Kili4Kids

I’ve written, spoken and worked a great deal in advocacy for public school libraries. While we have no shortage of hypocrisy in our society and in public education, one of the more egregious examples is the way in which school libraries are ignored, starved or outright closed. Once again I assert that we never will accomplish much in the way of producing proficient readers if we do not commit ourselves to rehabilitating our libraries and treating them like an indispensable part of our schools.

But these are all just words. How about some action?

This June, I will be climbing Mount Kilimanjaro with my dad and brother. It is the tallest mountain in Africa and the tallest free-standing mountain in the world. Although summiting does not require great technical climbing skills, walking to 19,341 feet above sea level is no joke.

Here’s the connection. The total amount needed to bring every library in my school district up to the national “exemplary” standard is about $1.9M. I’m paying all the expenses for my trek up Kilimanjaro but I wonder if you would consider “sponsoring” me. I want to raise $19,341 for the school libraries of Tuscaloosa City Schools. That’s 1% of what we need. It could be one small step for Literacy in my town and one giant trek up a mountain for me.

If you’d like to help, you can make a donation through this link.  Every dollar counts.

Here’s another thought: I’m willing to carry five items up the mountain with me: t-shirts or tiny banners to take a picture with at the top or small (painted?) rocks. The first five people to reach out to me (amaxey at tusc dot k12 dot al dot us) and contribute at least $1,000 can take me up on this offer. You’ll need to provide the object and I’ll need to check it out before I agree. Or let me know if you’ve got another idea.

I plan to have an amazing trek with my dad and brother. It would be incredible to do something to support school libraries while I’m at it. What do you say?  Join me in making this climb up Kili truly about kids?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Libraries and Literacy

Subtexts: A postscript in support of stronger libraries

In the first three blog posts in this series, I suggested that an effective focus on literacy must include both the science and the art of reading, that most public schools are woefully under-equipped to produce proficient readers (through the neglect of library collections) and that librarians and the libraries they manage are incredibly powerful but generally forgotten agents to produce the results schools want.

This final post is meant to be an afterward, an appendix or a postscript.  A written “…and another thing!” If you were not already convinced that your school’s library should be stronger than it already is, let me share some reasons why it should be.

As I have already mentioned, funding for libraries has been a mixed bag in my state.  There is funding for a librarian for every school – a commitment better than that of other states.  Funding to maintain library collections has been abysmal for the last ten years. If you have been paying attention, you will recall that our world and society has changed significantly in that time.  Here are just three ways in which conventional wisdom has shifted that should be reflected in our library collections.

  1. Most reasonable thinkers today acknowledge the importance of having access to texts that include protagonists and other characters like the reader.  Even a cursory review of the literary “canon” reveals the fact that the hyper majority of protagonists have been male and white. In the last ten years, the publishing world seems to have finally awakened to the importance of producing texts that feature a diversity of characters that more accurately reflects the diversity of humans likely to read those texts.  The twin shift has been the proliferation of texts by a more diverse range of authors. If schools are truly to prepare students for the world they will live in as adults, the texts to which they are exposed must be as diverse as the humans around them. I have no doubt that your librarian is fully aware of the importance of this issue and has made heroic efforts along these lines.  If the funding available is as limited as it is for the libraries I work with, that effort has probably produced no more than a ripple on that ocean of need.
  2. In the last two or three years, the discussion about the work of schools in my area has finally begun to shirt seriously and systematically aware from elevating test scores to actually lifting student learning.  In other words, I am at last thrilled to be part of work to produce thinkers instead of merely answerers.  In the past I have been absolutely transparent about my position on standardized testing both in the blog and in my professional conversations: during this Age of Accountability, public education made the decision to value higher test scores over more learning.  The failure of that movement is well documented by thousands of scholars and voices in the profession.  It was no mistake that libraries have been starved, marginalized and (in some places) literally abandoned: we were spending the resources that should have been allocated to them on the latest magical solution for better test scores.  So the choice seems clear to me: to truly produce young women and men who are critical thinkers, they need a massively wide range of ideas to think about.  There are simply not enough hours in the day to provide students exposure to enough content in the classroom.  They must have access to high quality, relevant, powerful texts that they select to read.  A healthy library directly supports the core mission of producing engaged, thoughtful citizens. 
  3.  Finally, a study of the history of education in America reveals the explicit purposes for which the education of the young has been set.  Too often in our past, the purpose of school has been the training of the young to fill the role set for them in adulthood – roles heavily pre-influenced by class, race, religion and other factors.  In short, education has been the instrument of control. At the risk of being entirely disregarded as alarmist, let me point out that at many, many points in history a recurring strategy for increasing control on a population has been the wholesale destruction or harsh censorship of books.  If public education simply refuses to prioritize funding for libraries in a way that measurably leads to the slow decay of their collections into irrelevance, how can we in good conscience avoid the conclusion that we are denying students access to a resource absolutely essential to their intellectual and social formation?  Many students do not have access to a library other than the one in their school. By allowing those libraries to fall far below reasonable standards of operation, we undermine the efforts we public insist we are committed to undertaking.  Instead of being instruments of control, our schools and libraries should be catalysts of agency in our youth.  Weak libraries can provide no such support.

And there’s more…  There are probably dozens of other ways in which school libraries should advance the core mission of schools but do not.  I would love to hear your ideas. Above all, do something.  If you can’t solve the entire problem, start somewhere. Our children deserve our action.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Silver Bullet We Always Had

In the first two blog posts in this series, I made the case that literacy is much more than a science to be executed and that nothing short of an avalanche of books for students to select freely from is enough to develop strong readers.

In a profession that seems obsessed with finding the answer, it seems ironic that the mechanism for igniting and nurturing the art of literacy has been so often forgotten, downplayed or outright abandoned.  No teacher can possibly handle the crushing weight and range of instructional duties assigned and allocate enough time to curate, acquire and manage a collection of books diverse and extensive enough to serve the individual needs of the students he/she serves.  Fortunately, just such a professional educator is available to serve the needs of students – the school librarian.  Most school librarians are exceptionally well qualified to serve as a school’s lead in nurturing the art of literacy. Many hold a degree in library science that provides specific training in skills particularly relevant to developing readers, many of which go well beyond what teacher preparation programs provide.  They can be counted on to celebrate reading, to serve individual students’ developmental needs, to collaborate closely with classroom teachers and to provide both innovative and research-based recommendations for improving reading in their school.

But somehow, far too often, they are not the strongest voice in the conversation about how to build strong readers.  Many times, they are not included in the decision-making process of the school at all.  Some schools do not even have a librarian.  As the spaces in which they work have become known as “library-media centers”, they have been expected to be tech “gurus” – a role which most have embraced enthusiastically, even as it has forced them to spend less time on what should be their essential function.  In some cases, the library has become a space in which students are encouraged to learn and collaborate and innovate – with technology.  While technical and digital literacy are particularly essential to the success of everyone entering the workforce now and in the future, to allow this focus to come at the expense of reading is exceptionally dangerous.  Many librarians have also been tapped to support the task of reading instruction – often in the form of “small group instruction”.  Again, direct and even individualized instruction in reading is an important part of becoming a strong reading.  Structures that prioritize that objective at the expense of equally important work are evidence of the imbalance we have been discussing.

The evidence is clear that public education and decision-makers in the public arena are willing to allow libraries a long, slow death by ignoring them.  While there are doubtlessly examples of this around the country, I will limit my examples to those in the environment where I work.  In my state, librarians are funded at the state level like teachers – with a formula based on student enrollment.  If a school’s enrollment is too low, they do not earn a “full” librarian.  School districts in such situations must either assign librarians to serve multiple schools or find money to pay the missing portion of the salaries required to have a full-time librarian in each school.  Students most likely not to have a full-time librarian in their school are naturally those who are in school systems with the least available resources – children who are almost all part of poor families.  On the other end of the spectrum, very large schools do not receive funding for an additional librarian.  Even elementary schools with more than 1,500 students receive state funds for one librarian.

Funding for the library itself comes from the state as well.  Under the current formula funding structure (a per-teacher allocation), a school can purchase about 1.5 books for every teacher in the school per year if the entire amount is spent on books and not on the other supplies that are necessary to keep a library running.  This amount is certainly not enough to maintain that avalanche we talked about earlier.  But it is more than the $0 libraries were allocated for eight of the last ten years.

It seems impossible to excuse this abysmal lack of funding as a function of “budget pressures”. At the same time that we have spent literally nothing on libraries, we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into other educational priorities.  Educators and leaders everywhere spoke up and spoke out on lots of issues – as well they should; the voices calling for attention to this most basic resource in schools – books – were few and completely ignored.

To avoid misunderstanding, massive credit goes to the hundreds of librarians who have been speaking out all along and who have found increasingly creative ways to keep their libraries healthy.  Hats off to the school principals and system leaders who have made reading their core mission and who have found and invested funds to make their libraries strong.  As a rule, their schools are strong as well – along with their students’ literacy skills.

For most of us though, we are here in this quandary that we may not have created but that we have definitely exacerbated by foolishly focusing on just half of the equation.  To be clear, it would have been equally foolish to abandon reading instruction and focus all our efforts on independent reading.  In today’s educational climate, that course of action seems inconceivable.  The way forward, however, should be simple.

Restore the balance.  Make both sides of literacy the focus.  Continue to apply excellent, evidence-based practice to reading instruction.  Take steps to build a culture of reading by making truly independent reading a part of the school’s DNA.  

Here are five suggestions for getting started:

  • Accept that literacy is not one dimensional.  Control the things that are meant to be controlled.  Stop trying to control (or quantify or “track” or just ignore) the things that aren’t.  Recognize that the lopsided approach we have been taking just. does. not. work! Let the joy and the passion and the magic of reading be your best friend. Crazy little secret – when kids love to read, they do. A lot.  When kids read a lot, they get better at reading.  When kids get better at reading, they can prove it on a test.     
  • Invite your school librarian to be the school’s “culture of reading” director.  Trust her/him to lead the process of figuring out what your school needs to do to become a community of passionate, strong readers. Folks trained in the science of literacy can help with this work too.  They should not be leading/doing this work instead of the librarian though.
  • Evaluate your school’s library collection.  Organizations such as the American Association of School Librarians offer resources and recommendations. The key questions are “Do we have enough books” and “Is our collection young enough”.  If you have thousands of books so old students will not read them, they aren’t helping. As we pointed out last time, this is especially important with non-fiction books.  Be ready to hear that your library needs help.  My children’s elementary school has valued and support their library for decades.  Seriously, someone raises money for it literally every day of the year … and that library’s (amazing) collection still does not meet the national standard of an “exemplary” collection.
  • Find money for your library.  It’s that simple.  Ask the generous members of your community.  Sell concessions at the ball game.  Write grants.  Make the case to your board.  We are doing all this and more.  By the way, it’s working for us.  But that’s a story for another day. Figure out how to make this a priority and make it happen. The good news is that “we need books” is one of the statements your community members are most likely to understand and accept.
  • Recommit your classroom, school, district to a focus on literacy that makes actual results the goal.  Keep in mind that test scores are symbols; our goal should be to improve the reality those symbols signify.  Young people who are actually strong readers will display behaviors and provide evidence of their excellence in ways that go far beyond what a test can measure.  That outcome is one to be excited about and work towards.

 

  • Bonus: Get the adults in your school/district involved in modeling a culture of reading.  Share with others what you are reading, host book talks, make specific recommendations to students, show what an adult who reads looks like.  Give students an example of someone who reads when s/he does not have to.  If you are not on fire for reading, why should they be?

In the first two posts in this series, I tried to make the case for change like this.  Next time, I will wrap up the series by pointing out a few more positive effects this change is likely to have.

2 Comments

Filed under EdLeadership, education, Libraries and Literacy

The Missing Avalanche

In the first post in this series, I set out to make the case that public education has fallen into the trap of believing that it is possible to develop great readers (from the struggling readers we often serve) by focusing on reading instruction.  Even when that focus actively crowds out the other half of literacy: independent reading.

While the drive to fix our problem (vis-a-vis low test scores) is understandable, the problem is that we know better.  We know how growing into a strong reader works.

We have known for a long time that

  • in order to become a proficient reader, you have to read a lot. Emerging readers need to read every day. It takes hundreds of books to become a great reader, not dozens.
  • since being different from each other is a key part of being human, readers are interested in different books (from each other). Readers only get better when they read books that aren’t too easy or too hard. As reading ability develops, a reader is able to read increasingly difficult books comfortably. In order to provide students enough options to interest and challenge them, we need a lot of books.  
  • the best way to get a human to read that many books is to let her/him choose her/his own books because humans (particularly emerging readers) will only read lots of books if they find them interesting.

The facts are simple.  We have to let students choose what they read and to do so they need both autonomy and options.

Unfortunately, in far too many cases, our zeal for ensuring student success has allowed us to violate these principles.  We try to quantify and control the art of reading. By degrees, we strip the independence from independent reading. We find ways to put a rank and value on each book. We dictate how much and how often students read. We make reading into a pursuit of points.  For many students, these practices conspire with the honest difficulty of school to make reading a chore to be first dreaded, then avoided, then abandoned at the first opportunity.  Incidentally, it is worth considering the possibility that our fervor to stamp out illiteracy among the young is contributing directly to the precipitous rise of aliteracy in adults.

The reduction of literacy to a science has had another direct impact on our practice in public education.  It has given rise to a climate in which books themselves have become dispensable to the process of developing strong readers.  In an astonishing leap of logic, we have been perfectly content to abandon one of the cardinal rules of this process: ensuring students have access to enough books.  We (most public schools) have stopped buying books at anything near an appropriate rate.  Kelly Gallagher, noted speaker, advocate for effective literacy practice and author of several books including Readicide (a book that examines how schools are systematically killing the love of reading), suggests that students need not hundreds of books to chose from but thousands. He says that only an avalanche of books will do.  But instead of fighting to ensure funding to sustain a school environment that has that many books available to students, we have decided to spend our precious resources elsewhere.  

The problem with diverting funding away from book purchases is that the age of a school’s collection of books matters.  Consider two more things we know:

  • It is important for emerging readers to read both fiction and nonfiction. The recent conventional wisdom is that well more than half of reading should be nonfiction.
  • Nonfiction ages faster than fiction. For example, Magic School Bus and Dr. Seuss books still appeal to young readers just fine. Books with topics like “When We Get to the Moon” and “Today’s Hottest NBA Stars: Magic Johnson and Larry Bird” were probably written later but no longer appeal to young readers.

The science of literacy has starved the art of literacy for resources. When students do not benefit from the emaciated book collections that exist as a result, that fact is taken as further proof that “recreational” reading is not essential to the process of developing as a reader but is a luxury in which those who are already proficient readers may indulge.

So the question is this: how is the balance in your school?

  • Do students get to pick their own books for independent reading?
  • If students are allowed to pick, do they have to follow certain rules (point/level restrictions)?
  • Is your reading system really about scoring points or about reading?
  • How many years in the last five has your school spent more money on books for independent reading than on either a reading program or a reading teacher?
  • What’s the average age of the books your students have access to?

Do your students have an avalanche of books available to them and it is used to nurture a passion for reading?  If we produce students who can read perfectly well but chose not to, we will have failed.  Sadly, the statistics on adult aliteracy suggest that we have already made this mistake.  Even more alarming is the fact that our strategy has done little to reduce the problem it was designed to solve.  We have sacrificed a deep passion for reading in favor of reading “achievement” and have not accomplished even that.

Let’s find the balance that has been missing by tapping into an amazing resource we have always had.

3 Comments

Filed under EdLeadership, education, Libraries and Literacy

The neglected side of literacy

Warning: this series of posts is likely to offend.  Look away if you don’t want that. If you do read on, give the following claims thought before you dismiss them out of hand. Chocolate is usually good for hurt feelings.

This is the first of what is intended to be a four-part series exploring a pretty fantastic “knowing-doing gap” in public education right now.  We know what is right and have always known it; we just act like we don’t know.  To my shame, while I have striven to live and work by the principles I mean to advance here, I have only very recently begun to advocate for a radical change on this issue.  So I include myself in the “responsible party” category.

Next, a disclaimer.  I am not a literacy “specialist” or “expert”.  I have not been trained by my state or a university in the technical knowledge and skills associated with this area of practice.  I am not a librarian, unless you count the work I do to curate my personal and professional libraries.  But I am a non-stop reader.  I have read the literature.  For years I have read the writing of the professionals from all around the world who have written on this topic.  There are more qualified, more polished and more experienced voices making this case.  But their voices are being ignored, willfully misunderstood or given patronizing lip service by far too many in education.  Perhaps by adding my voice to theirs, I can help make the case for just one more educator who can in turn impact just one student.  That will be good enough for me.

We have a problem with literacy in public education.  We can’t get kids to “read at high levels”.  Scores on all manner of standardized tests consistently indicate that high percentages of students fall short of “proficient” attainment, no matter what that mark is.  Much higher percentages of minority students and students who are poor fall short of these marks.  For skeptics of standardized testing (like me), there is still no denying the fact that loads of students in high schools across the country cannot read at all or read so poorly as to make the distinction irrelevant.  We’ve known the problem for a long time. We’ve been trying to fix the problem for a long time and we haven’t.  

It would be disrespectful of me to suggest that there is a silver bullet for this problem that we have simply refused to see.  Our problem is not astigmatism though, it’s myopia. We have been hyper-focused on just one half of what it takes to become a great reader.  

In this age of accountability, we have focused more and more of our energy on reading instruction.  Individuals more experienced that I am can trace this (inappropriate) narrowing of focus in more detail, but the facts of recent trends in education are clear: we believe that the solution to the issue of poor reading is more and better reading instruction.

Recently, I had the opportunity to serve on an interview panel for a position that requires extensive knowledge and expertise in curriculum and teaching.  One question asked applicants to identify the two most important parts of an effective literacy program.  To my great dismay (but not to my surprise), only two applicants event mentioned books.  Every other applicant focused his/her answer on some aspect of reading instruction.  The significance of their answers was not at all lost on me and mirrors our decision-making at all levels of education: a focus on literacy means teaching students how to read.  This is the science of reading.  It breaks the act of reading and learning to read into its component parts and determines the “research-based” way to execute each part.  It tracks student progress against specific metrics meticulously.  It requires teachers to follow the reading program “to fidelity”.  It believes in the power of the basal reader.

And this part of literacy is not wrong.  There is a science to reading.  We can understand how it works and we can apply that understanding to our work to teach young minds how to read.

The problem is that this part of literacy actively seeks to deny the value of the other side of the coin.  The cult of the science of reading is deeply skeptical of the art of reading.  It demands that students’ “independent” reading be tightly controlled – for their own good, of course.  It insists that students document their reading – through a standardized test whenever possible.  It calls time spent in class on independent reading “wasted” if it is not organized and documented.  But mostly, it starves the art of reading but demanding all the resources.  It needs all the personnel, all the funding and all the time.  It is happy to give stickers and cupcakes and even free books to the kids who find a way to read a bunch anyway.  It even makes a show of promoting a “culture of reading” with special events like reading days – which, by the way, also provide amazing photo opportunities for adults.  But on every other day, it is very specific about how many minutes must be spent on reading instruction.

Because science is easier to quantify and measure than art (whether the results are good or bad), we accede to the demands of the science of literacy.  The numbers look bad so we use other numbers to fight the first set of numbers.  We hire more people.  We buy more programs.  We budget more minutes.  We take more reading tests.  

And nothing really changes because that’s not how reading works.  It takes both sides of the equation to grow proficient readers.

Part II: The Missing Avalanche

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Not Rocket Science

Let’s start by conceding that teachers are not among the most respected professions in American society. Perhaps they used to be. Perhaps they are in other cultures. They are not in ours. In case you are tempted to disagree, stop to consider the following: teacher award programs (and there are many) get light press coverage and are not broadcast live in primetime to massive television audiences. Movie and television awards shows are covered in that way. Speaking of, how many television shows do you watch about lawyers or detectives or singing or cooking or real estate improvement/sales? How many shows about teaching?  And how many of those few shows about school portray teachers as the admirable protagonists? Instead of pointing out more evidence let me trust that you already know that teachers are not respected throughout our society in the way that professions and the professionals in them that require similar training and skills are.

We say teaching “is not rocket science!” When we are frustrated that our kid’s teacher hasn’t responded to our request for a conference. Or when we hear that local teachers are asking for a raise. Or when the teacher across the hall does not make it to the team meeting. Or when (as administrators) we discover a mistake a teacher has made. For most teachers, this attitude comes at you from all around – from parents, from colleagues, from administrators.

Setting aside the rhetoric for a moment, that attitude is demoralizing. The attitude that says “quit messing around and get it right” and “if there’s a problem, it’s either because you aren’t good enough or aren’t trying hard enough”. The problem with treating an entire profession this way – from the outside and from the inside – is that that is the perfect way to destroy the profession. Highly talented, bright, passionate young people don’t have to become teachers. More and more of the great ones are deciding not to. Enrollment in the college of education in the town where I live is down 50% since 2010. What’s not rocket science is what will happen when all the teachers who have been teaching more than fifteen or twenty years retire. The capacity of us all to ignore or simply not care about this issue is astonishing. Education is not a luxury commodity. It is not, for example, collegiate or professional sports. But we venerate our athletes and care enough about what they have to say to debate whether or not they should say it. The voices of teachers generally do not matter at all.

The great irony is that teaching is, in fact, more cognitively and emotionally demanding and more complex work that rocket science or brain surgery.  I mean this literally.  Consider for a moment a partial list of what is expected of every teacher every day:

  • Create a written plan for teaching and learning for that day (subject to review and approval by administrators and others).
  • “Build relationships” with students: use their names (pronounced correctly), interact with them about things that matter to them, learn and keep in mind any factor that might impact how they learn – learning styles, cultural background, physical or cognitive disability, etc.
  • Conduct lessons that provide students multiple opportunities to apply what they learn, problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. The lessons must also be engaging, hands-on, developmentally appropriate, and technology-rich.
  • Have a plan that is “differentiated”. Plan to teach a group of students whose readiness to learn the skill, concept, or content varies widely. “Individualizing” instruction to meet the very different learning needs of each student is the responsibility of the teacher.
  • Maintain a positive and safe learning environment. Take a room full of children, young adolescents or teenagers and set conditions wherein they ignore all the distractions that are part of being alive, focus on the learning activities, and interact only in productive and positive ways with each other. Keep all social and emotional burdens the students are carrying from interfering with learning.
  • Keep up on your recordkeeping. Record grades in a timely manner. Document progress on a huge range of data points for a variety of purposes. Provide students descriptive feedback on their work.
  • Attend one or more meeting. Faculty meetings. Team meetings. Data meetings. Committee meetings. Planning meetings. Professional development. Etc
  • Supervise students in a non-instructional setting. Lunch duty. Bus duty. Hall duty. Etc.
  • Communicate clearly and frequently with everybody: students, parents, administrators, colleagues, etc.

If you are not an educator, you probably think this list is exaggerated or does not represent a set of daily responsibilities that is particularly demanding. If you are an educator, you will doubtlessly point out that the list is missing more than it includes.

Here’s my whole point: we should all start acting like teaching is a profession that sets insanely unreasonable expectations. This is not even to argue that teaching should be less complex; merely to argue that our actions should demonstrate that we recognize and respect the complexity. To that end, I have a handful of recommendations.

Teachers
1. Treat your colleagues with the respect they deserve. The greenest, strugglingest teacher is great at some part of teaching. Approach each encounter with your peers as if they have something to teach you – because they do. That type of respect rubs off. Worse case scenario, you will create a culture inside your school in which every member of the team goes through the day knowing they are held in esteem by their peers.

2. Find ways to make your work visible.  When someone is upset with you, it is pointless to complain about your workload – that comes across as deflection or whining. Consider a more proactive approach such as using a class social media account to highlight the learning (and range of activity) that goes on in your class every day.

Parents
1. Take time to consider your interactions with teachers. You write them thank you notes. You give them gifts. But do you treat them with the honor you afford your child’s doctor? When your child gets a bad grade or into trouble at school what assumptions do you make – that you need to know how to help your child correct a mistake or that you need to find and fix the school’s mistake? Please don’t tolerate inappropriate behavior from educators; just give them the same benefit of the doubt you give other professionals you trust.

2. Watch how you talk about school. Life is messy. Life is frustrating. Your child is not perfect. Don’t let your frustration shade the way you talk about your child’s teachers. What we say influences what we think. What we think becomes what we believe. What we collectively believe about teachers matters.

Administrators
1. Act like teachers are the most important adults in your building. They are. Please, I beg you, stop treating teachers like minions and worker bees. This is a problem not merely because it is hurtful to them, it’s a problem because it doesn’t work. If you are getting indignant right now with thoughts like “I would never treat a teacher that way”, I am probably talking to you. Let me ask a few questions. Do you work for “buy-in” from teachers when you are implementing something new or do your school’s best ideas and plans come from teachers in response to problems you identified together? How often do you use the words “to fidelity”? Which list is longer, the teachers who have left your school in the last three years or the list of teachers waiting for a spot to open up so they can join your team? Yes, you are legally responsible for everything that goes on in the school. I’m clear on the respect I have for principals. But telling people what to do – even when it is disguised as “training” and “consensus building” and “creating consistency” – never works. It might get you a bump in standardized test scores for a couple of years but it does not create success that is sustainable. And it stifles the potential even of the teachers who support you most loyally.

2. Hold the complexity of the job in your mind when you interact with teachers. When you “support” a teacher (or reprimand or put her/him on an action plan), you are probably not wrong about the facts. They probably didn’t post their lesson plans or objectives. They probably did handle the student behavior issue awkwardly. But was your response in proportion to the complexity of the job? If teaching really is vastly complex, how is it productive to treat single issues (or even multiple issues) as grounds for a “get better quick” plan. Approaches like this imply that this issue at hand is so important that it outweighs all the strengths the teacher has. Saying “You are doing a lot of things well but … [action plan]” is the same as saying “Nothing matters except/as much as the thing you aren’t great at yet”.

We are all conspiring together to threaten the future of public education in the way we think about, talk about and treat teachers. But it does not have to be this way. You are only responsible for you. So be different. Begin (or renew your commitment) to treat teachers like they deserve more than platitudes. Treat them like they have earned your deepest respect and admiration. Your great-grandchildren deserve it.

Leave a comment

Filed under EdLeadership, education

Why Middle School?

After spending the first twelve years of my professional career working at the high school level, I finally found my way home six years ago. It turns out I should have been a middle school teacher all along.  Allow me a Lorax moment here.

Thought experiment: when you read the words “middle school” in the last paragraph and the title, did your heart leap or lurch? Does thinking about middle school fill you with dread or dreams? If you are like most people, there is no middle ground (puns always intended): your reaction to anything to do with middle school is probably extreme. Without knowing who you are, I feel perfectly safe to bet that your reaction was laced through with negativity. That reaction is part of the body of evidence that public education must turn its attention to the middle level.  Allow me to make the case.

For decades, middle school (and middle schoolers) has been greatly misunderstood. As former young adolescents, we adults do not look back fondly on those years. We remember best the personal discomfort and awkwardness of that time. Our attitudes now are at best patronizingly sympathetic, at worst (and far more commonly) irritably impatient with the young humans struggling through this period of their life. Middle school is cast as a hopeless, mindless seething vat of uncontrollable bodies and emotions that can not be understood, merely contained and survived. The attitude of our society seems to be “keep them from killing each other in middle school and we’ll get them fixed in high school”. Too often, this misunderstanding results in nearly hostile attitudes, postures, and even policies towards middle schools and the students they serve. Students very easily read between the lines of the way they are treated in school as a result: you can’t think for yourself (condescension) but we will have to punish you for your mistakes (injustice).

Perhaps worse than being misunderstood and probably as a direct result of some of the factors listed above, middle school is often simply forgotten. School “reform” efforts are almost always focused on early education and/or college & career readiness. We pump resources into elementary schools for the former and high schools for the later; we work hard to understand the developmental nature of students at those ages and what works for education in those settings. And we ignore middle schools – when we are not fussing at them about their discipline rates, test scores, and attendance rates. In many states, including my own, the middle grades receive the lowest rates of funding for teachers. For every middle-grades specific program, initiative, and grant opportunity, there are twenty or more designated specifically for elementary or high school.

I propose three reasons to buck this trend and make middle school a significant priority.

  1. Evidence of the need is clear. Student performance on most standardized tests does drop sharply in the middle grades. Students do tend to face disciplinary action at a much higher rate than in elementary school and upper high school grades. Depending on how your district/state defines “middle school”, these are the last institutions to which education is compulsory throughout. Most high schoolers are legally permitted to quit in their second year. Research has determined that certain factors (such as being suspended from school) are predictive of future failure to complete high school when they occur as early as sixth grade. Where middle grades educational outcomes are weak, they are so specifically because the span has been neglected, misunderstood, and subjected to practices known to be most effective at different levels.
  2. Another reality research has demonstrated with absolute clarity is that young adolescence represents the greatest cognitive opportunity experienced at any age. Research in the last decade indicates the human brain develops more during adolescence than during any other time, surpassing the first year of life (as previously thought). This rate of change can be very frustrating for individuals not experiencing such change themselves. Great middle-level educators resist the temptation to confuse “forgets things easily” with “can’t think”.
  3.  Young adolescence provides the most promising blend of flexibility and capacity. Students’ brains are literally transformed during their time in middle school. Most middle schoolers begin to grapple with truly complex ideas – Who am I? What do I believe? How do others view and understand the world? Middle school provides an incredible opportunity for learning. Instead of railing against and trying to contain the variability and seeming chaos, we should embrace it. Call it flexibility, not ADD; call it resilience, not emotional instability; call it determination, not stubbornness.

As adults, we need to remember that we were young adolescents once too. We have been studying young adolescence for decades; to speak and act as if it were a mystery greater than so many others around us is deeply disrespectful to the amazing young women and men who are passing through this phase of their lives. We must make middle school a priority in public education. Doing so begins with a commitment to understanding young adolescence.

Leave a comment

Filed under education, Middle School