Book Review: Meeting Students Where They Live: Motivation in Urban Schools

Curwin, Richard L. Meeting Students Where They Live: Motivation in Urban Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 2010.

Curwin kicks off his advice book for urban teachers with a story about a king looking for a teacher for the prince. After testing all of the teachers in the land, the king selects the three finalists. One has the best content knowledge; another has the strongest classroom management and discipline. You have probably already guessed that it is the third teacher, who is not the strongest in either category but rather combines great skills with the philosophy that it is a teacher’s role to serve her/his pupil and society at large who wins the job.

While many of Curwins ideas and strategies would work in any school, his focus is on low-achieving, unmotivated urban youth. He is not arguing that urban youth are themselves low-achieving or unmotivated, nor does he argue that there are no low-achieving or unmotivated youth in the suburbs and the country. Instead, he recognizes that there are some students who live in conditions exasperated by urban poverty and violent neighborhoods. He recognizes that many students living in urban poverty have lost hope that their lives can be better that they are; that their lives can be better than the lives their parents live; or that education may be a way to pave a road to a brighter future.

The summary conclusions of Curwins book is that teachers are charged with helping our students learn and find a love of learning. To do this, he makes five recommendations:

First, curriculum should be tailored to meet each child’s individual needs. Teachers should use diagnostic evaluations to assess a child’s knowledge and skills given a topic and guide that child toward increased knowledge and stronger skills. Here, Curwin challenges current-trend thinking that says that curriculum should be more closely articulated, so that teachers in a similar discipline are teaching nearly the same material on a given day, enabling those teachers to later collaborate on student results. Curwin’s counter argument is not to challenge the data that is driving this current trend, but rather to trouble that data with the question, “Maybe it does work, but at what costs?” Curwin wants teachers, administrators, parents and law makers to wonder, “Is getting high test scores worth it, if learning is forgotten or if children learn to hate learning?”

Second, expectations should be high, but attainable for every student. Expectations that are too high lead to frustration and failure for struggling students. They learn to hate the subject and many decide to misbehave as a result. Curwin imagines a child thinking, “If I am so bad as being good or smart, then at least I can be really good at being bad.” Conversely, expectations that are too low lead to boredom.

Third, evaluations should diagnostic in nature. Little is accomplished, Curwin posits, in using summative evaluations to rank children, rewarding the best and punishing the worst. In fact, he argues, it runs contrary to motivation. Those students who need little motivation get lots of encouragement from the rewards, and those who need motivation rebel against the punishments.
Forth, everything a school does should be gear toward getting kids to want to learn. Contained within this concept are Curwin’s theories about discipline and classroom/school management. If the point of school is for children to learn, then it makes little sense to remove a child from a learning environment if the child is misbehaving. Instead, Curwin advises teachers to refer children to the principal only as a last resort. Curwin offers numerous tips and ideas about how to redirect misbehavior and offers perhaps his most interesting idea, the Altruism Consequence. Consequences are not punishments, Curwin states. Rather, they are the natural outcome of actions. When we hurt someone, the consequence is doing something nice for that person or for the class/school. Curwin believe that giving difficult youth opportunities to be good and help others will, in turn, heal the hurt and lead to higher levels of motivation for school.

Fifth, students need freedom and flexibility to explore their strengths and needs. In traditional schooling, adults decide on how children will spend their time, and how they will compete against one another for rewards and grades. Here, Curwin argues that some learning is better than no learning. There is little to be lost when a teacher lowers the bar for a child who has been stubbornly refusing to jump at all. Curwin believes that schools are currently over-emphasizing achievement, which ranks and kills motivation for low-achieving students. Instead, he thinks that teachers, principals and schools should emphasize effort, because achievement is the outcome of effort and, Curwin surmises, effort is the only factor that we can really control.

A new idea for Teacher Training

I believe studies that say that the most important, controllable factor in a child’s education is being in the classroom of a highly motivated, well-trained teacher. I believe that current education reforms aimed at achieving this are misguided and heading for disastrous, unintended consequences.

Current educational reform efforts are overly focused on the idea popularized by Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece comparing finding talented teachers to finding talented NFL players from the hundreds of college teams. In a nutshell, Gladwell posits that there is no reliable way to pre-determine who will and will not be talented before seeing players/teachers in action for a year or two. Gladwell’s proposal is to end teacher job security, and place hundreds of teachers in classrooms each year, keeping the ones who seem to be successful.

I see two major flaws in his proposal.

First, unlike NFL players, teachers do not sign a lucrative enough contract to bridge them from an unsuccessful tryout to their next career, nor are teachers paid nearly enough to attract the most talented applicants available. Instead, we count on an inner spark, or emotional desire to teach to attract young talent.

Second, the training that teachers receive is far too removed from their actual day-to-day practice when they enter their careers. College prospects are at least playing very-nearly the same game and their professional counterparts. Gladwell’s analogy is perhaps closer to scouting college baseball teams looking for NFL prospects.

Compensating teachers at a rate closer to what other professionals can expect is perhaps a solution to the talent-attraction problem. If teachers in the San Francisco Bay Area could expect the same $60,000 to $70,000 starting salary as their business-professional counterparts and could look forward to $100,000 to $120,000 top earning potential, then our profession might attract some of the top talent that is currently more attracted to business.

Training emerging teaching in a longer, more intensive way would go a long way to approximating teacher training to similar professions.

I propose that teaching interns be placed with cooperating/master teachers for a three-year experience. The first year would be intensive training in pedagogy and classroom management that the teaching candidate could see modeled in their mater teacher’s classroom. The second year would be a paid internship where the master teacher and candidate shared responsibilities for a group of students. The candidate could plan units of study and individual lessons with the help of their master teacher. The candidate could also receive on-going training in educational psychology and sociology. Finally, in the third year, candidates would begin a one or two year residency, being paid lower wages, but completely in control of their classrooms and intensively evaluated by the school administration, their master teacher, and their peers. After passing a Bar-exam-like experience, then the newly tenured teacher would receive a large bump in salary – the big pay-off to warrant this now-more difficult journey into the profession.

In one way, Gladwell would get his way. Master teachers, school administrations, local communities, and the candidate her/himself would have ample opportunities to decide that this profession was not a good fit. Newly tenured teachers would be far better trained and prepared for the real job of teaching children. At the same time, the profession of teaching would finally be compensated like comparable professions. Best of all, students would have better-trained teachers who were far more likely to stay in the classroom far beyond the typical 5-year mark that presently sees 50% of our young professionals wash-out.

We should Replace Teacher Tenure with Something that Makes More Sense

A resurgent trend among self-professed education reformers is to blame teacher unions for the poor state of public education.  The accusation is that teacher unions overly protect lazy teachers, negotiating teacher tenure provisions on their contracts that make it near-impossible to fire even the very worst teachers.

Perhaps it is time to change teacher tenure into something that makes more sense.

Can't we all agree that school districts need some time to try-out new teachers and see if they are a fit for the school?

Can't we all agree that if, after the above mentioned probationary period, schools should still be able to fire a teacher.  I think even teachers would agree and only ask that the teacher is made aware of the reasons why s/he is being fired and is given a chance to fix the problem before s/he is actually fired.  This all sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Can't we all agree that some folks, even school administrators, can be petty and mean.  I mean we all know someone who has had a boss who was just out for blood.  Maybe you showed up your boss in front of her boss; maybe your boss was racist/homophobic/liberal and just didn't like your skin color/sexual habits/conservative politics.  That boss shouldn't be able to make up reasons to fire you right?  If they did, you should have the ability to appeal the decision, right?

Can't we all agree, then, that teachers should have the right to appeal a decision to fire them, too?

Sounds reasonable?

Okay, so to sum up: We replace teacher tenure with a 3 part system like this:

1. New teachers are on probation for a year or two so that schools can just try them out

2. After the probation period is over, schools can still fire teachers, but the teacher must know the charges and be given a chance to fix the problem.

3. Teachers can appeal the decision.

Done.

Best Practices

I am resistant to the concept of an instructional strategy being labeled as a so-called best practice.  I understand the methods used to derive such a label.  A particular classroom-management technique or instructional method seems to be successful for many different teachers in many different classrooms.  As the number of teachers seeming to have success with the method or technique increases, the technique or method earns the status of "best practice."

Don't get me wrong...  I am not saying that these management techniques or instructional methods are mislabeled or fraudulent.  On the contrary, I love finding new management techniques and instructional strategies that seem to be having broad success.  

My argument is this...  Too often, education professionals search-for, covet, promote these "best practices" as if this technique or these instructional methods are a silver-bullet cure or the holy grail of education reform.  

Do not seek wise people.  Seek what they sought.

Instead of searching for a silver-bullet fix to our classrooms and schools, we should look at the methods by which teachers developed their best practices and adopt those methods to create our own best practices.  Those educational guru's studies different management techniques and instructional methods and found ones that seemed to be working.  This is what we should do in our classrooms and schools.

Teams of teachers who share the same curriculum (all of the 10th Grade English Teachers for example) should research what instructional methods or classroom management techniques seem to be working for their kids.  Ones that seem to be successful should inform those teachers who seem to be experiencing less success in their classroom.  For example, Mr. Jones might ask Ms. Wong, "How did you teach your lesson about Thesis Statements?  From looking at their formative assessments, I see that my kids didn't seem to get it, while yours seemed to do much better.  When I re-teach Thesis Statements to my classes, I would like to try a new lesson based one some of the methods you used."

This is a WONDERFUL conversation teams of teachers who share common curriculum could have.  Together, the team could do their own research based on the performances of their own students.  Together, they can analyze the relative success and needs of their own students.  Together, they can talk about interventions and re-teaching.

What makes this method better than finding the Holy Grail Of Thesis Statement Lessons is this: we all know that classes of students change from year to year.  A lesson that worked gang-busters in 2007 may seem to not be working in 2010.  With a method in place where teachers can do their own professional research on their own classes, we achieve the real Holy Grail of Education (higher performing students).

Creating a method that I describe above isn't easy. 

It takes a major shift in teacher-thinking.  Teachers need to stop thinking that they are a lone professional working in isolation.  Teaching was not developed as an isolated profession because that is how teachers thought we would work best.  Teaching is an isolated profession because in the 1800's there was only the need for one teacher for the community.  In 2010, teachers need to redefine themselves as members of a team of professionals.  The team are all of the teachers that share either students or curriculum.

Teacher teams need to have agreements about some alignment of their practice.  This sticks in the craw of many teachers who push back saying, "Do not turn me into a Wal-Mart employee!"  On the contrary, if teams of professional teachers can agree on what goals should be taught, and what formative and summative assessments will best inform the team of how well students are achieving the goals, then teachers can use their skills and knowledge in designing different instructional methods, management techniques, and interventions for students who are not achieving.

Then teacher teams can have their own research-based conversations and find their own best practices.

One Step Forward – two steps back.

Yesterday, I read the proposed National Standards for teaching Literacy in History/Social Studies.  I was bowled over by how bold and visionary these standards were.

First, there was not one mention, not one, of any fact, historical figure, war, event, or date in these standards.  I think this is a good thing.  Over the next ten years, access to quick and easy information is going to become even more ubiquitous.  In my freshmen history class in Oakland CA, it seems like I am the only one without a phone that can access the Internet.  My students can Google facts as fast and I can ask questions.  Ask them to remember those facts, however, and they seem stymied. 

While their relatively small bank of easily recalled facts makes the digital generation seem less intelligent than their Boomer grandparents, this new generation is intelligent in profoundly new and different ways than any previous.  Notice I avoided a qualitative measurement of “better” or “more” to counter the commonly held description of “less intelligent.”  It’s not that this new generation will beat or loose to their predecessors in the intelligence game – it’s that this new generation is playing an entirely new game.  While it has been the number and accuracy of recalled facts that determined the relative smarts of Boomers and Gen-Xer’s, the digital generation will measure itself based on how individual manipulate information and knowledge to create something new.

This is where the new National Standards have demonstrated extraordinary vision.  As the volume of information continues to grown from a stream to a river to a flood, users of information need to learn how to be more wary in these now-treacherous waters.  Anticipating this, the proposed National Standards will ask middle school students to be able to, “identify aspects of a text that reveal an author’s point of view or purpose,” and to be able to, “distinguish between fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a historical account.” Later, in the first half of high school, they should be able to, “compare the point of view of two or more authors by comparing how they treat the same or similar historical topics,” and “assess the extent to which the evidence in a text supports the author’s claims.”  Finally, by graduation, they should be able to, “evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors’ claims, evidence, and reasoning,” and “evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other sources of information.”  Given the amount of incorrect and fraudulent information available on the Internet, these are rapidly becoming survival skills for citizens.

One of the reasons why traditional standards for history have remained dominated by a laundry list of facts is because it is cheap and easy to test the memorization of facts.  Despite all of the uproar over testing, test scores and how these measures should give us an accurate picture of how our children are learning, California spends less than three dollars per child, each year testing.  Given the sheer number of children to be tested and given the current budget crisis that seems to exist each and every year, it is hard to argue against efficiency.  However, it seems reasonable to ask a question, “Isn’t finding a detailed picture of how our children are learning worth more than a latte?” 

“Professional Historians DON’T take quizzes!” is a poster than hangs in my freshmen history class at Skyline High School in Oakland, California.  My students pride themselves on the fact that they have never read Section 4 of Chapter 8 of their textbook in order to answer the six questions at the end of the section and study for a quiz on Friday. 

When my freshmen open their textbooks, they turn first to the index.  This is because when they open the book they are hunting for more information about ancient Mesopotamia to help them understand Hammurabi’s Code, or more information about the Roman Empire to help them understand Suetonius’ description of the water projects undertaken during the reign of Claudius.  They do this work while researching and writing about deep, complex questions such as, “How did the need for a steady supply of water effect the technological, political, economic, and legal development of the world’s first civilizations?”

Real historians research and analyze primary sources.  They determine the relative bias and trustworthiness of their sources and use the information they find to create and publish answers to deep questions.  This is what we train our freshmen to do at Skyline High School and this is what is being asked of history teachers under the proposed national standards for teaching literacy in history/social studies.

Alaska and Texas did not send delegates to create the new national standards.  Texas’s governor decried that no one other than Texans should determine what Texan children learn.

The same day the proposed National Standards were published, Texas’s School Board entered what will become a fierce debate about the state’s new standards for History and Social Studies.

According to a New York Times article on the Texas proposal will, “include a section on ‘the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.’”  Additionally, the article mentions that, “References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.”

While some political conservative may laud replacing what they see as a liberal bias to history with one that is more in line with their values; while political liberals may decry what they see is a biasing of history, I am disappointed on a more fundamental level.  Texan children are still going to be forced to memorize discreet facts about history.  Additionally, the volume of textbook purchased by Texas may give their standards as much, or perhaps more, weight than the proposed National Standards.

The proposed National Standards are a step forward into a new generation and a new area of knowledge and learning that acknowledges the reality of easily accessed information and demands that next-generation thinkers are better prepared to find, analyze, and utilize that information.  In Texas, the school board is squabbling over which set, or perhaps whose set, of discreet facts we make young people memorize.  While Texas remains mired in pre-Guttenberg ways of thinking about education and learning, nationally, we seem be poised to embrace the digital age and prepare our young scholars for the future.

Are Great Teachers Born or Made?

 After reading the NY Times Magazine article here:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?ref=magazine

I ordered the book Teach Like a Champion.  I liked some of the items on the Taxonomy.  I've been using the cold-call questioning technique for years and I like how it gets every mind in the room thinking about the question because every mind in the room is worried about if she/he will be called on.  I like the use of positive classroom management: identifying how we would like children to behave and a right way of being rather than focusing on behavior problems.

I think that the combination of strong content knowledge so that the teacher can provide just-in-time instruction is as important as the ability to manage the classroom environment.

I want to believe that having a rubric of teacher behaviors that are proven effective (or "best practices" as my admin loves to say) will be enough to raise student achievement.  However, I wonder if the article and the book haven't missed a step.  Each of the effective teachers that Lemov studied and identified these techniques from went through a process where by they developed the technique in the first place.  What was that process?  How can we lead our teachers-in-training through a similar experience to develop their skills.

I guess what I am saying is this - My cohort of student teachers all read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, loved it, put our student desks into a circle, and expected that so-called best practice to solve our classroom woes.  Too few of us tried to deeply understand the process by which Freire decided that he wanted his students to sit in a circle.  To few of us wanted to deeply explore our unique teaching circumstances and develop techniques that work with our students. 

Discovery is More Powerful than Instruction

I remember when I was a child carrying rocks in a bucket.  My friends and I were building a dirt and stone city for our matchbox cars to drive in and I was carrying away some of the rubble from our construction.  I was swinging the bucket back and forth and felt that the dirt was pulling away from my hand as I swung the bucket.  Fascinated by this, I swung the bucket faster and higher until I could swing the bucket around in circles without any rocks falling out, even when the bucket was upside down and over my head.

As soon as I got home, I showed my dad my great discovery.  While my physicist father knew that centrifugal force had been discovered long before I was born, he also knew that in my limited experience, this was a new discovery.  All my father did was beam with pride and pleasure that his son had made a discovery and was in awe of the world around him.

Imagine the different experience I would have had if my father had sat me down for a lecture about centrifugal force instead of experiencing my discovery.

Traditional classrooms operate under a broadcast paradigm.  The assumed expert (the teacher, book, film, etc…) imparts information that the student-consumer is supposed to absorb.  Periodically, the route is reversed and the student must broadcast her information back to the teacher for evaluation.  The more the two broadcasts match, the higher the grade.

Unlike Boomers and Gen X'ers, children born into a digital world are not passive consumers of broadcasts.  They may still listen to music or watch television, but they spend far more time than any previous generation interacting with the media they consume.  They don’t listen to the Top-10 on a radio; they create their own custom play list on their iPod.  They don’t channel surf, they surf the Internet. 

Classroom 2.0 should focus on interaction and discovery and forgo broadcast.  In my social studies class, we are beginning to make this change.  Instead of listening to lectures about ancient China, Mesopotamia, Rome, or Egypt, my students interact with primary source documents.  They read Suetonius’s description of the water projects undertaken by Emperor Claudius and the Code of Hammurabi.  They look at aerial photographs of drainage ditches in Italy and satellite images of ancient levees in Mesopotamia.  They do this in order to write an essay that answers the question, “How did the need for water effect the technological, political, economic, and legal development of the world’s first civilizations?”

They struggle mightily with these documents.  They ask lots of questions of me and of their teams.  I have heard, “I don’t get it” countless times.  They have gotten frustrated with me because I wont “just tell [them] the answer.”  There have even been a few tears.  However, when we hit that moment of discovery; when my students get, really get, that they can see the political and economic cooperation among the city-states of Mesopotamia because the levees are vast and intersect with each other; that moment is indescribable.  They don’t need me to tell them that I am proud of them, because they are proud of themselves.  They don’t need me to be proud of them, but I am.  All I can do is beam with pride and pleasure at my students who have made a discovery and are in awe of the world around them.