Jack would usually provide the excuse that one of the younger children stayed home sick and Jill’s mother had to work.

They rarely completed homework that couldn’t be finished in class. I could imagine why. Both of them worked and their income was needed to help with the family. At home, with smaller children, they were two of the three adults and with shift-work, often responsible for the children in the evening if not at work.

Neither of them enjoyed school and both of them saw it more as a burden that made life difficult than an opportunity to make life better. They were both very good people and I enjoyed getting to know them, but they lived in a world different than one that I understood.

After class that day, I talked to Jack about his behavior. I said something like this to him. “Jack, I don’t understand. When you get upset with me, you refuse to work as if not doing your work hurts me somehow. You’re only hurting yourself.”

His response helped me understand a little better. School was the lowest priority in his life. At seventeen, he already had financial obligations and commitments related to the basic priorities of life—food, housing, health care. While not the head of a household, both of them assumed a level of responsibility for the family unit. They weren’t married, but in their socio-cultural context, they lived as a committed couple, looking to a future together. He felt little control over the outcomes in his life, but here, in the classroom was the one place he could exercise this autonomy and control with little concern about the consequence.

We had a good relationship and I learned much from him.

I wish that reformers and policy-makers could learn more from students like this.

I know there are flaws in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs/Motives, but several examples are inarguable. If I need to go to the bathroom, that need trumps all others. If I need to eat, that need trumps all others. If I’m afraid, the need for security trumps all others.

If I feel alone, a search for companionship pervades my life. If I feel like a failure, the search for success drives most of my action. But if my belly is empty I don’t have time to worry about the loneliness or failure, I just want food.

Maslow’s Theory does not apply rigidly to all cases, but humans do prioritize the needs in their lives, striving to meet the most basic usually before even considering the higher goals of life. Isolated stories of overcoming the odds don’t prove the idea is wrong, it just proves that like most rules, there are exceptions.

Educators must do everything within their power to overcome the odds of poverty and life circumstances with the children in their care. We must approach every child knowing that he or she has the potential to achieve.

But we must never allow the public to believe the lie that education alone can level the playing field by creating the rising tide to lift all boats.

Wednesday, Thursday, Friday!

I learned that from my colleague here at the Teaching Underground.  I think people use the initials of those three words as an exclamation to express surprise, confusion, or perplexity... is that a word, if not, I want credit if you use it from now on.  So what are my Wednesday, Thursday, Friday moments from this week?

First, it's Mitt Romney.  Here's what he told Brian Williams at NBC's Education Nation:

I believe that we simply -- we simply can't have a setting where the teachers' unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table, supposedly to represent the interest of the kids. I think it's a mistake.

I think we've got to get the money out of the teachers' unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We have got to separate that.

Get the money out of the teachers' unions going into campaigns?  Never mind the money coming from Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Phillip Morris, or even PEARSON!  They don't use their money to exercise influence over the decisions of politicians.  And they count as people anyway since they're incorporated.  It's the money pouring in from the overpaid teachers that flooding our political system with graft.

Seriously, I hate to be immature, but this is stupid.  You're going to call out the teachers' unions for having too much influence and suggest their ability to contribute to campaigns be limited.  Maybe there's a better place to start if you want to remove the influence of money from education.

Romney also said:


So I reject the idea that everybody has to have a, if you will, a Harvard expense level degree in order to be successful. I find a lot of people have degrees from a lot of different places, public and private, that are highly successful.

He referenced Geoffrey Canada frequently in his speech and q&a session.  I attended a talk by Canada last year in D.C. where he said as a general rule of thumb, when you don't know what to do in education, "do what the rich people do?"  Romney was referring to the $38,000/year tuition at his former high school.  So, if money doesn't matter, why do rich people spend so much on education?  They're not rich because they waste money, apparently they understand it's value more than most.  So why do they insist on spending a high dollar amount to educate their own children?    Why doesn't the market bring this cost down, or do they just send their kids to keep them away from the riff raff one finds in public education.

Speaking of money, I've addressed my W,T, so here's my F.  One of our local teachers, Michael Farabaugh qualified for Jeopardy.  I'm a little bitter, because I made it to round two with him several years ago when the "Clue Crew" came to Charlottesville.  Neither of us made it to round three, but apparently he persisted while I gave up and helped start this little blog.  He'll be flying to California soon for taping.  Pretty cool achievement wouldn't you say?  Apparently not everyone thinks so.  Here's a link to the news story, but the comments are priceless.  Here's a sampling if you're not motivated to click the link provided to read them for yourself:

-What a shocker! Instead of actually doing what he is paid to do and that is teach, he is going off to try to get even more money, probably during school hours that he is being paid for! Greed! Greed! Greed! That is all we get from teachers! Certainly not results! 

-Are the taxpayers paying for substitute teachers so that these freeloaders can go win money on gameshows instead of doing their jobs?!?!?!?!?

No wonder the kids are as stupid as dead roaches! 

-They should dock his pay an amount equal to his winnings if he is getting paid to teach but is not doing it. 

-It is hard to have a positive impact on students when you cannot even be bothered to show up for your classes you are being paid to teach! I am paying his salary and I say fine him or fire him! 

For what it's worth, congratulations Mr. Farabaugh.  We know you've served your students and this community well and wish you the best on Jeopardy.

As for the comments, all I can say is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

And to preempt any inevitable conservative backlash, be patient, we'll take a few jabs at President Obama and Arne Duncan in the near future.

Apples to Apples?

K12 Inc., the country's largest provider of online k-12 education has come under fire from several sources recently for it's attempts to turn a profit by drawing students away from traditional public education classrooms.  Just last week, the New York Times ran an article subtitled Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in the Classroom.  Sounds like a pretty bold claim, but we've argued before, with the dot.com decline and housing market bubble burst, education may be the last safe refuge for Wall Street in the 21st century.

Ron Packard, CEO of K12 Inc, issued a reply to this article yesterday in the Fordam Education Institute's Flypaper.  I'm not completely opposed to Virtual Education.  I believe that responsible virtual education within the framework of existing educational structures is vital for 21st century learning.  I do have reservations about a complete package of online education outsourced to a distant and nebulous institution whose primary purpose is maximizing profit.  This description may not fairly characterize K12 Inc., but Packard's defense of the company in response to the NY Times articles is less than convincing.  Of the several arguments presented by Ron Packard, I found number one most lacking.  I've pasted the text of his argument below:

Academic performance of virtual schools: K12 data shows that a large and growing number of students coming into virtual schools are below grade level. The high growth rate of virtual schools means that a large portion of students taking the state tests are in their first year. This makes static test scores poor measures of a school’s overall performance because students perform better on state tests the longer they are enrolled. To measure academic growth, K12 administers third party norm-referenced tests.  Data from these tests show students are making positive academic gains relative to national norms.

 This is not the first time that I've heard this argument to defend poor results of online learning or even charter schools.  So, let's look closely at this argument.  First, Mr. Packard argues that students coming into his schools are below grade level.  It stands to reason that their performance will fall below that of on-grade level students.  Does that mean it's the student's fault and not the school?  I'm o.k. with that as long as we let our "traditional" public schools put forth the same argument.  Do students matter or not?  We have to be careful not to allow student ability or circumstances to provide an excuse for poor service.  If online schools and charters are given a pass because of the population they're dealing with then let's not apply a different standard to public schools dealing with the same students in order to label them as failing.

Second, it looks like the tests are getting blamed.  In the world of public education, again this argument doesn't fly.  The tests are the tests and if you can't perform then you're not performing.  Have you noticed any of the value-added or growth model laws passing across the nation?  It doesn't matter whether students are transferring, adding, dropping, repeating, or not even in your class in some states.  If the test scores aren't good enough, you're not good enough.  That applies to schools and increasingly to teachers as well.  If the tests aren't good enough to judge online education and charters then why do we assume they're good enough to judge traditional public schools.

I suppose if you can be identified by initials and your stock is publicly traded a different set of standards apply.  That shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for a while that Wall Street standards don't apply to the rest of us.

Newt Gingrich: On Education

I was at the NCSS conference in DC when I caught a quick blip on the TV  featuring a comment that emerged from the Republican campaign trail.  Newt Gingrich was quoted saying that “really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works.”  OK...what?  What did he just imply about poor kids?  Was he trying to say something else?  Was this taken out of context?

Whatever the response from a usually unapologetic Gingrich the problem that becomes evident is that discussing sensitive issues as they relate to education is a challenge.  It is hard to have honest dialogue on real issues without coming off as insensitive or even acting that way.   Was Newt trying to plant his flag among the far right and appeal to the Republican base in advance of the meaningful primaries or does his statement represent what he actually believes?  Did he give what he said much thought? Was this just poor judgment?  Should that matter?  

The answer to the last question is yes since he has emerged as a contender for the Republican nod for President.  While I can only speculate on some of these questions closer analysis might offer up some insights.

Like most issues one can more easily comprehend the educational debate by grouping people into two main schools of thought.  The abridged version is that those on the right want a system that will put/return the US to the top by providing workers to fuel our global economy.  They mostly like buzzwords like accountability and testing.  Some of them even seem to favor the dismantling of public education, privatization or seek revenues back from public education either through private school vouchers or refunds to parents who homeschool.

Those on the left work hard to lay claim to the moral high ground as defenders of education and our children.  Historically they have aligned with the education lobby and listed the issue toward the top of their platform.  But then as now are open to the criticism they have little grasp of what and how to make things better(can be said of both parties).   "Democrats for Education"...how could anyone oppose such an organization?   So the left and right like to butt heads on education but obviously both want what they think is best for our kids.  But they want votes too. 

So this simplified analysis leaves out the reality that the Dems and the GOP in DC sound an awful lot alike if you listen to their policies.  Currently favor seems to lie with painting our schools as awful and in need of major change.    I have little faith in either party and neither one has or is able to articulate a sensible education policy on a statewide or national level.  As long as ambiguous "reform" if featured towards the top of any list of ideas it is general enough to garner public support.  Back to Newt.  He is emerging as a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.  That may change tomorrow but for now what he thinks about education matters.  

I looked for a little more context to those comments from Newt.    Most politicians(and most people to be honest) only pay lip service to the importance of education and have little grasp of the complexity of the  issues involved. But the public is at fault too as the level of awareness on the impact of important policies is sorely lacking.  Politicians instead rely on lobbies and advisers for positions.  The public buys into their rhetoric.  There are exceptions.  So I was seeking affirmation that Newt had actually given some thought to an important campaign issue and didn't just stick his foot in his mouth when I looked a little deeper.  

So Newt said what he said.   But he has said a great deal more about education.  I recall when he said "America's High Schools were obsolete" and he also added in that September 2007 that "we should pay kids for taking hard classes".  I respectfully disagreed at the time and still do.   He has sponsored a Constitutional Amendment on school prayer.  Newt has an established record on education but the public and media tend to focu more on one liners and what candidates say in public.  which is often reduced to the shortest possible soundbite.

Since this is the case it is always good practice to read the full remarks of politicians as painful as that may be. In this case doing so reveals he stays pretty right but his comments jump around.   I agree with some things, not sure about others and there is plenty that worries me about what he has said in the past and what he says below. 

This is something that no liberal wants to deal with… Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid. You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model…. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising….  You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars….  They all learned how to make money at a very early age… What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don’t do it. Remember all that stuff about don’t get a hamburger flipping job? The worst possible advice you could give to poor children. Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday. Get any job that teaches you to stay all day even if you are in a fight with your girlfriend. The whole process of making work worthwhile is central.

School Choice in an important Republican plank

Protest Opposing Charter Schools

I looked up The Gingrich Education Plan.  On his website,  Newt.org it shows where he stands and I think it at the least shares some other policies Gingrich has formulated.(my thoughts follow in blue italics)

• Empower parents to pick the right school for their child.  Parents had the right to choose the school that is best for their child, and should never be trapped in a failing school against their will. Yeah...not so much.  That "Failing school" thing ins tricky.  School choice in theory sounds good, in practice it often stinks.  Doesn't fix  the problems and might help some kids but not others.   Look at current practices to see shortfalls. 

• Institute a Pell Grant-style system for Kindergarten through 12th Grade. Per-pupil school district funding should go into each child’s backpack, and follow them to the school their parents wish to attend. Parents who home school their children should receive a tax credit or be allowed to keep the Pell Grant.  On principle this is just a bad idea.  Why not just tax people with school age kids?   So much for schools being a community resource adding and a source of strength. Parents should be able to do what they want with their kids...but honestly...can most folks afford to homeschool?
• Require transparency and accountability about achievement. Each state must set a rigorous standard that allows every student everywhere to master the skills they will need to be competitive, and develop a process for grading the effectiveness of every school.  Thank you "Arne".  Accountability has meant only one thing, ...testing.  I guess I was naive in thinking that local communities should have autonomy on many things.  No doubt federal and State bureaucrats far removed from schools know what is best with their extensive experience.(sarcasm)
• Implement a “no limits” charter system.  Uh...how about no.  Charters might help but that is just a bad idea.   Do they let everyone in?  Carters are free from the choking regulations of normal public schools.  The deal was better outcomes for more freedom.  Still vague outcomes at the best, worse at least.   Some limits are in place for a reason. 
• All of the money allocated for student education goes directly to the school.  Could not agree more.  Stop sending it to Pearson, private companies or anyone else who doesn't work in a building with the kids. 
• The school manages its own staff, whereby it is exempt from laws regarding tenure, and need not unionize.   The last century saw the creation of some laws were actually well thought out and serve a purpose.  Many of these include labor laws.    Remove the same protection for politicians, doctors, lawyers, banks and all other areas an then we'll talk.  Academia in particular has some protections that serve a very valid reason.   If schools are held accountable for graduation rates and you teach seniors...just imagine when you fail a student and the principal asks you to reconsider.  Novice, experienced and master teacher?  Nah..they are all the same.  Just widgets.  
• The school defines its own curriculum, in line with the state standards and assessments.  Students in charters are not exempt from state assessments.  The schools are not exempt from reporting requirements, nor should they be.  Sounds harmless enough.
• State law allows the school to “franchise” its model without limitation.  That means they need not apply for a new school every time they can build a new one.  If they have the demand, they must be able to serve it.  Don't franchise tags make money?  Any public funds divert to private hands where huge profits are involved become suspect very quickly.   "Public schools are a public trust that should remain free from private, corporate and political enterprise or agendas"
• The state has NO CAPS on the number of charter schools that can be approved, and the process for approving charter schools is smooth and efficient.  Once again before you board up all the traditional schools maybe give some thought to the research about whether charters are any better. 
• Establish a pay for performance system.  States and school governing boards should lift all existing prohibitions that prevent a principal from evaluating teachers based in part on student achievement.  Do the same for other professions and see how they react.  We don't choose our kids and we shouldn't.   Who would want to teach at risk kids in school?  The idea that we will work harder or be more effective if paid more is not only stupid but contrary to research. 
• Welcome business talent in our communities into the classroom. Every state should open their systems up to part-time teachers so that retired physicists, neighborhood pharmacists, or local accountants could teach one or two hours a day and bring knowledge to the classroom, and business-like adult expectations to the students.  And programs like Teach For America should be encouraged and not limited.  So much for treating teaching like a profession.  Why not just hire a bunch of temps each year to staff our schools.   That'll save money and that's all that really matters here right?   There is a place for some of the things suggested here and TFA is a great example.  But it is far from THE answer and those that present them a such are either foolish or misguided.  We are dealing with young people.  Dropping people without the right preparation in a room to work with young people might just be the worst idea on the list.  I've seen it in action.  It can be ugly. Teaching is a profession.   Knowing Math ans Knowing kids are both important.  Which one matters more?  On any given day I am a teacher, coach, grief counselor, mentor, security officer, friend, club sponsor, mediator, club advisor, disciplinarian among other things.  Teacher is not what you are , it is who you are. 
• Restore American history and values into the classroom. America is a learned civilization and every American, including immigrants, should learn American history and the principles of American self-government, productivity and prosperity. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Every student must learn to read and much of what they read should reinforce American civilization.  I've said before stay away from Jefferson.  He lived 2 miles from me.  Maybe reconsider the overfocus on Math and Reading to the neglect other subjects.  The traditional view of American History tends to be written top down and the way immigrants are singled out here is telling. "Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of the due degree of liberty"-TJ  "Reinforce" is an interesting choice as well.  I have little use for any fact where there is  100% agreement.  So much for a more multicultural approach. 
• Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student. Tougher one.  I am a coach and it has pros and cons.  My gut says no, my heart says yes.  I always think of the athletic programs as an extension of  school's classrooms.  With the exception that participation is a privilege.  That changes things.  Will they be held to the same behavioral/academic standards?  Far as I know kids taken out of a school can mean less per capita state and fed funding, so how does letting them then benefit from facility and coaching etc make sense?  Would private schools allow them in?  But we want what's best for kids and I am assuming their parents pay taxes.  Most communities offer sports of some kind.  Kids can learn more important lessons about life on the field or court than in any classroom.   I just get nervous that not ever saying "no" has consequences.  Should we institute a no cut approach as well? 
• Encourage states to think outside outdated boundaries of education. States have developed very innovative models:
• Individualized, 24/7 learning should be universally available online, with the Florida Virtual School (over 120,000 students for K-12) as a model.  Yep, more money for the private companies and not the school.  They'll keep kids interests ahead of profits...right?
• Shrink the federal Department of Education and return power to states and communities. The Department's only role will be to collect research and data, and help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level.  (applause)