Post-testing Teaching - This is what I signed up for

After testing is done, I have the best days teaching. Too bad testing is done two weeks before school is out, and with so many activities filling up the last week of school, that leaves one week of doing the kind of teaching and learning experiences that I love. There are two never-fail lessons that I do in the fourth grade: volcanoes and electricity. I always do volcanoes in the beginning of the year and just had to get electricity in before the year ended.

I give pairs of students a baggy with a little light bulb and holder, two insulated wires, a battery and a battery holder. No instruction, just a task - work with your partner to figure out how to make the light bulb turn on. The class is so focused - there are no behavior problems. Soon, someone makes it work and when the others see how they did it, they copy the circuit and eventually, everyone feels victorious about the accomplishment of the task, especially the ones who became the teachers. It is always satisfying when the ones who became the teachers are not the ones who are the usual star students in the classroom.

I wish every day was like this - filled with opportunities for students of all academic levels to shine. That is my teaching philosophy, but it is so hard to do when you feel pressured to follow curriculum maps, and teach material to increase our chances of scoring well on the "test." Even when I do the accountability piece, asking them to do observation, drawings, inferences, and explanations of how the circuit works, there is a lot of focused participation. Rarely does anyone try to hide from me (unlike work with fractions or division where students become adept at pretending to work, but produce little). 

Another lesson that I do in fourth grade social studies is on the ahupua'a (traditional Hawaiian way of dividing land from the mountains to the sea).  There is only one standard for economics and it is about the sharing of resources among the different land divisions in a traditional ahupua'a. Since we have had a partnership with the Kamehameha Schools 'Ike Pono program, I have done less of my own social studies teaching. This year, they provided us with a field trip to different places in Kona to represent an ahupua'a. It was good to be outside, in the forest, and at the beach and to have had the Kamehameha Schools program teachers plan and lead the field trip.  

But, upon return, I didn't think they had learned enough about the sharing of resources. So I reprised a lesson I had done before the partnership, and though it was condensed, again I had the feeling of a satisfying teaching experience. In pairs, students were assigned either the kai (sea/beach), kula (plains/cultivated fields), or uka (uplands/forest). They researched in the book, From the Mountains to the Sea, what resources were found in each area, what the resources were used for and recorded their findings on a t-chart. They had to choose one to draw and label with name and use. Then the students traded with someone from another area. They were told to explain why their resource was important. They then reported on what they traded and why. There was only one trade that didn't make sense - someone in the kula said she traded 'ulu (breadfruit) for koa wood, so that she could make a canoe. This was an opportunity to teach kuleana and that since fishing wasn't the kuleana of someone in the kula, they probably wouldn't need a canoe, but they could use the Koa for house posts. 

It is lovely to see this in action at all phases of the activity. Wish I could say the same about the more challenging aspects of the fourth grade curriculum, where frustration breeds distraction and distraction breeds disruption. In the waning years of my career, you would think I would have it down. And I do, if I could do what I wanted to do - as it was in the good ol' days. 

I just had a revelation: my kids' scores were, for the most part, under par. My good students did fine; the others showed progress, but didn't make the cut score. I am always conflicted - do I give assessments when I know they are not ready? Do I move on when I know they need more work? Do I use the computer resources available to us or not? And mostly, do I give up other content areas so that I can give more time to math? My revelation is this: I did sacrifice other curriculum areas to do more math, and I didn't reap good scores. Is it possible that I would be better off doing more science and art since sacrificing these engaging activities didn't seem to work? Would I have less disruption if more students feel valued for their unique contributions? Now that is a good question. I think I will test it out. 

A Lame Duck's Swan Song

A Lame Duck’s Swan Song

by Diane Aoki

         Yesterday, a colleague told me that her brother-in-law on O'ahu told her that he reads my blog. Flattered, I thought I'd better write another piece or else I might lose my readership, such as it is. Tomorrow, I am presiding over my last Representative Assembly as Chapter President. I usually do a President's Report, but instead I will submit this, an edited version of a report I had written for the state convention. Writing this convention report gave me an opportunity to reflect on the last 6 years of my involvement as Chapter President and Board of Director. I am a happy lame duck. Happy to be passing the baton on to my trusty vice president and friend, Maia Daugherty. This is my swan song. 

Though I may not like confrontation, I have become more and more able to defend my arguments in deliberations at Board meetings.  I hope that my colleagues on the Board respected and appreciated my questions and comments as I strived to make conscionable decisions. You will have to ask them, but I am at peace with myself that I contributed to the debates, whether or not they went my way.

I was on the Board when we had to make very tough decisions about restructuring our union. Going through that gave me firsthand training for Board responsibilities. It is impressed upon us that we carry fiduciary responsibility for the decisions that we make. In the event that a member believes that our decisions caused harm to members or the Association, we would be targets for a lawsuit, should they sue. It is not always easy to know when a wrong has been committed, and to right a wrong when you know that it has been done. My advice to incoming Board members, be vigilant. Stand up for the members who put their trust in you, and seek your conscience when you make decisions on behalf of the whole. When you think you need to fight, stand up, especially if you have a dissenting point of view. 

A typical member may be intimidated by this responsibility. But among the membership, there must be leaders who feel drawn to this responsibility, for whatever reasons. Maybe your great passion is public education or unionism. It could be teacher empowerment or anger about current efforts to undermine all of the above, as in the seemingly intractable hold that high-stakes testing has on us. I have always felt that identifying injustice needs to be followed by an action to do something. I thought that the union provided that venue to solve problems, to advocate for good policies and against bad ones, to address injustice. I first got involved in convention, as a faculty rep, serving on several committees, and finally as president and board member with those beliefs in mind. 

What do I believe now? Has leadership led to victory? I guess the answer is: the jury is still out. There have been some battles won, some lost. Under Obama, and Race to the Top, education reform looks deformed, which is disappointing.  Most of the items that I have felt strongly about have passed at convention. We have sound policies about high-stakes testing. We believe in education for the whole child. We believe that our evaluation should not be tied to our students’ test scores and that any evaluation system should be fair, reliable, and based on research. Adopting policy resolutions was relatively easy - I try to fight battles in which a lot of people share concern, not just me. The actions (NBIs)  have been more difficult. Some of my efforts have been towards assuring that our convention actions are taken seriously. Though the jury is still out, I still believe in fighting for truth and against injustice, and that journey is worth taking even if you never reach the end. 

At the risk of looking paranoid, I need to stand with those who are sounding the alarm about the forces that seek to destroy us. Studying what is happening to public education across the country leads you to ask why is this happening. The only answer that makes sense, based on lots of evidence, is that “education reform” will cause the end of public education. It has been a long-term project led by those with a mentality that their money should benefit their own. Having a means to educate the populace, the poor, the disadvantaged or disabled, means little to these privatization proponents. They so strongly believe in the responsibility of individuals to take care of themselves that they do not have room in their belief system to care for others, for the common good. If they give their riches away, it is to advance their own pet projects. In fact, they believe that providing a means to care for others less fortunate is immoral because it deprives those less fortunate with the motivation to take care of themselves. 

The education reform measures that we are being hit with is bipartisan. Federal policies, from Bush to Obama, have hit us hard, even though federal money accounts for a small percentage of public education budgets. All you need to do is read the Race to the Top application to see what the DOE wanted. 

          Signs of the coming abuse are the top-down mandates, which go against the principle of collaboration that we so value. Research cites that one of the main reasons that teachers leave the profession is the lack of respect for their professional autonomy.  Yet, the trend is towards treating teachers more like mindless servants than complex thinkers and problem-solvers, skillfully adapting and adjusting to meet the needs of our diverse student population.

 Those who can, like me, will retire, taking penalties if we have to.  Some may find refuge in charter schools. Others will teach at private schools or leave education altogether.

Is there a way to take back our schools? The solution comes from collective action, as the teachers in Seattle did by refusing to give their students a flawed computerized standardized test. We had Town Hall meetings in which that kind of thinking was beginning to happen here in Hawaii. Take Back Our Schools. I do not know what happened to that idea. My guess is that unless you have a MASS movement, you cannot have a movement, and perhaps the turn-out at these Town Hall events was less than mass. Perhaps, the time will come. 

Kona was the first chapter to go to the streets to protest our current contract woes. We called it Unity Day and it was held on the October furlough after intersession. It was very successful with over one hundred teachers turning out. We also had a significant protest when the governor came to speak at a Democratic Party rally at Konawaena High School. The build-up grew as  schools across the chapter did sign-waving and wore red on Tuesdays or Thursdays at their schools. We were covered on the front page of our local paper twice. We had our second Unity Day on the January furlough day, which had a decent turn-out. I do believe that these statewide demonstrations, from the ones led by the Campbell High School teachers to the ones organized by HSTA, did contribute to the resolution of our contract difficulties. 

I am only as strong as my team and I am thankful to have such a strong team on my executive board. Maia Daugherty, vice president, will be the incoming president. She also volunteered to serve as Membership chair when those positions became vacant, due to unfortunate conflicts that occurred on that committee. We are so fortunate to have Paul Daugherty, my Negotiations Committee chair, in our chapter. He is always the star of the RA as his info is always so juicy. (There is nothing Freudian about leaving him out of my original report. it's just my swiss cheese brain. sometimes things slip out.) Brendan Poff, who has been on the Government Relations committee for most of the time I have been president, will be the vice president. Lisa Martin is currently the secretary, and always a morale booster.  Larry Denis, was extremely supportive as treasurer and until recently, membership co-chair. Hannah Loyola, my other former membership co-chair, though no longer on the team, was appreciated and is missed. Toni Reynolds, GRC co-chair, also brought incredible energy and insight to the team. Rhanda Vickery and Shannon Clemens, have brought their work ethic to bear as our representatives to the hard-working CBR committee. Kathy Penwell has provided us with a perspective from the world of the charter schools serving as YHCR chair for us. We welcome new leaders, MaryBeth Murphy, who took over as Elections chair mid year, and Jennifer Yoshioka, who ran unopposed for chapter treasurer for the coming term.

Recently, at a Board meeting, a staff person from NEA gave us a presentation about teacher evaluation systems being discussed across the country. My take on it was with so much attention on teachers and how to improve them, the attention has been diverted away from how we can improve the education experience for our students. I know they say that evaluating teachers, weeding out the bad, recognizing the good, will improve education for our students. But that takes me down the rabbit hole away from my students. I want to put my attention on how to reach students, how to connect with them, how to make my lessons ring with them, how to make them love coming to school and love learning. Can I do that without worrying about my evaluation? I don’t think so in this world of twisted education reform. 

I will soon retire.  I hope to someday have grandchildren who will be going to public schools. So I am counting on you. I wish you courage to do the right thing, to stand up for children, to recognize when enough is enough both in what your employer does to you and in what they want you to do to your students.  I hope you have a career that fulfills you, rather than depletes you. I hope you do take your schools back so that you can authentically say you are supported and encouraged  to provide your students with that most precious “precious” - education that meets their individual needs, strengthened to be able to contribute to the world we leave them. My goodness, they will need to be strong. Bless you. Bless the children. Stand strong for them. 

 

Respectfully Submitted, Diane Aoki

Top-Down Mandates in Academic Plans: Just Say No!

There is no meeting at our school more dreaded than the annual academic plan review. Our principal presents her proposal for the following year's goals and objectives, and we go through it page by page, seeking consensus. There are a few vocal teachers who slow the process down, asking questions and sometimes expressing opposition, and some amendments are made. Most of the faculty seem to just want to get it over with. In the past, it has been mostly innocuous, not very controversial. There is a sense that it is a meaningless endeavor; in the end, the principal has the final say. The school community council, made up of elected stakeholders, serve as an advisory council, but they go through the motions of approving what the teachers have approved. We are used to being disempowered - we have been in restructuring since 2004, having lost control of the federal Title 1 money allotted to our school to corporate education providers, and doing what they tell us to do.

But this year, it was different. This year, we were presented with a "pre-filled" academic plan with mandates from the state. This year, it was not innocuous, it became increasingly worrisome, and controversial, ending in a postponement to next week. We passed through the universal screener (testing we're already doing) and state-wide curriculum (more standardization), implementation of the Common Core Standards, and other state mandates, without much debate. I myself, was in a bit of of an apathetic mood.

But when we got to implementation of the Danielson model for classroom observations, red flags came up. My colleagues, who are active in the union, started to speak up. We knew that this is part of the new teacher evaluation and we knew that we are in the process of negotiating a new contract in which agreements about teacher evaluation are being considered. The vice principal tried to salvage the situation and offered an amendment to reassure us that this was to be a pilot. I read ahead to the next item: "Implement the Effective Educator System" which includes the four parts that are being piloted this year: Classroom Observations, Student Learning Objectives, Tripod (Student) Survey and Student Growth Percentile.

Sometimes it takes my brain a few minutes to get into the proper gear, but when I read that, I knew I had to speak up. I asked if we had ever included evaluation in our academic plan before. No. I expressed how this academic plan seems overwhelmingly top-down which seems to go against the whole idea of the financial and academic plan process being collaborative. I get that there will be mandates that the employer requires, but then why go through the process of seeking consensus, of appearing to be collaborative? My principal told us that the principals said the same thing at their meeting when they were told they had to do this. We applauded her. Yet, they were told to just do it. She tried to move the meeting along and asked us to approve the amended item. There was no response except that we said we needed to get our union's take on this. I think we were shell-shocked. So the meeting will resume next week.

I immediately called our Uniserv Director who said he would look into it. Two days later, he said he got this response from his colleagues: (Paraphrasing because lotus notes is down) They (teachers) can leverage their right to an open, collaborative and democratic process in school-based budgeting decisions.

Okaaaay. That is what we are doing. But we are being told it is a "state mandate."
I wanted to find out if this was a state directive. I still did not get an answer on this. As far as I know, it is only coming from our complex. If it is, then we deal with it on our complex, to our complex area superintendent. But if it is a state directive, which our CAS and our principals say it is, then we need to move and move fast. The state DOE is out of line, increasingly authoritarian.

In what way is the state out of line? According to HSTA, it is not grieveable. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't protest. This is what I had believed: the idea of Act 51 was to decentralize decision-making and bring control to the schools. It gave the principals more authority, and involved stakeholders through the School Community Councils, who were supposedly elected by their constituents. The principal puts together a plan based on school needs. It seems that principals vary in how much input they get from their faculties. At my school, we go through both the financial and academic plans and we take a show of hands to indicate agreement. Then it is brought to the SCC for recommendation. And so it goes.

I did a little digging to find out why these "pre-filled" academic plans seem different, as I said at the meeting, "it feels oppressive and I am getting the heebie-jeebies." I found a speech given by Randy Moore, the recently retired assistant superintendant in charge of facilities, who was responsible for the implementation of Act 51.

He said: "The change mandated by Act 51 will turn the Department of Education upside down. It will end command and control, where not only what to do, but how to do it, are determined at the state office and communicated down through the organization to the schools."

I looked up Act 51 itself, called the Reinventing Education Act of 2004, which brought huge changes to public education in Hawaii. I pulled this quote: "It is the legislature's intent to place a far greater number of decisions, and a much higher percentage of moneys, directly in the hands of individual schools and their leaders."

So my heebie-jeebies come from the real world. Act 51 was supposed to lessen bureaucracy, lessen a top-down management system. It was supposed to be empowering to the local level, as it was a response to then-governor Lingle's plan to completely dismantle our one-district school system and create local school districts. We supported Act 51 because we were against Lingle's policies, and what could be more local than giving power to the school itself?

Why the mandates in the pre-filled academic plans? The Department wants to implement the Educator Effectiveness System, which was a huge component of their Race To The Top application. We are now in negotiations for which this is a contentious issue. The union's surveys and focus group sessions have provided data that the current pilot of the EES does not adequately address the concerns of the system and work out the kinks. In fact, it appears that the Department has not used the piloting for this purpose, but appears superficial, a pilot in appearance only. We are asking for changes in the system and another year to pilot it, using the pilot authentically, to collaboratively ensure that the system works as a fair and reliable way to evaluate teachers.

Perhaps the Department saw the Academic Plan review process as a way to work-around the union. Perhaps, someone at the Department says, hey, if we can get all the schools to approve these "mandated" items in their Academic Plans, we can say we got the buy-in of all the stakeholders, including teachers, and we don't have to get an agreement on this through the union.

Someone tell me another reason why this is happening? What else could it be? I am open to ideas.
If there is a chance that I could be right on this, then we need to do something. At the very least, we can tell our teacher representatives on our SCCs that we do not approve state mandates relating to evaluation. Our teacher reps can try to convince the other stakeholders to not approve this, saying that we cannot approve something that we know nothing about, that has not been properly piloted to ensure fairness. If the principals override the SCC's recommendation, as they seem to have the right to do, then at least we are on record as opposing, which can be reported to the federal government. They cannot use this means as a way to show stakeholder support. We can announce to the media that this is happening.

I know there will be spin that we are afraid of being held accountable. There is nothing more accountable than having an open door policy. Come into my classroom and see what I do. Help me out while you're here. I have nothing to hide. We only want to be evaluated fairly. It is our career, our chosen profession. We are afraid of being deprived of our career, losing our ability to do what we love to do based on an unfair and unreliable system. We are afraid of losing good teachers because of an unfair and unreliable system. It is not only receiving an unfair bad evaluation that we are afraid of- we are afraid of a pressure-cooker system, even if we get good evaluations.

And losing good teachers not only hurts teachers, of course it hurts students. Losing good teachers will be devastating to students. Yes, they will be replaced, but they too will go. It will be a revolving door. Only business owners who love the low-wage personnel model see this as a good thing. When all of public school teaching in the US becomes like the Peace Corps (the TFA model), then we will know we have gone into backwards-land. Will we ever be able to escape?

Don’t put teachers last

Here is a letter that did get published in the West Hawaii Today on 12/13/12. I recently received an email from a teacher questioning why HSTA doesn't do (fill in the blank). One of the things she wishes HSTA would do is write letters to the editor. I replied that it would be more powerful coming from teachers, telling their own stories. I challenge her and you and anyone else to do the same. Speak up! Stand up!

My Letter:

One of the popular slogans seen on the signs and T-shirts of teachers protesting on the streets near their schools all over the state is: You can’t put students first if you put teachers last.

Today, along with more than 80 schools, Kealakehe Elementary School teachers and supporters were out sign-waving in force. One of the teachers at my school told me a parent didn’t like that slogan because it sounds like we don’t put students first.

I was shocked and dismayed by that perspective, but I am always grateful for an opportunity to shed light on a topic. There are other slogans similar to this one with the same sentiment: “A teacher’s working environment is a child’s learning environment.” And “ain’t nobody happy if mama ain’t happy.” Or how about taking care of your own oxygen supply before helping others?

Though we give and give of our time, energy, attention, care and money, there comes a point when you do not get enough back to replenish your reserves. When this happens, people quit. Hawaii, like the rest of the nation, has a problem with teachers leaving the profession. It is a shame when these are good teachers leaving for better opportunities.

We want to fix this. And we don’t ask for much: respect, a fair contract, fair evaluations and fair evaluators, and a wage commensurate with our educational level and the workload required. I hope the community will see that by supporting teachers, they are supporting students. Give us the oxygen, so we can give oxygen to the students in our care.

Inspired to Problem Solve Education Dilemmas

Since I stopped going to church on Sunday mornings, it seems that I have adopted another Sunday morning ritual, watching The Next List on CNN. For those of you who don't know the show, the host, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, finds people who are doing remarkable cutting edge things in diverse fields. Today, I made the connection that the show was like church for me. The subject was a genius entrepreneur, Jim McKelvey. (http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/category/the-next-list/)

The show starts out showcasing his artistry as a glass-blower and how he founded this company after talking to another glass-blower about the lack of opportunities in this field. It then shows how he developed a technology company called Square, as a way of solving a problem involving accepting a payment. How McKelvey branches into different endeavors from glass-blowing to computer programming to job creation for underserved communities is showcased; the thread that connects each endeavor is that he is fierce about solving problems. "If something is wrong, who's going to fix it? If not me, then who?"

I know he doesn't egotistically believe that he can solve all the problems of the world, but he does want to solve that ones that come his way, the ones that engage and activate him. There are problems enough for all of us. What he did, was inspire me to activate that mode.

I have been involved in education activism for many years, questioning and speaking out about the fallacies of No Child Left Behind and the high-stakes testing culture that public schooling has become all across the country. In the Obama era of Race to the Top and teacher evaluation based on student test scores, the problems are even worse. The adoption of the Common Core standards are intrinsically connected with the madness of current reform efforts, but I hear very little opposition to them among my colleagues. The effect of focus on testing and standards has produced a huge problem that I would like to be able to solve somehow - we have lost sight of the child, the student, as an individual.

When I first got into teaching, it was all about that. It was about being child and student-centered. It was about multiple intelligences and different learning styles. It was about unit teaching and integrating subjects into cohesive, connected learning experiences. The debate between whole language and phonics had been resolved - you needed multiple approaches, not just one. It was about engaging students. It was about inquiry. It was about solving problems. It was about building confidence. Empowerment. This was the profession I fell in love with. It has changed. And not for the better. It has devolved. The things I am proud of as a teacher are relegated to my blog writing. The things that seem to count are the things that I could care less about. Yes, test scores. I could care less about test scores. I care about my students learning and I value tests as a way to keep track of their progress, but the obsession with data, data, data in current practice is over the top.

Old-timers will tell you that if you have been in teaching long enough, you will experience pendulum swings. So if I don't like some "fad" or initiative, just wait it out, the pendulum will swing back. I really think there is something more ominous going on than a fly-by-night harmless pendulum swing. So - I have identified the problem. Public schools and public school teachers are judged by the test scores that their students produce. Teachers, like me, are not in the profession to raise test scores, they are in it to connect to children, to make a difference in their lives. There is a huge disconnect. What is the result of a system whose main concern is the raising of test scores? Less time, attention, and resources on activities chosen for engagement and joy, and more on activities directly related to testing.

Since I am now in the "winter" of my career, the way I had chosen to solve the problem is to look forward to retirement. I see the writing on the wall in regards to teacher evaluation based on student "growth," and the implementation of the Common Core, and I will soon say, good luck and good-bye. But then I get a dose of inspiration from a glass-blower named Jim McKelvey, and I wonder - Is there a way to solve this problem? How can we make the system more child and student focused? How can we have public schools that are models of innovation and aloha? Can it be done at my level, at the grass roots?

I don't have a solution. I only have a reignited desire to solve the problem.

"Find Another Profession" : Really? Is That the Only Answer?

As president of our chapter, I often get questions about the contract. I do my best to answer but mostly I refer them to someone at HSTA or Paul, who has been our negotiations representative for as long as I've been president, but this one really got to me.

Question: Is it a violation of our contract for a principal to suggest that teachers seek other employment options? Thanks!

My answer: That's terrible! If she thinks a teacher is not up to par, she needs to go through the process of evaluating with the tool we have now, the Pep-T; a teacher would have due process rights in case he/she feels the unsatisfactory eval is unfair. It is hard to say whether it is a violation of the contract but if you have an active APC, it would be a good topic and you would speak to teacher morale. As we go forward with the new contract, we can speak to the cause of such a statement. I am thinking it has something to do with overwhelming demands put on teachers and the principal trying to pressure teachers into accepting this as a condition of the job. As much as possible, teachers should try to ask for time to do these tasks that are mandated by principal but not given time to do them. There is a lot we do beyond our work day, but we do it if we find value in it, like for me, keeping up with my grading. But if it is demanded beyond my work day and I hate it and I disagree with it as valuable, I would not do it unless time was allotted for it, somehow. Unless teachers stand up for their rights, the principals will keep demanding more and then try to do mind games to get you to do them.

One of the ideas we came away with at the Town Halls was that we are the experts, we are the ones who should be informing education policies, as opposed to outside entities who think they know how to fix everything. I can just imagine what happened at her school to make the principal say such a thing. I have talked to teachers from her school who report increasing demands - meetings, data collection, etc. Someone must have said something about the workload and this must have been the principal's response.

So, if this is the scenario at your school as well, you need to speak up. That is the only way things will change. This can be addressed in negotiations. We negotiate pay, benefits, and working conditions. We want to improve all aspects of our profession, but we need to articulate the working conditions that we envision by which we can provide our students with a truly quality well-rounded education, that is not only about test scores. Maybe you're sick of hearing about Finland and Singapore, but one of the aspects of their working conditions is that they are paid fairly for their non-instructional time! Yes, we had some of that before furloughs. But, those days always had restrictions. Imagine that we got our non-instructional days back and with those days we could pursue activities of our choice that were in line with goals that we chose, that we valued. Imagine the best professional development or the best planning sessions you have ever had. Imagine if they were rejuvenating rather than depleting.

Okay, those of you who know me, know that I am the eternal optimist. And maybe I am more like Don Quixote chasing windmills. But the only way things ever got better or even invented, was having an idea, and manifesting that idea. So, if someone asks you what do you think would improve education, make sure you take the opportunity to tell them.

Here are the questions that were asked at the Town Halls. Share your mana'o, please. Answer the questions that resonate with you or all.

1. What should be the 5 biggest priorities of focus for improving our schools? Be as broad or specific as you like, but please try to be concise and clear.

2. Measuring ‘student learning growth’ has been central to the current discussions on school reform. How should we measure and define student learning growth? What are the best assessments or mix of assessments?

3. It has been suggested that teachers do not want to be evaluated at all. We know this is false, but we need to positively engage this issue. So, how should teachers be evaluated? How can teacher evaluations be used to improve classroom practice?

4. We hear many teachers argue that student learning and school quality are deeply intertwined with issues affecting the greater community – poverty, language access, etc. So how can we better engage the community in education? What issues in the community need to addressed in order to support students and schools?

Help spread the word. Please share.

From self-tagging kiosks at Hawaiian Airlines to my classroom - Connections

Not only are there self-service computers at the airlines where you get your own boarding pass, but now there is one set aside for self-tagging. Good thing there are actual humans who warn you that you're on your own if you use these kiosks. I went to the semi-self service ones immediately. The agent there was in good humor, joking around about how we made a good choice coming over and then joked that in a couple of years he's not going to have a job. My brother and I were reflecting on the loss of human contact as automation and computerization increases. And there's something troubling about that especially in Hawaii, the Aloha state. (It would be worse if we were talking about Aloha Airlines.)

It made me think about the trend in education towards more computerization. We already have statewide online standardized testing. To prepare for that, all schools had to beef up their inventory of computers as well as their Internet accessibility. In my class, on a normal day, I have half of my class on laptops doing Moby Math, IXL, or Education City, while I teach math investigations to the other half, and then we rotate. I try to look at the results of their computer learning daily to,track,their progress or intervene if necessary. I like it because I can touch base with more kids more often. It's a good balance for me. It allows me to have more contact with kids, not less. But I hear that the next trend in education is more computer-based learning and less teacher-contact learning. In fact, there are several charter schools set up with that premise. It seems to be profitable because you have fewer humans to pay. Maybe the students will do well on the online standardized testing, but I worry, for the same reasons I worry about more automation in the business world - loss of the human factor.

Why does that matter? On Friday, I had some unplanned time at the end of the day. The scheduled bike education lesson went shorter than planned, so I had about twenty minutes to fill. Earlier, the Honolulu Theatre for Youth Artists in the Schools program for which our ELL get pulled out to participate, had started. I asked my ELL students what they had learned in drama class and they taught us one of the games they learned. The students walk around the room following certain guidelines about personal space, focus, and self-control. The teacher gives a signal to stop, and then a number, and the students get into that number of students in a group. Then the teacher gives a shape for the students to make. One notable round, the number was 2. I have 25 in my class. One of the rules is that if there is someone who doesn't have a partner, one group takes him or her in. So there was one group if three, which happened to be a triad that included 3 challenging boys. The shape I called out was "rectangle." It's easy for a duo to do a rectangle, but I thought there might be a problem with my one trio. But they came up with an ingenious solution, led by my one most hard-to-focus student who got the others to implement his idea. I was impressed with their solution to the problem. In the normal classroom setting, none of these boys are the star students, the ones who will volunteer the answers. But in this situation, they got a chance to experience being the stars.

A student who gets his or her education via a computer without much contact with a human, professional educator committed to encouraging and nurturing students' potential, will not have those types of experiences. So, yes. Welcome technology as a means to enhance education, but be wary of the potential for abuse, for overuse of the technology, for loss of the human factor.


Sent from my iPad