I heard an interesting conversation during 1st/4th grade Reading Buddies a couple weeks ago. The first grader is trying to wrap his head around the 4th grader’s family, which includes a younger half-sister and a single mom.

4th: My mom had me with my dad first, then my she had my sister with her dad separately.

1st: So your mom’s mother had a boy and that was your sister’s dad, and then she got another boy for your dad?  Is that what happened?

4th: Um. Wait. OK. My dad had me. I mean, my mom had me.  And my sister had her own dad, and I have my own dad.  My dad’s mother gave birth to my dad, and my mom gave birth to me. And her dad’s mom gave birth to her dad, and my mom gave birth to my sister.  See: Grandma, grandma.  Then dad, then mom. Then a little infant.  Two little infants.  I mean.

1st: Oooooooh.  Now I get it.

(Pause).

4th: Just.  Don’t leave your kids.

 ”I am beating a system designed for money and to destroy children.”  

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/698138/beating-the-odds-study.pdf

Evidently school climate plays an important role in promoting student achievement.  Makes sense, as kids who their Maslovian needs met (food, shelter, safety, sense of belonging, etc.) tend to be better prepared to focus on other things, like finding the surface area of rectangular prisms (a skill my 4th graders are currently having a bear of a time with).  

From the study: “The measure includes such dimensions of the school environment as safety, academic supports, social relationships, and school connectedness. A positive school climate has been associated with higher academic achievement and healthy behavioral outcomes for students.”

I can see the long-term response to this study going one of two ways— one, teachers and school leaders take this study to heart and spend some quality time reflecting on their site-specific school culture, having honest conversations about the current state of school culture and what they can fix; or two, resource strapped schools with a flock of tired and/or pressured-from-above school leaders will rely on outside “education entrepreneurs” looking to fill a niche and cash in on education reform.  

I would be terrified to try Number 5.

imagininglearning:

THIS IS WATER (by SeeTheGlossary)

” the real value of a real education Which has almost nothing to do with knowledge And everything to do with simple awareness”

So good.

(via adventuresinlearning)

Great interview with DC Council Member David Catania (I-At-large), the Council’s head of the Committee of Education.  I can’t say I agree with everything he’s saying, but you have to hand it to the guy for being pro-active and passionate.

Pretty interesting article giving some context to the glut of private philanthropic money that is driving education policy and practice these days.  The author, Stanley Katz of Princeton University, draws a line between the nobless oblige of the early 20th century, when the Carnegies and Rockefellers sought to improve the lot of Southern blacks, through the political backlash thereafter (when Congress decided the robber barons were attempting to subvert the democratic system), to the present, in which mega-foundations like the Gates Foundation and its ilk are using their bottomless pockets and endless political capital to effect change at the state and federal level (think Race to the Top, charter schools, high-stakes testing, etc).

It’s hard to argue that this private money isn’t changing the education landscape.  But whether it’s a good or a bad thing is begin debated all over the country.  Who do we want calling the shots on education?  Who do want teaching the teachers?  Who should be setting priorities for students, teachers, and schools?  Publicly accountable policy makers or private and non-profit corporations? 

Ideally, the Golden Mean puts the decision making ability on the shoulders of community-based teachers and families.  I’ve yet to see a real effort to give real power to these stakeholders.

AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter School.  Doing great work.

My new favorite education researcher is Jal Mehta (see an earlier post linking to an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times).

In this article from Phi Delta Kappan, Mehta and co-author Joe Doctor (who is a PhD candidate at Harvard, meaning he is the future Dr. Doctor…) propose an overhaul of the teacher training system in America based around a rigorous exam for entry and licensure.  Nothing new in principle— these ideas have been around for a while— but their proposal is pretty detailed and worth the read.  

Essentially, they are advocating for a process not unlike what medical doctors go through before they can fully practice.  Teachers would take an initial exam to ensure they have mastered basic core knowledge, then they would have a one-year site-based clinical practice during which they would be supervised by a master teacher.  After that would-be teachers would transition into an apprentice-type role (like a residency), during which they would be responsible for certain teaching tasks in a school while under the close supervision of a master teacher.

After these three years, there would be a final board exam to certify the candidate as a fully licensed professional.  They could then pursue advanced or specialized certification through advanced degrees or other programs.

The authors predict many potential positive outcomes, some more far-fetched than others, admittedly, but worth thinking about: “A rigorous board exam for teachers could change who is attracted to the profession, develop a more consistent and higher level of skills among teachers, improve student outcomes, and greatly increase public regard for teachers and teaching.”