Paging Teachers

[mattp]

What do you guys think about this?

 

Flipped Classrooms

[ScottP]

Members of the math dept in the middle school where I teach recently flipped, and they feel it is a good thing.

I have been doing lesser versions on the theme for a few years in the science classes I teach, mostly with my highly capable classes.

As an example, I have asked students to go to the American Chemical Assoc website middleshoolchemistry.com where they read about concepts, view animations that illustrate them, and then come to class and do lab activities that provide direct experience using what they gained from the prep work.

A lot less class time is spent on preparing for the lab work, and more time is spent processing and extending what has been experienced in the labs. The downside is that there is a minority of students who don't come to class with what they need to do the lab work. This is where I differentiate. They don't get as much out of the learning goal, because they didn't put as much into it, but once they see other students engaged in hands on, meaningful work, they often self-correct and come better prepared for future endeavors.

 

The internet is a very valuable tool, once you learn where the good resources are, and powerful learning can take place beyond, yet connected to, the classroom.

[E-rock]

I see this largely as another trendy example of "teaching reform". At the risk of getting overly simplistic, the problems in American schools are largely due to the high and increasing concentration of crushing poverty in inner-city and rural schools. This type of "solution" may have positive effects in schools where achievement is already acceptable. But I doubt it would fix Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, Philadelphia, Allentown, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, etc.'s inner city schools in any meaningful fashion.

 

Break up the concentration of poverty. Urban-Suburban integration. It works when tried. The problem is that suburban parents believe that the inner city parents are to blame for not moving their children to better school districts, and people in affluent communities believe that their children are entitled to the exactly the same opportunities as they had, regardless of what's happening with our tax dollars down the road.

 

I will add though, that a self-implemented style of "flipped" education worked best for me in college during my science core courses (Calc, physics, chemistry, etc.). I skipped lecture, read the text, did the problem sets, and attended every work session and lab. I've always felt discouraged in lecture when i couldn't follow the instructor because I process the information at a slower pace than they present it..

Edited October 17, 2013 by E-rock

[ivan]

well said. schools are thermometers of social health. when you have a fever, you don't solve the problem by changing the thermometer.

[ivan]

as for my social studies classes, i'd say i have a hybrid approach, w/ equal amounts of in class traditional direct instruction and creative/extension-style debate and project creation

[mountainsandsound]

Where I teach college biology labs, we have been moving toward this approach. Some of the material that used to be covered in class is now online, and students are expected to prepare ahead of time, thus allowing me more interaction with my students. Which I like in a lot of ways, because much of my day is now spent helping students design and execute their own science experiments, which is more fun than babbling about cellular respiration. But there are students who don't take the initiative to come prepared, and it can be frustrating at times.

 

I think this works for the type of class I teach, but I don't know if I would have preferred it for some of my classes. I can think of two past teachers in my life who really made a lasting impression on me, both provided "direct instruction" (they were storytellers, really), both were history teachers and absolute masters of their craft. Thinking about it, I would hate to see any of their class content go online.

[ivan]

it's a helluva a lot of fun to watch and listen to a lecturer who knows his shit and has mastered the art of story-telling do his thing - better still he can do it over beers and use all the fine swear-words he wants

[JayB]

well said. schools are thermometers of social health. when you have a fever, you don't solve the problem by changing the thermometer.

 

I thought that this made for an interesting read - largely jives with your comments.

 

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa-scores-usa.html

 

Paul Tough also has an interesting book out where he looks at what schools can actually do to help the most disadvantaged kids. The short summary is that focusing on conscientiousness, punctuality, resourcefulness, determination, etc and all the other things that engaged, responsible parents instill in their children in addition to academics seems to yield some encouraging results.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/books/review/how-children-succeed-by-paul-tough.html?_r=0

 

http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Character/dp/0544104404

 

 

[ivan]

overheard in a government class:

"being able to delineate the various forms of federalism is unlikely to be an important part of your life, 20 years from now, but being able to give a shit about a task that's set to you and get something done in a reasonable amount of time will."

[mountainsandsound]

it's a helluva a lot of fun to watch and listen to a lecturer who knows his shit and has mastered the art of story-telling do his thing - better still he can do it over beers and use all the fine swear-words he wants

 

That was one of the fun parts about getting deeper into my major during the latter years of college and then grad school- pizza, beer, salmon BBQs with the profs. Good times nerding out with good educators.

 

And honestly Ivan, the main thing I remember about federalism is that the American brand is more analogous to marble cake than to layer cake.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2013 by Nater

[JasonG]

The short summary is that focusing on conscientiousness, punctuality, resourcefulness, determination, etc and all the other things that engaged, responsible parents instill in their children in addition to academics seems to yield some encouraging results.

 

So we are expecting schools to raise our children now, in addition to teach them? Do we just ignore failed parenting because there is no solution?

 

 

[JayB]

The short summary is that focusing on conscientiousness, punctuality, resourcefulness, determination, etc and all the other things that engaged, responsible parents instill in their children in addition to academics seems to yield some encouraging results.

 

So we are expecting schools to raise our children now, in addition to teach them? Do we just ignore failed parenting because there is no solution?

 

 

There's a longform interview where the author talks about his findings at length here:

 

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/09/paul_tough_on_h.html

 

IIRC, he was arguing that research shows that values and attitudes are a far more reliable predictor of success and happiness than IQ, that conscientious/involved/responsible/educated parents do a way better job of instilling these qualities in their children outside of school, and this largely explains why their children tend to perform better in school and in the workforce - and then goes on to describe the studies where the disadvantaged kids who get this sort of education in "life skills" do much better than those who don't.

 

Whether schools can actually do that effectively, or at least effectively enough to mitigate some of the damage that their parents have done over the course of their lives is an open question, as far as I'm concerned, but the author seems convinced.

 

I mostly posted that because it's consistent with the larger idea that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the quality of the parents that determines the quality of the schools. If you could snap your fingers and swap the students at Phillips Exeter for those in the bombed-out, gang infested hell-hole of your choosing and keep the teachers the same in both places you'd see an instantaneous reversal in their results without having changed anything else. I'm convinced that there's no set of teachers bad enough that they can't be fixed by a wholesale infusion of first generation Chinese kids, and few-to-none good enough to salvage schools populated by children unfortunate enough to have been born to horrifically bad parents.

 

 

 

[G-spotter]

IIRC, he was arguing that research shows that values and attitudes are a far more reliable predictor of success and happiness than IQ,

 

You might want to read this one.

Childhood self-control is a good predictor of adult happiness, adult IQ AND adult success.

And it can be taught.

 

 

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2013/5/lifelong-impact-of-early-self-control

[E-rock]

The short summary is that focusing on conscientiousness, punctuality, resourcefulness, determination, etc and all the other things that engaged, responsible parents instill in their children in addition to academics seems to yield some encouraging results.

 

So we are expecting schools to raise our children now, in addition to teach them? Do we just ignore failed parenting because there is no solution?

 

 

So we're just supposed to let the cycle of poverty, crime, and violence in the inner cities continue because the current crop of kids' parents failed at parenting? Typical "bootstrap" mentality. "They get what they deserve."

[ivan]

And honestly Ivan, the main thing I remember about federalism is that the American brand is more analogous to marble cake than to layer cake.

 

walked in on my colleague the other day who teaches the Big Bull Loony Brains over in AP and she had a whole table of cakes n' cookies of every sort to make that there point

[ivan]

quality of teachers DOES matter, but as jay says, it is of much lesser import than the socio-economic background of the average student - a shitty teacher who doesn't care about his subject and is a hack at it to boot CAN rob a kid who's otherwise inclined to get a lot out of it, but only the rarest gem of a teacher is going to turn around the lot of folks w/ a huge deck of cards stacked against them

 

i've been on both ends of the spectrum - a school w/ 100% free and reduced lunch and most kids living at best w/ only a single parent, the rest w/ worse than that and currently at a school w/ most kids driving cars worth more than i make in 2 years - teachers and admins combine to create, if they're working well, a fertile, well-watered field - the kids are the seeds and you can't control the weather but so much

[JasonG]

So we're just supposed to let the cycle of poverty, crime, and violence in the inner cities continue because the current crop of kids' parents failed at parenting? Typical "bootstrap" mentality. "They get what they deserve."

 

Is that what I said? I'm mostly wondering what we are doing outside of the schools to deal with increasing parents ability to raise children better. Touchy subject, I know. Or, maybe you'd rather deal with the damage after it's done?

[JayB]

IIRC, he was arguing that research shows that values and attitudes are a far more reliable predictor of success and happiness than IQ,

 

You might want to read this one.

Childhood self-control is a good predictor of adult happiness, adult IQ AND adult success.

And it can be taught.

 

 

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2013/5/lifelong-impact-of-early-self-control

 

I'm already pretty familiar with the gist of the literature that the "marshmallow experiment" spawned.

 

The fact that it can be taught is hardly news either, as doing so has been a central component of parenting in functioning civilizations forever. I think that the novel part of Tough's argument isn't that self-control matters and that it can be taught, but that that public schools teaching disadvantaged students can and should make and extra effort to do so if they really want to help them learn and have a decent life.

 

I haven't read the book, but it all sounds much more plausible and well founded than the destructive tanker-load of BS that the self-esteem movement that education reformers in the 70s and 80s unleashed on the public school system, so if it drives out the last dregs of that disastrous experiment against reality then I'm all for it.

[ivan]

"but the power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy predispositions in which it is almost superfluous"

[ivan]

I'm mostly wondering what we are doing outside of the schools to deal with increasing parents ability to raise children better.

how does one crack that nut? hand over buckets of cash from the Overlords so that, for every stable family, one parent can assume the role of betty cleaver and not have to work? i love that plan, mind ye, just don't see how it's in the political cards in this here enlightened republic of ours.

[rob]

Are public schools outperforming private schools?

 

when controlling for demographic factors, public schools are doing a better job academically than private schools. It seems that private school students have higher scores because they come from more affluent backgrounds, not because the schools they attend are better educational institutions.

[JasonG]

how does one crack that nut? hand over buckets of cash from the Overlords so that, for every stable family, one parent can assume the role of betty cleaver and not have to work? i love that plan, mind ye, just don't see how it's in the political cards in this here enlightened republic of ours.

 

I have no idea, but I don't get paid to think of these things, and am not that smart anyways. Just curious if anyone has put forward any solutions. I suspect that schools being surrogate parents is about as good as we can hope for, considering the state of the nation.

 

Rob- thanks for the link, pretty fascinating. Maybe our lackluster schools here in Mount Vernon aren't such a bad deal after all....

[E-rock]

So we're just supposed to let the cycle of poverty, crime, and violence in the inner cities continue because the current crop of kids' parents failed at parenting? Typical "bootstrap" mentality. "They get what they deserve."

 

Is that what I said? I'm mostly wondering what we are doing outside of the schools to deal with increasing parents ability to raise children better. Touchy subject, I know. Or, maybe you'd rather deal with the damage after it's done?

 

Nope, that's not what you said. But the first part of your original question, "so are we expecting schools to raise our children now?", reminds me a of a lot of the anti-government, individualist rhetoric I hear in most discussions of public welfare. If that was not your intention I apologize.

 

If we can all agree that it's society's job to educate the next generation, and we can all agree that some parents are failing to give their children the most basic preparation necessary for them to succeed, then it follows that it's up to the schools to pick up the slack.

 

One of the biggest challenges we face is the balkanization of our education system. Each district relies on a local property tax base in most states, and any opportunities for shared resources or student/parent choice are so limited (aside from using a charter school system that skims the cream from the public schools and diverts public funds to private enterprises that don't produce better results when measured).

 

So as long as inner city kids are stuck in inner city schools, they at least deserved to have their emotional needs met in a way they're not met at home.

 

The parenting issue is damn-near intractable, and cannot be solved by social welfare programs nearly as effectively as breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect can be accomplished in our schools. Particularly when you consider that "bad-parenting" is often as simple as a single mother working 60 hours a week in a low-wage job, who comes from a broken home herself.

[JasonG]

Good points E.

 

What I was getting at is that I get tired of people blaming teachers for poor student performance. I'm not a teacher, but seeing my kids' classrooms, I have a good idea of the hand some teachers are dealt. The teachers try their best, but some kids aren't going to succeed given the circumstances. That isn't to say we shouldn't hold teachers to a high standard, but the harsh reality is that failing students don't necessarily mean failing teachers/schools.

 

However, I don't disagree that maybe the approach (as discussed above) for some kids/schools could be changed to be more effective. I just wonder if the push to mainstream everyone in the same classroom/curricula is really the best way forward.

[jordansahls]

Methinks it might be easier for teachers to deal with the emotional needs of their students if they didn't have 38 students in a classroom that's only supposed to have 20.