Part 1: The Mechanization of Teaching

[Brenda Krupp]

The first two chapters of this book give us a historical context for the current reform movement. Newkirk shows us that the ideology behind the No Child Left Behind movement has been active for over a century. He takes back to the early twentieth century and a time of equating schools to business and factories, a time when education was equated with a cult of efficiency. Then he shows us how little things have changed!

In reading the first two chapters I was stuck by many things. In this era of "educational accountability" teachers are often required to use on "research-based" or "scientifically- proven" systems or curriculum programs. Teachers are often made to feel that they do not have the intellectual capacity to make decisions on their own. Because of this, teachers often resist research and the term theory. He argues that effective teachers draw from their own experiences to form regularities and theories about instruction. As we reflect on our practice, we create our own theories and situate them in the context of the work of other educational reserachers. Researchers like Don Murray, Don Graves, Peter Elbow, to name a few. I believe the teachers participating in this NING deserve to be called "researchers". But we must make our practice public!

What have you learned about teaching writing by being a teacher of writing? What experiences can you pass on to your colleagues? What lessons have failed but taught you so much about yourself and teaching? (The attached form is from Brenda Powers' at Choice Literacy and may help you think about your classroom experiences.) Let's collect some "case studies" and see what "data" we can collect!

[Ken C]

I, too, was struck by Newkirk's warnings about "research-based" teaching. It's odd, because "research-based" sounds wonderful, and that's where it's at, and that's why we read professional development books, and that's where administrators cheer on the sidelines, and so on and so forth.

But what if the "research" pulls us away from our own instincts and our own experience about what garners good results in teaching? Do you doubt yourself and trust the... ahem... "scientist/researcher"? Well, there are researchers and there are researchers. I'll never forget how surprised I was to see Nancie Atwell take on the "sticky note" guidelines of Stephanie Harvey, et.al. in her (Nancie's) book, The Reading Zone. Well, she didn't so much refute it as say she found it all wrong for fiction (after trying it a year herself and growing frustrated with the whole concept). It was an eye opener. I'd read Harvey's Reading Strategies That Work and just assumed that it must be "the way" because she took the time to research "the way." But what if it doesn't work for you or, scarier still, your kids?

I liked these lines especially from Chapter One of Newkirk's book:

"Classrooms often seem places where everything is rushed, where teachers seem bombarded with expectations (this spelling program, that vocabulary program, a new inservice for he math program) -- so much to juggle. Time is chopped up into shorter and shorter units. Depth gives way to breadth; and time-intensive activities like writing and revising fall by the wayside. But in my experience, excellent instruction rarely feels rushed. As a learner, you feel there is time to explore, there is the tolerance of silences, there is the deliberate buildup to an activity, there is the feeling of mental space to work in. This space is harder and harder to create." (p. 11)

[Judy Jester]

First of all, kudos to Barry and Maja for the interview with Tom. Nice shout out to Brenda too.

I've learned a great deal by studying my own teaching. Far too much to list here, but the one thing that resonates with me is trying to do too much and not doing it very well. I've lived this in my own teaching and as a student this year while on sabbatical.

Tom writes, "Depth gives way to breadth; and time intensive activities like writing and revising fall by the wayside. But in my experience, excellent instruction rarely feels rushed. As a learner, you feel there is time to explore, there is a tolerance of silences, there is the deliberate build up to an activity, there is mental space to work in. This space is harder and harder to create."

I have found that when I slow down my teaching, my students learn more, their writing is stronger, and we're all happier. I plan to use the chart Brenda attached to explore this more specifically, but I wanted to help get things rolling here.

P.S. Sorry. I just saw that Ken included the same quote in his response. We must be feeling the same push to cover the curriculum.

[Ken C]

That's OK, Judy. I think it's interesting that we chose the same quote. If these lines were important to you and me, I'll wager they spoke to many other teachers as well.

[Brenda Krupp]

I'm struck by the idea of research-based practices. And, I wonder why we don't do more to make the work we do public? I think it is time for teachers to take back research and do more teacher inquiry and action research. But, I would add, that we must then write about what we have found. How do we encourage teachers to write professionally, to write about their practice?

[Ken C]

Brenda -- In theory, it sounds great, but I think most English teachers are so flat-out in over their heads with work that they find it hard to keep the extra records and do the extra writing required to do a book. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of teachers who DO write have a reduced work load (for whatever reason) and are not looking down the barrel of 125 papers just handed in from five classes (et cetera, et cetera).

Also, I think the concrete sequentials have an advantage here over the abstract randoms. At least that's my excuse.

[Barry Lane]

In response to Brenda and Ken's thoughtful comments I thought I would pose some questions to gnaw on.

1) What is research? And is "scientific" research different than other types?

2) Does what we call "scientific research" change when we hit the "real" world of the individual classroom?

3) Does the "teacher/researcher" type research suffer the same fate? (example: Steph Harvey and Nancie Atwell.)

4) Are we barking up the right tree to try and make a scientific standard for the classroom teacher? Is there an alternative to this approach?

[Barry Lane]

I thought of one more prickly one.

Is the standards movement and it's relentless pursuit of "data," and quantifiable results helpful or hurtful to authentic learning?

Barry Lane said:

In response to Brenda and Ken's thoughtful comments I thought I would pose some questions to gnaw on.

1) What is research? And is "scientific" research different than other types?

2) Does what we call "scientific research" change when we hit the "real" world of the individual classroom?

3) Does the "teacher/researcher" type research suffer the same fate? (example: Steph Harvey and Nancie Atwell.)

4) Are we barking up the right tree to try and make a scientific standard for the classroom teacher? Is there an alternative to this approach?

[Barry Lane]

How do we create silence for learning when all people pay attention to in society is the noise of what was learned?


How do we change the conversation in education to learning and thinking and away from data ?


Barry Lane said:

I thought of one more prickly one.

Is the standards movement and it's relentless pursuit of "data," and quantifiable results helpful or hurtful to authentic learning?

Barry Lane said:

In response to Brenda and Ken's thoughtful comments I thought I would pose some questions to gnaw on.

1) What is research? And is "scientific" research different than other types?

2) Does what we call "scientific research" change when we hit the "real" world of the individual classroom?

3) Does the "teacher/researcher" type research suffer the same fate? (example: Steph Harvey and Nancie Atwell.)

4) Are we barking up the right tree to try and make a scientific standard for the classroom teacher? Is there an alternative to this approach?

[Barry Lane]

Are all these questions annoying or helpful?

Barry Lane said:

How do we create silence for learning when all people pay attention to in society is the noise of what was learned?


How do we change the conversation in education to learning and thinking and away from data ?


Barry Lane said:

I thought of one more prickly one.

Is the standards movement and it's relentless pursuit of "data," and quantifiable results helpful or hurtful to authentic learning?

Barry Lane said:

In response to Brenda and Ken's thoughtful comments I thought I would pose some questions to gnaw on.

1) What is research? And is "scientific" research different than other types?

2) Does what we call "scientific research" change when we hit the "real" world of the individual classroom?

3) Does the "teacher/researcher" type research suffer the same fate? (example: Steph Harvey and Nancie Atwell.)

4) Are we barking up the right tree to try and make a scientific standard for the classroom teacher? Is there an alternative to this approach?

[Ken C]

Helpful? Annoying? How about difficult!

Politicians and some administrators love "data" because it's about all they can fathom about what happens or does not happen in any given classroom. Thus, the wild success of standardized testing. And "data success" begets "data success," as we found out in Massachusetts where the MCAS is widely hailed as turning the state of education in this state around. (Why? Because our data shows that, when taught to the test, students perform better on tests. Go figure.)

As for "scientific research," I'll leave that for the humanists, Aristotelian types, and Enlightenment folks in our studio audience to wrangle over. "Science," after all, proves one year that coffee, butter, and eggs are bad for us, and then the next year that they are good for us. So much for the "foolproof" scientific method.

The bottom line? Anecdotal evidence needs a good PR campaign. Compared to those shiny statistics and cool percentages offered by the scientific, fill-in-the-bubble researchers, "mere words" are treated like the mysterious man come into town -- with suspicion and arched eyebrows.

[Barry Lane]

I agree, Ken. A story beats an equation every day of the week. We need to find a way to bring the stories of the classroom into the limelight of society at large.



Ken C said:

Helpful? Annoying? How about difficult!
Politicians and some administrators love "data" because it's about all they can fathom about what happens or does not happen in any given classroom. Thus, the wild success of standardized testing. And "data success" begets "data success," as we found out in Massachusetts where the MCAS is widely hailed as turning the state of education in this state around. (Why? Because our data shows that, when taught to the test, students perform better on tests. Go figure.)
As for "scientific research," I'll leave that for the humanists, Aristotelian types, and Enlightenment folks in our studio audience to wrangle over. "Science," after all, proves one year that coffee, butter, and eggs are bad for us, and then the next year that they are good for us. So much for the "foolproof" scientific method.

The bottom line? Anecdotal evidence needs a good PR campaign. Compared to those shiny statistics and cool percentages offered by the scientific, fill-in-the-bubble researchers, "mere words" are treated like the mysterious man come into town -- with suspicion and arched eyebrows.

[Amber White]

The standards movement is a bad idea if data must come from standardized testing or mandates! Like numerous other states, MI standards are assessable and directly tied to AYP (adequate yearly progress), a component of NCLB. Results are based on year-to-year student achievement. The bottome line, your building's "data" must meet the percent proficient set by the state for the designated year (MI AYP Target Goals...pay close attention to 2013-2014-100%!). This standardized testing is 1/3 of the AYP formula. When a school does not meet the target goal (YIKES, what's going to happen in the next few years as the bar is raised quickly to 100%), you fall into sanctions. In 2011, I can imagine most schools within our state will be falling into sanctions and will be economically destitute because of the costly steps they will endure from not meeting the high proficiency levels.

In my opinion, these sanctions are costly, punitive, and does little to foster authentic learning. This uniformity and standardization is another "Bad Idea" and will result in pandemic teaching to the test mode out of FEAR, not out of pursuit of excellence or meaningful instruction-not to mention that these sanctions are even more punitive to schools receiving Title monies. (There is a "Safe Harbor" feature which allows you to escape sanctions if you have a 10% decrease in the those falling short of proficient, but this is still flawed for obvious reasons.)

The construct of the MI MEAP test has been in constant flux over the last few years...at this point it's like apples to boats (I know psychometricians would disagree). It's interesting that they can show year-to-year growth with such variants in where the point base is coming from. With each passing year, the writing portions of the MEAP are being whittled away and replaced with the graphite curse because of scoring expenses. Although the MEAP writing portions are flawed (Newkirk discusses this in a later chapter of his book), one has to admit it's a better than the alternative, yet the best option would be what Newkirk says, absolutely no standardization of the standards!


Barry Lane said:

I thought of one more prickly one.

Is the standards movement and it's relentless pursuit of "data," and quantifiable results helpful or hurtful to authentic learning?

Barry Lane said:

In response to Brenda and Ken's thoughtful comments I thought I would pose some questions to gnaw on.

1) What is research? And is "scientific" research different than other types?

2) Does what we call "scientific research" change when we hit the "real" world of the individual classroom?

3) Does the "teacher/researcher" type research suffer the same fate? (example: Steph Harvey and Nancie Atwell.)

4) Are we barking up the right tree to try and make a scientific standard for the classroom teacher? Is there an alternative to this approach?