BuildBetterSchools

Trapped by Numbers

Conny Jensen — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:10:23 +0000

This letter from a teacher makes me feel like crying! I came across it on Renée Dinnerstein’s blog: Investigating Choice Time.

“I am 37 days away from finishing my first year of teaching first grade! My whole life I have dreamed of being a teacher. It wasn’t until college that I fell in love with the Reggio style of teaching. I was blessed to visit Reggio Emilia during the summer going into my senior year of college! It was AWESOME!

I was hired a week before school started back in Mid August of 2012. I was so excited! The school I teach in is the epitome of a data driven school. We have a data wall and data meetings and each child is colored red, yellow, or green. In fact, the principal is talking about displaying quotes regarding specific data data data on the wall next year.

The more I become engrossed in the data driven mentality, the more discouraged I become. It’s so sad that watercolors were requested on our supply list but have stayed in the closet due to the high demands of test after test after tests. Not only do these children have to take the test on paper and pencil, but also log them into the computer.

Is their any advice you can offer? As a first year teacher I feel trapped by numbers. Have we forgotten about creativity and student choice? I yearned to be mentored by a Reggio or Reggio-inspired educator.

(Photo shows an example of a school’s data wall)

“ADHD is not an illness”

Conny Jensen — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:06:14 +0000

“ADHD is not an illness“, says Dr. Laura Batstra, researcher at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands. She quit her job as a treating psychologist at an institution for child and youth psychiatry when she found that more and more schoolkids were referred for diagnoses of ADHD.

Schools in Holland too test kids yearly on their progress. If students do not show growth, a reason will/must be found why, and often the verdict is ADHD even though the child’s behavior is normal.

In a dutch tv show I watched on the subject of labeling of school children, a child development expert who has studied descriptions of boys’ behavior through the ages said that boys have not changed, but society’s expectations of them have. They are now forced to sit still in school even though boys especially have an innate drive/need to be active and to work with their hands. Sadly, vocational schools have been phased out in Holland too.

Because of the focus on the importance of test scores, many parents with children who struggle, are eager to have their child tested, in hopes of getting a diagnosis for which there is treatment or a medication so that the child will perform up to expectation. Another advantage of some labels is that kids get extra time do do their tests.

All these labels are listed as disorders in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). This year a new version will be published, the DSM V with in it a new disorder, the so called DMDD: Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder. Dr. Batstra worries that it will further inflate “the diagnostic Bubble“, and that a number of kids will be seen as overly temperamental and disruptive. She says that rather than putting high expectations on kids in schools, we should tone those down.

I am all for that. No kid in school should be subjected to stress and worry, the very conditions that can lead to a label!

Children have become commodities

Conny Jensen — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:57:12 +0000

Jennifer Proseus sent the following in email and as snail mail, and hopes it comes to Melinda’s attention.

To Melinda Gates

From one mom to another, I’m asking you to please read my letter. I am sure you receive countless pleas for money, but this one is different.

… our children have become commodities. This new “reformed” educational system is experimenting with their education, and it is not succeeding. It is harming our children. They are being tested to death. Even my own daughter started having chronic stomach aches in 2 nd grade. After invasive testing by doctors, she was diagnosed with anxiety. Yes, my 8 year old child had anxiety over taking the TCAP standardized test in 2nd grade! She is not the only one. And now I hear that this year, kindergarten and 1st graders will be taking standardized tests, as well. This breaks my heart!

How did this happen? Simple: The teachers are forced to focus on testing because their
job depends on it. Students even learn songs about TCAP testing in music class! Our school pretty much comes to a halt in the spring to focus on THE TEST. Is worthwhile learning going on? No. Test taking skills and strategies are the main focus. They cram in as much info that might be on the test as they can. Their jobs and our school funds depend on how those babies score on the test!

After hearing complaints about the Common Core curriculum being confusing and
irrelevant, I researched it myself. I’m not at all happy with what I see. If a team of experienced Educators were to write the Common Core Curriculum, I might put more faith in it. However, it is written by businessmen and lawyers who are getting richer and richer off of this hoax on our children. I was alarmed to read in the news that the Common Core curriculum in New York is using videos from the Church of Scientology for their 5th graders! If this curriculum is supposed to be across-the board, does that mean my 5th grade child in Tennessee is learning that, too?

How did our State of Tennessee become so naïve to fall for this??? Well, they wanted the big $$$ that came from Race to the Top, and now they are after the generous grants from philanthropists. The wheels were further greased by elected officials whose campaigns were partially funded by “reform” groups such as Stand for Children & Teach for America. It was easy to pull the wool over the eyes of parents & teachers when everyone’s eyes were so glued on the big $$$.”

Read all: From One Mom to Another

The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present

Conny Jensen — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:04:29 +0000

This is the book that parents, teachers, and anyone with a stake in public education needs to read! I had my local library purchase a copy. It is an eye-opener for all parents, but especially for those who, after spending copious amounts of time trying to help improve education in their communities by attending meetings and sitting on committees, have come to the sad and frustrating realization that their voices were ignored!

Read the Preface

“The great keep the poor from the knowledge of their rights; and it is knowledge alone, diffused through the whole body of the people, that can preserve them from tyranny” ~ John Adams

Some excerpts:

Teachers and parents are the groups you would hope to be hearing the most from when discussing improvements in education. They are the ones most intimately connected to the education system through children on a day-to-day basis. You would think that their input and feedback would not only be welcomed but recognized as essential to a quick response when a problem is sensed.

Unfortunately, these two groups are the ones most afraid of the repercussions of expressing dissatisfaction, concerns, or reservations over a whole host of issues at multiple levels. Some parents fear that what they say may lead to more difficult times for their children. It happens. They don’t want to risk it. Some teachers fear reprimands or fear for their jobs. That happens, too. Overridden by fear, these groups are keeping their opinions to themselves. They are giving up their voice in the decision-making process. The very people that the system should be responding to in order for continued improvement to occur are the ones feeling least at liberty to speak.

There is no excusing the fact that too many parents have not made education a priority or understand their responsibility to send their children to school ready to learn. But we must show restraint in assuming that they don’t care. Have we seriously “educated” parents about classrooms, schools, and their roles? And have they been given ample and consistent opportunity to engage and participate?. We need to stop thinking about ways to “deal with” parents and start thinking about ways to “work with” parents”.

Parents can offer insight into how their child learns best. Parents want to have a say in how and what their child is taught. Teachers want to have a say in what and how they teach. Local communities must have a voice in letting their needs of the education system be known.

Top-down mandates for “school reform” ignore the human element.

As Seymour Sarason wrote, “If and when educational theorists , researchers, and policy experts in our universities participate in the discussion, we have reason to be somewhat hopeful.”

For the formula for educational success to work, we must use our heads, our hearts, and our history. We must recognize what reform is and remember that it has been tried before, repeatedly, and with the same result of not changing the system, not completing the equation, and never, to date, reaching the goal of equal educational opportunity. We must resist our temptation to take the small, relatively easy pieces only and not tackle the bigger picture.

We replaced individual “performance” standards with state “curriculum” standards; we supplanted the idea of expecting that every child is capable of being educated and is expected to master a set of skill. Now we risk setting national curriculum standards instead of recognizing that children need us to identify their individual strengths and weaknesses and work with them to attain a level of mastery of the classroom curriculum as outlined in a locally agreed upon instructional framework.

This isn’t a philosophy that gets away from being held accountable to a standard; it’s one that is responsible for meeting the needs of the individual student along with educational standards. This is a philosophy that can take us from a classroom culture of test preparation to a culture of educating each child to the fullest extent of his or her talents– meeting the standards for American excellence and equality.

We spun our wheels and dug ourselves in even deeper when we not only set curriculum standards but tied them to standardized tests. Standardized tests are one indicator of equality and opportunity, not necessarily the quality of education. They were not what the 1965 ESEA meant when it stated “appropriate measures” of student achievement.

Quality education was to be determined based on the intention of the program of instruction and its targeted population of students; success was to be defined by how well “a program or project” solved an identified problem. The law intended to use testing to judge the effectiveness of federally funded programs targeted for the educationally deprived, only. The federal role in testing stopped there, until the development of the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP).

—————————————————–

Connect with author Victoria M. Young on Facebook

Read her blog: The Crucial Voice of the People

Let’s care about kids dying of abuse!

Conny Jensen — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:21:41 +0000

In the Washing Post Answer Sheet :
[Secretary of education] Arne Duncan:We need gun control, more early childhood education.

I am incensed that children are now used to push for more gun control. People are irrational and think violence can be curbed with laws. No! It can only be curbed by tackling it at the root, which is poverty, and children growing up in dysfunctional homes where they are subjected to toxic stress due to child abuse and neglect (which includes a parent’s dependency problem so they cannot nurture their child properly). It creates a continued cycle of dysfunction and violence.

In an Education week article: Overcoming Impact of Adversity on Learning, Sarah D. Sparks writes:

“..Researchers have found that chronic, sustained stress, such as that caused by neglect, abuse, or deprivation, elevates stress hormones in the brain and weakens the neural foundation of executive-function skills in early childhood. That can cause the children to struggle in school and work, and in adulthood, make it harder to pass those skills on to their own children.”

The media does not make us aware that in the U.S. each day 5 children (1500 a year!) die because of child abuse, and millions more suffer the effect. Those deaths are not as sensational as the kids who died at the hands of a deranged gunman, whose upbringing may give some clues as to why he snapped. There is this study though that we should take serious given that we deny K graders play! (Play Deprived Life)

Focusing on excellent (but I mean excellent and developmentally appropriate) early childhood education will go a long way to nurturing children’s brains. For those parents who can not suitably engage with their young children, having them get the playful and enriched learning experiences in a good preschool will do wonders for allowing them to become intelligent, creative and healthy human beings.

I am afraid though that the preschools envisioned by Duncan are nothing but early learning boot camps with academic focus instead of learning through play.

Rigorous Standards Stifle Children

Conny Jensen — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:29:24 +0000

“..Recent critiques of the Common Core Standards by Marion Brady and John T. Spencer have noted that the process for creating the new K-12 standards involved too little research, public dialogue, or input from educators...It appears that early childhood teachers and child development experts were excluded from the K-3 standards-writing process.” (From: A Tough Critique of the Common Core on Early Childhood Education)

Indeed, that is what I discovered also! In March of 2010, when the public could comment on the standards, I asked some questions of Morgan Saxby, Research Associate at Achieve, Inc.

Here is our revealing back and forth. The links provided to

me by Saxby are no longer valid.

Conny: How can I find out who the experts were who helped draft the core standards?

Morgan: This is a list of the people most directly involved with drafting the core standards: http://www.corestandards.org/Files/K-12DevelopmentTeam.pdf

Here is a list of statements of support for the K-12 standards, and the CCSSI more generally. Note that many of these organizations played specific roles in the drafting of the standards: http://corestandards.org/Statements.htm

There is also an FAQ available here: http://corestandards.org/Files/CoreFAQ.pdf

Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for taking the time to leave feedback on the standards, and for your email.

Conny: Thank you so much for your swift response. It has been very useful as I wanted to find out if any early childhood development experts had participated but I can find none. Is it possible for you to find out why that is?

The people who helped draft the standards, distinguished in their fields as they may be, may know what children are capable of learning, but they lack the knowledge on how and when such things are learned best, hence many standards are age inappropriate. Subjecting children to too much too soon could prove unhealthy.

Below some interesting key concerns from a report by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Of course there are several other expert organizations and individuals who could have been invited to participate. Dr. Bruce Perry immediately comes to mind, but also others like Dr. Harry Chugani who practices Neurology and Pediatric Neurology, and Eric Jensen who wrote “Teaching with the brain in mind”.

Please also read http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/earlybraina.cfm and share if you can. It shows that any standard in school is useless unless children get a healthy start in life! Neglect early in life will make it impossible for children to become excellent learners later on as the brain will not have laid the groundwork for complex thinking.

Morgan: Thanks for your email. I believe there were several early childhood teachers and cognitive development experts involved, and I’ll try to figure out who those were. I should note that there were a number of individuals/groups who got involved at varying levels of formality, so they might not have been one of the “team” roster lists (or they might be; I will need to check).

Second, there are certainly many important things, including the ones you mention, that are vital for learning and achievement, some or many of which can’t be captured in a document of academic standards. I do see you are also making point about considering the academic load placed on the youngest students, and I hope you have had a chance to leave these comments in the survey so that they can be included with other responses about the early standards.

In ELA specifically: The AFT and NEA brought teachers together, including early education teachers. Most states involved in the process had work teams that included early childhood experts. Marilyn Adams and Louisa Moats worked on the Foundational Skills, specifically. Some people from Core Knowledge (including, I think, a cognitive psychologist) weighed in on the K-5 standards. NCTE also commented on the standards, and their group included early childhood educators. Lastly, one of the lead writers, Sue Pimentel, has a degree in early childhood education.

I may have more for you later, but a number of early education experts and teachers were involved in the process. Doug Clements and Karen Fuson are both experts in early childhood math education, and were involved in the Early Mathematics Panel. Doug also wrote much of the early-grades material for the NCTM focal points. The AFT also brought together teams of early childhood expert teachers and gave significant input in both the math and ELA standards. I’m still waiting to hear from someone about any experts specifically involved with the development of the ELA standards.

Conny: Thank you for all your help to find out more. I looked up Karen Fuson and nothing shows she’s an early childhood expert, but Doug Clements is. There’s a lot of sensible info on his page that I can agree with, but I am afraid it will be overshadowed by the focus on reaching the standards. Yet, Doug himself states: “There is a substantial and critical difference between standards as a vision of excellence and standards as rigid requirements for mastery. Only the former is appropriate for early childhood mathematics education.”

And yes, I have shared my concerns on the survey. How might I make additional comments?

Morgan: Briefly on Karen Fuson – students using her curriculum Math Expressions were found by IES to have significantly higher levels of achievement than two other curricula. This was part of a study of early mathematics curricula.

As for additional comments, the survey is the best way for us to capture the many comments that are coming in.

Conny: You wrote,

Briefly on Karen Fuson – students using her curriculum Math Expressions were found by IES to have significantly higher levels of achievement than two other curricula. This was part of a study of early mathematics curricula.

I am almost afraid to ask if that may have been the reason she was invited to help write the standards? It is of course wonderful if a certain curriculum delivers better comprehension than another, but the fact remains that she is not a child development expert.

You mentioned:

The AFT and NEA brought teachers together, including early education teachers. Most states involved in the process had work teams that included early childhood experts. Marilyn Adams and Louisa Moats worked on the Foundational Skills, specifically. Some people from Core Knowledge (including, I think, a cognitive psychologist) weighed in on the K-5 standards. NCTE also commented on the standards, and their group included early childhood educators. Lastly, one of the lead writers, Sue Pimentel, has a degree in early childhood education.

Of Louisa Moats too it can be argued she has a vested interest in these standards as she is an employee of Sopris West, a for-profit publishing company that publishes her LETRS training program as well as DIBELS, the horrible time testing procedure to see how quickly kids can read.

Unfortunately Sue Pimentel as far as I could determine, is also not an early childhood expert, but an education analyst and standards consultant. I find it therefore safe to conclude that not enough weight was given to the needs of the young child. I wanted to substantiate this before sharing with others as I do have a concern about the under representation of true child development experts who more than anyone else consider the complete needs, and well-being of young children first and foremost. Thanks for your time.

Morgan: As you still have concerns about the standards as written, I encourage you to submit those with as much specificity as you can, so as to best inform the revision process.

Also, I believe Karen was invited because she was respected as someone who has written and thought a great deal about math at the early grades.

Conny: I will do that, but am concerned that with so many large organizations in support of the standards, my and other smaller voices will remain “unheard”. It boggles my mind that those concerns, backed by many nationally renowned early childhood experts and specialists such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, are totally ignored.

Here for your own information, and please share if you think it has merit, read this by the Alliance for Childhood. I find it most disturbing and it breaks my heart that little children no longer even know how to play and be creative!

Call to Action Background and References
Regards,
Conny Jensen

—————————
Also see: Toxic Stress Damages Developing Brain

Toxic Stress Damages Developing Brain

Conny Jensen — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:30:03 +0000

Below some interesting key points from The Science of Early Childhood Development , a report by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

..preschool policies and programs that place disproportionate emphasis on didactic approaches to academic skills are less likely to prepare young children to succeed in school than experiences that embed the promotion of literacy and numeracy in a rich environment of age-appropriate social interaction. The science of early childhood and early brain development clearly indicates that state and local officials should support the implementation of both child care standards and preschool curricula that promote a balanced and developmentally appropriate approach to the “whole child.”

Toxic stress in early childhood is associated with persistent effects on the nervous system and stress hormone systems that can damage developing brain architecture and lead to lifelong problems in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health…children who experience toxic stress in early childhood may develop a lifetime of greater susceptibility to stress-related physical illnesses (such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes) as well as mental health problems (such as depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse). They also are more likely to exhibit health-damaging behaviors and adult lifestyles that undermine well-being.

Decades of research tell us that mutually rewarding interactions are essential prerequisites for the development of healthy brain circuits and increasingly complex skills.

..oral language acquisition depends not only on adequate hearing, the ability to differentiate sounds, and the capacity to link meaning to specific words, but also on the ability to concentrate, pay attention, and engage in meaningful social interaction. [current NCLB prescribed, scripted reading programs do not provide that and are actually damaging to a child's self-esteem! -- C.J]

Policy initiatives that promote supportive relationships and rich learning opportunities for young children create a strong foundation for higher school achievement followed by greater productivity in the workplace and solid citizenship in the community throughout the adult years. Thus, current calls for greater emphasis on early literacy must not diminish the importance of attention to other essential capacities, such as initiative, self-confidence, and persistence in learning, as well as the ability to work cooperatively and resolve conflict with peers—all of which are core characteristics of students in a successful school, citizens in a healthy community, and the workforce of a prosperous nation.

The Science of Neglect: The Persistent Absence of Responsive Care Disrupts the Developing Brain

Resegregation in Schools

Conny Jensen — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:06:21 +0000

A letter by Don Perl of The Coalition for Better Education .

Dear Mr. President:

I join the millions and millions of other North Americans in sending heartfelt congratulations for your winning a second term as President of all of these United States. We know that you can accomplish wonders, and with progressive support we will see the wheel of history inch forward toward a more humane world.

Along with many other lifetime educators I have watched in dismay at the implementation of educational policies from this administration that have only addressed the element of competition in our natures, and have not enhanced our more noble qualities – qualities that must be enhanced in order for real education to take place. With this in mind, I have pored over a number of articles on education in which you have taken a position.

The link opens to an article in which you have favored the establishment of charter schools in the state of Georgia.

“Obama: “I call on states to reform their charter rules…When I passed a law to double the number of public charter schools…I called for a doubling of our investment in charter schools so that students and parents have choices.”

I have asked my colleague, Professor James Horn who sent me the article, why “a man so obviously gifted in intelligence and so politically astute would want the wheel of history to turn toward resegregation in our schools.”

And so I posit this same question to you on the encouragement of my colleague. The “inconvenient truth” around charter schools is that they scrutinize their potential students and select those with the most academic potential. (Translate: the most affluent.) The marvel of the public school concept in the United States is that we accept all the children, and that mixing of races and ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds can only result in a stronger, more thoughtful society.

Why then, Mr. President, I ask yet again, since you are obviously so gifted intellectually in so many realms and so politically astute, would you favor the further marginalization of our children?

I look forward to more than a response. I look forward to a mindful rethinking of policy. So many of us, educators all, look forward to that mindful rethinking.

Citizen,

Don Perl

Department of Hispanic Studies

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, Colorado 80639

don.perl@unco.edu

970-351-2746

The Coalition for Better Education, Inc.

www.thecbe.org

—————————————————————————-

Of note too: Why Charter Schools Are Not The Answer

Impact of Screen Time on Development and Learning

Conny Jensen — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:21:23 +0000

From a newly released report by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Alliance for Childhood.

Conclusion

More independent research is needed on the impact of screen technologies on young children. But whether you believe that early childhood settings should include screen time or not, there is enough evidence to draw these conclusions:

Many young children are spending too much time with screens at the expense of other important activities. There’s no evidence that screen time is educational for infants and toddlers, and there is some evidence that it may be harmful. Some carefully monitored experience with quality content can benefit children over 3.

But what’s most important for children is lots of time for hands-on creative and active play, time in nature, and face-to-face interactions with caring adults. And, regardless of content, excessive screen time harms healthy growth and development.

Based on the available research, …this guide contain[s] practical information and suggestions for making your own decisions about using screen technologies with young children.

Access the report below

Facing the Screen Dilemma: Young Children, Technology and Early Education

A Facebook page has been set up devoted to discussing the ideas in Facing the Screen Dilemma. Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

Help Advertise Opting out of Testing in Colorado

Conny Jensen — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:18:49 +0000

Help the www.thecbe.org set up advertising billboards that alert parents they have the right to exempt their children from the fraud of testing in CO.

There’s been a remarkable increase in the number of parents exempting their children each year! Help keep the momentum going.

Two boards costing $1,800 will be up for a month in January along I-25 between CO Springs and Pueblo. $600 is still needed. Anything you can send – anything at all will directly pay for the boards. Send a check to:

The Coalition for Better Education
2424 22nd Avenue
Greeley, Co 80631