There is a thread going on LinkedIn about how much subs around the United States and elsewhere get paid. As I wrote about before, Sub Pay, supply teachers in Australia get paid nearly the same rate as regular teachers, sometimes a bit more, to compensate for the fact that their jobs are less certain.
Teachers around the US are reporting that sub pay here ranges from around $60 per day to around $150 in the larger cities. This is TERRIBLE. Even those making the higher amounts, are making less than poverty level wages in their areas. For some substitute teachers, an increase in the minimum wage would mean that the schools would have to raise their pay as well.
Parents: your children will be taught approximately a full year by substitute teachers in the years between Kindergarten and graduation from high school. Administrators: you are paying your subs less than your cafeteria workers, your custodians, your clerical staff, and your teacher aides - are you wondering why you can't find all the subs you need?
Many of the substitute teachers who teach America's children are certified teachers. Virtually all substitute teachers are college educated. When they are in the schools, substitute teachers frequently do similar work to what the regular teachers do. Why don't they get comparable pay for comparable work? It is true that they don't have the same jobs as regular teachers. Regular teachers have huge time investments in lesson plans, grading, parent contact, and teachers' meetings. On the other hand, subs, as evidenced by various threads on LinkedIn, also do a lot of lesson planning, purchasing of materials for "just in case", and teacher contact, most of which is completely uncompensated.
Subs also have additional challenges that regular teachers do not. They need to be ready to teach a wide range of subjects and age groups at a moment's notice. They have to be able to discern and apply the various regulations and procedures of the schools they are at. And no, they are not all alike or even similar. Subs often have to be prepared for substantial changes in lesson plans - a cancelled assembly, an unscheduled interruption, or even the occasions when lesson plans are missing entirely. And this is, unfortunately, NOT rare. Regular teachers know what can fill that time - subs sometimes have no idea - they don't know what has already been covered or what is planned for the future.
Subs have special challenges when dealing with kids with special needs. Teacher very often do not leave a list of the children who have special needs and how to deal with them. They don't mention the times various children leave the classroom for extra classes. I have had teachers tell me that I don't need to worry about Child X, because she has a full time aide - only to find that the full time aide is sick and also has a sub (or they couldn't get one) and you just have to deal with it. What are you supposed to do with a child with a ODD diagnosis, when they refuse to do anything you ask and start eating bits of dirt off the ground to see what you will do? Especially when you have 30 other children in the class and are supposed to be teaching a social studies lesson and the teacher left no information other than the diagnosis.
And, most of all subs have to be especially discerning about all of the students. They haven't had weeks or months to get to know them. They have a few minutes and a lot of students. They don't know one child's parents are going through a divorce or that another child's grandmother just died. They don't know the kids, but they have to understand them as much as possible anyway.
As one other sub has commented, substitute teachers rarely get training by the district. There is usually a substitute training session of a half to a full day at the beginning of the year - and that is it. Subs usually are not invited to attended district teacher training institutes; they are not instructed on the use of new tools, such as white boards. In many places, they are not given sign ons for the computers, nor keys to the classrooms, nor codes to use the copiers. They do not get training for the new curricula.
Finally, not only do subs not have guaranteed work or income, they also get no sick days and no benefits. In a country where health care is frequently tied to one's job, subs are left on their own for health care, which can be hugely expensive, because the sub is not part of a larger group, such as a teachers' union. Individual plans are typically costly.
Subs are vastly underpaid.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Supreme Court Buffer Zone Ruling
This
is the thing I keep thinking about the SCOTUS ruling about buffer
zones. You aren't infringing on someone's speech to require them to do
so at a certain distance from a public passage - they can still speak as
much as they want. If the person passing through wants to hear, they
can, of their own volition, walk towards the people who are speaking.
What you are doing is REQUIRING the person passing through to listen,
since we can't turn off our ears. There is, however, NO requirement in the
constitution that we have to listen to what someone is saying. By doing away with the buffer zone, they are essentially requiring someone to listen.
Furthermore, you are NOT guaranteed an audience or forum for your speech by the constitution. A newspaper is NOT required to publish anything you wish to say. You are not allowed to address people in any public place that you want. Even libraries have rules about speech. If you have something you wish to say, it is your job to make sure that people want to listen to you. No one should be required to listen.
Furthermore, you are NOT guaranteed an audience or forum for your speech by the constitution. A newspaper is NOT required to publish anything you wish to say. You are not allowed to address people in any public place that you want. Even libraries have rules about speech. If you have something you wish to say, it is your job to make sure that people want to listen to you. No one should be required to listen.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
To Label or Not to Label Gifted Kids
There is an active debate about labeling gifted kids going on right now in The Brain Cafe on Facebook. I gave my opinion to start with and it is similar to the opinion I expressed in a recent blog hop. (See May posts.)
I am a bit dismayed that we keep having this debate over and over and over again. Should we use the word gifted? Should we identify gifted kids? Shouldn't we just give services to anyone who needs them?
Well, yes, ideally, we would just give services to anyone who needs them. But, in case people haven't noticed, that isn't the way most schools work. Funding isn't just allocated for some amorphous program to help kids with their needs. That is regular school and it isn't really adequate for gifted kids. I have complained loudly and frequently about the fact that regular teachers can't and don't differentiate enough for gifted kids. And, no, it is NOT just a matter of more training. You can come up with all the "should"s that you want - it isn't happening. Teachers SHOULD differentiate for their outlier kids. They don't. There SHOULD be resources available for teachers to use with their outlier kids. There aren't. Teachers SHOULD take time to help the outlier kids with their specific needs. They don't HAVE the time. So which outlier kids actually get services? The kids with labels. BD, ESL, ELL, LD, etc. Maybe it SHOULDn't be that way, but it is. If you want a gifted program, you need labels. Within those labels, there can be a huge range of flexibility.
Personally, I am staying out of the theoretical argument now. I can see the theory both ways. But I want results and I want to see them across the board, not just in the best or most exemplary schools. From what I can see, you need labels, you need specific identification, and you need specific programs - programs targeted to labeled kids. We need specific programs to target the kids who are labeled GT, in addition to all of the other labeled programs.
I am a bit dismayed that we keep having this debate over and over and over again. Should we use the word gifted? Should we identify gifted kids? Shouldn't we just give services to anyone who needs them?
Well, yes, ideally, we would just give services to anyone who needs them. But, in case people haven't noticed, that isn't the way most schools work. Funding isn't just allocated for some amorphous program to help kids with their needs. That is regular school and it isn't really adequate for gifted kids. I have complained loudly and frequently about the fact that regular teachers can't and don't differentiate enough for gifted kids. And, no, it is NOT just a matter of more training. You can come up with all the "should"s that you want - it isn't happening. Teachers SHOULD differentiate for their outlier kids. They don't. There SHOULD be resources available for teachers to use with their outlier kids. There aren't. Teachers SHOULD take time to help the outlier kids with their specific needs. They don't HAVE the time. So which outlier kids actually get services? The kids with labels. BD, ESL, ELL, LD, etc. Maybe it SHOULDn't be that way, but it is. If you want a gifted program, you need labels. Within those labels, there can be a huge range of flexibility.
Personally, I am staying out of the theoretical argument now. I can see the theory both ways. But I want results and I want to see them across the board, not just in the best or most exemplary schools. From what I can see, you need labels, you need specific identification, and you need specific programs - programs targeted to labeled kids. We need specific programs to target the kids who are labeled GT, in addition to all of the other labeled programs.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Money and Politics
From my little corner of the US, I am sadly very discouraged about the current state of American politics. The huge corporations and moneyed industries enjoy huge influence on the directions that laws take. People without endless pockets of money get shafted over and over again. The only hope we lesser people have of influencing policy and law is through banding together and voting, but even that hope is constantly eroding, due to gerrymandering, political advertising designed to confuse voters, and conflating religion into issues that it should remain separate from.
I contribute to progressive causes, feminist causes, and environmental causes. Since I make very little money as a substitute teacher, I shouldn't even contribute as much as I already do. But even with these progressive causes, it isn't my opinion that counts, it is my money. They count contributors; they count contributions. They pretend to count opinion, but even with the progressive fund raisers, they don't really care about your opinion, they just want your money.
A while back, I vowed that I would contribute money to any of the causes that I already support, if they sent me ONE chance to sign their petitions WITHOUT also asking for money. So far, I haven't had to pay up. They have a minor interest in numbers of signers - the more signers, the more people get on the bandwagon. But what they really are interested in is the money.
Always the money.
I contribute to progressive causes, feminist causes, and environmental causes. Since I make very little money as a substitute teacher, I shouldn't even contribute as much as I already do. But even with these progressive causes, it isn't my opinion that counts, it is my money. They count contributors; they count contributions. They pretend to count opinion, but even with the progressive fund raisers, they don't really care about your opinion, they just want your money.
A while back, I vowed that I would contribute money to any of the causes that I already support, if they sent me ONE chance to sign their petitions WITHOUT also asking for money. So far, I haven't had to pay up. They have a minor interest in numbers of signers - the more signers, the more people get on the bandwagon. But what they really are interested in is the money.
Always the money.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Supreme Court
No, I haven't read the rulings and I don't know all of the details, but I am truly disgusted at the Supreme Court's recent rulings in regard to women's health care.
1) The elimination of the buffer zones around clinics. The Supreme Court has its own buffer zone. These clinics have been the target of significant amounts of violence, including murder. Police have been unable to keep staff and visitors to the clinics safe. The buffer zones were workable help. Surely the protesters are still allowed to protest, but there is no guarantee in the first amendment that people have to listen. Nor should the physical safety of the staff and visitors be so blatantly threatened. Buffer zones exist in other circumstances as well. This was a bad decision.
2) Hobby Lobby and contraceptives. I don't want employers to be deciding on women's health care. Period. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, this is a very slippery slope. Additional questions: So, is it now legal to ask potential employers what their personal beliefs on birth control are? Will they be required to disclose to applicants that their insurance policies are incomplete?
"Still, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University, closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce and accounted for slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- of economic output from the private sector."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../a-lot-of-people-could.../
In other words, over half of the American workforce could be affected by this decision.
I am disgusted.
__________________________________
Addendum: I am still disgusted, but I also need to add that I am alarmed at how rapidly this "narrow" decision has widened. There are supposedly 149 cases already pending that the lower courts will be allowed to use this ruling to determine. These cases encompass not only the birth control methods objected to in the Hobby Lobby case, but additional methods and even ALL types of birth control. This could be a major disaster for women.
1) The elimination of the buffer zones around clinics. The Supreme Court has its own buffer zone. These clinics have been the target of significant amounts of violence, including murder. Police have been unable to keep staff and visitors to the clinics safe. The buffer zones were workable help. Surely the protesters are still allowed to protest, but there is no guarantee in the first amendment that people have to listen. Nor should the physical safety of the staff and visitors be so blatantly threatened. Buffer zones exist in other circumstances as well. This was a bad decision.
2) Hobby Lobby and contraceptives. I don't want employers to be deciding on women's health care. Period. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said, this is a very slippery slope. Additional questions: So, is it now legal to ask potential employers what their personal beliefs on birth control are? Will they be required to disclose to applicants that their insurance policies are incomplete?
"Still, according to studies from Columbia University and New York University, closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce and accounted for slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- of economic output from the private sector."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../a-lot-of-people-could.../
In other words, over half of the American workforce could be affected by this decision.
I am disgusted.
__________________________________
Addendum: I am still disgusted, but I also need to add that I am alarmed at how rapidly this "narrow" decision has widened. There are supposedly 149 cases already pending that the lower courts will be allowed to use this ruling to determine. These cases encompass not only the birth control methods objected to in the Hobby Lobby case, but additional methods and even ALL types of birth control. This could be a major disaster for women.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Cyber-Bullying
I used to think I understood cyberbullying, but until these two incidences happened, I don't think I did. I wondered why a person couldn't just block out the bullies and concentrate on all of the good things and the other support that they got.
But I have discovered that it is harder than I expected. The first incident in which I was targeted was a discussion forum and consisted of quite a few ad hominem attacks on the views that I posted. The problem is that I LIKE to look at things through the views of others and so I gave some credence to the attacker's views, even though I disagreed with them. This made the personal attacks from the bully more painful than if I had just been able to dismiss him as a crank. I had some respect for his intellect and knowledge.
This is the same thing that hurt me so much with the second attack, too. I was commenting on the thread of someone whom I greatly respect. I share his views on a lot of things. But, for reasons I don't completely understand, he felt I was commenting inappropriately. His original post was a bit vague and I was commenting on my perception of that vague post. His attack was very personal, and, I felt, completely uncalled for. I suppose my comments did reach beyond understanding the exact situation he was in the midst of. But, given that there were few details and that general philosophical points are frequently argued, I didn't feel I was out of line - I just felt I was supporting my own views. He, obviously, felt differently, essentially telling me to shut up when I knew nothing about the situation. So, I did.
But I still feel the sting of his rebuke. I wish I didn't respect him so much. It would be easier to just dismiss the whole incident.
So, now I understand a bit more about cyber-bullying. These incidences, both of them, are relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of cyber-bullying. But they happened to ME, so I now understand. I wish I could say I understood cyber-bullying before this, but I don't think I really did. And I probably don't even now, because I am an older adult, I have enough personal resources to retain my self-image, and I have the life experience to know that "this, too, shall pass".
But it is a wake-up call for me to pay attention to how it can start and to try to stop it - both with myself and with others.
But I have discovered that it is harder than I expected. The first incident in which I was targeted was a discussion forum and consisted of quite a few ad hominem attacks on the views that I posted. The problem is that I LIKE to look at things through the views of others and so I gave some credence to the attacker's views, even though I disagreed with them. This made the personal attacks from the bully more painful than if I had just been able to dismiss him as a crank. I had some respect for his intellect and knowledge.
This is the same thing that hurt me so much with the second attack, too. I was commenting on the thread of someone whom I greatly respect. I share his views on a lot of things. But, for reasons I don't completely understand, he felt I was commenting inappropriately. His original post was a bit vague and I was commenting on my perception of that vague post. His attack was very personal, and, I felt, completely uncalled for. I suppose my comments did reach beyond understanding the exact situation he was in the midst of. But, given that there were few details and that general philosophical points are frequently argued, I didn't feel I was out of line - I just felt I was supporting my own views. He, obviously, felt differently, essentially telling me to shut up when I knew nothing about the situation. So, I did.
But I still feel the sting of his rebuke. I wish I didn't respect him so much. It would be easier to just dismiss the whole incident.
So, now I understand a bit more about cyber-bullying. These incidences, both of them, are relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of cyber-bullying. But they happened to ME, so I now understand. I wish I could say I understood cyber-bullying before this, but I don't think I really did. And I probably don't even now, because I am an older adult, I have enough personal resources to retain my self-image, and I have the life experience to know that "this, too, shall pass".
But it is a wake-up call for me to pay attention to how it can start and to try to stop it - both with myself and with others.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Gifted Kids Have It Easy (Academically)
You think gifted kids have it easy - they don't have to work hard to get good grades; the teachers love them. Yes, gifted kids have it easy.
Too easy.
You think it is great to not have to work hard to get good grades? So, while you are learning good work habits, how to study, how to fight off distractions, and how to recover from errors and mistakes, the gifted kid never has to deal with most of those problems. And that IS the problem. Why shouldn't GT kids have to work hard? Why shouldn't they have to work as hard as the rest of the kids? We don't give other kids a pass when the going gets hard - we support them in their struggles. Why not make the gifted kids work hard, too?
Yes, all kids need a chance to get interested in things and follow their interests, but ALL kids, gifted kids included, need to know that sometimes learning something is HARD. Sometimes it isn't especially fun. Sometimes you make MISTAKES. Sometimes you feel DISCOURAGED. It isn't the end of the world and they can get through all of those things.
No, teachers don't actually love all of the gifted kids. GTs make them feel strangely uneasy. The teachers know that they aren't really teaching some of the GT kids very much. They learn the lesson too quickly and then the teacher has to think up something for the GT kid to do while the rest of the kids are still working. They may be ready to go on to a new part of the lesson, but that would spoil the motivation s/he planned to present for the other kids, make other kids jealous, and get everyone out of sync. They could work on something related to the topic, but there aren't any materials for that and, besides, the teacher doesn't really know how to teach anything about that, so the GT kid would just be working on her/his own. So, usually, the GT kid just gets to read quietly while the others finish. That is common enough that the other kids aren't jealous of the opportunity and the teacher doesn't have to find something else for them to do. Anyway, reading is a good activity, isn't it? It's easy.
Too easy.
Too easy.
You think it is great to not have to work hard to get good grades? So, while you are learning good work habits, how to study, how to fight off distractions, and how to recover from errors and mistakes, the gifted kid never has to deal with most of those problems. And that IS the problem. Why shouldn't GT kids have to work hard? Why shouldn't they have to work as hard as the rest of the kids? We don't give other kids a pass when the going gets hard - we support them in their struggles. Why not make the gifted kids work hard, too?
Yes, all kids need a chance to get interested in things and follow their interests, but ALL kids, gifted kids included, need to know that sometimes learning something is HARD. Sometimes it isn't especially fun. Sometimes you make MISTAKES. Sometimes you feel DISCOURAGED. It isn't the end of the world and they can get through all of those things.
No, teachers don't actually love all of the gifted kids. GTs make them feel strangely uneasy. The teachers know that they aren't really teaching some of the GT kids very much. They learn the lesson too quickly and then the teacher has to think up something for the GT kid to do while the rest of the kids are still working. They may be ready to go on to a new part of the lesson, but that would spoil the motivation s/he planned to present for the other kids, make other kids jealous, and get everyone out of sync. They could work on something related to the topic, but there aren't any materials for that and, besides, the teacher doesn't really know how to teach anything about that, so the GT kid would just be working on her/his own. So, usually, the GT kid just gets to read quietly while the others finish. That is common enough that the other kids aren't jealous of the opportunity and the teacher doesn't have to find something else for them to do. Anyway, reading is a good activity, isn't it? It's easy.
Too easy.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Is American Education Broken? School Financing Is.
Look at banks. If they need a new building or need new equipment for their staff, they get it. Look at insurance companies. Yes, those huge new, beautiful buildings. Look at schools. Even the fairly new one have trailers alongside the classrooms. Some of the older ones have significant structural problems.
I am a sub, so I see a lot of different schools. One of the places I sub at is a fairly new school - with 3 double wide mobile classrooms outside of it. Another of these fairly new schools has 2 double wide trailers and more classes per grade level than they can accommodate, even with classes of 32 and more. But at least some of the classrooms in the newer schools are spacious.
I also subbed in a new high school. There were 40 kids in the AP Calc class I taught.
Not so with many of the older school classrooms. One classroom was so crowded that there was no way I could get to every child's desk. Another classroom had kids sharing desks, because they couldn't fit any more in the room.
These crowded classrooms are fire hazards. The mobile classrooms have other problems - security as children go to special classes or the restroom without teacher accompaniment.
I am no expert on school finances, but I asked why all these new schools were built with too few classrooms, even the day they opened. The teachers said that that was as much as the school board thought the public would support as a bond issue for building these much needed new schools. They were probably correct and therein lies part of the problem. Does your bank ask you if they should build a new branch facility? Does your insurance company have to hold a public referendum to build a new headquarters?
The way American schools are financed almost guarantees inequities. Most schools are dependent on property taxes and voter approval. So, school districts in wealthier areas almost by definition have more money to spend. Of course, the buildings don't tell the whole story - just the beginning part of it.
I am a sub, so I see a lot of different schools. One of the places I sub at is a fairly new school - with 3 double wide mobile classrooms outside of it. Another of these fairly new schools has 2 double wide trailers and more classes per grade level than they can accommodate, even with classes of 32 and more. But at least some of the classrooms in the newer schools are spacious.
I also subbed in a new high school. There were 40 kids in the AP Calc class I taught.
Not so with many of the older school classrooms. One classroom was so crowded that there was no way I could get to every child's desk. Another classroom had kids sharing desks, because they couldn't fit any more in the room.
These crowded classrooms are fire hazards. The mobile classrooms have other problems - security as children go to special classes or the restroom without teacher accompaniment.
I am no expert on school finances, but I asked why all these new schools were built with too few classrooms, even the day they opened. The teachers said that that was as much as the school board thought the public would support as a bond issue for building these much needed new schools. They were probably correct and therein lies part of the problem. Does your bank ask you if they should build a new branch facility? Does your insurance company have to hold a public referendum to build a new headquarters?
The way American schools are financed almost guarantees inequities. Most schools are dependent on property taxes and voter approval. So, school districts in wealthier areas almost by definition have more money to spend. Of course, the buildings don't tell the whole story - just the beginning part of it.
Friday, June 06, 2014
Re: Five Reasons Kids Should Still Learn Cursive Writing
RE: Five Reasons Kids Should Still Learn Cursive Writing
The article lists 5 reasons why the author thinks kids should still learn cursive writing. Here are my thoughts about those reasons.
It isn't happening. With all the pressure to cut out everything that isn't tested, cursive writing has already fallen by the wayside.
1) Signatures are required.
Yes, sometimes signatures are required, but given the vast differences in penmanship, even before cursive writing instruction fell into less favor, I am not sure just how a signature is defined. Most people can fake it, anyway. Turn your first capital letter into a squiggle and then just keep on going. Close enough.
2) Good for mind - It is good for fine motor skills and you learn things better when you write them out physically.
There are MANY wonderful activities that will help with fine motor skills - art class, constructions in math class, origami, to name a few. Personally, I agree that writing things out physically (i.e., not on the computer) helps with retention, but I use printing for my notes. I am not sure that there is a significant difference between the two in this respect. I would be interested in more data about this.
3) Children won't be able to read original historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence.
I can read cursive; I have never read the original documents. We don't worry about being able to read original books in Latin or Aztec or Egyptian. I think it is great that people who are interested in this can learn it. I am not sure it is a necessary skill for everyone.
4) Some people need it.
Yes, some people can only read and/or write cursive. I would venture to guess that this number is VERY, vanishingly small. Some people need glasses. Create a font that looks like cursive - have person change all other typefaces to this font.
5) People like the way it looks.
Yes, cursive can be beautiful. It is an art form. Teach it in art class and let those who love it explore further. People also like the way flowers look. Flower arranging isn't required.
I like cursive, but I am not sure that it is essential, with all of the other calls on children's time. I am especially wary of the way it is currently taught. As a sub, I see SO MANY students with horribly uncomfortable ways of holding their pencils/pens. If teachers aren't teaching students how to grip their pencils properly when they are teaching them to print, how can we hope to teach proper penmanship. I do occasionally have classes that are given penmanship lessons, but I see a lot of improper penmanship nonetheless. In addition to the bad pencil grip, the most common problem is forming the letters in the wrong way - starting in the wrong place, mostly.
My younger daughter had a terrible pencil grip when she first started writing. She would grip the pencil overhand, with the thumb bracing one side of the pencil and the fingers cascading up the other side. Her handwriting was laborious, but legible. Her teacher was reluctant to break her of the habit, fearing that she would begin to dislike writing, but I was afraid that if she let it continue, she would never switch to a more comfortable grip. We did make her switch to a more standard grip, which she got used to after a short time.
If teachers are going to teach handwriting, they have to be able to monitor the students, for both pencil grip and proper letter formation. If they aren't willing/able to do this (and from what I can see they don't have time for this - big classes, too many other demands), then cursive writing is just a time-wasting activity.
The article lists 5 reasons why the author thinks kids should still learn cursive writing. Here are my thoughts about those reasons.
It isn't happening. With all the pressure to cut out everything that isn't tested, cursive writing has already fallen by the wayside.
1) Signatures are required.
Yes, sometimes signatures are required, but given the vast differences in penmanship, even before cursive writing instruction fell into less favor, I am not sure just how a signature is defined. Most people can fake it, anyway. Turn your first capital letter into a squiggle and then just keep on going. Close enough.
2) Good for mind - It is good for fine motor skills and you learn things better when you write them out physically.
There are MANY wonderful activities that will help with fine motor skills - art class, constructions in math class, origami, to name a few. Personally, I agree that writing things out physically (i.e., not on the computer) helps with retention, but I use printing for my notes. I am not sure that there is a significant difference between the two in this respect. I would be interested in more data about this.
3) Children won't be able to read original historical documents, like the Declaration of Independence.
I can read cursive; I have never read the original documents. We don't worry about being able to read original books in Latin or Aztec or Egyptian. I think it is great that people who are interested in this can learn it. I am not sure it is a necessary skill for everyone.
4) Some people need it.
Yes, some people can only read and/or write cursive. I would venture to guess that this number is VERY, vanishingly small. Some people need glasses. Create a font that looks like cursive - have person change all other typefaces to this font.
5) People like the way it looks.
Yes, cursive can be beautiful. It is an art form. Teach it in art class and let those who love it explore further. People also like the way flowers look. Flower arranging isn't required.
I like cursive, but I am not sure that it is essential, with all of the other calls on children's time. I am especially wary of the way it is currently taught. As a sub, I see SO MANY students with horribly uncomfortable ways of holding their pencils/pens. If teachers aren't teaching students how to grip their pencils properly when they are teaching them to print, how can we hope to teach proper penmanship. I do occasionally have classes that are given penmanship lessons, but I see a lot of improper penmanship nonetheless. In addition to the bad pencil grip, the most common problem is forming the letters in the wrong way - starting in the wrong place, mostly.
My younger daughter had a terrible pencil grip when she first started writing. She would grip the pencil overhand, with the thumb bracing one side of the pencil and the fingers cascading up the other side. Her handwriting was laborious, but legible. Her teacher was reluctant to break her of the habit, fearing that she would begin to dislike writing, but I was afraid that if she let it continue, she would never switch to a more comfortable grip. We did make her switch to a more standard grip, which she got used to after a short time.
If teachers are going to teach handwriting, they have to be able to monitor the students, for both pencil grip and proper letter formation. If they aren't willing/able to do this (and from what I can see they don't have time for this - big classes, too many other demands), then cursive writing is just a time-wasting activity.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Gifted Adults at Play - 2
First of all, my guess is that it is the overall challenge level of the games that are most frequently played at these sessions. Unlike the board games I was familiar with as a child, Monopoly, Life, and even Scrabble, these games are generally much more complex. It often takes almost a quarter hour just to explain/teach many of the games to new players.
Secondly, the best of the games require flexibility with strategies. There is usually either an element of chance in the game or a factor of randomness that insures that the strategy used for one time play of the game may have to be completely changed for the next time the game is played.
One of my favorite "board" games is Dominion. It probably shouldn't be called a board game, because it is really a deck-building game, but it is a frequently played game at these MeetUps. The general structure of the game is that, on your turn, you first perform any actions that your cards allow you to perform (A), then you buy any new card(s) you are able to buy with the cards in your hand (B), and then you clean up your play area and draw a new hand from your accumulated cards (C). Some of the cards you can buy add actions you can perform, some give you more money to spend, some only win you victory points at the end. The action cards are where the vast differences in games come in. There are around 30 cards in one particular version of the game. Of those 30, only 10 are selected each time for play. This makes for a huge number of combinations.
Play also depends on the personalities and strategies of your opponents in the game. Some of the action cards are attack cards, which have a huge affect on how the game plays out. Aggressive players can wield them to great advantage; more peaceful players (like me) can get taken by them. Some cards have cumulative effects - one card allows you to play another, which may allow you to play yet another. Clever use of these cards can be very effective.
An Aussie, SH, introduced me to role-playing games, a Harry Potter one, about 4 years ago and it was great fun. RPG games add another dimension to gaming, akin to acting. The emphasis here shifts to solving a problem with other players (or against other players), as the character you are playing would. The MeetUp group I go to also occasionally plays a semi-role-playing game called Werewolf. Roles are secret and you must discover who is a Werewolf, before everyone in the village is killed. It is more constrained than regular RPGs and follows a similar format every time, but the complexity comes from the interactions with others in the game.
What is the appeal of gaming? It requires personal engagement with the game and with other people. There are rules to the games, but there are many different winning strategies. There are a lot of other types of play that gifted people like as well, but I think the active involvement with challenging and varying games is a big plus for gaming. I came to this kind of gaming quite late in life - I am usually the oldest person in the room for these games - but I have enjoyed learning them.
Gifted Adults at Play - 1
But, I also decided, for some strange reason, to sign up for Cabaret. At the FSAF, Cabaret is a class where participants choose a song or songs, from a wide range of genres, to sing solo before an audience. The class consisted of a 3 hour daily lesson for 2 weeks (not weekends) and performances at the end of each week. Singers were coached in song interpretation, connecting to the audience, microphone use, and overcoming nerves. The latter was my biggest hurdle, especially that first year. I am a teacher, so I didn't expect that singing for an audience would be SO MUCH different from teaching - but it was. The first time I sang my song in class, I was crying with nerves. The first time I performed for an audience, my legs were shaking so badly, I wasn't sure I could remain standing.
I don't think that my first experience was too much different from other people's experiences, but one thing that held me back then and still now is that I am extremely analytical (just ask my kids) and judgmental. The instructors of the class were VERY supportive and the other students in the class were, too. My worst enemy was me. People often say that you shouldn't compare your performance to that of others, that you should just relax and enjoy the process, that people are rooting FOR you, not judging you. But I had a hard time turning that off with myself. First of all, the idea is that you are learning something. You have to do a certain amount of evaluation and judging, in order to know how to improve.
So, how do you keep the judgmentalism and the analysis from paralyzing you and preventing you from trying something new? Some people do so through family support systems. But my husband knows very little about music or musical performance and my children are grown and far away. Family support wasn't enough. Luckily the instructors and fellow students helped, but it took a lot of courage for me to get through that first year.
But somehow, the fact is that I did manage to do it and I've gone back for more - at least 6 years now. And, two years ago, I took another big step. At the age of 59, I signed up for the FSAF song-writing class. I had always wanted to write a musical for children, but I started out just writing one song for me. This class was only one week, but I did manage to write a song that wasn't too bad. The class wasn't offered the next year and in the meantime, I had decided that writing songs required more talent than I had.
But then, I moved from Alaska to Colorado. I decided to find a music outlet in Colorado. I tried singing in a chorus, but I discovered that I really didn't like classical music quite as well as I thought I did. And I especially didn't like memorizing the music, which the choir director encouraged. It was time to branch out a bit. I tried vocal music lessons and eventually, I decided to try writing music again. This time, my goal was two-fold: I wanted to write music that was ME (which is NOT especially popular right now) and I wanted to eventually write a musical for kids.
Since then, I have written dozens of songs and I did write the musical, which is now mostly finished - at least the part I envisioned writing. I chose a book that I wanted to adapt and wrote the script. Then, I wrote songs to go with various parts of the script. I learned to write music on the computer, using Finale Songwriter. It has been immensely fun. My idea was to write the tune and the words, but lately, I have worried that I should have some sort of accompaniment - piano likely. And now, I am stuck. I know enough music theoretically to write an accompaniment, but each time I try to write one, I dislike the result.
I am not good at dealing with adversity. I didn't learn persistence as a child - why should I when everything came so easily to me? It wasn't until college that I found out that people actually had to study and work at learning things. To some extent, I have overcome that with this venture into writing music, but it is still an emotional challenge for me.
The other emotional challenge is trying to decide if the music I have written is any good. I have now sung three of my songs for Cabaret. Two of them were funny pieces - crowd-pleasers. But the music itself wasn't very good. I have written some other songs that are similar - funny, but unsophisticated music. And now my analytical self kicks in again. A lot of popular music isn't structurally sophisticated. My music doesn't belong to any of the popular genres. So is it any good? I don't know. I have gotten good feedback from my music teacher and a couple of my friends, but very few others. How important is affirmation? More important than I care to admit.
So, what does all this have to do with Gifted People at Play? For me, this has been a kind of mania. Now that the musical is at the stage where I would like someone else to do the final part, I am wondering if I should continue writing music. How do people have the creative confidence to keep going when there is little confirmation of the work? Why do I feel the need for outside affirmation? What if only my music teacher and my friends think it is good? Should I do it anyway? What if there is no audience for the work? Is it worthwhile to write something, even if no-one else cares about it?
Is all of this questioning normal to the creative process? Is it worse for gifted people? I would love to see the musical performed somewhere, but the process of finding a group that is willing to try it seems overwhelming to me - and outside of my interest areas.
Is this play or not?
Monday, May 26, 2014
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.
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.
Sub Pay
As I said in a previous post, I am giving up trying to find a permanent full time job in teaching. I am too old and it is difficult for me to keep up with the physical demands of the job. I am also too expensive - too many degrees, too much experience. But I am also pretty discouraged about subbing. Sometimes it is the behavior of the kids, sometimes it is the behavior of the adults, and sometimes it is just the fact that, with subbing, you get to see very little of your influence. You feel like a placeholder and not someone who is important. There is another reason why I tend to not feel important: sub pay. It is actually insulting.
I have subbed in three different school districts near where I live. They pay around $95 per day. I was working part time at a school a couple of years ago on a 7 hour a week job. The problem was that the 7 hours had to be divided between two days, because that is the way the students' schedules worked out. When I told the principal that I couldn't do that job any more and that I was going back to subbing, she gushed to me, "Oh, and subs get $100 per day!!!" I pointed out to her that $100 * (max) 160 days == $16,000. She was flabbergasted. She had never thought of it that way. After 30 days for one of the school districts I work for, I get a pay raise to $114 per day. Hm... $114 * (max) 160 == $18,240. Do you think you could live on that here? It isn't even close to the poverty level.
I was talking about this with a couple of people I know in Australia. There, substitute or "supply teacher" pay is actually very near to the hourly rate for regular teachers. Given the median salary for teachers in Denver $52,881, (http://www1.salary.com/CO/Denver/Public-School-Teacher-salary.html), for a 180 day contract, that would mean a daily salary of about $294. $294 * 160 == $47,000. Livable. One woman even mentioned that temporary workers, like substitute teachers, often get a bit MORE than the regular employees, to compensate for the fact that their work is temporary and not assured.
The reasoning in the United States is that substitute teachers could get another job during non-school times. But in my experience, that argument has fallen completely flat. Companies don't want to hire me, because I am overqualified for nearly every part time job that is available. They don't want to go through the training and then have me leave for something better. Physically, I can't work in the fast food or restaurant businesses and no one else has a job for someone with two masters' degrees, but little experience in their specific business.
I am lucky, I have a husband who makes enough money to support us. What I do is almost equivalent to doing volunteer work. Maybe, I should leave the job to young graduates who are still hopeful of finding permanent positions and retired teachers, who at least have a pension.
But it is sad for me. I find the job - even with all of its challenges - interesting. I like to see what is REALLY going on in the schools, compared to the rhetoric of what people think is going on. I like to compare classes, classrooms, teachers, schools, school personnel, and school districts. I am fascinated by differences in curricula, class atmosphere, school atmosphere, and above all differences in the children. I am not a teacher who gushes that she just LOVES children. But I do find them fascinating. Endlessly fascinating. For that reason, I am not quite ready to stop subbing, but I must admit, I am discouraged. Maybe summer vacation will bring things back in focus for me again.
I have subbed in three different school districts near where I live. They pay around $95 per day. I was working part time at a school a couple of years ago on a 7 hour a week job. The problem was that the 7 hours had to be divided between two days, because that is the way the students' schedules worked out. When I told the principal that I couldn't do that job any more and that I was going back to subbing, she gushed to me, "Oh, and subs get $100 per day!!!" I pointed out to her that $100 * (max) 160 days == $16,000. She was flabbergasted. She had never thought of it that way. After 30 days for one of the school districts I work for, I get a pay raise to $114 per day. Hm... $114 * (max) 160 == $18,240. Do you think you could live on that here? It isn't even close to the poverty level.
I was talking about this with a couple of people I know in Australia. There, substitute or "supply teacher" pay is actually very near to the hourly rate for regular teachers. Given the median salary for teachers in Denver $52,881, (http://www1.salary.com/CO/Denver/Public-School-Teacher-salary.html), for a 180 day contract, that would mean a daily salary of about $294. $294 * 160 == $47,000. Livable. One woman even mentioned that temporary workers, like substitute teachers, often get a bit MORE than the regular employees, to compensate for the fact that their work is temporary and not assured.
The reasoning in the United States is that substitute teachers could get another job during non-school times. But in my experience, that argument has fallen completely flat. Companies don't want to hire me, because I am overqualified for nearly every part time job that is available. They don't want to go through the training and then have me leave for something better. Physically, I can't work in the fast food or restaurant businesses and no one else has a job for someone with two masters' degrees, but little experience in their specific business.
I am lucky, I have a husband who makes enough money to support us. What I do is almost equivalent to doing volunteer work. Maybe, I should leave the job to young graduates who are still hopeful of finding permanent positions and retired teachers, who at least have a pension.
But it is sad for me. I find the job - even with all of its challenges - interesting. I like to see what is REALLY going on in the schools, compared to the rhetoric of what people think is going on. I like to compare classes, classrooms, teachers, schools, school personnel, and school districts. I am fascinated by differences in curricula, class atmosphere, school atmosphere, and above all differences in the children. I am not a teacher who gushes that she just LOVES children. But I do find them fascinating. Endlessly fascinating. For that reason, I am not quite ready to stop subbing, but I must admit, I am discouraged. Maybe summer vacation will bring things back in focus for me again.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Is This Fifth Grade Handwriting?
So, recently, I posted a diatribe about handwriting. This is a picture of one student's paper:
So, the question is, has students' handwriting gotten much worse lately, or is this normal for a 5th grade boy. This was not the only paper that was written this (il)legibly.
Not Job Seeking Any More
So, I have finally made the decision that I am not going to look for a full time teaching job any more. I am too old and my knees are not up to a full time job. So, healthwise, it is probably a good decision.
I think it is extremely unlikely that I would get hired anyway. I have been applying for four years now in Colorado and have had fewer than a dozen interviews. I have two masters' degrees, one in elementary education with a science and math focus, and one in computer science, with applications to biology. I have 199 additional hours toward a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I have many years of teaching experience, with students from pre-school through grad school. I am simply too expensive. No one wants to hire someone like me full time. I cost too much for the questionable benefit. I can still sub, since all they really want for that job is a warm body with a teaching certificate.
In addition, I am too outspoken. I read a while back that many principals and other human resources people google potential candidates for jobs. I have googled myself and it is not hard to find things that I have written that potential bosses would see as red flags. For instance, I have frequently made statements against differentiation as a program option for gifted students (too difficult for teachers to consistently do at the right level and pace). But differentiation is the current mantra for educators. You are supposed to say that you can differentiate for all the kids in the class. As a sub, I just don't see this at all, but I guess potential teachers are supposed to gush about how they developed this differentiated unit for kids and it was fabulous. Maybe. As I said, I don't see it in real classrooms. Good units, yes; differentiated for gifted and learning disabled kids, not really.
So, I have a LOT of teaching materials that I would like to re-home. Any ideas on where they could go? I have a lovely set of Dienes blocks, made of wood. I suppose I can just put them in garage sales, but it seems like a sad end to such high quality materials.
And, a bit of a sad end to a teaching career.
Sigh.
I think it is extremely unlikely that I would get hired anyway. I have been applying for four years now in Colorado and have had fewer than a dozen interviews. I have two masters' degrees, one in elementary education with a science and math focus, and one in computer science, with applications to biology. I have 199 additional hours toward a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I have many years of teaching experience, with students from pre-school through grad school. I am simply too expensive. No one wants to hire someone like me full time. I cost too much for the questionable benefit. I can still sub, since all they really want for that job is a warm body with a teaching certificate.
In addition, I am too outspoken. I read a while back that many principals and other human resources people google potential candidates for jobs. I have googled myself and it is not hard to find things that I have written that potential bosses would see as red flags. For instance, I have frequently made statements against differentiation as a program option for gifted students (too difficult for teachers to consistently do at the right level and pace). But differentiation is the current mantra for educators. You are supposed to say that you can differentiate for all the kids in the class. As a sub, I just don't see this at all, but I guess potential teachers are supposed to gush about how they developed this differentiated unit for kids and it was fabulous. Maybe. As I said, I don't see it in real classrooms. Good units, yes; differentiated for gifted and learning disabled kids, not really.
So, I have a LOT of teaching materials that I would like to re-home. Any ideas on where they could go? I have a lovely set of Dienes blocks, made of wood. I suppose I can just put them in garage sales, but it seems like a sad end to such high quality materials.
And, a bit of a sad end to a teaching career.
Sigh.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Down Memory Lane - 2
One of my students was an adorable black boy, who had a bit of a stutter. But more bothersome than that was his penchant to use inappropriate words in school. I tried to correct him, telling him dutifully every time that, "We don't use those words in school." Finally, I decided I needed to talk to his parents about the problem at parent/teacher conferences.
Me: M****** has a bit of a problem with using inappropriate words in school.
M's Mom: Well, I am just going to have to get the little f***er!
Ah, yes! Now I see.
Me: M****** has a bit of a problem with using inappropriate words in school.
M's Mom: Well, I am just going to have to get the little f***er!
Ah, yes! Now I see.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Down Memory Lane - 1
I finally had a classroom of my own, after being an assistant teacher for 1 1/2 years. It was a 6th grade, which, at the time, was still in the elementary school. One of the subjects we were to teach was sex education. The curriculum was set out, but we were told that, at the end of each lesson, it would be good to have an open question and answer time. So, I bravely followed the first lesson and, at the end of the lesson asked for any questions.
One girl raised her hand and said she had a question. It was, "Was my mama a whore?"
I was completely unprepared for that kind of question. The particulars of the reproductive system I could address, but I wasn't even sure if I was allowed to use the word "whore" in school. But, it was obvious, also, that this was an extremely brave and urgent question, so it needed an answer. Thinking as quickly as I could, I said that the first thing we needed to know was the definition of a whore. I said that it usually meant that a woman was having sex for pay.
She said that her mother was 13 years old when she was born.
Again, completely taken aback, I tried to put a neutral (and not shocked) face on. I told her that, at that age, she was so young that she almost certainly wasn't having sex for pay, so that she almost certainly wasn't a "whore".
What I should have said, but didn't, since it wasn't part of the nomenclature then, was that at the age of 12, when she got pregnant, her mother would not have been able to give informed consent to sex. If the boy who fathered her was much older, he should not have had sex with her. If the boy was about her age, both of them should have had better supervision and information about sexual activities.
All in all, I think I handled the question OK and the girl seemed VERY relieved to think that her mother wasn't actually a "whore". My guess is that kids were teasing her about her mother and perhaps also about her "bastard" status.
Now, back to the current day. This question has informed my opinion that we need full and complete sex education, beginning even before children start puberty. Sex education needs to include not just the nuts and bolts of the reproductive system, but also the emotional and social aspects of sex. Perhaps 5th and 6th graders don't need explicit instruction in contraception, but they should at least be told that there are ways to prevent pregnancy and if they think they might need it, they should ask the school nurse.
One girl raised her hand and said she had a question. It was, "Was my mama a whore?"
I was completely unprepared for that kind of question. The particulars of the reproductive system I could address, but I wasn't even sure if I was allowed to use the word "whore" in school. But, it was obvious, also, that this was an extremely brave and urgent question, so it needed an answer. Thinking as quickly as I could, I said that the first thing we needed to know was the definition of a whore. I said that it usually meant that a woman was having sex for pay.
She said that her mother was 13 years old when she was born.
Again, completely taken aback, I tried to put a neutral (and not shocked) face on. I told her that, at that age, she was so young that she almost certainly wasn't having sex for pay, so that she almost certainly wasn't a "whore".
What I should have said, but didn't, since it wasn't part of the nomenclature then, was that at the age of 12, when she got pregnant, her mother would not have been able to give informed consent to sex. If the boy who fathered her was much older, he should not have had sex with her. If the boy was about her age, both of them should have had better supervision and information about sexual activities.
All in all, I think I handled the question OK and the girl seemed VERY relieved to think that her mother wasn't actually a "whore". My guess is that kids were teasing her about her mother and perhaps also about her "bastard" status.
Now, back to the current day. This question has informed my opinion that we need full and complete sex education, beginning even before children start puberty. Sex education needs to include not just the nuts and bolts of the reproductive system, but also the emotional and social aspects of sex. Perhaps 5th and 6th graders don't need explicit instruction in contraception, but they should at least be told that there are ways to prevent pregnancy and if they think they might need it, they should ask the school nurse.
Line Designs
The assignment for a 4th/5th grade class the other day was to teach the students in small groups how to make line designs. The students were skeptical at first. They didn't want to try anything that might be "hard". But I started them out with a very easy line design - similar to this one, only just the top right quadrant. I was surprised at the enthusiasm, once they understood how to do the designs.Some students wanted to try the much harder designs right away, but I told them to keep working on the simpler ones for a bit. One girl tried a hard one, anyway, and got stuck about halfway through. The halfway point was pretty by itself, though, so she was satisfied.
It was interesting to me to see the various ways the students tackled different designs once they understood the concept. Some students seemed to need the numbering system (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 on the x-axis; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, starting at the TOP of the y-axis in this drawing). Others seemed to not need the numbers at all - just the idea that they needed the same number of points on each line; and they needed to connect points sequentially, starting at the beginning of one line and the end of the other line that was closest to the end of the first line.
The teacher also left some sample of line designs that students had done with yarn on cardboard. That was also inspiring for the kids.
It was a fun lesson.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Another Surprise
Today, the writing assignment was to have the fifth grade class I was in write teacher appreciation letters to a teacher they had had at that school. The teacher said to use the letter form in the Writer's Express Handbook, so prior to letting them get to work, we went over the form in detail - where each part of the letter should be placed, where the commas would go, what would be indented and how much.
Then the kids got started. I was not particularly surprised that many of them didn't follow the form exactly. They were to write a rough draft, I was to edit it, and then they were to write a final copy. What did surprise me is that so many of the students, remember these are fifth graders, didn't know THEIR OWN ADDRESSES. A lot of them wanted to use the school's address, but I told them to use their own. Fortunately, one of the students knew that there was a school directory next to the telephone and quite a few of the students subsequently looked up their own addresses in the directory. There were even a few who couldn't tell me which city they lived in. To be fair, the school does draw students from at least two different cities/towns in the area, but I was completely baffled that students wouldn't know their own addresses.
Then the kids got started. I was not particularly surprised that many of them didn't follow the form exactly. They were to write a rough draft, I was to edit it, and then they were to write a final copy. What did surprise me is that so many of the students, remember these are fifth graders, didn't know THEIR OWN ADDRESSES. A lot of them wanted to use the school's address, but I told them to use their own. Fortunately, one of the students knew that there was a school directory next to the telephone and quite a few of the students subsequently looked up their own addresses in the directory. There were even a few who couldn't tell me which city they lived in. To be fair, the school does draw students from at least two different cities/towns in the area, but I was completely baffled that students wouldn't know their own addresses.
Monday, May 05, 2014
Classroom Physical Arrangements
Mark Phillips' post A Place for Learning: the Physical Environment of Classrooms has prompted me to write out some of my thoughts as a sub about different classrooms. He relates the story of one of his mentors taking the job of custodian, so that he get a firsthand look at the physical environments of classrooms. Well, I can do his mentor one better: take the job of substitute teaching. Then you can get a sense of the physical environments of not only multiple classrooms in one school, but also of the vast differences between schools and the differences between elementary, middle school, and high schools.
I do most of my subbing nowadays in elementary schools, especially third through fifth grades. From what I can see of most elementary schools, the physical environment is very busy and almost overwhelming. Walls are COVERED with posters, student work, number lines, job charts, attendance/leave-the-room boards, reminder lists, even decorations on the windows, etc., in addition to the white boards, the Smart boards, and the cupboards.
I have often wondered how much of this is really necessary. Do students actually USE the information on those posters? In most cases, the print on the poster is too small for students to see, unless they are close to the poster. Displaying student writing projects may be motivating, but no one can actually read the essays posted on the walls. To me, it is visually distracting. It doesn't seem so to the kids, who seem used to it, but I wonder how much it contributes to too much visual stimulation.
Personally, if I were to decide on the classroom decorations, I would remove most of the posters and charts with small print. They are useless and distracting. I like a display for student art work, but the student written work would be better in a three ring binder in the library. And replace some of the posters with beautiful pictures and professional art work. One school district I worked in was in a state where public buildings were to spend one percent of their construction budget on professional art work. Some of the art work thus added to the buildings was amazing. And, to me, it seemed as though, surrounded by this gorgeous art, the students actually produced better art of their own. The buildings themselves seemed to say, we value art and creative expression.
Unlike Mr. Phillips' mentor, though, I don't feel that the classroom desk layouts are designed for the custodians. In most cases now, the classrooms I go to seem set up for the ubiquitous group work. "Table groups" of 3 to 6 or more desks are arranged throughout the classroom and are often numbered/named for ease of reference: "Table 4" or the "Purple Ninja Unicorns". Some classrooms are so crowded that it is difficult to walk to be next to each student's desk. Other classrooms have sufficient space, so that the teacher can also set up a library corner, a meeting area, and a (largely unused) computer area.
One 4th grade teacher I subbed for was there when I arrived for a part day job. I was quite impressed with his arrangement. He proceeded to demonstrate how his classroom could switch configurations at the snap of his fingers. For one of his subjects he was going to have the students watch a video, where they all needed to be able to see the projection screen. After that, they were going to work on a small group task related to the video. In a different subject, they were scheduled to take a test individually. Each of these arrangements had a number. He would snap his fingers, call out a number and the students would rapidly change their desks around to match the needed configuration - less than a minute transition time.
Middle schools and high schools seem to have fewer job charts and instructionally related charts and posters. Many of the rooms are functional and plain. This is especially true if the rooms are shared by multiple teachers. No teacher seems to own the space, so it is left undecorated. This too-little can be as stifling as the elementary school's too-much. And, as Mr. Phillips noted, the classrooms are often arranged in rows. Sometimes, this is necessitated by the size of the classroom. I taught one calculus class with 40 students who were all crammed into a too small room with multiple tables. In truth, it was a fire hazard. There was no way for the teacher to get to students at the end of the rows which abutted the walls. Middle school and high school science classes, on the other hand, usually have large tables for the students to work on, demonstrating that sometimes the arrangement of the classroom depends significantly not only on the teaching style of the teacher, but also on the necessities of the subject matter. Math often works in rows, science at tables, and social studies, English, or world languages in semi-circles for discussions. Unfortunately, with class sizes surging, the semi-circles for discussions are becoming rare. There simply isn't enough room.
I have long been interested in floor plans for schools and, for a while, I got publications from a professional society that gave awards to new school building designs. One of the key factors in good design seems to be sufficient space for the activities. Many of the elementary schools are very limited in this respect. Even high schools sometimes are feeling the pinch, as in the example of the calculus class above. That was in a building that was less that 10 years old, but some of the classrooms were simply too small for the numbers of students they needed to accommodate. With school budgets stripped to the bone, many of the newer schools are being "underbuilt" - they are too small from the moment they open their doors. Many of them rely on mobile trailers for their overflowing numbers. These classrooms, in my experience, are very much less than ideal - no running water, no bathrooms, security problems, and feeling like an outcasts from the rest of the school.
The physical environment of the classroom can have a big effect on the students. Crowding seems to lead to more interaction problems. There is no place where the student can go to get away from it all.
I do most of my subbing nowadays in elementary schools, especially third through fifth grades. From what I can see of most elementary schools, the physical environment is very busy and almost overwhelming. Walls are COVERED with posters, student work, number lines, job charts, attendance/leave-the-room boards, reminder lists, even decorations on the windows, etc., in addition to the white boards, the Smart boards, and the cupboards.
I have often wondered how much of this is really necessary. Do students actually USE the information on those posters? In most cases, the print on the poster is too small for students to see, unless they are close to the poster. Displaying student writing projects may be motivating, but no one can actually read the essays posted on the walls. To me, it is visually distracting. It doesn't seem so to the kids, who seem used to it, but I wonder how much it contributes to too much visual stimulation.
Personally, if I were to decide on the classroom decorations, I would remove most of the posters and charts with small print. They are useless and distracting. I like a display for student art work, but the student written work would be better in a three ring binder in the library. And replace some of the posters with beautiful pictures and professional art work. One school district I worked in was in a state where public buildings were to spend one percent of their construction budget on professional art work. Some of the art work thus added to the buildings was amazing. And, to me, it seemed as though, surrounded by this gorgeous art, the students actually produced better art of their own. The buildings themselves seemed to say, we value art and creative expression.
Unlike Mr. Phillips' mentor, though, I don't feel that the classroom desk layouts are designed for the custodians. In most cases now, the classrooms I go to seem set up for the ubiquitous group work. "Table groups" of 3 to 6 or more desks are arranged throughout the classroom and are often numbered/named for ease of reference: "Table 4" or the "Purple Ninja Unicorns". Some classrooms are so crowded that it is difficult to walk to be next to each student's desk. Other classrooms have sufficient space, so that the teacher can also set up a library corner, a meeting area, and a (largely unused) computer area.
One 4th grade teacher I subbed for was there when I arrived for a part day job. I was quite impressed with his arrangement. He proceeded to demonstrate how his classroom could switch configurations at the snap of his fingers. For one of his subjects he was going to have the students watch a video, where they all needed to be able to see the projection screen. After that, they were going to work on a small group task related to the video. In a different subject, they were scheduled to take a test individually. Each of these arrangements had a number. He would snap his fingers, call out a number and the students would rapidly change their desks around to match the needed configuration - less than a minute transition time.
Middle schools and high schools seem to have fewer job charts and instructionally related charts and posters. Many of the rooms are functional and plain. This is especially true if the rooms are shared by multiple teachers. No teacher seems to own the space, so it is left undecorated. This too-little can be as stifling as the elementary school's too-much. And, as Mr. Phillips noted, the classrooms are often arranged in rows. Sometimes, this is necessitated by the size of the classroom. I taught one calculus class with 40 students who were all crammed into a too small room with multiple tables. In truth, it was a fire hazard. There was no way for the teacher to get to students at the end of the rows which abutted the walls. Middle school and high school science classes, on the other hand, usually have large tables for the students to work on, demonstrating that sometimes the arrangement of the classroom depends significantly not only on the teaching style of the teacher, but also on the necessities of the subject matter. Math often works in rows, science at tables, and social studies, English, or world languages in semi-circles for discussions. Unfortunately, with class sizes surging, the semi-circles for discussions are becoming rare. There simply isn't enough room.
I have long been interested in floor plans for schools and, for a while, I got publications from a professional society that gave awards to new school building designs. One of the key factors in good design seems to be sufficient space for the activities. Many of the elementary schools are very limited in this respect. Even high schools sometimes are feeling the pinch, as in the example of the calculus class above. That was in a building that was less that 10 years old, but some of the classrooms were simply too small for the numbers of students they needed to accommodate. With school budgets stripped to the bone, many of the newer schools are being "underbuilt" - they are too small from the moment they open their doors. Many of them rely on mobile trailers for their overflowing numbers. These classrooms, in my experience, are very much less than ideal - no running water, no bathrooms, security problems, and feeling like an outcasts from the rest of the school.
The physical environment of the classroom can have a big effect on the students. Crowding seems to lead to more interaction problems. There is no place where the student can go to get away from it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)