Adult Agendas = Students' Loss Part 1

I've heard it said over and over recently: This is a very bad time to be in education. The cumulative effects of No Child Left Behind, the economic crises, and Race to the Top are on their own enough to scare away thousands of potential teachers as well as thousands of veteran teachers. But if you're an educator without a class list—that is, one who does not teach children on a daily basis—the negative effects are likely not as pronounced. This is because in many real ways non teaching educators (that should be an oxymoron!) have successfully promoted dozens of adult agendas that make life in school easier for them while at the same time worse for students and their teachers.

Take for example the arbitrary age-based designation known as "grade level." Any real educator—one who teaches children—can tell you there is really no such thing as a grade level. It is a simplistic convention invented by adults in order to control the world of students and make their world more comprehensible to them—the adults, that is. Decades ago Jean Piaget demonstrated unequivocally that in any given grade level the range of academic and social ability is so great as to span two, three or even four different grade levels, as traditionally defined.

Despite this universal reality, policy makers, administrators and a host of other manipulators of the educational system insist on maintaining grade level groupings in schools. This is because it is easier to test kids, punish kids, punish schools, hold teachers accountable for their students' progress, and develop boxed and scripted curricula for teachers to implement robotically if the categories in which we place students are constructed for the convenience of adults. Piaget would surely be disappointed to learn that everything he taught us about individual cognitive development has been systematically ignored in order to make life easier for the non-teaching adults who wield power in education. Doing the right thing, such as taking into account individual cognitive development by advocating for and supporting multi-aged classrooms, or by ignoring grade level designations altogether, would be too much work and would overly complicate the lives of adults.

Most of America's public schools have by now completed the spring testing cycles: two to three weeks of grueling test-taking whose sole purpose under No Child Left Behind is to determine which schools to punish. (The only "reward" under this system consist of the absence of punishment.) Yet school districts persist in administering these tests in order to continue to receive federal money for education.

Never mind the fact that the tests include only reading and math skills.

Never mind the fact that more than 30 school days (yes, that's 6 weeks) of instructional time are lost due to the time spent on the spring testing and other mandated, standardized tests throughout the year.

And never mind the fact that the tests purport to assess children's academic skills based solely on arbitrary grade level designations. A 4th grader is a 4th grader, and if that 4th grader does not know X, Y and Z to an arbitrary level of proficiency, then she is considered undereducated and her teacher's competence is suspect. It doesn't matter that she may be 11 months younger than some of her classmates. And it doesn't matter if the student becomes proficient in X, Y and Z a month after the tests are given or even next fall. If the 4th grade student is not proficient in a given skill (or simply has a bad day!) by the date of the test in April, she is forever labeled non-proficient. No take-backs and no credit for learning the skill at a later date. In the cold, clinical and often cruel world of adult accountability, an adult agenda that includes arbitrary cut-off dates for arbitrarily defined levels of proficiency trumps the best interests of our children's education every time.

Adult Agendas = Students' Loss Part 2

There are other adult agendas that sabotage children's learning. In an admirable attempt to to convert our 60 year-old school building into a modern, energy efficient space, every classroom window is being replaced with double-paned storm windows, every light fixture is being upgraded with energy efficient bulbs, and insulation is being poured into the dead space between the ceiling and the roof. There is nothing wrong with this. Who would argue with a school's attempts to go green? But there has been serious fallout in terms of instruction.

No fewer than 12 school days per classroom were or will be completely lost or significantly sabotaged due to the fact that each class has to pack up every single object in the classroom that is not nailed to the walls, floor or ceiling and move out to a portable building for six to eight weeks so the greening of the classroom can be realized. Since I have just been through this process, which occurred during parent conferences and spring testing, I can attest to the astounding loss of instructional time and the undermining of the standards-based curriculum we teachers are required to follow.

Asked why the upgrades could not have occurred in the summer months when there are no classes, we were simply told the contractor could only upgrade four classrooms at a time. So?! Why not hire more contractors or have the current contractor sub-contract in order to get the job done in the summer? Other construction and remodeling projects with time constraints do this all the time. Once again, an adult agenda supersedes the children's agenda. The result is another loss for students.

Here is another example of good intentions gone wrong. Our district participates in a science

kit program whereby very well stocked science unit kits rotate between schools on a set schedule. Although

the materials are top rate and the curriculum challenging, the curriculum itself is scripted and disjointed.

It's obvious that the authors of the kits opted to prioritize coverage over depth and lifelong learning. But

many of us tolerate that because the kits are so materially rich. Because of this we do not have to spend our

weekends or prep time gathering science materials. There are two things, however, both driven by adult

agendas, that go a long way toward making the kits not worth receiving.

The first is the fact that teachers have no choice regarding which kit they will receive and

when they will receive it. The kits are not sent on a schedule that is convenient to students and teachers

or timely to the study, say, life science as opposed to physical science. They are instead sent on a schedule

that is convenient to the adults who stock and distribute the kits. In other words, my class, had no choice

but to study life science in the middle of the winter simply because that's when the life science kit was

delivered to my classroom. This is definitely NOT the time I would have preferred to teach life science.

Winter would have been a better time to teach physical science since many life forms are dormant and

unobservable in the winter months.

The second reason the kits may no longer be worth receiving is the fact that teachers must

return the kits when the return date arrives. This sets up situations where many teachers are half way through

a science unit but have to turn the kit back in simply because the arbitrary due date has arrived. This hard

and fast deadline reaches a level of absurdity in the spring when ALL science kits have to be returned to the

distribution center by April 28. Never mind the fact that school doesn't get out until May 28. And never

mind the fact that many class lost hours and hours of science instructional time due to the standardized

testing in April. That loss put our class at least a month behind. Add that to the fact that we are forced to

turn in the science kits one month before school gets out, and you have a net loss of TWO MONTHS OF

SCIENCE INSTRUCTION! And this is all because the school district wants to make life easier and more

convenient to adults.

These examples are just the tip of an iceberg of adult agendas that undermine student learning. There

are plenty more. But I think the point has been made. Until policy makers and non teaching educators

make the shift from focusing on their own agendas to focusing on those of our students, we will continue

to be our own worst enemy in our attempts to give our students a high quality and meaningful education.

Teachers of the world: Resist!

One of the essential roles of teachers in today's oppressive educational climate is to openly and courageously resist policies that are detrimental, denigrating or even irrelevant to teaching and learning. Otherwise, why celebrate the third Monday in January by canceling classes? If the life of Martin Luther King symbolizes nothing else, it is the peaceful resistance and ultimate triumph over unjust policies, laws and practices established by the dominant culture in the name of political expediency. As teachers we face these policies and practices every day in the form of sanctions and punishments meted out by the brutal mandates of No Child Left Behind. If we are to be true to the spirit of the holiday that honors Dr. King, we must walk the talk of what his life represents, even if that walk consists of only a few steps.

There Ought to be a Law . . .

This could be a lot of fun. Send in your new laws and we'll post them.

There ought to be a law that says that if you have a teaching license and are assigned to a school, you must teach children in some capacity every day.

There ought to be a law that requires that school principals spend at least one full day per week in a classroom and that school administrators and school board members spend at least one full day per month.

There ought to be a law that stipulates that teachers alone are responsible for the content and design of their professional development meetings and workshops, instead of administrators.

There ought to be a law that eliminates standardized testing and its attendant punishments.

There ought to be a law that states that if a school meets 36 out of 37 NCLB criteria it will be labeled a success instead of a failure, as is now the practice.

There ought to be a law that requires that candidates for any administrative position in the public schools have at least 10 years of classroom teaching experience before applying for the job.

There ought to be a law that allows students to choose which language they are tested in instead of being forced to take tests in English only, especially when taking the tests in their native language would result in higher test scores for the student and for the school.

There ought to be a law that requires state legislators, school administrators, school board members and other policy makers who are complicit in the culture of testing for punishment, take the 5th grade standardized tests and that the results of those tests be published in the local newspaper or online.

There ought to be a law that assures that families of public school students without internet access be given that access at home, along with the necessary hardware and software, until the student graduates or until the family can afford the access themselves.

There ought to be a law that says that those who demand supplemental or redundant data from classroom teachers be the people who collect it and enter it in the appropriate data bases so that teachers can be teachers instead of data entry clerks.

There ought to be a law that requires that school based teachers with a license but no classroom assignment, such as instructional coaches and district content coaches, be placed in classrooms to relieve overcrowding before established classroom teachers are transfered to other schools.

There ought to be a law that clarifies the mission of the public schools as the education of the whole child first and preparation for the workplace a distance second.

There ought to be a law that forces the federal government to take into account factors such as household income, parents' education levels and home language before punishing schools for not making adequate yearly progress.

There ought to be a law that prohibits the local Chamber of Commerce from meddling in the affairs of the public schools.

There ought to be a law that public education be fun, relevant, data lite and student centered, instead of boring, irrelevant, data heavy and adult centered, as has been the trend since the passage of NCLB.