No Answers, Just Questions

I saw on the news last night, and then in the paper again this morning, an announcement from the Cleveland City Schools.  They informed the public that any student graduating from the Cleveland Municipal School District (CMSD), after four years of attendance through the schools, will have their tuition covered at any participating post secondary institution.  CMSD has partnered with Say Yes to Education  to provide this opportunity for these students.  My first reaction was that of excitement for the young people as this could literally change the pathway of a young person’s life.  My second thought was one of relief for these young people as now they don’t need to worry about if they can afford to go to school beyond high school if they chose.  This then led to my third thought which was more of a question, “If post-secondary education is the gateway to a ‘better life’, why are so relatively few young people able to go on to post-secondary education?” and “How many other young people will not have this ‘life changing” opportunity?”,  and then “What is the average cost of going to post-secondary schools now?” I have a lot of questions and not a lot of answers.

I’m not necessarily advocating for free college tuition for all ala Bernie Sanders, in fact I don’t believe college is for everyone and besides, I don’t want to even go down that political road.  I think I’m just wondering…

...why is the average cost of college in Ohio (a little over $11,000 a year currently) more than the average cost for educating a young person in a K-12 public school in Ohio (a little over $9000 a year)?

....is one “more important” than the other?

... in general, are there better pedagogical practices taking place at K-12 or post-secondary and that is why it costs more? (I know it is dangerous to talk in generalities)

...if post-secondary is the gateway to a “better life” why is K-12 education considered a “right” and  post-secondary a “privilege”?

...why  in 1997 was the average cost for post secondary education in Ohio close to $4000 for a state university, but the average cost for educating a K-12 student during that time $6000?

...is the “Say Yes to Education” program, as great as it is, treating the symptom and not the problem?

Clearly, I don’t have answers, but that is the beauty of asking questions (see also “Which is Best for Kids: Answers or Questions?”).  Questions get us thinking and lead to more questions we probably should be asking.  I wonder if they can lead us down the “right” path for this issue if the “right” questions are asked? Did you just have another question pop in your head? :)

Literacy Doesn’t Add to the Plate it IS the Plate

I recently attended a professional development session on Adolescent Literacy run by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).  They did a great job of laying out Ohio’s Plan to Raise Literacy Achievement as addressed in the state’s strategic plan titled Each Child Our Future.  (also see Share Your Comments on a New Direction).  As far as adolescent literacy goes, the plan is centered around three key areas:  Individual Interventions which is focused on being more diagnostic to meet young people’s needs (also see Revisiting Inside the Black Box),  Content Area Literacy, and Disciplinary Literacy.  Seeing these three areas as the state’s focus was reassuring because it aligns with the general direction our district’s K-5 and 6-12 Literacy Teams having been moving.  However, there was also information that could lead to some great discussions in our literacy teams as well.

One of these was a comparison of the 5 Big Ideas of Reading in K-5 vs. 6-12.

Elementary	Secondary
Phonemic Awareness	Advanced Decoding
Phonics	Motivation
Fluency	Fluency
Vocabulary	Vocabulary
Comprehension	Comprehension

I think it is safe to say that the majority of secondary schools spend their time focused on vocabulary and comprehension and just assume that all young people at this age come with the motivation and ability to read at grade level.  We know from experience, that is not the case, so how can we support 6-12 struggling readers using the 5 Big Ideas as a guide?

In my mind, the first step  is to help teachers across content areas make the connections to the importance of literacy within their own content areas.  I will argue that we are not all teachers of reading, but we all should be teachers of literacy. Specifically, we should all be comfortable with helping young people acquire the reading and writing (literacy) skills necessary to be successful in our respective disciplines.  In other words a focus on disciplinary literacy is a great place to insert literacy’s foot in the door of individual content area classrooms. (also see Ready to Drink the Disciplinary Literacy Kool-Aid?).  Helping the young people in our classrooms to read, write, and think as scientists, historians, mathematicians, etc. will naturally lead to them being able to comprehend what they are reading much more effectively and efficiently.  Also, using disciplinary literacy as the medium in which to work, could then lead to discussions concerning the importance of vocabulary and specifically the Tier II and Tier III vocabulary within each content area.  Because learning to read is so important at the elementary grades most K-3 elementary teachers understand that reading comprehension is not just a function of language comprehension, but decoding also plays an important role.  In fact you can’t have a young person be successful in reading without having both parts. This “equation” illustrates the importance of each quite well.

Decoding Domain x Language Comprehension Domain = Reading Comprehension

It is a little ironic to use a math equation to discuss a literacy skill, but this equation works because it illustrates if you have zero decoding skills inserted into the equation it doesn’t matter how well your language comprehension is because zero times anything is zero and therefore your reading comprehension will not be met.  So where does “decoding” come into play at the secondary level? This can be seen very clearly in Scarborough’s Reading Rope.

From a secondary standpoint, decoding falls under word recognition and word recognition can be enhanced at the secondary level through morphology of the words in a particular content area.  That is by studying the smallest unit of meaning in a word or, more directly, discussing what prefixes, suffixes, or Latin roots are used most in your particular content area can be advantageous for our young people .  As an example “ -ology” is a very common suffix that young people often come across while in science class, so they can get a lot of “bang for their buck” if they understand it means “the study of” as in Biology (study of life) or Geology (study of the Earth).   A common prefix in math is “poly” as in polygon (many sides) or polynomial (many algebraic terms). Helping young people make meaningful connections of these common prefixes and suffixes within the discipline will help them to see the connections outside the discipline as well.  The same can be said for the importance of commonly used Latin root words. In fact Kelly Gallagher references the 30-15-10 list in Deeper Reading emphasizing the most impactful 30 prefixes, 15 basal root words, and 10 suffixes with which  young people should be familiar.

Motivation and fluency can both be addressed at the secondary level by allowing young people more choice in their reading selections.  It is hard to get motivated by a book you have been told to read and have no interest in reading. Luckily, there are no standards for Huck Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, Othello, Fahrenheit 451, or any of the other typical reading assignment at the secondary level.  (see also Great Summer Reading to Help Create Readers in High School).  As a result, the standards can still be met by reading a variety of texts that can be self-selected.  Providing choice also can address fluency because young people need to be able to read at a 90% fluency rate and that can’t happen for all young people in a class if they are reading the same book.  With a little guidance from the teacher young people will be able to select the just right book.

Long story short, these are some great discussion that can be had at the secondary level within ALL PLCs, because literacy is a skill which is important for all content areas and as a result has leverage in all areas as well.  One might argue that we don’t have time to “teach” literacy in our specific content area, but we are not adding “literacy” on top of the content we teach at the secondary level. It is naturally incorporated in the content, we are just helping our young people become more cognizant of it within our respective disciplines. As researcher Julie Meltzer stated, “Literacy isn’t something extra on our plate, literacy is the plate.”

Teaching is Not Rocket Science

George Bernard Shaw's Maxims for Revolutionists states “He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.”  Over the years this has morphed into “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.”  Shaw's assumption of the role of teacher as curriculum deliverer in 1903 can be understood for that time.  It is true that “Teaching” in the 21st century is not “Rocket Science”, it is actually much harder and way less predictable.  At least with Rocket Science you have the Laws of Physics to lean on as you deeply focus on the data associated with your task.  The numbers in the calculations paint a picture that can be logically understood and, though complex, Rocket Science doesn’t approach the complexity of meeting the needs of individual young people on a daily basis.  Teaching, if done well, causes one to be in a constant state of flux. Teachers, like Rocket Scientists, must analyze data on a regular basis. However, this data (unlike in Rocket Science) should not drive instruction, but rather inform instruction.  This, in a good part, has to do with the fact that teachers are working with human beings and not machines (see Raising Young People as Human Beings vs. Manufacturing Machines). Teaching instead requires a blend of art and science to be successful which means educators must continually learn and grow as professionals in order to be effective.

“Within a culture of professionalism, educators embrace the transparency of their work, their accomplishments, and their challenges, and they share ideas, insights, and practices as they collaborate in ways that build on individual strengths and overcome individual challenges to ensure...success for all students” (NCTM, 2014, p.99).  So, good teaching is much more complicated than transferring curricular knowledge to a group of students and therefore will not be successfully accomplished in isolation (Which, by the way, neither will Rocket Science.) We can’t be independent contractors united by a common parking lot (DuFour, Eakar, DuFour 2005) as has been past practice and must instead work together as professionals. It is not to say that individually we are not important.  “All teachers are vital, but the collegial culture and professional judgement in the school are even more important for the quality of the school” (Sahlberg, 2015, p.137). The power of teaching comes from the collective teacher efficacy (see Supporting Collective Teacher Efficacy is a Great Place to Start the Year) which means working together in our Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in order to be more effective in our practices.  However, this can’t happen overnight.

“The evidence supports that teachers may need up to three years to begin to work together effectively and move beyond mere cooperation to true collaboration” (NCTM, 2014, p.104).  So, setting aside time to work together and providing consistency within the PLC are two important ingredients for successful professional growth. A third important piece of a functioning PLC is the type of work on which it focuses.  “Focusing teachers’ work within professional learning communities on detailed lesson planning has been demonstrated to be a highly productive strategy to support more in-depth interactions within collaborative communities and effect change in teachers’ practice” (NCTM, 2014, p. 104).  “Detailed” is highlighted, so as not to miss the nuance, and to emphasize the importance of the word in the quote. Detailed lesson planning is not focused on “what” we are teaching, but rather “how” and “why” we are teaching a particular way.  It is a focus on the pedagogy not the planning. This is an important distinction that many PLCs miss. “Teaching is a complex and harried profession, and all too often teachers do not take the time necessary to engage in structured reflection” (NCTM, 2014, p. 105).   The degree to which we improve, and therefore meet the needs of the young people in our class, will depend on how well and how often we reflect on our practice.

We haven’t even started to talk about the importance of being able to be diagnostic in class in order to understand where an individual’s understanding falls along the progression of learning a particular skill.  That is a whole other blog post, but I bring it up because it emphasizes the complexity of teaching. Teaching is one of those low floor/high ceiling professions which provides a multitude of entry points depending on if you see being an educator as a job, career, or calling. If teaching is your job than Shaw is probably right, but if you look at it as your profession/career or believe that is is your calling it is much more complicated, valued, and rewarding than Rocket Science.  

References

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005).  On common ground: The power of

professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics- NCTM (2014).  Principles to Actions:  

Ensuring Mathematical Success for All.  Reston, VA: NCTM.

Sahlberg, Pasi (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0:  What can the world learn from educational

changes in Finland?  New York, NY: Teachers College Press.