Taking Up Writing in Retirement

Recently, a friend of mine on Facebook posted someone's comment about being a writer.  The professional writer was offended, because the person said that, after their retirement, they planned to try writing a book.  The professional writer thought that was akin to them reversing the tables and saying that, after retirement, they wanted to take up brain surgery. 

I understand the reason for the feeling of offense.  The professional writer has taken years to master a very difficult craft.  They feel that those years are devalued when the newly retired person claims that they can write a book, too - as if all of those years of work by the professional are worth nothing. 

But, I feel the sting of the criticism, too.  5 years ago, I started writing music.  To the person who has been writing music for many years and honing their craft, this might be perceived as devaluing the number of years it took for them to get where they are.  But, for me, it just doesn't feel that way.  I am astounded that I can actually write a song.  I realize all too well that my songs, so far, have been simplistic and unlikely to appeal to a wide audience.  I am amazed that some of them have actually been enjoyed by several different audiences.   Rather than making me devalue the years professional song-writers spent to develop their craft, it has made me appreciate MORE how difficult it is to write a song that is really good. 

So, to the author who is offended that some totally inexperienced writer thinks s/he might want to write a book, I say:  let them go to it.  They will soon realize that good books are hard to write and they will appreciate your skill even more.

Creativity through Structure

I taught in a school district where the art teachers at individual elementary schools were cut back. Instead, they had 4 art specialists who developed self-contained art lessons and put them in poster-board sized zip bags. Any time a new lesson was added to the range of available lessons, the art specialist would go around to the teachers who taught that grade level and teach them how to teach the lesson.  

I was initially a bit skeptical about these lessons.  In many ways, they were quite structured.  For example, one of the lessons commemorates a bridge that was built in the town.  I believe the bridge was built for the 100th anniversary of something relating to the town's history.  The zip bag included laminated posters talking about the history of the bridge.  There were also directions for the students to follow to make their own "bridges".  They had to use black construction paper for the background and they were to cut out a certain number of 3 different shapes - I think the number was 30 small pieces of each shape, but I don't remember exactly.  Then, they were to develop a repeating pattern to span the paper as a bridge.  

The results of this admittedly structured activity surprised me every time I saw them.  Since the lesson was part of their state history study (probably 4th grade), most of the 4th grades throughout the district would do this project at some time during the year.  As a sub, I would frequently see the results of the lesson in various buildings and with various 4th grades.  The results were anything but mundane and I must admit surprised me every time. The strict structure of the lesson and the materials actually seemed to bring out MORE creativity in the students than the freedom to "paint/draw whatever you want".

I have more frequently seen the results of lack of structure in writing.  It is very common for teachers to give subs what they consider to be an "easy" day.  Students are told that the students are to have a "free writing" day.  They can write whatever they want.  This is paralyzing for many students, and actually often difficult for subs.  Many students have NO idea at all what to write and the sub doesn't know the children well enough to make appropriate suggestions.   

For me, it works better if, like in the art lesson above, there is quite a bit of structure, but an element of choice within that structure.  One of the better writing lessons I was given to do was to have the students write a persuasive essay (structure) on one of 5 possible topics (limited choice).  Another lesson that worked well was to have the students write a friendly letter (structure and form) to a teacher they had had in that school (limited choice) for teacher appreciation day (structured topic).  To that basic outline, I added that, if they could remember an especially outstanding incident or specific interaction, that would really bring a smile to the teacher.    

For me, it seems that you actually see more creativity and even higher quality creativity when there is structure, but some choice within the basics of the structure.

High Standards

I hear it a lot - teachers need to hold students to high standards, but I often wonder what they really mean by that.  One interpretation could be that we need to have goals that are substantial and make sure that kids are encouraged to meet those goals.  The problem is, sometimes the goals are so specific that we can check them off of a checklist, but students still aren't doing as well as they need to be.  They may have accomplished that specific goal for that specific time period, but the learning isn't being incorporated into their overall education. 

A while back, I subbed for a class where the students were supposed to do some writing.  On September 7th, I wrote a post about handwriting.  5th grade students were supposed to write a conclusion for a science activity they had done.  Only they couldn't print correctly; they couldn't write sentences correctly; and most of their conclusions were superficial and even inaccurate.  So, what do teachers typically do?  They give the students a grade for the conclusion and move on.

I see lots of kids' writing.  Most of the time, it is far below what I think students at that grade level should be able to produce.  I was in a fourth grade the other day and was looking at students' writing.  They were doing a final draft, before typing up their pieces on the computer (which is backwards in my mind, but that is for another post).  This was a very good school and the problems weren't huge, but still, how much should the kids be held to producing quality work?  Should everything on the page be spelled correctly?  Should the grammar be correct?  Should paragraphing be correct?

One boy wrote with very poetic language.  He was writing a fable and the ideas and organization of the story were fabulous.  His spelling was atrocious.  How much should we hold him to correct spelling?  Does it hurt his development as a writer to make him spell correctly on his final copy?  My personal bias is to frankly tell him that his writing, and especially his word choice, is fabulous, but his spelling is atrocious.  In order for people to really appreciate his wonderful writing, he needs to spell correctly, so that people can understand and appreciate what he is saying, without being distracted by misspelled words.  I corrected his spelling, but honestly told him what a great fable he had written.

How many times should we go over students' writing?  One girl had the beginning of a good story.  I was there the day she was working on her final draft.  I could see it was getting much better than her original draft (both were available).  How many times should a teacher have her go back and revise her work?  What is the meaning of a high standard in this respect?  She seemed capable of going at it again - should we have her do so? 

I don't usually get to see the whole process, since I am just subbing, but I often wonder what high standards mean in this respect.  And, are we holding the kids to them? 

Re: Things We Should Stop Doing to High-Ability Students

Original article by Tamar Wyschogrod
http://smokingtowardnewjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/five-things-we-should-stop-doing-to.html?spref=tw 

I have a couple of minor complaints about this article and some major comments. 

First of all, a minor complaint:  in the second paragraph, I think high-ability is equated with high-achieving. They are IMNSHO different things.  I don't object to the use of high-ability to equate to "gifted", but high-ability does not necessarily translate to high-achieving.  And high-achieving does not necessarily translate to high-ability.  That last statement needs to be explained a bit more.  While it does take a certain amount of ability in order to achieve highly, in most of the things required for school, a modest amount of ability combined with hard work and support from parents, teachers, or peers is sufficient to result in high-achievement, or at least noticeably above average achievement.

Secondly, crappy differentiation is crappy, because it is difficult, takes time, and is politically a hard sell with kids.  I have written quite a few times about the problems with touting differentiation as the solution for high-ability students.  Check the tag if you are interested, but basically, it simply isn't enough for HG+ students, teachers can't do it (conceptually difficult), and teachers don't do it (not enough time).  

I haven't ever addressed specifically the last point of the above paragraph's opening statement:  differentiation is politically a hard sell with kids.  There are a few kids, for whom getting something different is such a relief that they don't care how their classmates view it.  There are also a few kids who take getting something different to mean that they are somehow better than their classmates.  But, IME, a lot of the students react to getting something different with either embarrassment or reluctance.  They might be embarrassed because they are afraid that their classmates will take the view that they are "stuck up" or they might be embarrassed that they are singled out - "out"ed, as a smart kid, when they were just trying to "pass".  And, there are a lot of high-ability kids who look at differentiation as just more work for them to do (as the author points out).  Given a list of options for projects, they choose the easy ones, even though they aren't very challenging, because they are less work.  Not all high-ability kids WANT higher challenge work.  

Now for the rest of the article.

Group Projects.  Yes, in general, these are the bane of the high-ability students.  This comes largely from the teacher-training recommendations for group constitutions - one high-ability student, two average students, one low ability student.  High-ability student can sometimes cajole one average student into helping, but oftentimes ends up doing most of the work.  What does the low ability student learn?  That s/he is too dumb to help and it is best to just clown around so that the others don't notice.  One teacher inservice that I attended said that group projects aren't themselves the problem.  It is the make-up of the groups.  She recommended never including high-ability students with low-ability students.  Her recommendation: groups of four should have similar abilities, e.g., one or two high ability students and 2 or 3 moderate ability students.  That way, the lower ability groups can't get away with doing little or nothing, and the teacher might be able to adjust the project so that they, too, learn something (differentiation).  

Crappy Differentiation.  Already discussed.

Contests instead of Curriculum.  I like contests.  They can be interesting and motivating for gifted kids.  But I agree that they are no substitute for curriculum.  But just regular classroom differentiated curriculum isn't good enough.  It isn't challenging enough, it isn't (usually) at the correct level, and it isn't consistent enough.  High-ability kids need real and regular work.  It isn't fair to make the average kids work hard at learning and let the high-ability kids coast.  They don't learn good work habits.  They don't learn how to react to difficulties.  They don't learn how to learn.  That is why I am actually opposed to gifted advocates insisting on touting differentiation.  It isn't working.  High-ability kids need classes designed for their abilities.  The easiest way to do this is by structural changes - subject acceleration, whole grade acceleration, grouping across multiple classes, and possibly cluster-grouping.  I am still uncertain about cluster-grouping, because, as a sub,  I have yet to see it in action.  

Ignoring Their Achievements

This isn't a biggie with me.  I think schools are doing better at touting achievements of high-ability kids.  Yes, in some cases, it still feels like tokenism, but this is one area where I think schools have been reasonably responsive.  

Low Standards

It seems like, in many classrooms, there is a race to the bottom.  We don't want the low-ability kids to feel bad, so we teach lessons where all kids can achieve.  We don't require good spelling in science class, because there are kids who simply can't spell well (true, even for high-ability kids).  We don't check social studies tests for correct grammar, because it is a chore to even get them to write in complete sentences, let alone write a paragraph that is longer than two sentences.  We make tests so that everyone who learns the material can get an A.  (relevant discussion on LinkedIn Math Education).  And most importantly, we don't give teachers enough time to hold kids to higher standards.  You can't teach kids to write well, if, every time you ask them to write, you have to spend hours and hours of your own personal time - not planning time - grading those papers.  30 students X 3 minutes per paper ==> 1 1/2 hours of grading for one paper in one subject.  That is the ENTIRE planning time for 3 days.  

Thanks for some interesting food for thought to Tamar Wyschogrod.

Handwriting

OK, I get it that teachers are no longer teaching cursive.  That curriculum has been pushed out with the emphasis on the language arts block and the math block, leaving little time for cursive writing.  It is even a struggle to include social studies and science.  But this rant is aimed at teaching PRINTING.  I have subbed for 3rd through 6th graders recently.  In each of these classes, the MAJORITY of the students didn't even print correctly on their papers.  There was a mixture of capital and small letters, with B's and P's being the biggest culprits, but many other letters capitalized at random.  One student even wrote half of her B's correctly, but the other half incorrectly.  When I asked her why she didn't write them correctly, she said she didn't think it was important.

Another boy, who did the same thing said that he usually types things on the computer.  Ah, ha!  A clue.  Has auto-correct gotten to be so good that students don't even notice when they are typing the wrong thing?  Of course, on the computer, it is easier not to type capital letters at all.  MS Word will even correct sentences to automatically capitalize the first word.  Some students don't even seem to know that the word "I" is always capitalized.  And, they seem unconcerned by all of their errors.

The assignment for the 5th graders was to write up a science experiment.  Specifically, they were to write a conclusion, with three requirements:  1) they had to restate their hypothesis, 2) they had to include their data, and 3) they had to use complete sentences.  They could also state whether their hypothesis was supported or not and whether their experiment seemed to be reliable.  Only about 5 of the students managed to write a conclusion what was acceptable their first time around.  Many of the write-ups were almost illegible.  To be fair, it would have helped if the worksheet had included lines on which to write the conclusion, and it is the beginning of the school year.  Still, I felt justified, even as a sub, in sending them back to improve their written conclusions.

There are still times when students will need to use printing, as far as I can tell.  I think teachers should hold students to printing the letters with correct capitalization - and spacing, which was another problem I haven't even touched on.  One word would run right into another word and it was hard to decipher which word was which, because, frequently, both were misspelled.  Even the word "hypothesis" was usually misspelled - and it was there for them to simply copy.

Tugs at My Heart

I am not sure how to post this so that there is absolutely no chance that the person in question would find it and feel exposed.

I subbed for a class the other day that was working on persuasive writing.  They were supposed to write a persuasive essay about something they would really like to have from their parents.  As I was helping one student structure the essay, the only thing that s/he could think of that s/he wanted was for her family to spend more time together so that they would love each other more and not fight as much.  I almost cried as I worked with him/her.

And, the question came to me, how could I help this child?  I am a sub and I don't have any chance for long term input.  I told the teacher next door about the essay.  And I looked for a counselor (but didn't find one).  I wrote a note to the regular teacher, but, due to many factors, she probably won't be able to follow up on it much.

So, there is this post.  Please love your family.