Category Archives: Blog

Myopic-Tending Educators Must See Digital Reading Clearly

Posted on by
Reply

Educators are chronically myopic by choice. We also tend to favor the rear view mirror. Let us enlarge our vision to be forward thinking and see learning to read from multiple formats as our desired goal for all children.

As a retired principal, curriculum director, superintendent and now a school board member, I am compulsively interested in the research and literature about reading instruction. However, as a grandfather, my interest has geometrically increased. How should my grandchildren, representing all children, learn to read in the digital age? A myopic and lover or the rear view mirror says, “Well, just like we all were taught to read. Reading does not change with the flipping of a calendar.”

I commend the following article for all grandfather’s reading (others also may choose to read it). My commendation results from the author’s examination of non-linear reading. I truly understand the bias of traditionalists who prefer to teach reading through print material that is unattached to other references and extraneous leads for peripheral inquiry. Reading and intellectually considering print on paper appeals to my nostalgic and romantic leanings about reading, also. Would a lover of books want to read any other way?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/11/09/how-should-reading-be-taught-in-digital-era.html?cmp=eml-contshr-shr-desk

That said, a reading instructor who attempts to avoid the reality of our digital and technological age is at the front of the line for Luddite-of-the-Year.

“Ahem! And, what should we do when children are distracted by the links to related media, other resources, and reader comments about the digital material they encounter in online reading material?”, my myopic cronies ask.

They are correct in pointing to the fact that by design unilinear print material is free of “Y” intersections. A “Y” intersection allows the reader to stay with the text at hand or take off down a new tangent of interest suggested by the text. The new tangent may be a hyperlink to another text(s)or embedded media. And, each new tangent may have its own links and media references. The fact that printed reading material does not contain any these lines of interaction is what makes teaching for an understanding of the assigned text a preferred instructional modus operendi for the myopic. Dealing with the text only is a cleaner and simpler design for teaching and learning.

Being unilinear, however, does not mean that reading a complex printed text is easy. A page in an economics text, passages of Shakespeare, a proof of a geometry problem, and the Periodic Table each requires the reader to call upon a plethora of prior knowledge, use many higher order thinking skills, and pose a variety of hypotheses to be checked out through reading. Reading unilinear texts may lead the reader to have several printed resources spread out before her. The reader makes the linkages between resources. Sound familiar and traditional – it is. And, there is a definite need and place for students to learn with unilinear reading material.

The world, however, has become poly-directional and children today are a true reflection of their world. In almost every aspect of their daily living, children are confronted with a barrage of informational segments and every segment contains a plethora of “Y” intersections. Parallel to the constant flood of information is the compacting of their attention span. At the earliest age, children are aware that if their television show doesn’t grab their attention in the first few minutes, they have dozens of opportunities immediately available – just click up or down on the remote. Children make hundreds of decisions every hour about what the see and hear and do. And, their brains are evolving to allow them to live like this. Research indicates that the attention span for adults in 2000 was twenty seconds; by 2015 the adult attention span was eight seconds. And, eight seconds be generous for a digital-aged child who is growing up in a world of increasing and instant information bursts.

It seems very logical then to instruct children to read within the informational environment in which they must live and thrive. We must teach to find meaning quickly by developing their sight vocabulary of contemporary and technical words. We must teach them to compare and contrast ideas by looking at the supporting facts. Often those facts and supporting evidence will be found in the links and media embedded in what they read. We must teach them when to abandon intersections in their information because a pathway does not illuminate their study. Or, to note the pathway for future reading based upon the merits of its information. We must teach them to discern relevance and significance. We must teach them how to focus, to endure beyond their usual attention span when the hard work of reading for comprehension and interpretation of meaning is essential to their intellectual growth. We, educators, can do this.

As the adults in the room, children cannot afford nor abide our myopic wish to teach reading as we were taught to read decades ago. We owe them the honesty of teaching them to read and learn using the informational presentation of their and our world today.

The Public Gets What It Settles For – Stop Settling Low

Posted on by
Reply

Louise Sawyer (Thelma and Louise, 1991) taught us “You get what you settle for.” Hearing Susan Sarandon voice these words many years ago, I found that they apply all too well to the many situations in public education today where we have settled for low and gotten even less. And, once settled low, it is harder than heck to get anything better.

My finger points at us, the public. In too many states and too many communities we have allowed public education to be so disparaged that the resulting lowly state of affairs has caused teachers to lose their passion and teaching to lose its appeal for talented teacher candidates. Disparaged by governors using education funding to balance state budgets. Disparaged by parents who have used arguments for school choice to demean public education. Disparaged by legislation that purposefully stunts educator salary and benefits to keep promises to taxpayers. Disparaged by community members who believe that public employees are a drain on their personal wealth. Disparaged by anyone with an axe to grind, we, the public, are settling for a public education that will not give us what we need to get from our public schools.

The “this is what you get for settling low” is the exodus of educator talent from public schools. Many of our best and brightest teachers also will be best and brightest in other endeavors. By the thousands, talented educators annually choose to leave their schools for careers that will appreciate their talent and passion. The loss of this talent has become irreplaceable. Doubling down on the problem is the reality that the next generation of best and brightest career-seekers do not give the merest of consideration to education as their career of choice. Why should they volunteer to be disparaged? Why should they volunteer to be under appreciated? The best and brightest of the current and most recent generations do not become educators. As a result, every state struggles for find the talented teachers that children deserve. Richly trained teacher candidates are a rarity today. In fact, teacher candidates of any quality are rare in most states. The result of career disparagement is a growing number of schools beginning and finishing the school year with unqualified substitutes as permanent teachers. State government deepens the “low” settlement by endorsing local school boards to hire non-teachers to teach. The depth of our current low now allows high school graduates with “qualified work experience” to be employed as teachers. In our current state of low settling, almost any body will suffice as a classroom supervisor – not a teacher.

If I overuse the term “disparage”, it is with purpose. Synonyms for this word are: belittle, denigrate, depreciate, trivialize, undervalue, underrate, and play down. Read any contemporary educational journal and count the number of articles with one of these words as its theme. Listen to radio broadcasts of state legislators talking “live from the statehouse” and the positions they take on public education. Examine the names of the funding groups of TV broadsides proposing educational reform; the names that are in the small print, to understand the forces that disparage public schools. Read the “teacher wanted” job postings that are a fixture in local newspapers. Read any of the literature of the PAC-based education foundations, like EdChoice.com, to understand their argument for school choice at the disparagement of public school. The term is used because it is the right word for this argument.

My argument is not a “poor teacher” rant. Within every high quality teacher is the passion to cause children to learn. This passion is in their bones and greater than monetary compensation. However, all passion is vulnerable to continual denigration. The argument is based on the overwhelming social, cultural, economic, political and educational value that public school has brought to our nation. The American Dream and public school are entwined. Settling low for what we want to get from public education today will have consequences for the nation we get in our future. I loved the Thunderbird that Thelma and Louise drove, but to avoid their inevitable fatality, let us not allow public school be driven over the cliff.

My argument cannot close on such a low and dismal note. Whereas, it is unwise to think that the strong community support of local schools in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s will return, it is wise to describe a new kind of support that will raise the community value of public schools. We will not and cannot see PTA groups of stay-at-home mothers rallying to every school initiative as they did decades ago. In our new age of virtual and seemingly offhand commitments, we, you and me and our fellow citizens, can assist a revitalization of community support for public schools. My finger points at –

• our demanding highly qualified teachers in every classroom and a refusal to settle for “any body.” Insist that School Boards do not settle low in their employment practices.

• our recognition that high quality teachers are more than content and skill instructors. For many children, the teacher in the classroom is a mentor, a role model, a guide and many become a life-long friend. These quality relationships are difficult to quantify as a monetary value; they are priceless.

• our understanding that many parents choose public schools as their school of “choice. Parents choose their family residence based upon school districts. Moms and Dads choose public schools that resemble their positive experiences in the public schools they attended. Parents often identify a particular strength in a local school’s academic, arts, activities and athletic programs that they want for their children. Public school is a wonderful choice.

• our being informed that choices are good things. School choice is a good thing. But, all schools need to be available for the choosing. We need to respect all choices and the schools that are chosen.

• our appreciation that many parents cannot afford financially or in their family commitments the needs of a charter or voucher program. For families just starting economically or who have become economically disadvantaged, public school is their only school.

• our knowledge that strong schools are essential for a strong community. Schools may be the community recreation and entertainment center. School teams and activity groups create essential community identity and pride. Schools also are essential responders to community tragedies and critical events. These schools may be public, private, or parochial. Strong communities need them all.

These will not happen by accident. They will happen because we, the public, refuse to settle low regarding our schools and our teachers. And, by raising the bar for what we settle for, we will get even more.

Don’t Choose To Be Your Own Obstacle

Posted on by
Reply

In a culture of “we/they”, the issue of “they” can dominate thinking and action to the extent that seldom are things of any common good ever accomplished. When a mind is fixated on oppositional thinking, it is difficult to engage in propositional outcomes. When this happens, one needs to either dramatically change one’s predispositions or, as in a hockey face off when two opponents are not able to “settle in for a face off”, one needs to step aside and let those who are able to face off do the necessary work. To approach problem-solving with oppositional thinking is to see the world of possibilities with one eye only.

I am fortunate that both of my eyes function well. Also, as with all Homo Sapiens, my eyes are positioned for forward-sight and are bi-focal. With both eyes open, I can see things in their three dimensions. As many of us do now and then, I close one eye to simulate what it must be like to see from one eye only. Invariably with only one eye open, I turn my head to see things peripherally. Closing one eye narrows my field of vision by at least one half, perhaps more. Additionally, I find myself moving my head from side-to-side in the attempt to gain the dimension of distance. Seeing with one eye only robs my brain of visual depth. Perhaps over time my brain could accommodate this, but in the immediacy of looking at the world with one eye only I have no depth perception.

With one eye only, my understanding of the world before me is limited. I cannot see all that is before me and I cannot see both of my peripheries. And, with one eye only, I lack my natural depth perception. I cannot accurately judge the distance of objects before me and I am subject to either standing still or bumping into things.

I believe that this is the dilemma that people with parochial thinking face when confronted with diverse propositions. Their singular point of view disables their brains’ capacity for propositional thinking. They cannot see new peripheries and can focus only the objects of their desire without seeing the breadth of possibilities or the depth of alternatives.

My argument does not disregard informed fervor. When one has studied a variety of options with an open mind to the validity and potentiality of all and has settled on an “informed” best, fervor for that decision is logical and proper. However, fervor without being adequately informed is blind ambition.

As a child, I often heard my parents say when dividing arguing siblings and trying to settle the dispute, “It takes two to tango.” Start getting along and work things out together, they would say. I always thought they said, “It takes two to tangle.” Perhaps my mishearing heard the right message. Parochial thinking when no one else is involved may be harmless in the immediacy. But, when others are involved and each is applying a self-narrowed mind set, it truly does take to two to tango (or disentangle). One person alone cannot alter their thinking to create a more harmonious outcome; each party needs to make accommodations. Without mutuality of accommodation, resentment will be a constant irritant that will eventually erupt into future dispute.

Therapists undoubtedly see a great deal of professional “couch” work in the world of narrow-minded thinkers. Short of therapy, my recommendation is the same as we give to all persons when they arrive at a significant intersection. “Stop. Wait. Look. Listen. Proceed with caution.” This admonition is more than apt when applied to persons arriving at the intersection of ideas and points of view. Stopping, waiting and looking allows our bifocular vision to work properly. Stopping to look necessitates a cessation of forward momentum in the current direction. Stopping to stand still is a conscious act. Waiting allows everything around you to find a point of reference. With reference points, what you see is not observed as things passing constantly to the rearward but as subjects worthy of your notice. Looking while stationary allows one to truly see what lies before and around you, like a large truck barreling down the street from your right. Or objects of beauty and ideas of significance. And, then listening. This requires a commitment to trying to hear what the world and others around you are saying.

This works! It has no out-of-pocket costs. It can be applied anywhere and anytime. It provides a role model for others. And, it does not preclude continuing in the same direction at the same pace if stopping, waiting, looking and listening presents new and viable information.

Sometimes we are our own greatest obstacle to our successful understanding of our world. Observing our world with one eye closed limits our opportunity to understand. We should not choose to be our own obstacles.

Us Is The Middle of We and They

Posted on by
Reply

Why is finding middle ground difficult? There are reasons. The first is that the generalizations that accompany positions on either side of the middle are easier to articulate and to empassion. The second is that from the middle you must counter both sides of the issue at the same time.

Hilda Taba (1902-67) was a renowned curriculum reformer and teacher educator whose groundbreaking work with inductive reasoning gives us insight into a chronic organizational malady – the We/They Conundrum. Taba helped educators understand the development of and need for data-based concepts and generalizations. The concepts and generalizations we create based upon “antecedent data” sculpts the way in which we perceive future experiences. And, there lies the We/They rub. Our past conceptualizations shape our future thinking.

A key step for Taba’s inductive reasoning is the organization of data. She asks students to analyze presented data by identifying their characteristics and grouping the data by “these are alike or similar” and “these are different or dissimilar.” Studying grouped data allows students to develop concepts and then generalizations. It is these generalizations students, and adults, use everyday as a basis for understanding their life experiences.

As social beings, we all are Taba-esque. We analyze our world and make conscious and unconscious analysis of what we see and experience. We innately group things that “are like me” and things that “are different than me.” The things that are like me tend to support and reinforce who we think we are in the world. Naturally, we prefer to be with and be associated with “things like me”, because they nurture our comfort zone. Comfort easily morphs into conformity and we begin to assume the characteristics of “things like me” as our characteristics.

Conversely, we disassociate from things that are “not like me.” Regardless that our disassociation is conscious or unconscious, we physically and emotionally move away from people and situations that are not like us. Discomfort defines our reality and our reaction to what is not like us and we conform to groups who share that discomfort.

We do this association and disassociation all the time. We find comfort in associations with our personal family and personal friends. Associations with workmates provide us with professional or vocational titles – we work in education, the financial world, the trades, human services industries, and in telecommunications. We are teachers, bankers, personal assistants, electricians, and programmers. We see ourselves in the world we occupy through the lens of these titles and associations and the world sees us as belonging to these titles and associations.

To apply Taba-esque generalizing, our affinity for people like us and avoidance of people not like us leads us to unconscious and then conscious “we/they” thinking. The world of stuff, time and place is divided into ours and theirs with all the fences and protection devices that accompany possession. Our thinking becomes parochial. Hence, the problem – within our self-imposed associations we find it difficult to accept the point of view, wants and needs, or values of those in differing groups. We perceive them to be “stuck” within their self-imposed association-based thinking that prevents them from accepting the “righteousness” of our perspective and point of view. They, in turn, fully believe that we are the ones who are stuck in narrowed thinking.

We/they propositions meet at the battle lines where “us” must be found.

There is a remedy to oppositional points of view. It lies in the application of another educational/mathematics device: Venn diagrams. One of the purposes of using for Venn diagrams is to identify and understand difference and convergence. We draw a circle to represent one set of similar data. We draw another circle to represent a different set of data. Then we attempt to overlay one circle over the other to identify any “shared” data. Most often, the overlaying turns into two side-by-side circles that overlap just a little. The majority of each circle represents the defining data of each group that is significantly different than the other data set. Shared data lies in the overlap. When more than two data sets are analyzed, the Venn diagram begins to look like leaves of a flower that slightly overlap each other in the middle.

For example, in the field of education there are teachers and administrators. Using Taba, there are similarities and differences in each of these associative groups that are professionally trained, work to educate others, and often are school-based. But, in our world of competing interested, each sees the other as a “they”. There are differences in professional compensation, scope of professional work, and professional responsibility and authority. These differences too often overpower the similarities.

It is easy for members of “we” groups to remain in the comfort of their circle. We look outward from our circle of comfort at issues and problems and define solutions and our future using only the set of data, concepts and generalizations of our association. When this happens, walls of defense rise.

A different approach is to define ourselves by the commonalities that we have with other associative groups – to look at our overlapping data, concepts and generalizations. If two associative groups can do this, accept and work with their commonalities, they begin to identify the “us” that is the shared interests of “we” and “they.” An “us” exists in the overlap whenever any two or more groups let down enough of their defining/defensive walls to look for common ground. Finding the “us” does not diminish their group’s commonality; in fact, it can strengthen those defining characteristics because necessitates a re-examination of the group’s underlying data set. Re-examination that also can strengthen the identification of commonality with other groups.

Taba thinking returns when a new “us” is found. The identified shared characteristics create new generalizations that describe “us” and “us” can use these generalizations to define their future experiences.

When disparate groups identify common ground with others and begin to work for the benefit of “us”, everyone benefits.

Be Truman-like When Engaging Criticism

Posted on by
Reply

We are admonished by President Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Heat in this context is the hot breath of criticism and the red-faced anger of disagreement inflicted upon those whose decisions are vulnerable to public scrutiny. Harry Truman would tell us that if taking heat bothers you, don’t put yourself in positions where you can expect criticism. From a man known for plain speaking, this is good advice.

Extended applications of this Trumanism tell us that some heat will burn you, and some heat will strengthen you.  Or, there is bad heat and there is good heat. And, heat is what you make of it.

The “Oh, now you tell me!” of this are these recipes for living and working in a hot kitchen.

• When you make “high ground” decisions, heat will clarify your rationale and clarify your purpose. When you make “low ground” decisions, heat will consume you in defending the indefensible.

The “high ground” is philosophical and ethical and closely tied to organizational mission. If your considered decision cites educational theory and research, if it is aspirational in leading those impacted by its effects to do better than they otherwise would do, or if it is aligned with the stated and accepted objectives of the organization, you can assume a more calm and explanatory role. It is a teachable moment. Listen to the criticism and then ask, “Have you considered this?” Any indication that your critic(s) has not considered your high ground points opens the door for you to add illumination.

On the other hand, if your decision is “low ground” and more transactional than founded, you will slowly roast while making a defense of a situation that could have spawned a variety of lowly-grounded decisions. When there is high ground, take it. Let your critics attempt to assail your decision from the low ground but be silent when they then are swamped in making an indefensible argument.

If your decision is “low ground”, be the first to say “I am reconsidering this matter. Expect to hear from me in two days.”

• When you invite critics into your kitchen to understand their complaints, the kitchen is your friend. Use the kitchen to cook your work, don’t let your work get charred, overcooked or incinerated in your kitchen. When you close the kitchen to your critics, the mystique of what you do in the kitchen becomes a third entity in the scenario and that entity is not your friend.

The kitchen of decision-making is a unique environment. If it is your office or conference room and is adorned with images of your organization, then it is your home field and not a place that is overly familiar to your critics. You occupy the kitchen; it is your home turf so play the home field game. Keep the door to your kitchen open to anyone who wants to enter. Greet them as if they are entering your home, they are. Take the center stage chair in the room, it is your chair. Take care of the small talk, then get to business. It is your home field, set the agenda, set the goal, and set the time. Keep the kitchen open for business and keep it clear that you are the head cook in your kitchen.

Additionally, because this is your kitchen, you can authorize those who get to participate in your cooking session. Often, critics are accompanied by “others”. It is important to identify the critic and the supporters, because it is the critic’s criticism that is the meat of the conversation. Recognize the supporters but do not specifically engage with them. Let them add “support” but ignore the “extraneous”. Visual nodding at them is an appropriate recognition of their talk; verbal replies most often are not necessary for supporters.

When you close the kitchen to critics, the “closed” sign becomes just another negative issue. It adds to the list of things that someone holds against you. Don’t add to the list. Interestingly, inviting a critic into your kitchen often abates their ire and they decline the offer.

• When you can point at “policy and practice” as the basis for your decision, you can move the heat towards a discussion of the organization and its policies and practices and not a person – you. This is not a distractor; it is a focuser. When you can’t attach your decision to policy and practice, you stand naked and will be burned.

Every organization has its policy book or set of operating procedures. These are the adopted understandings that give direction and scope to organizational decisions. Most decisions that a seasoned organizational leader makes can be tied to policy and procedure, even if the leader did not make that connection at the time the decision was rendered. When the thermostat of criticism rises, pull out the policy and procedures book to make the proper connection, even if it is after the fact. Cite chapter and verse. When you can connect your decision and its backstory to adopted organizational policy, the decision is not your decision – you are the enactor of policy.

At the same time, do not hide behind the policy book. Your decision must be explained in everyday human language that recognizes the complaint, places it into an organizational context, and explains the application of policy as logical and appropriate. Policy can be perceived as “cold and impersonal.” Your challenge is to make the policy and its applications real and contemporary to topic of the criticism.

The same argument can be made for past practice, as long as there is clear similarity between the criticism and the massed practices. Give clear and concise examples of how the policy has been enacted in the past. These are real stories with real people. If there is no similarity, don’t invoke past practice. These would be a distracting and viewed as obstructive.

The importance of referring the conversation to policy is that it opens a door for discussion of policy and not people. The disagreement can be with the policy and not with the enactor and that disagreement can then be channeled into an invitation for further conversations about modifying policy. When a criticism can be turned into a mutual engagement in pro-activity, it is a win-win event.

• Finally, experience and insight inform our decisions and help us to live in the kitchen. Kitchen flare-ups for rooky leaders can be frightening. Consider your kitchen a tanning booth for professional skills and emotions. Each time the heat rises, you have the opportunity to refine your skills and enhance your professional image.

And, each time the kitchen gets hot, your emotions are exposed to potentially damaging vibes. So, use your sun screen. Your UPF increases when you find and stay on the high ground, when you maintain an open door to YOUR KITCHEN, and when your decisions are connected to organizational policies and procedures.