In the past few weeks, I've had feedback from several "education reformers" and pro-PARCC voices about my criticism of PARCC tests. Much of their arguments have, to me, been grounded in naivete and mis-information. The following is the gist of my responses about my criticism of PARCC testing.
For one, it's not simply a matter of counting up the "testing time" and declaring that students are not "over-tested." For example, my district high schools are losing the equivalent of 9 full school days (out of roughly 174 days of instruction in a school year) in order to administer the tests required by the state. With proctor and tech needs, there is simply no other way. As an AP Teacher, I am positively ill about the impact on classroom time that will lessen my ability to prepare students for a truly meaningful and significant assessment. The
excessive number of days/hours and two separate testing windows (PBA
& EOY) of PARCC are simply untenable for schools and for students. In a world where students can take graduate school exams like the GRE and LSAT in a few hours, it seems patently absurd that kids between the ages of 8 and 18 are facing eleven hours of testing.
And, this testing monstrosity is a completely new product which has not faced market scrutiny. The PARCC assessment is an unproven and obtrusive assessment tool that
inhibits instruction and poses serious equity issues in its format. If states and the federal government had had the common sense a year ago to align
with ACT for a new common state assessment - one that can be given in a day or
less - rather than PARCC, we might not have the huge parental
refusal/opt out movement we are currently experiencing. Additionally, the radical new format of an online assessment necessitates training for students that absolutely requires "test prep" and "teaching to the test." And, with all we know about research on the importance of test format familiarity and "online reading comprehension discrepancies," the online format virtually guarantees the PARCC will not be an accurate measure of academic knowledge or skills, nor the ability to think critically.
I am not opposed to assessment or accountability. As an AP English teacher, I could hardly be opposed to standardized testing, or even "teaching to the test." In fact, one of my earlier pieces about testing simply proposed that Colorado choose ACT-Aspire over the PARCC. And, I have never opposed the use of MAPS or DRA2 or CSAP (or ISAT in Illinois) for my students or my own children. And, I do, in fact, prep my students for AP/SAT/ACT. However, I am critical of the edu-critics who use "test-based" reform as the factor in determining "good/bad" schools, and I am critical of the argument for new standards and tests based on the myth that "public education" is failing. In terms of the achievement gap, my position and the views of PARCC critics are not centered on simply test scores. My concerns extend to the impact on struggling schools that are forced by sheer need of test prep to narrow the scope of instruction to "pass the test." As noted in this profound article, students at high achieving schools will maintain their access to electives and the arts and subjects outside the tested ones despite an increased testing regimen. The same can't be said for other schools.
Truly, I can't imagine why an "educator" would enthusiastically cheer, or even passively accept, the PARCC test as "the answer" to all that allegedly ills public schools. Have they seen the test? Have they taken a practice test? If so, are they not bothered by the radical new system of online testing that has students scrolling passages and questions on opposite sides of the page while they try to answer questions? Are they not concerned about an "essay" section that puts writing in a box that kids can only see a few lines of their essay at a time? Do they know nothing of the research about discrepancies between online and paper reading comprehension? And what about the lack of data? Where is the evidence of valid proficiencies and cut scores? If a product is going to have so much significance, it should have more transparency about its quality. It would not have taken much planning to pilot, research, refine, and release the data to promote the test's value. But that didn't happen. And that's just not good practice.
As a parent and an educator, I can assert that my own children have taken CoGAT and NNAT and MAPS and DRA2 and CSAP and ACT and other tests as diagnostics for learning. I have no problem with these tests. But PARCC? I have serious concerns that have not been alleviated.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Problems "Teaching" Grammar
The teaching of grammar is the nemesis of both English teachers and
students alike. And while many lament there is "no good way to teach
grammar," few English teachers would argue publicly against teaching it
in some way. The problem with teaching grammar in the traditional way is
that it lacks any sort of evidence that the practice improves writing
or reading or understanding of English. It's true. Literally breaking
sentences down into their disparate elements has no positive impact on a
student's ability to write correctly. Of course, we like to use the
"mechanic analogy" for grammar-mechanics - You can't fix a car if you
don't know how the individual parts like a carburetor work. The example
is probably as absurd as it sounds.
That said, many of us continue to teach grammar in a disconnected, "underline the verb or the error in a bunch of random sentences" sort of way. The primary reason for this is the continued emphasis on such "skills" in standardized testing. My high school has a pretty standard, and pretty effective, grammar program that, in essence, is simply an ACT-prep course. And we will keep plugging away until the ACT grammar section is no longer such high stakes (which may be sooner than you think). And if we keep doing so, the education publishing world will continue to put out "grammar books," - a situation which makes professor Geoffery Pullum positively ill.
Professor Pullum is a long-standing critic of the teaching of grammar in the traditional sense, as well the inability for "grammar books" to actually articulate what they mean. For all those in the world of English who actually care to follow the issue, Pullum's blog - The Language Loghttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?author=3 - is an invaluable source of information and commentary. And, in a recent piece for The Chronicle, Professor Pullum rants and raves against the inadequacies found in the most recent version of the "New Grammar Book," or NGB, which he refuses to identify because it's just like all the rest. Delving into Pullum's critique and thinking long and hard about how we teach grammar is worth the time of dedicated English instructors. And perhaps one of us will take up the task ...
... that whoever points out that something needs to be done is taken to have thereby volunteered to chair the subcommittee for doing it.
Some who have tried before - and probably failed in Pullum's view - are:
Jeff Anderson in Mechanically Inclined.
Lynne Truss in Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.
Mignon Fogarty in Grammar Girls Quick and Dirty Tips.
That said, many of us continue to teach grammar in a disconnected, "underline the verb or the error in a bunch of random sentences" sort of way. The primary reason for this is the continued emphasis on such "skills" in standardized testing. My high school has a pretty standard, and pretty effective, grammar program that, in essence, is simply an ACT-prep course. And we will keep plugging away until the ACT grammar section is no longer such high stakes (which may be sooner than you think). And if we keep doing so, the education publishing world will continue to put out "grammar books," - a situation which makes professor Geoffery Pullum positively ill.
Professor Pullum is a long-standing critic of the teaching of grammar in the traditional sense, as well the inability for "grammar books" to actually articulate what they mean. For all those in the world of English who actually care to follow the issue, Pullum's blog - The Language Loghttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?author=3 - is an invaluable source of information and commentary. And, in a recent piece for The Chronicle, Professor Pullum rants and raves against the inadequacies found in the most recent version of the "New Grammar Book," or NGB, which he refuses to identify because it's just like all the rest. Delving into Pullum's critique and thinking long and hard about how we teach grammar is worth the time of dedicated English instructors. And perhaps one of us will take up the task ...
... that whoever points out that something needs to be done is taken to have thereby volunteered to chair the subcommittee for doing it.
Some who have tried before - and probably failed in Pullum's view - are:
Jeff Anderson in Mechanically Inclined.
Lynne Truss in Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.
Mignon Fogarty in Grammar Girls Quick and Dirty Tips.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Being Well-Read without Actually Reading
So many books - so little time. Or, perhaps, so many books - so little interest in reading them.
In an old Woody Allen movie (I can't recall which one) there was a character who spoke with great authority about books and culture, but actually knew very little. The quote was something like, "Oh, I don't read the books. I read the reviews." That always amused me as a teacher, and friends often referenced it when I appeared to have a knowledgeable opinion about everything. For English teachers and students, the ability of students to just "get the gist of it" without reading the stories is the benchmark of the Cliff Notes and Spark Notes industry. And that seems like cheating - though it's understandable why kids do it. They need to pass the quizzes and tests, but they don't have the time or interest in reading the stories.
So, what's the motivation for adults?
There is actually a sub-genre of books about how to appear well read without reading. And perhaps being knowledgeable about the classics or well-known works is not a bad thing. Adding to that area is Slate Magazine's Gentleman Scholar Troy Patterson who offers advice on "How to Seem Well Read." Patterson's position is actually quite entertaining and useful. The most basic advice is to simply follow the lead of that Woody Allen character - read the reviews. Patterson advises people to simply read the New York Review of Books. The reviews - at least for an astute reader - can provide the basic premise and commentary on the quality of the writing and story. However, for novels they will avoid spilling too much of the plot. So, it might be necessary to check out the conclusions - or Spark Notes summaries if available.
Of course, there are other great reads on how to appear well read. Here are a few I find worth the time.
How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read
How to Read Literature Like a Professor
Beowulf on the Beach
In an old Woody Allen movie (I can't recall which one) there was a character who spoke with great authority about books and culture, but actually knew very little. The quote was something like, "Oh, I don't read the books. I read the reviews." That always amused me as a teacher, and friends often referenced it when I appeared to have a knowledgeable opinion about everything. For English teachers and students, the ability of students to just "get the gist of it" without reading the stories is the benchmark of the Cliff Notes and Spark Notes industry. And that seems like cheating - though it's understandable why kids do it. They need to pass the quizzes and tests, but they don't have the time or interest in reading the stories.
So, what's the motivation for adults?
There is actually a sub-genre of books about how to appear well read without reading. And perhaps being knowledgeable about the classics or well-known works is not a bad thing. Adding to that area is Slate Magazine's Gentleman Scholar Troy Patterson who offers advice on "How to Seem Well Read." Patterson's position is actually quite entertaining and useful. The most basic advice is to simply follow the lead of that Woody Allen character - read the reviews. Patterson advises people to simply read the New York Review of Books. The reviews - at least for an astute reader - can provide the basic premise and commentary on the quality of the writing and story. However, for novels they will avoid spilling too much of the plot. So, it might be necessary to check out the conclusions - or Spark Notes summaries if available.
Of course, there are other great reads on how to appear well read. Here are a few I find worth the time.
How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read
How to Read Literature Like a Professor
Beowulf on the Beach
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Is Irony Good for American Culture?
As Polonius unintentionally let us know,
irony - not brevity - is the soul of wit. And there is perhaps no
culture or time period the embraces and evokes more irony than
contemporary America. And no group of writers has explored that more
fully and insightfully than our newest post-modernists - people like David Foster Wallace.
Recently, with the publication of an essay by writers/artists Matt Ashby and Brandon Carroll, Wallace's work and criticism of irony in American culture has touched off a discussion about the value of that irony. Is it saving us, or will it be our demise? Ashby and Carroll assert that the irony used by Pynchon and others to criticize war is no longer as effective when it simply become entertainment. When the satirized laugh so naively at themselves that they fail to see the change an artist is hoping to effect, then irony has lost its value. In fact, it becomes an instrument of self destruction.
In Ashby and Wallace's view, Americans no longer have the ability to learn from irony when culture is saturated in it. However, it may not be as fatalistic as all that. In Peter Finocchiaro's response to Ashby, Carroll, and, in effect, Foster Wallace, irony is defended as not useless and ineffective, but more relevant and necessary than ever. With an interview with UChicago philosophy professor, Jonathan Lear, irony is given a defense that incorporates the brilliance of Wallace and the American irony he wrote about.
Recently, with the publication of an essay by writers/artists Matt Ashby and Brandon Carroll, Wallace's work and criticism of irony in American culture has touched off a discussion about the value of that irony. Is it saving us, or will it be our demise? Ashby and Carroll assert that the irony used by Pynchon and others to criticize war is no longer as effective when it simply become entertainment. When the satirized laugh so naively at themselves that they fail to see the change an artist is hoping to effect, then irony has lost its value. In fact, it becomes an instrument of self destruction.
So
where have we gone from irony? Irony is now fashionable and a widely
embraced default setting for social interaction, writing and the visual
arts. Irony fosters an affected nihilistic attitude that is no more edgy
than a syndicated episode of “Seinfeld.” Today, pop characters directly
address the television-watching audience with a wink and nudge. (Shows
like “30 Rock” deliver a kind of meta-television-irony irony; the
protagonist is a writer for a show that satirizes television, and the
character is played by a woman who actually used to write for a show
that satirizes television. Each scene comes with an all-inclusive
tongue-in-cheek.) And, of course, reality television as a concept is
irony incarnate.
In Ashby and Wallace's view, Americans no longer have the ability to learn from irony when culture is saturated in it. However, it may not be as fatalistic as all that. In Peter Finocchiaro's response to Ashby, Carroll, and, in effect, Foster Wallace, irony is defended as not useless and ineffective, but more relevant and necessary than ever. With an interview with UChicago philosophy professor, Jonathan Lear, irony is given a defense that incorporates the brilliance of Wallace and the American irony he wrote about.
First
I want to say, I think one way to start is just in terms of the article
you wanted me to look at, where they quote David Foster Wallace as
though he himself is opposed to irony. But when you look at what he
actually says, he talks about the “oppressiveness of institutionalized
irony.” And I think to understand what he was talking about you really
have to put a lot of emphasis on the “institutionalized,” and that got
suppressed in the discussion.
I
mean, it’s not like I’m a David Foster Wallace expert, but as far as I
understand him, he himself was an ironist, and what he was complaining
about wasn’t irony, per se, but a very flat understand and
misappropriation, what he called an institutionalization of the idea.
And so I think for Wallace, institutionalized irony isn’t a form of
irony, it’s a form of not being irony. Of killing it. With that in mind,
and again, there’s this other issue of how do we understand the use of
various words in the English language. And of course if a billion people
use this word “irony” in this kind of institutionalized sense, then
that turns out to be one of its meanings, and there’s no going against
that.
I
think what makes irony an important concept to be thinking about and
approaching is precisely because there is a tradition of thinking about
it and working with it, a kind of poetic tradition — you can find it in
Socrates and Plato and I think one of the great thinkers about this was
Kierkegaard in the 19th century — where, in a funny way, irony is
understood and developed by these various philosophers and poets and
religious thinkers as very much an antidote to the kinds of things the
authors of your article were complaining about. So what I think they’re
getting at — what irony is, and why it matters …
Of
course, speaking for a man of Wallace's brilliance is tough, especially
when he left us too soon. And that can lead to complications. For
example, the Wallace estate is challenging a recent attempt at a film adaptation of his magnum opus, Infinite Jest. And
disagreements like that can complicate the matter in a way that would
probably frustrate Wallace … and baffle Polonius [sic]. But as Charlie
Alderman reminds us in a piece for the HuffPost.com, we can all learn a lot from Wallace and his portrayals of an ironic culture.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Character Education
Every once in a while, the politicians and the media the education reformers make "character education" the issue du jour.
Generally, this follows some egregious display of ill behavior by
children that shocks, outrages, or disappoints a community and the
nation at large. Thus, we have calls for schools to take up - or,
strangely, "return to" - character education.
And, I ask myself, what do they think literature class is all about.
Most state standards and district curricula require students to study literature as it is "a record of the human condition." Stories are the way we promote values, teach lessons, model behavior, and perpetuate culture. In fact, a colleague of mine fondly reminds us that as English teachers we are purveyors of culture. And, clearly many of us cling to the classic stories we love because of the great and important discussions that rise out of the search for meaning and identity in the struggles of Scout and Huck and Pip and Holden and Nick Carraway and Gatsby and the myriad of others.
We have a great responsibility in the English classroom that goes far beyond nouns and pronouns, thesis statements and topic sentences, imagery and allusion. We are tasked, daily, with the character education of the future generations.
And, I ask myself, what do they think literature class is all about.
Most state standards and district curricula require students to study literature as it is "a record of the human condition." Stories are the way we promote values, teach lessons, model behavior, and perpetuate culture. In fact, a colleague of mine fondly reminds us that as English teachers we are purveyors of culture. And, clearly many of us cling to the classic stories we love because of the great and important discussions that rise out of the search for meaning and identity in the struggles of Scout and Huck and Pip and Holden and Nick Carraway and Gatsby and the myriad of others.
We have a great responsibility in the English classroom that goes far beyond nouns and pronouns, thesis statements and topic sentences, imagery and allusion. We are tasked, daily, with the character education of the future generations.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Games as "Communication Skills"
One of my favorite activities for English classes is the game Catch
Phrase. I usually put it on the schedule under the name "Communication
Skills" early in the year, and it becomes a favorite and much requested
activity in class. If you are unfamiliar with Catch Phrase,
it is basically a mix of "Password" and "Hot Potato." It's a perfect
game for twenty minutes on a Friday after a week of essays and tests.
In
introducing the game, I point out to my students their often weak
attempts at communicating very basic ideas - in other words, they don't
have the language to convey what they mean. For example, how often do
kids began a statement by saying "You know, it's the thing ... the story
about the guy ... you know ... what I mean is ... the thing is ...."
They have become a rather dis-articulate group of people. And games
like Catch Phrase offer many teachable moments.
In
order to play the game, I organize the desks in a circle, and the teams
consist of every other person. So, one player has the game piece, and
when the word is solved, he hands it to his left or right, as those
students are on the other team. I still have the old-school,
non-computerized version - which I much prefer - and thus I also appoint
one student to man the buzzer and another to move the pieces on the
game board.
This game is an excellent resource - and teachers will often borrow it for the end of a class period.
Monday, March 2, 2015
March 2 is Dr. Seuss' 111th Birthday - Celebrate Read-Across-America Day
Monday, March 2, marks the 111th birthday for one of the most important men in American history - Theodore Geisel, aka, Dr. Seuss. Long before JK Rowling captivated a generation of young readers, a mild-mannered man with a knack for silly, yet inspired, rhymes ignited a love of reading for children as young as ... well for children. This great piece from William Porter of the Denver Post offers an engaging look at "100 Years of Dr. Seuss." (Yes, I know he was actually turning 110 when Porter wrote this - but no matter).
So many of us in the English world would love to develop a lifelong love of reading in children, and no one did more than the man who "introduced millions of children to the joys of reading and the magic of wordplay." It was the "spirit of playfulness" that permeates his work which made it so endearing. But it's so much more than that, especially when you "Consider the opening lines of The Cat in the Hat."
Consider the opening lines to "The Cat in the Hat," the 1957 chronicle of a brother and sister's misadventure with a gangly, anthropomorphic feline sporting a red-and-white top hat:
The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So we sat in the house
All that cold, cold, wet day.
I sat there with Sally,
We sat there we two.
And I said, "How I wish
We had something to do."
Mood, setting, conflict, ennui. Just like Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot," except that something actually happens.
"Geisel's works also endure because of his gift for creating rhymes that are fun to read aloud and easy to remember, but are not cloying or irritating," Robinson said. "That's no small feat. I think it's this combination of playfulness and lyricism that makes Dr. Seuss' works stand the test of time."
It's a wonderful, endearing legacy. This week, teachers across the country should honor the godfather of literacy by celebrating:
So many of us in the English world would love to develop a lifelong love of reading in children, and no one did more than the man who "introduced millions of children to the joys of reading and the magic of wordplay." It was the "spirit of playfulness" that permeates his work which made it so endearing. But it's so much more than that, especially when you "Consider the opening lines of The Cat in the Hat."
Consider the opening lines to "The Cat in the Hat," the 1957 chronicle of a brother and sister's misadventure with a gangly, anthropomorphic feline sporting a red-and-white top hat:
The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So we sat in the house
All that cold, cold, wet day.
I sat there with Sally,
We sat there we two.
And I said, "How I wish
We had something to do."
Mood, setting, conflict, ennui. Just like Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot," except that something actually happens.
"Geisel's works also endure because of his gift for creating rhymes that are fun to read aloud and easy to remember, but are not cloying or irritating," Robinson said. "That's no small feat. I think it's this combination of playfulness and lyricism that makes Dr. Seuss' works stand the test of time."
It's a wonderful, endearing legacy. This week, teachers across the country should honor the godfather of literacy by celebrating:
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Whole "Common Core" Foods - They Standardized Deli Service, and Ruined It
Standardization is good and even necessary at times, right? Standard laws and rules and safety limits and measurements all make society more efficient and often more effective. But the value of standards isn't a given. Did the standardization of fast food by McDonalds improve food? Hardly. And that brings me to Whole Foods.
I love shopping at Whole Foods and have done so as often as possible for at least ten years. My Whole Foods is in southeast Denver on Hampden Avenue at Tamarac Square, and it is a truly glorious store. In fact, I think it was a bit of a flagship store for a while in Colorado, and our shopping experiences and service have always been exceptional ... until yesterday. While doing our weekly shopping we had the worst service experience ever while simply trying to order some deli meats and cheese, the same order we have placed for a long time. The problem is the store at Tamarac has moved the deli meats from the meat and cheese counter in the center to the prepared foods aisle along the side, and that has created a log jam of miscommunication and poor service, the likes of which I would never imagine from John Mackey's company.
Because the new location is alongside prepared foods and fresh sandwiches, the staff has no central focus and their "system" for taking orders ended with me waiting nearly 30 minutes for a half pound of ham, some mortadella, and ten slices of cheese. Having finished our shopping, we were ready to wrap up our trip and leave, as the deli meats order usually takes about five minutes while the workers at the cheese counter methodically take orders and fill them. "Prepared foods," on the other hand, had three different people filling orders, they were writing them down on "order sheets" which were laid out in no order, and they had no system for people stepping up to the counter. After waiting a few minutes, my wife went to check out. She finished and watched three customers who ordered after us check out before I finally came with my small deli order.
The cashier noted that I had "a free sample," which the clerk gave me to compensate for the delay, and when I explained the situation, a "manager" overheard and apologized as he explained the new "plan to standardize service" at more than a thousand stores. Apparently, ordering meats from a different department than "prepared foods" meant that, at some stores, they "never knew who was ordering what." And, that sounds like a completely ridiculous excuse for a company that is more than thirty years old. The manager also noted they are still training the prepared foods staff who "aren't used to slicing meats." So the obvious question is: why implement this disaster without full and proper training? When my wife was at the store last week, she witnessed some "corporate types" who were publicly discussing how the new design would "increase flow" and efficiency for people who get prepared foods and deli meats. And, that's simply absurd. What about the meat/cheese counter workers that we have known for years who know exactly what we like, how we like it, and who are already trained to cut meats.
This new system - and an apparent re-design of the store - is part of a plan to standardize, and it's simply a case of fixing what ain't broke. It's like the Common Core movement, which sought to address low performance at some schools with a stifling rigid new focus forced upon all schools. The store we had on Hampden Avenue worked very well. It was that "place where everybody knows your name." But the corporate reformers got a hold of it, and their plans to standardize have compromised service. Another example: we've ordered Friday pizza specials for years with no problem. Last week, we called to order and were connected with a worker in "prepared foods" who had no idea how to take a pizza order. She thought we wanted frozen pizza, then pizza by the pound, then something else. And, she wasn't even sure how to direct our order to the guys making the pizza who we used to place orders with seamlessly.
And, thus, in a move to standardize service at all stores, Whole Foods has royally screwed up service at ours. And, had this been one of our first visits to Whole Foods, we might not return. Of course, if the problems continue, we'll probably revert to shopping at King Soopers which is closer. I don't really prefer King Soopers. But if Whole Foods wants to be more like fast food restaurants in its standardization of service, I might as well shop anywhere because the high quality of Whole Foods is being compromised in pursuit of a "common floor."
I love shopping at Whole Foods and have done so as often as possible for at least ten years. My Whole Foods is in southeast Denver on Hampden Avenue at Tamarac Square, and it is a truly glorious store. In fact, I think it was a bit of a flagship store for a while in Colorado, and our shopping experiences and service have always been exceptional ... until yesterday. While doing our weekly shopping we had the worst service experience ever while simply trying to order some deli meats and cheese, the same order we have placed for a long time. The problem is the store at Tamarac has moved the deli meats from the meat and cheese counter in the center to the prepared foods aisle along the side, and that has created a log jam of miscommunication and poor service, the likes of which I would never imagine from John Mackey's company.
Because the new location is alongside prepared foods and fresh sandwiches, the staff has no central focus and their "system" for taking orders ended with me waiting nearly 30 minutes for a half pound of ham, some mortadella, and ten slices of cheese. Having finished our shopping, we were ready to wrap up our trip and leave, as the deli meats order usually takes about five minutes while the workers at the cheese counter methodically take orders and fill them. "Prepared foods," on the other hand, had three different people filling orders, they were writing them down on "order sheets" which were laid out in no order, and they had no system for people stepping up to the counter. After waiting a few minutes, my wife went to check out. She finished and watched three customers who ordered after us check out before I finally came with my small deli order.
The cashier noted that I had "a free sample," which the clerk gave me to compensate for the delay, and when I explained the situation, a "manager" overheard and apologized as he explained the new "plan to standardize service" at more than a thousand stores. Apparently, ordering meats from a different department than "prepared foods" meant that, at some stores, they "never knew who was ordering what." And, that sounds like a completely ridiculous excuse for a company that is more than thirty years old. The manager also noted they are still training the prepared foods staff who "aren't used to slicing meats." So the obvious question is: why implement this disaster without full and proper training? When my wife was at the store last week, she witnessed some "corporate types" who were publicly discussing how the new design would "increase flow" and efficiency for people who get prepared foods and deli meats. And, that's simply absurd. What about the meat/cheese counter workers that we have known for years who know exactly what we like, how we like it, and who are already trained to cut meats.
This new system - and an apparent re-design of the store - is part of a plan to standardize, and it's simply a case of fixing what ain't broke. It's like the Common Core movement, which sought to address low performance at some schools with a stifling rigid new focus forced upon all schools. The store we had on Hampden Avenue worked very well. It was that "place where everybody knows your name." But the corporate reformers got a hold of it, and their plans to standardize have compromised service. Another example: we've ordered Friday pizza specials for years with no problem. Last week, we called to order and were connected with a worker in "prepared foods" who had no idea how to take a pizza order. She thought we wanted frozen pizza, then pizza by the pound, then something else. And, she wasn't even sure how to direct our order to the guys making the pizza who we used to place orders with seamlessly.
And, thus, in a move to standardize service at all stores, Whole Foods has royally screwed up service at ours. And, had this been one of our first visits to Whole Foods, we might not return. Of course, if the problems continue, we'll probably revert to shopping at King Soopers which is closer. I don't really prefer King Soopers. But if Whole Foods wants to be more like fast food restaurants in its standardization of service, I might as well shop anywhere because the high quality of Whole Foods is being compromised in pursuit of a "common floor."
In Search of the Great American Novel
The GAN - It's an elusive beast that is the Holy Grail of American literature ... and American English teachers/professors. It is the Great American Novel.
We've talked about it in class, we've claimed numerous titles to be it when we are teaching them, we've even tried to write it ourselves. The list of the top contenders is long, but familiar. And the usual suspects are tough to refute. Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a strong favorite, which was given great support by Ernest Hemingway who noted, "All American literature begins with one book ..." Of course, Hemingway is just as likely to be credited with the accomplishment with his book The Sun Also Rises even though it's set in Europe. Hester Prynne's early feminism certainly makes a claim in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, and few would challenge the weight of the story about Ahab and the White Whale in Moby Dick. (Fewer would claim to have actually read the book with authority to declare its value). Probably second to "Huck" is the modernist tale of corruption and loss of innocence in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, a story which has been given resurgence thanks to Baz Luhrman and Leonardo DiCaprio. And, in a more contemporary vein, high school English departments would raise mutiny if a list excluded Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird or Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. Thus, the debate carries on. And it just got more concise with a book about the books.
Scholar Lawrence Buell has attempted to codify the discussion in his monolithic new critique, The Dream of the Great American Novel. Critics have already started to weigh in on the value of Buell's work. And that is obviously Buell's goal in the first place - kick off the discussion again, and place his research at the center of the debate. One of the claims is that the novel has been written and re-written. And its most recent incarnations come from the two sharpest writers of the most recent generation, Jonathon Franzen and David Foster Wallace. It seems possible that Franzen wouldn't necessarily dispute his anointment. Though he could be as likely to "not show up" for the discussion. It is, anyway, a discussion that should continue, perpetually and forever, as America and American literature continues to reinvent itself, always in search of that elusive "green light."
We've talked about it in class, we've claimed numerous titles to be it when we are teaching them, we've even tried to write it ourselves. The list of the top contenders is long, but familiar. And the usual suspects are tough to refute. Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a strong favorite, which was given great support by Ernest Hemingway who noted, "All American literature begins with one book ..." Of course, Hemingway is just as likely to be credited with the accomplishment with his book The Sun Also Rises even though it's set in Europe. Hester Prynne's early feminism certainly makes a claim in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, and few would challenge the weight of the story about Ahab and the White Whale in Moby Dick. (Fewer would claim to have actually read the book with authority to declare its value). Probably second to "Huck" is the modernist tale of corruption and loss of innocence in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, a story which has been given resurgence thanks to Baz Luhrman and Leonardo DiCaprio. And, in a more contemporary vein, high school English departments would raise mutiny if a list excluded Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird or Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. Thus, the debate carries on. And it just got more concise with a book about the books.
Scholar Lawrence Buell has attempted to codify the discussion in his monolithic new critique, The Dream of the Great American Novel. Critics have already started to weigh in on the value of Buell's work. And that is obviously Buell's goal in the first place - kick off the discussion again, and place his research at the center of the debate. One of the claims is that the novel has been written and re-written. And its most recent incarnations come from the two sharpest writers of the most recent generation, Jonathon Franzen and David Foster Wallace. It seems possible that Franzen wouldn't necessarily dispute his anointment. Though he could be as likely to "not show up" for the discussion. It is, anyway, a discussion that should continue, perpetually and forever, as America and American literature continues to reinvent itself, always in search of that elusive "green light."
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Edu-reformers & PARCC-Rangers Get Equity Wrong
Common Core & PARCC testing have been promoted and sold to legislators as the panacea to cure all that ills public education, from equity and achievement gaps to America's students "trailing the world." And this is a problem. The primary issue is the belief that new standards and new tests can both lift our highest achievers and close a gap with our struggling learners. That naive, pie-in-the-sky thinking represents a deep naivete and a real laziness about the demands of educating a child. Basically, these critics want "a test" to singularly identify the struggles of students so they can quickly identify weak teachers and get rid of them in order to turn bad schools into good schools. And, even more simplistically, they want "a test" to sort "good/bad" schools. And, that's myopic at best.
I've run across this narrow-mindedness too much lately in the writings of people like Greg Harris of an organization called Students First. Harris claims he's "opting his child in to PARCC" because kids need the type of thinking it will measure. It's an artful bit of optimism, and "begging the question," as he simply declares, with no data or evidence, that PARCC is a quality test which will provide data to improve outcomes. Another PARCC-Ranger who offers un-supported praise of the quality and importance of testing as a barometer for educational outcomes is Lynnell Mickelsen, who took to her blog to dis "white suburban moms," of which she seems very clearly to be one. She's particularly upset over the opt out movement. I don't know what kind of success "reformists" like Harris and Mickelsen have had in closing achievement gaps, or really even teaching struggling populations, because I've seen no evidence of either. But apparently they've read something about the ability of new, out-of-context, standardized tests to solve equity issues and close gaps. I'm waiting anxiously for the pilot test info that supports their claims. Or not.
On the other hand, we have a powerful and insightful alternative view from suburban mom and education advocate Ilana Spiegel who exposes the problems of test-based education reform by warning that we are "Operating at the Margins of Learning."
If we are truly concerned with providing equitable opportunities through improved schooling, we must acknowledge the challenges of these communities. Only then can we fully know how test-based accountability has not substantially improved schooling, and, in fact, denies enriched and equitable opportunities for children. With test-based reform, the question has become "are we doing testing right" rather than "does testing produce equitable outcomes for students?" When we talk about trimming one test or adding another, we only operate at the margins of learning. In fact, since 1997 when Colorado first administered CSAP, and since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, we have seen little if any gains on internationally benchmarked assessments such as National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The NEPC concludes that test-based accountability does not increase equitable opportunities through improved schooling. In fact, since the advent of "test and punish" accountability, resources in less privileged communities are focused on tests and increasing test scores, rather than increasing opportunities through smaller class sizes, quality school-year and summer programing, and enriched class offerings. Current policies use test scores as a gate-keeper to challenging secondary course work and a punishment for eight-year-olds who may struggle with reading. This approach ignores the opportunity gaps created by outside school forces. No one would argue that measuring outcomes alone enriches opportunities. When standardized tests are put on a pedestal as a magic bullet that gets students to "try harder," teachers to "teach smarter," and administrators to manage more effectively, we lose sight of many children's missed opportunities to learn.
Spiegel, despite the pejorative ignorance of people like Mickelsen, is one of those white suburban moms who is advocating for all populations, from her kids to those who look nothing like her. And her analysis is one of the most insightful pieces on the issues of testing and equity that I have seen. It's far beyond the rants of people like Harris and Mickelsen who may have good intentions, but are truly naive about the actual workings of schools. Unlike them, Spiegel has research on her side in the studies of the NEPC.
I've run across this narrow-mindedness too much lately in the writings of people like Greg Harris of an organization called Students First. Harris claims he's "opting his child in to PARCC" because kids need the type of thinking it will measure. It's an artful bit of optimism, and "begging the question," as he simply declares, with no data or evidence, that PARCC is a quality test which will provide data to improve outcomes. Another PARCC-Ranger who offers un-supported praise of the quality and importance of testing as a barometer for educational outcomes is Lynnell Mickelsen, who took to her blog to dis "white suburban moms," of which she seems very clearly to be one. She's particularly upset over the opt out movement. I don't know what kind of success "reformists" like Harris and Mickelsen have had in closing achievement gaps, or really even teaching struggling populations, because I've seen no evidence of either. But apparently they've read something about the ability of new, out-of-context, standardized tests to solve equity issues and close gaps. I'm waiting anxiously for the pilot test info that supports their claims. Or not.
On the other hand, we have a powerful and insightful alternative view from suburban mom and education advocate Ilana Spiegel who exposes the problems of test-based education reform by warning that we are "Operating at the Margins of Learning."
If we are truly concerned with providing equitable opportunities through improved schooling, we must acknowledge the challenges of these communities. Only then can we fully know how test-based accountability has not substantially improved schooling, and, in fact, denies enriched and equitable opportunities for children. With test-based reform, the question has become "are we doing testing right" rather than "does testing produce equitable outcomes for students?" When we talk about trimming one test or adding another, we only operate at the margins of learning. In fact, since 1997 when Colorado first administered CSAP, and since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, we have seen little if any gains on internationally benchmarked assessments such as National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The NEPC concludes that test-based accountability does not increase equitable opportunities through improved schooling. In fact, since the advent of "test and punish" accountability, resources in less privileged communities are focused on tests and increasing test scores, rather than increasing opportunities through smaller class sizes, quality school-year and summer programing, and enriched class offerings. Current policies use test scores as a gate-keeper to challenging secondary course work and a punishment for eight-year-olds who may struggle with reading. This approach ignores the opportunity gaps created by outside school forces. No one would argue that measuring outcomes alone enriches opportunities. When standardized tests are put on a pedestal as a magic bullet that gets students to "try harder," teachers to "teach smarter," and administrators to manage more effectively, we lose sight of many children's missed opportunities to learn.
Spiegel, despite the pejorative ignorance of people like Mickelsen, is one of those white suburban moms who is advocating for all populations, from her kids to those who look nothing like her. And her analysis is one of the most insightful pieces on the issues of testing and equity that I have seen. It's far beyond the rants of people like Harris and Mickelsen who may have good intentions, but are truly naive about the actual workings of schools. Unlike them, Spiegel has research on her side in the studies of the NEPC.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Middle Schoolers Display Math Prowess at Math Counts in Colorado
The world of competitive math doesn't always get the press and spotlight the way the nation obsesses over the spelling bee. But the students competing in the national Math Counts competition are every bit the exceptional students as top spellers, and probably more so. Math Counts is a national math competition sponsored by the National Society of Professional Engineers, and this month will see regional competitions in states across the country. In Colorado, there are eight regional competitions, and my son competed in the Denver Metro Regional where he and his teammates vied for a spot at the state finals in March and the national competition in Boston in May. Here's my story on the recent competition: Cherry Creek Middle Schoolers Succeed at Metro Math Counts.
They are called “mathletes.” And, while they may not run the 40-yard-dash in 4.5 seconds, they can certainly solve complex algorithms in that time. Their skills were on display at the University of Denver on February 7 in the annual Metro Area Math Counts Competition. The students were tasked with quickly answering questions such as “How many ordered triples (x, y, z) of positive integers have the property that x + y + z = 6?” and “What is the largest prime that divides both 20! + 14! and 20! − 14!?” Clearly, for those worrying about the math skills of Colorado students, there is much hope to be found in the world of Math Counts.
The winning team for this year’s Metro regional was the Cherry Creek Challenge School. The second place team was Campus Middle School, which had five of the top ten students in the Countdown, including the eventual individual champion, Austen Mazenko. Mazenko defeated one of last year’s state champions Anjalie Kini in an intense final round. Former Math Counts competitors Avi Swartz and Isani Singh of Cherry Creek High School were in the audience cheering on their former teammates, and they tensed up watching the final question. “When Avi and I saw that final question,” Isani said, “we just thought, ‘Oh, man, who’s going to get it first?” Because Mazenko and Kini are two of the top math students in the state, she knew it was simply a matter of speed. This year Mazenko had the faster buzzer.
They are called “mathletes.” And, while they may not run the 40-yard-dash in 4.5 seconds, they can certainly solve complex algorithms in that time. Their skills were on display at the University of Denver on February 7 in the annual Metro Area Math Counts Competition. The students were tasked with quickly answering questions such as “How many ordered triples (x, y, z) of positive integers have the property that x + y + z = 6?” and “What is the largest prime that divides both 20! + 14! and 20! − 14!?” Clearly, for those worrying about the math skills of Colorado students, there is much hope to be found in the world of Math Counts.
The winning team for this year’s Metro regional was the Cherry Creek Challenge School. The second place team was Campus Middle School, which had five of the top ten students in the Countdown, including the eventual individual champion, Austen Mazenko. Mazenko defeated one of last year’s state champions Anjalie Kini in an intense final round. Former Math Counts competitors Avi Swartz and Isani Singh of Cherry Creek High School were in the audience cheering on their former teammates, and they tensed up watching the final question. “When Avi and I saw that final question,” Isani said, “we just thought, ‘Oh, man, who’s going to get it first?” Because Mazenko and Kini are two of the top math students in the state, she knew it was simply a matter of speed. This year Mazenko had the faster buzzer.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Don't Let Students "Read" Shakespeare
There may be no worse sound in the world for an English teacher than
to hear high school students struggle as they mangle, mishandle, and
malign the words of the Bard after their teacher has asked them to "be
the part of" Romeo or Hamlet or Macbeth or Brutus or any other of the
brilliant characters brought to life by the greatest playwright of all
time. This sound is only worsened by the visual of a couple fifteen
year old boys using their pens to "act out" the sword fight between
Tybalt and Mercutio or Hamlet and Laertes. Needless to say, I am opposed to students "studying" Shakespeare by reading it aloud and acting it out in class.
After I finish a study of Hamlet with my AP juniors, I am always pleased with their understanding of the play and their knowledge that they have experienced the language as it was meant to be heard - from classically trained actors. Thus, in the study of Shakespeare I make regular class use of CD/sound recordings, and occasionally well-done movie versions, so my students can appreciate Shakespeare the way it was meant to be. In Hamlet, for example, I call upon the Arkangel version of the play, as it is an excellent, well-acted, comprehensive edition of the text. And of course, there is no finer version of the texts than the Folger Library version of the plays.
I do not ask that the students read the plays alone or ahead of time - other than perhaps the scene summaries - because the work was not meant to be read silently. It's drama. It's a play for goodness sakes. It's meant to be performed - heard and/or seen. Thus, while I will analyze the text in a variety of ways - including some recitation (Hamlet's soliloquies, for example) - I do not expect students to go home and read and understand Shakespeare on their own. It must be experienced in order to be appreciated, and it must be appreciated in order to be studied effectively. And it won't be studied or appreciated with a couple of untrained, ineffective, bored, or bumbling teenagers stumbling through the lines in front of class.
After I finish a study of Hamlet with my AP juniors, I am always pleased with their understanding of the play and their knowledge that they have experienced the language as it was meant to be heard - from classically trained actors. Thus, in the study of Shakespeare I make regular class use of CD/sound recordings, and occasionally well-done movie versions, so my students can appreciate Shakespeare the way it was meant to be. In Hamlet, for example, I call upon the Arkangel version of the play, as it is an excellent, well-acted, comprehensive edition of the text. And of course, there is no finer version of the texts than the Folger Library version of the plays.
I do not ask that the students read the plays alone or ahead of time - other than perhaps the scene summaries - because the work was not meant to be read silently. It's drama. It's a play for goodness sakes. It's meant to be performed - heard and/or seen. Thus, while I will analyze the text in a variety of ways - including some recitation (Hamlet's soliloquies, for example) - I do not expect students to go home and read and understand Shakespeare on their own. It must be experienced in order to be appreciated, and it must be appreciated in order to be studied effectively. And it won't be studied or appreciated with a couple of untrained, ineffective, bored, or bumbling teenagers stumbling through the lines in front of class.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)