This post is going to be about you talking and me listening. Today I’m going to tap you for some ideas and thoughts on a subject that has been rolling around in my mind for a few weeks now: the potential of using of social media in public education.
Like it or not, social media outlets are transforming the way we interact with people. From Facebook to Twitter to personal blogs, more and more people are starting to recognize the value in making social media a key part of their marketing and communications strategies. With these tools gaining such a vast amount of attention and usage in the corporate world, in churches, and even in politics, I was wondering how it might be leveraged to improve public education from any or all of these perspectives:
Student Perspective - How can teachers and administrators utilize social media in a way that positively involves students? What social media products could we use to enhance their education while still maintaining their innocence, privacy, and safety?
Parent Perspective - How can we more effectively involve parents in education through social media? If you are a parent, where do you see the school system falling short in communicating with you? Could social media effectively bridge that communication gap?
Teacher Perspective - How might teachers use social media to generate a higher level of collaboration with each other? How can they leverage it to improve their teaching? If you are a teacher, what features of social media interest you and how do you see it helping you in your job?
You definitely don’t have to be involved in education to answer these questions — in fact, I’m most interested in hearing from people who regularly use social in a field outside of education. Please take a few moments to comment below. Your responses could lay a foundation to help educators more effectively close the growing gap between where public education is and where it should be.
Recently, I have begun to expand my knowledge of Photoshop by slowly wading my way through a number of excellent online tutorials. I realize now how little I knew about the thousands of tools and settings that Photoshop has to offer. This is the most recent graphic I completed and I am very pleased with the way it turned out:
On my last birthday (October 11), Heidi bought me the entire first season of 24. Now, after about nine months and 168 hours in front of our television, we can finally say that we have caught up to the current season. What a great show!
Normally, Heidi and I aren’t big TV watchers, but this series is addicting. For years, I have known that 24 would be the sort of show that I could get into, but I hate getting involved in the middle of a series when I don’t know the whole story. With 24 covering one day’s worth of action, I wasn’t about to start somewhere in the middle — and I certainly didn’t want to start by watching season three. We had to see it from the beginning.
Our key phrase for this show became, “You’ve got to be freaking kidding me!” because that is the reaction we had at the end of just about every episode. The script is well-written, the characters are well-played, and the makers of 24 have no problem throwing curve balls that flip the story on its head and back again. Though this classifies as a “better late than never” situation, I’m glad that we decided to become part of the 24 crowd.
I think now that Heidi and I will have much more free time on our hands, I’ll gather up the half dozen or so books that I have been meaning to read and enjoy a form of entertainment that doesn’t require a remote control.
I wonder how many books I could read in 168 hours…
Yesterday, I voluntarily allowed a stranger to stick a metal Slurpee straw needle into the bend of my right arm and extract approximately 10% of my blood supply. For me, this is a big step in overcoming one of my fears because the idea of allowing someone to take a bagful of blood from my body through a large needle is not something I look favorably upon. Needles are a definite phobia of mine.
As it happens, my wife is on a first name basis with most of the vampires personnel at the United Blood Services donation center in Goodyear, AZ because she goes so frequently to give blood. After her last visit, she decided that I should participate in the blood-letting donation process, so she ever-so-generously scheduled an appointment for me. There’s nothing like getting up in the morning and having your wife greet you with a kiss and an, “Oh, I forgot to tell you that I signed you up to give blood. Your appointment is today at 1:15.”
Naturally, I tried to weasel my way out of it, but Heidi guilted me into going convinced me to go by reminding me that my giving blood could mean another chance at life for some poor soul in some hospital somewhere. Eventually I decided I should just man-up and do it.
So I did.
To be honest, it was a surprisingly pleasant experience. The new donation facility in Goodyear is very nice and the staff are all remarkably personable. After they ask you a list of simple-to-answer questions like, “Have you ever paid to have sex with a man from Sierra-Leone?”, they sit you in a reclining chair that would be perfect for watching a Cardinals game, and gently slide the needle in your arm while you squeeze and release a section of PVC pipe in your hand. In all honesty, you can barely feel a thing.
After about 15 minutes, they let you relax in their canteen area where you are free to replenish your strength by sipping on free Capri-Suns and munching on Famous Amos cookies. Not a bad deal.
As I sat there for my mandatory 20 minute rest period, I wondered what percentage of people have ever even darkened the door of a blood donation center. The pandemic fear of needles alone probably keeps a large portion of the population away, but what about everyone else? I figured that this question gave me a perfect opportunity to try out my new blog poll widget. Weigh in won’t you?
Loading ...And since we’re on the subject, why don’t you take a few minutes to find the blood donation facility in your area and schedule an appointment for yourself? If you are one of the weenies like me individuals who won’t go because you hate needles, I challenge you to face your fear for the sake of someone else’s well-being. I promise that it’s not as bad as you think. If you do decide to schedule an appointment, I’d appreciate it if you leave me a comment letting me know.
Here’s wishing you a fabulous phlebotomy!
Despite the fact that I have written three different posts dealing with some key shortcomings I have seen in public education, it would be wrong for me not to acknowledge the things that are positive. I’m sure there are more positives than the ones I list, but these are the three biggest things I see that have the potential to make public education better.
1. The teachers truly love the kids. Of all the teachers I have met, I can’t say that I’ve known one who is in this career for the money. The people who educate our kids day after day truly love their students — that’s why they spend countless hours preparing and planning, that’s why they stay after school to tutor kids for free, that’s why they attend school carnivals and science fairs, that’s why they volunteer to coach the basketball team.
Sure, there are days when our students wear us out and make us wonder if we should just call in sick tomorrow, but deep down we all know that making a difference requires that we are there day after day to give the future adults of America the tools they need to be successful, productive, and ethical citizens.
2. No child is left behind. This well-known line from the Bush administration’s educational policies certainly rings true in the hearts of teachers, staff, and administrators all across America. Every student, no matter his or her race, culture, background, academic capabilities, family situation, physical handicap, or just about any other overt trait can get the educational services he needs in the public school system. From speech and language specialists to school psychologists to resource and special education classrooms, American education has paved the way for all students to get their needs met. Even school breakfast and lunches are available for students who don’t get fed at home.
Personally, I have issues with the school system (more specifically the government) being the ultimate need-meeters of society, but the increase I see of an irresponsible, increasingly dependent and entitled citizenry can’t be blamed on schools. They’re just picking up the slack where the traditional American values of responsibility and self-sufficiency have fallen by the wayside (but that’s another post).
3. Parent-teacher communication and teamwork. I see a higher level of openness and cooperation between teachers and parents than I remember my parents having when I was a kid. Through systematic communication through notes, emails, progress reports, phone calls, conferences, and in-class observations, teachers can more clearly articulate their expectations, and parents can get a better picture of their child’s progress. Teachers are more reachable than ever before, and that translates into stronger partnerships between school and home.
One of my favorite ways of promoting a partnership with parents is through in-class observations. Anytime I meet a parent, I extend to them the opportunity to come in and observe the class in order to get an idea of what it’s like with me at the helm. I know a lot of parents who think they know what sort of teacher I am based on their child’s contracted perspective, but who are surprised when they see me live. Obviously, not all teachers are comfortable with this sort of thing ( after all, would you like it if someone shadowed you at work for an hour or two?), but I see an increased willingness to give parents more opportunities to get within the walls of the school, and that generally helps form a stronger bond between both worlds.
What are some of the positive practices you have seen in public schools?
This post is the last of a three-part series dealing with some of the biggest problems I have seen throughout my experience in public education. I am obviously generalizing and would never try to have you believe that these problems are inherent in all teachers or schools, but I do believe that the issues are deeply rooted and widespread. If you have any personal insight on, or arguments against these issues, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
The War on Boys
This particular topic is bound to cause extreme reactions one way or he other, but I think it’s important to look at some of the ways education has worked to stifle boys by punishing behaviors typically associated with male nature. Unlike the other issues I mentioned in my two previous posts, this is definitely not something that the vast majority of teachers do intentionally, but it is done on a frequent basis nonetheless.
I believe that males and females are vastly different. Some highly-educated professors would tell you that the only differences between boys and girls are physical, and that apparent divisions are the result of upbringing, not nature. As my favorite radio personality Dennis Prager says, “You have to have a graduate degree to believe such nonsense”. If one starts from the premise that boys and girls are essentially the same, then treating them the exact same way seems reasonable. Unfortunately, public education has bought into the nature vs. nurture lie and teachers have become experts at treating each student “the same” — and boys typically pay the price.
Here’s an example: When a boy gets frustrated with another boy on the playground, his natural inclination is to do something physically to express his annoyance — usually by throwing a few punches. In just about every public school in the nation, fighting will result in an automatic suspension. On the other hand, when a girl gets frustrated with another girl on the playground, she’s not naturally inclined to react physically. Instead, she will use her words to inflict harm. Rather than slugging the other student, girls might react by making fun of her hair or clothes, or saying something catty about her personality or looks. Generally, this behavior will only result in a “you girls be nice” from the teacher and little else.
I’m not saying that we should be more lenient on fighting, but I think we should be consistent in enforcing proper behavior from both boys and girls. I have seen example after example of boys getting into small fights and then playing well together later that day. For them, fighting is a quick-resolution activity. When girls fight verbally, however, there is usually no quick resolution because the pain is inflicted day after day, and little is done by teachers to make it stop. You see, we routinely train boys to control their natures, but tend to look the other way when it comes to the female nature — and even if we don’t look the other way, the consequences for girls are certainly disproportionate to the consequences we dish out to boys. When was the last time you heard about a girl getting suspended for calling another girl fat?
Another example of where I think public schools target boys is the ADHD movement. Modern education has developed a very unhealthy love affair with the various pharmaceutical drugs used for treating ADHD. A 2003 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 2.5 million kids ages 4-17 years were taking medication for ADHD, with boys being treated at almost twice the rate of girls. Why the disproportion? I believe that society has found a round-about way to stifle male nature through medication, and it has become more acceptable because it’s cloaked in medical terminology.
Instead of working with a boy’s tendency toward more active behaviors, we give them drugs until they act like girls (who are naturally compliant, cooperative, still). Now, I like a quiet student as much as the next teacher, but if we decide to give a boy pills that chemically change his behavior rather than taking the time to teach him self-control and respect, we are doing that boy a tremendous disservice. I have had students that are so over-medicated that you would think they are strung out on cocaine. It saddens me to see a boy with glazed over eyes who doesn’t have an appetite at lunch or the energy to play on the playground because it has been sapped by Ritalin. For my own part, I’d much rather have a boy who is over-active, than a kid who is has had his personality altered by drugs.
I think the issue of trying to eliminate male nature is a society-wide pandemic and not just an issue in schools. Unfortunately, the public schools are where teachers unwittingly begin this process and where the downward spiral starts. Teachers need to be aware that boys and girls are very different and we need to be sure we don’t always treat boys and girls the same. Let’s meet kids at their level.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with me that schools target males in an unfair way, or do you think I’m off-base?
As a public school teacher, I have been on the front lines of the battle to educate children to become literate, well-balanced, intelligent, and productive members of society. Unfortunately, many aspects of public education today seem to do more toward undermining this goal than meeting it. My last post dealt with the problem of creating artificial self esteem by finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity. Today, I’ll discuss another aspect of why the public school system is failing our children.
All Feelings, No Common Sense
At one time, education in America was all about teaching children key academic and ethical principles that they would need in order to prepare them for life; things were relatively straightforward. But today, many Utopian philosophies of education, combined with feelings-based decision making, have threatened to undermine an educational foundation that once put America at the top of the world academically.
The first and most destructive philosophy I see in education is the whole language movement, which gained momentum in the late 1960s and is now a mainstream practice in education. On the surface, the basic philosophy sounds harmless enough — that humans are predisposed to language and have an incredible capacity to develop language skills naturally (as opposed to the belief that language needs to be systematically taught). When this philosophy is put into practice, however, it begins to fall apart.
A child who is taught using the whole language system is presented regular opportunities to read various pieces of literature in the hope that exposure will cause him or her to develop language experimentally. What’s the harm in that? Well, oftentimes, the “basics” of reading — learning letter sounds for example — are not taught because they are seen as tedious or boring and do not enhance a student’s enjoyment of literature. Whole language is focused on giving students the opportunity to learn by feeling their own way through the English language, with the belief that the fundamentals will develop naturally.
What if we educated surgeons that way? Instead of requiring hours and hours of instruction and study of the basics of human anatomy, what if a doctor-to-be shows up to the first day of class, is handed a scalpel and told, “Mr. Jones, we want you to enjoy being a surgeon, and since studying anatomy is not particularly fun, we’re going to kick-off your education by letting you operate on this lady. Don’t worry about making mistakes, and don’t worry if you’re unsure what each part of the body does, you’ll figure it out in time.”
Despite the obvious lack of common sense, whole language proponents might have a solid case if their approach actually produced large amounts of literate, literature-loving students. Unfortunately, my experience is that the vast majority of students who are taught via whole language are very poor readers and generally do not enjoy quality literature; Captain Underpants books are the cream of the crop to them. Is it any wonder they can hardly read when they have never been taught the basics of the English language? I believe that language is innate, but I do not believe in the theory of allowing kids to figure it out on their own.
Here are a few other brief examples I’ve seen of theory trumping common sense in our schools:
Student-led Conferences
Theory: Students and parents meet together each quarter to discuss academic performance. The child leads the conference and tells the parent how he or she is progressing. The teacher isn’t even present. It’s supposed to make students feel “empowered”.
Common Sense: I am the expert, not the nine year old. While it’s good practice to have students participate in their own conferences, we teachers have the tools necessary to properly evaluate and understand a student’s progress, and to clearly communicate any deficiencies to parents. Leaving that task in the hands of a child is ridiculous.
Bi-lingual Education
Theory: A child is more well-rounded when he or she can read, write, and speak in both Spanish and English. Bilingual studies also help students to understand and appreciate their native culture and gives them cultural pride.
Common Sense: Study after study shows that a child learns a second language best when he or she is already proficient in their first language. Most Mexican immigrant children are functionally illiterate in their native language, so presenting them with a mixed bag of superficial Spanish and superficial English is only going to teach them to be illiterate in two languages. Also, consider what bilingualism does to students from other countries. Now a child from Romania or Kenya is expected to learn two new languages?
No Grading in Red Pen
Theory: When a child sees his paper all marked up in red ink, its going to make him feel bad, and he’ll begin to associate red with negative feelings. To alleviate the pain that can come when a child earns a failing grade, it’s best to use other colors such as purple or green.
Common Sense: The color of the pen is not what causes the bad feelings, it’s the student having to confront his poor performance. Instead of being so concerned with what color might produce what feeling, teachers should take that disappointment and teach students to pick themselves up and try again. If the pen color is changed instead of the student’s effort, eventually he’ll begin to feel bad when he receives papers all marked up in green, and then green pens will have to be banned.
Have you noticed anything in education that seems to toss common sense right out the window? What did I miss? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Whether your political views fall on one side of the aisle or the other, one thing that most Americans can agree on is the fact that our current public educational situation is in a state of crisis. For decades, politicians have spent thousands of hours and billions of taxpayer dollars batting this issue back and forth with no real significant improvement to show for it. I’m no politician, but as someone who is a part of the public education system, I’d like to offer my insight on what is wrong with education in America.
Artificial Self Esteem
Let me be clear: kids need a healthy self esteem. The fact that teachers and administrators desire to nurture a student’s sense of confidence is not the problem — its the mode by which self esteem is delivered. Instead of showing kids how to develop self esteem through hard work, perseverance, and character, educators tend to have a genuine, but misguided drive to infuse all aspects of education with badges of artificial self-esteem. This issue has become so pervasive in public education that it can be found in just about every nook and cranny of the public school system.
The most alarming place I see this happening is on student report cards. I have known many teachers who will pad a student’s (or a whole class’) grade by intentionally giving a high point value to an educationally meaningless project. If the class’ Science grades are looking low, many teachers will think up some sort of art project that their kids can easily complete and the “A” grade for that mindless project will balance out the “F” she received on the chapter test earlier in the week.
Another similar practice is work modification. This is when teachers decide to require a smaller portion of the work from “low students” and grade their progress based on what they have done, not what the rest of the class is expected to complete. Basically, this means a low student can earn an “A” by completing only a portion of the work while a high kid might earn a “B” after being required to finish all of it. To me, grade modifications show a tremendous lack of compassion to the students who worked hard to learn and properly apply the information in the lesson.
Both of these practices cause what I call grade inflation. Grade inflation is harmful because both the student and his parents are kept in the dark about the child’s real academic ability in a subject area. They may think he is earning an average “C” when in reality he is failing to meet the curriculum requirements. Just because he can color a picture of a butterfly, doesn’t mean that he is able to describe its four life cycle stages. Grade inflation doesn’t help the student in the long run, it only masks deficiencies.
These things are typically done with a heart that says, “If I give Johnny the “F” he earned on his math test, he is going to feel bad about himself, and since I am supposed to be the one who boosts his self esteem, I’m going to give him a break so that he’ll feel like he accomplished more.”
Where is that in adult life, huh?
“Stanley, as your boss I feel it’s my duty to help you become more confident in your job, so even though you spend hours a day checking your Facebook account and going on smoke breaks, I’m only going to evaluate your performance based on the work you actually complete. I saw that you only filled out half of this expense report from last month. Boy, you sure did a good job on that half. Way to go! I know I ask my other employees to stay on task and earn their promotions through old-fashioned hard work, but I think you’ll have a better chance at becoming the company CEO one day if I require next to nothing from you.”
That mentality obviously does not work in the real world, so why on earth are we trying to pull this sort of thing on our kids?
Students know when they are being handed their self-esteem on a silver platter, and while that may produce some false sense of accomplishment for a short time, inevitably they have to come face to face again with the fact that they never actually earned anything of significance.
I have found that the best way to produce genuine self-confidence in students is to push them to overcome their roadblocks, not for us to pick them up and carry them around to the other side. Sure, being held to a high standard can be frustrating for students, but when a kid begins to work extra-hard and after time is finally able to accomplish something that has been dogging him for months, you can’t beat the confidence that comes from that experience.
Consensus is a popular word in today’s culture. Somehow, the idea of getting everyone at the table to agree on everything under discussion has become the ideal achievement of teamwork and the truest evidence of great leadership. The only problem with this notion is that true consensus is an ever-elusive destination, and the journey toward it often results in frustration and wasted time.
While sitting in a meeting today, I experienced this wild goose chase first-hand. This last-minute gathering should have lasted one quarter of the time it did, but the inane quest for consensus made it a painfully drawn-out ordeal.
A small minority of people at the table raised relatively minor concerns about an event that had already been planned, approved, and communicated to the public. Those concerns were valid and had every right to be voiced, but despite the fact that the majority of those in attendance saw no reason to alter the already-scheduled event, we as a team were still expected to come to an eleventh-hour compromise. Because consensus demands that everyone leaves the meeting in agreement, each side spent a great deal of time trying to convince the other side of the worthiness of their cause.
After more than an hour of seeking consensus, our only achievement was a roomful of unnecessarily bruised egos and a cut-and-paste compromise that left neither side feeling content. The only real reason we reached any semblance of a “consensus” was that we were all tired of talking about the issue and we just wanted out of the room.
As I drove home, I thought about the fact that no one person in the meeting had leadership over the decisions surrounding that particular event. We were all equal members of a team, and each held equal sway over the others — a recipe for disaster.
Leadership requires one person who will ultimately set a pace and direction that others can follow. Leaders should be eager to listen to concerns, advice, and ideas from the team, but eventually the final decision falls on them to make. Leaders don’t often have the option make everyone feel equally validated, but they do tend make choices based on what’s best. Consensus, on the other hand, typically results in frustration for everyone and produces a mediocre result in the process.
I’ve come to learn that the only people who can hold a position of leadership and also manage to achieve overwhelming consensus are brutal dictators. If true, effective leadership is desired in an organization, consensus should never be a definition for success.
