Get Schooled

By V for Vendetta

February 8, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Blame grade inflation and our overly-litigious society for this one. I wish there was more to say, but there isn’t. The kids and their parents are afraid of low marks. Schools are afraid of kids messing with harmful equipment and/or chemicals. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Maybe so many kids are failing because our science courses are a JOKE. Toughen them up! Let kids fail at the local school level. Don’t be afraid to show a kid (through his work and results) that he can’t cut it unless he improves.

And while you’re doing all that, there will be still more school districts abolishing zero as a grade. Lovely.

By JustMe

February 8, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

Grrrr - This must be the #1 thing that is quickly getting under my skin. I hate the stupid catch phrase “hands on.”

Too many think that just because a student is actively doing something they are learning. Those people are WRONG! I see too many lessons by teachers that are “hands on” and they are nothing but elementary step by step instructions that the kids follow and learn NOTHING.

Administrators walk into a classroom and just because they see students “doing” something “hands on” that this is automatically a good thing. They are WRONG.

I know of a teacher in high school that has kids do “hands on” activities most every day - with crayons and glue and paper. The administrators at first loved it. The kids, of course, loved it. The teacher loved it too because the kids were busy and out of her hair. However, the kids weren’t learning a darn thing - and this was exposed in the EOCT and the GHSGT. So, the kids really weren’t learning the content even though they were “hands on” in class.

Many of the tremendous accomplishments such as cloning a bush in class are also useless. The teacher or expert does the real work and the students learn nothing. However, the PR is great.

In science classes, I have seen “labs” where the students mindlessly follow the steps and even make a 100 grade. However, they couldn’t tell you really what they did or why they did it or even how it connects to the content of the class. What is this type of “hands on” really achieving?

In math classes, “hands on” means getting the kids to draw pictures, play with objects, etc. Does the motion of this really help students learn math? No. The students must understand why they are doing it and use their minds to analyze and think.

We must get out of this mindset of “hands on”. It is just another education fad that doesn’t mean anything. If anything, why not “minds on.” Just focus on getting the kids to think!

By jim d

February 8, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

JM,

Perhaps. But let me point out that just as there are different teaching styles, there are different learning styles. I honestly believe that SOME students actually learn better by doing.(I was one of them)

Again, These should be choice issues left to the student and parents—not something rammed down their throats by a school system, and the latest/greatest educational trend, with a mentallity that one size fits all.

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

I’m gonna side with JM on this one.

jim:

We’ve had this discussion before, but student must adapt to teacher. Teacher cannot be expected to adapt to every student. That is at the crux of much of our problem now.

By JustMe

February 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

jd - no duh. I am fine with kids that are actually learning something while they do it. That is NOT what I am saying.

The problem is having kids ‘do something’ just for the sake of ‘doing’ and not for the sake of ‘learning.’ Please re-read the examples in my previous post to fully understand what I am saying.

This “hands on” fad began 5 to 10 years ago. The studies on it showed improved student learning - great. However, the definition of “hands on” has been “watered down” so much that the student doesn’t have to think at all and they end up learning nothing.

Parents should be VERY cautious whenever they hear the catch phrase “hands on.”

By jim d

February 8, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

I understood and I do agree. I was commenting more on the one size fits all menatality that the schools appear to be pushing by insisting these classes are more stringent and demanding when in fact they may be easier for some students. This is a decission that belongs to parents and students based on how they learn, possibly factoring in observations by well trained teachers the student may have had in the past.

Are hands on classes inherently bad? Well perhaps in their current form. I do believe however, that if done properly and taught by trained professionls they can be just another weapon in the arsenal.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Yes Jeff,

We have and we still disagree.

In my opinon the teachers, being paid professionals should make every effort to reach every student. If a student fails to grasp a concept it is the teachers responsibilty to try a different approach to reach the student. In other words, if students fail to learn the way you teach, you are obligated to these kids to teach in a manner that they can learn.(as a professional educator—that is your job)

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

jim:

Ever heard the old saying “One can be some things to all people, or all things to some people, but never all things to all people”?

You are trying to make teachers be all things to all people.

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! (And you KNOW how rare it is for me to use that particular ‘I’ word!)

By Lee

February 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

“I know of a teacher in high school that has kids do “hands on” activities most every day - with crayons and glue and paper.”

Thanks a lot, JustMe. Now I gotta clean coffee off the computer screen.

All joking aside, it’s all in the way the brain processes information and how that information gets stored into the various memory locations. Lot of Phd types have written a lot of stuff on this topic, most of which I don’t understand (but that’s never stopped me from commenting about it…)

Years ago, we did a lot of hands on. Okay okay, we wrote multiplication tables thousands of times. But if you ask me what 8x7 is, I can tell you in an instant.

By mmm

February 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

By high school, the kids should be able to deal with symbolic reasoning. The hands on stuff needs to take place much earlier and be reflected in a report by the student explaining what they did and why they did it. It is the desert that is fine if the rest of the meal is also present, but will make you fat dumb and lazy if you are fed nothing else.

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Lee:

Years ago, we did a lot of hands on. Okay okay, we wrote multiplication tables thousands of times. But if you ask me what 8x7 is, I can tell you in an instant.

While not quite as funny, this goes right up there with Bill Envall’s comments about ADD in my book!

By jim d

February 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Dear friend, you never know until you try.

Truth here though is that perhaps you have confused the definition of a teacher as being merely a facilitator.

JMHO, but I look upon teaching as an art—facilitating as a job. Kinda like the difference between an artist and a painter. Know what I mean?

By jim d

February 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

mmm,

Ever tried to tear down an engine and put it back together? Wire a house? or do dentistry work after just reading the book?

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

jim:

Since a teacher is not in the mind of anyone but him/her self, s/he cannot MAKE ANYONE learn.

Facilitation is the ONLY thing that can be done by anyone other than the students themselves. Anything else is physically impossible. Goes back to the discussion the other day: Person A cannot MAKE Person B do ANYTHING. The best Person A can hope to do is facilitate Person B making the right choices.

By Mike K.

February 8, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

“In my opinon the teachers, being paid professionals should make every effort to reach every student. If a student fails to grasp a concept it is the teachers responsibilty to try a different approach to reach the student. In other words, if students fail to learn the way you teach, you are obligated to these kids to teach in a manner that they can learn.(as a professional educator—that is your job)”

jim d do you mean that this should be done during class or after class?

By Math Mom

February 8, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Georgia needs highly trained teachers with degrees in science and math. Discovery learning, hands-on science, and other such programs are not effective without a highly motivated teacher who understands and can communicate the subject matter. “Hands-on” programs should not be used as a substitute for teaching science courses.

By HS Teacher Too

February 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

I’m with JM in the sense that there is “hands-on” for the sake of it, without any real learning or understanding; and then there are activities that may use manipulatives or crayons, or play-doh or even getting out of your seat (oh, no!) but have with them a wel-developed, thought-out way that the kids really DO get something out of it. I’m afraid that a lot of the “hands-on” is the first variety, but not all of it is.

And I’m with jim d that it is inherent in our job to try to reach every child. No, we can’t make them learn; but if we want to use the horse/water analogy — we DO have to lead them to the water along a path they CAN travel. If they buck at even entering the path, well, that’s a different story.

What’s more, I’m not convinced that making this kind of effort to reach kids of different learning styles is anything that a good teacher doesn’t ALREADY DO, whether through “hands-on” work or any other approach.

I can’t count the number of times that I would ask my class how they were doing, or judge their understanding from the countless ways they communicate (body language, expressions, etc.). And when I saw a lost child I would say, well, what if we looked at it this way and try another approach. Whether that approach was to try to make an analogy to a real-world example, or to use a picture instead of an equation, or to use shapes instead of numbers … who knows what alternative I’d have in my pocket, but there’s ALWAYS an alternative.

To answer today’s question, I have said this soooooo many times: get rid of the HOPE. It leads to grade inflation which leads to dumbing-down the courses, and of course leads to shopping — “do I take the CP class where I can get an A, or the AP class where I risk a B …?” But this is well-covered material on this blog and I shall zip my lips. Or freeze my fingers, as the case is!

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

HST2:

But in giving a real world example or an analogy etc, you are not changing YOUR style to meet THEIRS. You are simply presenting YOUR style in a different context.

You’re not going from lecture to ‘hands on’, you’re saying “here’s a different way of looking at the lecture”.

Even I do that second approach ALL THE TIME. THAT I don’t have a problem with.

Jim trying to say that a teacher must go to hands on lessons because one student is too dense to understand a lecture is where I say he is wrong.

By V for Vendetta

February 8, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

I always get a little “tight” (as Scout would say) when someone mentions this hands on stuff. (Although, in fairness to Scout, her referrence had to do with drinking!)

It sounds good and all that, but the reality as some have pointed out, is a bit different. I remember making collages and mosiacs out of chopped up magazines and glue. They large pictures (portraits? projects?) were supposed to indicate various things — namely how we “felt” about certain topics.

That was in EIGHTH GRADE! What a waste of time. Meanwhile, my contemporaries at another middle school were learning advanced topics in their core classes. Who got the better educational end of that deal?

By Lee

February 8, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

A couple of observations:

Am I missing something here, but isn’t the “Lab” part of a science class the “hands on” part?

Maybe I should have asked this question first: “Do they still have “Lab” in today’s schools?”

Sorry Jeff, but I gotta agree with Jim D on this one. Part of being a teacher is understanding how the students in the class learn and then making the adjustments in the way you teach in order to facilitate that learning process. Otherwise, you might as well videotape your class lectures and play them everyday - no need for a teacher in the classroom, think of the $aving$.

By violasmom

February 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

I think I read it here in an earlier response, but “hands-on” is really only beneficial if the critical thinking part was applied also. When I was teaching, college freshman level chemistry, ALL of our lab experiments were project labs. The students were given a problem and then asked to solve it. As part of this they were required to turn in a pre-lab report where they gave a rationale for each step they were about to undertake. Even if given step-by-step instructions, students can be asked to give a “why” statement for each step. Now, to answer the question, is hands-on a good way to get students interested in science, YES, if only because they can see how “cool” some of it is, even kindergarteners can do pH experiments by looking at color change—starting early will also theoretically get more students interested in signing up for the more advanced classes later on, IMHO. I am a firm believer in the hands-on approach, as long as it isn’t busy work for busy works sake. The American Chemical Society has even developed a hands-on textbook to go with this trend…I used it and can say that my students used more by putting the theory to practice BEFORE learning the theory than if we had done the experiments after the lectures. Have a great day!

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Lee:

If you’ll remember, I support just such a concept of abandoning traditional school buildings altogether and having a centralized online delivery system for government education.

By Science teacher

February 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Do any of you really have a clue about high school science? Or what goes on in a science classroom that is considered “hands-on”? The problem seems to be involvement from ignorant community members who haven’t taken a science course since middle/high school. Students don’t learn by having someone stand up in front of the class and lecture. Students learn by doing.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

So jeff,

“I support just such a concept of abandoning traditional school buildings altogether and having a centralized online delivery system for government education.”

You’re ok with just abandonding those that don’t learn in this fashion?

By jim d

February 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Sci. teach,

“The problem seems to be involvement from ignorant community members”

Not really. We ignorant community members are the ones here that get it. It is more the know it all educators that are struggling with the concept.

By luvs2teach

February 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

Yay - a topic near and dear to my heart!!! It’s also one I’ve been following (the Dobbins Charter School) because I would love to work in a school like the one proposed.

Anyway, here goes - lots of thoughts on this and not a lot of time to make them coherent so apologies beforehand if this rambles a bit…

First, there is a difference bewteen “hands-on activities” and true hands-on, application of science. JustMe is dead-on in talking about the crayon, glue, and paper activities - they look great, the kids are having fun, and we can call it hands-on…but that’s not science. It’s arts and crafts. Unfortunately, there is a generation of teachers and administrators who look at that as effective because it’s not a drill and kill worksheet.

True, hands-on, application style science can be difficult to do because of cost, time, and number of students in a class. I think it takes training on part of the teachers as well as the students. I have too many kids who think lab time is play time and they always want science to be “fun.” They have Mr. Wizard Syndrome - now, don’t get me wrong, I love Mr. Wizard (and Bill Nye and Ms. Frizzle), but most kid want the fun experience and the wow factor - a few have their curiosity piqued enough to want the “how & why,” but few really want to do the data collection, interpretation, and analysis part…”That’s boring…” & “I don’t get it…” are what I hear.

Next, a huge part of why we’re losing science is becuase it’s shoved aside in elementary for more reading instruction, the powers that be throw in all kinds of stuff in middle school (writing across the curriculum, everyday problem solving, and DEAR - Drop Everything And Read - into the middel school sceince class - that limits the time to do true science. Class size doesn’t help. I have as many as 28 kids in many of my classes - NSTA recommends no more than 24 for a lab class. My periods are 50 minutes - my labs in HS were double periods and in college 3 hour blocks. We do a lot of “Discovery Activities” (like Mr. Wizard) - we don’t do as many true labs - at least not what I would consider true labs.

Next, my kids come to me woefully unprepared to do true labs in any kind of independent manner. I would love to spend more time doing true labs, but I’m too busy getting them up to speed on reading and vocabulary, basic math facts, and how to use measuring equipment.

Finally I would love to work in a school where I could teach an Applied Engineering type of science - let’s build something! And in the course of building something let’s learn the math and science behind making it work…of course that’s not on the CRCT.

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

jim:

You would be amazed what people can do when they are given NO other option.

This “I can’t learn that way” BS is just that - BS.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

L2T,

Ever thought about shopping around?

We’ve had kids building such things as robots and hovercraft at our school. A far cry from hands OFF learning.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

bout as bad as a teacher that can only teach with one method—wouldn’t you say?

By jim d

February 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

BTW Jeff,

No I wouldn’t be amazed. I’m confident that were a teacher be given no alternative, but to change teaching methods to enable them to reach students, that they would do so. After all that is what they are being paid for.

By mmm

February 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Jim d,

I didn’t say no “hands on”, I said it can’t be all hands on. The examples you site are crafts. Yes, I have done replacement wiring in my house successfully (the new black wire goes where the old one was). I took apart a carborator (a disaster without diagram ) and I aided an Electrical Engineer who replaced the wiring harness in on ‘75 Corrolla I owned with one out of another. He had a diagram.

BTW I have a Chemical Engineering degree and did plenty of lab work. I did not say that there should be no hands on—-only that it should only be part of the picture.

My point about High School being too late, was that when science gets short shift in elementary and middle school we have painted ourselves into a corner with kids that don’t have the basic principals. So they won’t take the class.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

L2T,

Would you say that students in an applied science class that were required to design a project, estimate construction costs, purchase materials and then build the project had learned anything?

By decaturparent

February 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Here’s a new blog topic. I received this video today and I think it pretty much sums up the problems with education in just one diatribe….

Warning - it’s typical George Carlin - need I say more?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2iVgx_VS4

By luvs2teach

February 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

jim d - in answer to your first question about shopping around…yes, I have and yes, my classes do some of those things - we just don’t have enough time!

In answer to your second question, absolutely and without a doubt which is why I would love to teach a class with that approach. It’s real world as well as hands-on. Make a model rocket - a model car - a model airplane - I could go on. The kids are engaged and they are learning - they also see how it relates to the real world - after two years of posting, this answer should really be of no surprise to you - you know I’m not in love with the status quo :-)

I was basing my answers on the more general trends I see and hear about in Georgia. I am actually very lucky in that I teach in a school that is fairly supportive of science and allows and encourages to stretch the mold (we can’t break it though, LOL - there’s that pexky CRCT to worry about). My school has been recognized for some of the things it has been able to do (in this paper, no less) but I prefer to remain anonymous and not mention my school (last time I put my name to a comment on an AJC board I ended up subpoenaed to testify in a very public case - really!).

By SET

February 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

When I saw the reference to “hands on” I thought this was about the “controversy” regarding dissection of frogs, pigs, and other such science work.

Some students claim they can refuse such assignments or do them on a computer or something and claim credit for the science class. It seems that it’s not nice to tell the kiddies what they have to do and how they have to do it. They require “choices”.

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

jim:

I’ll grant you ONE thing here:

Given unlimited time and resources, you are correct that a teacher should adapt to the students.

Now, lets get out of the ivory tower of theory and into the dirty world of reality. Quite simply, teachers have neither unlimited time nor unlimited resources.

Therefore, to expect one teacher to adapt to 120 students is the EPITOME of unreasonableness and lunacy.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

ROTFLMAO Jeff,

Those weren’t my words!But you just described a very well known and succesful principal of one of Gwinnett’s top schools as an unnreasonable lunatic!

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

jim:

Aint too many admins I would trust any more than a student, and how much I trust a student is fairly well known here.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

L2T,

What I found of interest was that while time was indeed limited in class, the kids would show up before school, after school and even on the weekends to work on these projects.

Hands on learning at it’s best in my opinon!!

By jim d

February 8, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Personally I have the utmost respect for any school administrator that would direct his employees that this is the standard of excellence he expects from each and every one of them. It speaks volumes about his expectations of teachers, staff, students and the community itself. Let me say that this truly is a demonstration of strong leadership.

Furthermore, Your disconnect with this concept also speaks volumes.

By Jeff

February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

jim:

The man clearly doesn’t expect a THING from students, and for you to sit here and praise him for his ‘high’ expectations of students says EVERYTHING a teacher would need to know about you.

By luvs2teach

February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

And that’s what I see, too…unfortunately, I only see it with a handful of kids - the “geeks” and the “nerds” primarily.

I also have kids that just can’t get here before or after school - transportation is a problem.

By Old Physics Teacher

February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

jim d,

I just got finished teaching a low-level 10th grade science class and logged on to decompress. I wish you wouldn’t make snide comment about know-it-all-educators. It made me blow Coke out my nose all over my screen, and I have to clean it off now. Too funny.

By Old Physics Teacher

February 8, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

jim d

On the other hand, I just read your response to jeff at 2:43. You’ve used bad logic. Successful schools do not, by any stretch, imply good principals. Just as it does not imply good teachers. Successful schools implies good students - which generally, but not always, implies great parents. Vince Dooley got far more praise as a coach than he deserved. It wasn’t real hard to say, “Hershel, take the ball, run to the sidelines, turn up field and score.”

I’ve listened to plenty of administrators claim all the success for what happens at their schools. You can see it in academics just the same as you can see it in sports. Plenty of former big-name high school football programs are in the toilet and poorer programs are now succeeding due to the new high school opening and getting assigned all the other’s former talent. You don’t win sports with out talent. You don’t get good academic schools without their “talent” either!

By JustMe

February 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

Yes, science classes still do have labs in them. However, there are good labs and bad labs.

The good ones are where the student must think through what they are doing and why they are doing it. Some of these labs require students to actually come up with their own method, or way to experiment. They then get results that must be explained.

The bad ones are the step by step route labs where the students already know the answers. These labs are the ones where the student could probably do the lab write up with the answer(s) without ever doing the actual “lab” and still make the grade of 100. The students love these because they are easy As. The administrators love these because they see students wandering around the room seemingly doing ‘hands on.’

I have seen a number of teachers use these “bad” labs just because they MUST have ‘hands on’ activities for their classes - what a waste of time!!!!

By TeacherSam

February 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Just 2 things: [1] I agree with Just Me’s anaysis of Hands on {at least in my middle school]. THe science teachers were encouraged to use the type of “hands on” Just Me mentions because the students COULD NOT READ and understand the text. The sci teachers I know say that if the don’t get out of this HandsOn mindset the kids’brains will turn to jelly!

[2] Re teachers adapting to the learning styles of every student: Is that why so many are flunking out of college ? I have not seen professors at major universities. or elsewhere for that matter, doing anything but requiring at least a big part of their classes be done in the traditional, lecture, take notes, “figure out” lab problems method.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Old Physics Teacher,

Perhaps I should start posting spew alerts, sorry, at least you were able to salvage the keyboard.(they really are tough to get the coke out of.

As for good principals. My opinon of a good principal is one who provides leadership in and out of the school. These are indeed rare, but they make a parents job, of senddng a prepared student to school, all that much easier.

SPEW ALERT

And Jeff, I’m fraid your past expierence negatively affects your ability to distinguish s** from shinola when it comes to principals.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Dear Sam,

College isn’t compulsory. If secondary education is to remain required by law, then it is the public schools job to provide the “free and appropriate” education the law specifies. See the difference?

By jim d

February 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Old Physics Teacher

Dadgum it. You made me go back to see what I said at 2:43. Because I didn’t think I’d said “Successful schools imply good principals”

Indeed not, what I said was we had both an excellent school and a top notch principal. Granted it maybe coincidence, but what a lucky one for us.

He too attributes much of his success to comunity support and students. I on the otherhand attribute much of his success to his selection of teachers and staff and his ability to lead.

Perhaps it truly is a combination of everything being in sync. and in the right place that makes our school and students so successful.

None the less, I don’t believe he is an unreasonable lunatic for insisting that teachers teach.

By luvs2teach

February 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

another thought - independent of what schools are offering, another problem is that science just isn’t cool and glamorous - it’s not the road to riches and an easy life!

I remember when I was younger, and missions to the moon and the budding space shuttle program were in the news, that science had a lot more cachet - more students recognized it as an exciting and valuable career. It’s not the same any more.

Do you know I have students who tell me that they want to be a doctor when they grow up, and then, in the same breath, tell me that they don’t like science?

ROTFLMAO.

By jim d

February 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

My final thought on education until Monday!

Teachers are indeed artists.

They paint on the canvas of life.

Y’all have a great weekend and may God bless.

By Old Physics Teacher

February 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

jim d.

I agree all teachers should teach. That’s what we get paid for. On the other hand, I default to jim’s side in any discussion concerning teachers and principals. I don’t know your principal. I’ve worked under four different ones. None of them would make it as a supervisor in the real world, unless it was in Dilbert’s World (aside: when I was in the “real world,” if I was interviewing and saw a Dilbert carton, I broke off discussions. I had enough problems without jumping into someone else’s).

I’ve met quite a few principals and few of them could find the keys to their operation without their office manager helping them. While I was a grad student at UGA in the ‘90’s I met many of Gwinnet’s AP’s (probably full principals now). I wouldn’t work for any one of them. They were arrogant AND ignorant at the same time. They believed that the problems in schools were directly attributable to the teachers - somewhat like former Gov Barnes, hum?

Now my current principal is trying his heart out. I think he’ll make it. He has a good heart, and I beleive he will grow into it. He trusts teachers until they prove him wrong.

But directly supervising teachers is the least part of the job. Leaders get out in front, inspire, and personally lead. Sorry, I haven’t met but one of those in 15 years.

Frankly, I’m leery of any Gwinnett principal from what I’ve seen of your School Board and Superintendent. If you got one, it was simply random chance. Don’t pat yourself on the back, he won’t be there long; the board office will be looking for ways to get rid of him as we speak.

By TeacherSam

February 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this

jimd RE: College isn’t compulsory I so agree with you! However, our state seems to believe that EVERYONE SHOULD GO TO COLLEGE! That being the case, they’re going to have a mighty hard time if they need each prof to cater to their particular learning style.

By thomas

February 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this

Justme stole my thunder. Everybody went OVERBOARD on this hands-on activity thing. That’s all teachers are allowed to do now. Same thing with that silly Writer’s Workshop thing.

Funny thing though— the CRCT doesn’t have fun activities or writing stories on it.

Silliness and nonsense and our kids aren’t learning anything.

By HS Teacher Too

February 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

My example wasn’t exhaustive. I’ve gone from equations to graphs to breaking out the play-doh to using pre-fab 3-D models … all of which are slightly different presentations to achieve the goal of reaching students to see/learn differently. But when you say, “You’re not going from lecture to ‘hands on’, you’re saying ‘here’s a different way of looking at the lecture’,” I have to disagree with you, because in certain instances, yes, I do move entirely to hands-on. It depends, of course, on what we’re doing, etc.. But on some level, isn’t presenting another way to looking at something from a lecture just as much trying to reach the individual students? Sometimes it’s hands-on, sometimes not … either way, it goes to the goal of reaching the kids as best we can. I think I’ve muddled this topic between hands-on and trying to reach as many kids as possible.

In any event, sorry my response took so long!

By Tony

February 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Link to this

This topic is near and dear to me because of my background as a chemistry and physics teacher prior to becoming a principal. As a science teacher it was imperative that we conduct experiments. To conduct an experiment there must be background knowledge, a hypothesis, procedures, data collection, analysis and conclusions. This is the heartbeat of science.

In elementary schools, process skills link mathematics and science curriculum. Then, students can write about what they have learned. These are the building blocks to developing students abilities to solve problems in the future.

It is commendable that a school system is putting emphasis on high-tech equipment. The opportunities bringing the real world to life abound, but they are limited because of teachers with attitudes like I have read in this list today. Making science harder should not be the objective. Making it understandable is the purpose! The demand for rote memorization of facts, definitions and formulae will not draw students into the science classroom. Sorry V and JM and Jeff.

How do students learn? With a combination of multiple strategies. So Jeff, you see, teachers must have the ability to adapt to students’ needs - even when there are 120 of them. The teacher is the professional in the room and should have the expertise to promote students learning.

Finally, to answer Laura’s prompt for the day. The best thing for science education is to open the doors for students to have science classes that are not based strictly upon the disciplines. Developing and implementing courses that promote active engagement, solving real problems, and require the application of scientific principles could attract more run of the mill students. But you have to have teachers that really understand the material and our current salaries do not always attract the best qualified candidates.

By Vicki

February 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Link to this

Bravo, Tony and HS Teacher Too!

By catlady

February 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

thomas, I think you and I have discussed this before, but re your comment about the CRCT: The CRCt does not care how fast you call the words, either, yet we continue like sheep with Reading First, which defines reading fluency as calling words fast! Doesn’t matter if you understand them! Then, on the CRCT, we are SO PUZZLED when students fail it (in record time!) So the teachers (who MUST be doing a poor job) are browbeaten some more, and given more inservice! Students get less instruction in language arts (not allowed during Reading First!, and less science and social studies, too). We put them in more intervention classes! More EIP! More afterschool classes! More summer school classes! Maybe intersession classes would help!

Our supt. seems to think that the reason our kids fail the CRCT in math is because the teachers need more inservice! They don’t know how to teach math! Never mind that on the CRCT they have to be able to READ AND UNDERSTAND the questions! Never mind that we don’t require students to MASTER basic math facts (we “expose” them—somehow it sounds dirty) NEVER MIND THAT WE PASS STUDENTS ON YEAR AFTER YEAR WHO FAIL THE CRCT (a minimal test)! (Our school, 600+ kids, a third failed the CRCT, but ONLY ONE WAS RETAINED and his parents had to INSIST on it).

Now, back on task: my observation is that there is very little money put into science lab stuff, with too many kids in the lower level classes. Administrators are scared (rightly so) of liability.

My daughters took every science class available in high school. They had terrific teachers who did the best they could with limited resources. But they never got as much lab work as they needed. They found out when they went to college how relatively disadvantaged they were compared to the kids from some other school districts.

By Tony

February 9, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

I concur, Catlady, regarding reading fluency at Reading First. Reading fast is not the purpose of the concept of fluency. The idea of fluency is that a reader is a able to read as much as possible with a natural voice - similar to speaking. The reason fluency is important is when kids get bogged down on trying to figure out words, they get lost in the meaning of the passage. While there is literature to support a quantitative measure for fluency, the measure of words/minute alone cannot be the determinant.

There is a parallel with math skills, too. It turns out that when a child is finding the answers to calculations, if the child cannot quickly recall the simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division facts he will get bogged down in the math and lose his place. The bigger concept cannot be mastered. But, again, prescribing a skills practice approach alone will not improve the child’s abilities.

Finally, teachers may or may not need more “inservice” based on how the kids perform in their classes. Sometimes, teachers need more planning time together to solve the problems presented by students who are needy. There is no single approach that will bring all kids up to speed, but when teachers are allowed to work on solving the problems together good things will happen.

Expecting our kids to learn is important, but this is more than the school’s responsibility. It is a community and family responsibility. If our schools are to improve, then our society must improve.

By catlady

February 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Tony. IMHO, fluency is an interaction between the reader and the text. To be fluent, you must understand what you are reading, and that understanding will be reflected in your voice, intonation, and your speed. Readers who understand and are interacting (with their brains) with the text will actually SLOW DOWN from time to time, as they reflect on what they have understood the text to say and how it compares to the experiential background they have with the subject. Reading First seems to deny that completely. Yes, decoding is important, BUT IT IS ONLY A SKILL WHICH LEADS TO SUCCESSFUL READING. By itself, it is NOT READING.

In math, I see the same thing you have commented on. We have fifth graders who are unsuccessful in part because they cannot add and subtract—they do not immediately know that 9 minus seven is 2. By the time they count it up on their fingers, the next step may not happen. Witness division: the children must be able to divide, multiply, and subtract. Knowing the basic facts makes learning the process of division a much simpler task. For some reason, my system sees no need to insist that students commit these facts, as a basis for math, to memory. (Seems like if we can expect kids to learn that s says /s/, they can also memorize that 6 x 2 = 12).

And hurrah for your statement about inservice! What a novel idea—to have time to meet together and figure out strategies for reaching struggling students, instead of being told for the upteenth time “how” to teach math. It speaks to a profound attitude that teachers are not professionals, IMHO.

By holdingAJCaccountable

February 10, 2008 11:19 PM | Link to this

Laura,

Teachers on here can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe state law mandates a discipline tribunal within ten days of a teacher being assaulted by a student. Has this happened with the case involving the Lilburn teacher?

Please keep us informed as to the outcome of this case and don’t let it get swept under the rug or tossed aside.

By Jeff

February 11, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Catlady and Tony:

Re: Reading:

OK, I’m about to reveal something about myself that MOST people scoff at, but here goes:

When I’m reading - particularly fiction, but it also happens with nonfiction that involves a story, such as a biography or the history of an event - the ‘real world’ dissolves and I actually LIVE the book. Now, I can jump back and forth between the realities at will - by either stopping reading or starting back - but while I am reading, I AM the character the book is discussing. ALL of my senses are engaged in the reality of the book, and during that time Jeff ceases to exist as my mind wanders through the reality of the book. Now, this leads to an interesting conundrum of forcing me to be VERY careful of what I read. For example, even T has noticed that when I read certain books - Nicholas Sparks, for example, my mood shifts in one direction when I come back to actual reality whereas if I read a different type of book - Lee Child, for example - my mood shifts in a completely different way. Note that these mood shifts typically don’t last long - no more than a hour or so at the long end - but they ARE noticeable.

My question for the two of you: Isn’t THAT level of reading what reading instruction is supposed designed to achieve?

By WFC

February 11, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Retired history teacher here rather than science but plenty of experience with “hands on and cooperative learning.” Here are the problems and solutions:

• Most “hands-on” activities have little QUALITY control. I watched a 10th grade world history teacher at Northview HS assign “hands-on-crayon-and-scissors-group” projects once a week. My son could have produced more by himself when he was in the 5th grade. Pitiful. Felt sorry for those students.

• Most “hands-on” activities have no concept of EFFICIENCY. Even at McDonalds you have to have the burgers and fries ready WHEN THE CUSTOMERS WANT THEM! Nobody cares about your “learning style.”

• I developed a “hands-on- cooperative- learning” project in 1977 and tweaked it for the next 30 years. I put dozens of hours into it. It was demanding, required team-work and had a defined product. It had “hard and fast” deadlines with consequences. What did I get for my trouble? An idiot administrator, Elizabeth Russsel, wrote me up to the principal for requiring a project that was “too hard.” Of course, she NEVER bothered to talk to me about the project! One of her friend’s kids complained and that was enough.

Boy, I’m glad to be retired!

By luvs2teach

February 11, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff -

I think we want kids to enjoy the book, maybe visualize (I used to describe a “movie screen in your head” when I taught reading) the action - even empathize on some level with the characters. They should be able to follwo the thread of the story, and want to know - even guess - what’s going to happen next.

But, what you’re describing sounds more like a “super-focus” that is common to kids with AS.

By Tony

February 12, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

Jeff, I agree with l2t about the movie screen idea. While I am not a reading specialist, I know that you have to be able to visualize what you are reading to understand it. If the words do not conjure up a visual, then the reader is probably not understanding the text well.