Reflections on Brown: Black school, White school

May 20, 2004 Kimberly Swygert yesterday directed our attention to a very revealing story about two schools, one black, one white. The black school is struggling, and the white school is soaring, and we've all heard it before. This one would seem destined for the files of "separate and unequal" and would make good fodder for the argument that Brown v. Board of Education is a big fat failure.

But if you dig beneath the surface, a far different picture emerges.

The real question for why one school succeeds and one fails is actually a question not of race, but leadership. All you have to do is listen to the two principals speak of their respective schools, and the difference is striking.

These two schools make for an interesting case study in that they're both in the School District of Philadelphia, and thus receive about the same per-pupil funding and have access to similar district resources such as the pool of new hires. Both have about 30 kids in a classroom, and neither can afford a librarian. Both schools can only afford either an art teacher or a music teacher, but not both. All their teachers work under the same union contract.

So what makes these two schools so very different, other than the obvious fact that one is located in a white neighborhood and the other one a black neighborhood? We'll use Mensah Dean's article in the Philadelphia Daily News (free registration required) to highlight the two principals.

Ruth Anderson, principal of Tanner Duckrey School
Our first introduction to Duckrey isn't auspicious, as Dean reports:

Hampering the progress of inner-city schools like Duckrey are problems that were not on the map 50 years ago. In Duckrey's case, that includes a crackhouse 2 ½ blocks from the schoolyard and disintegrating families, leading to a yearly student transfer rate approaching 50 percent.

Having seen our share of successful schools that are in the worst neighborhoods imaginable, we're not impressed by tales of crackhouses and broken families, or even of transients. But some folks will seize upon these factors as being the cause of school failure.

"Because of social changes in families, the families are very transient. This is the reason why you have them moving in and out, in and out," said Duckrey Principal Ruth Anderson, in her 40th year with the school district.

She doesn't seem to consider the possibility that the poor quality of her school (where only 11% of the students are considered proficient in reading, with 11% in math as well) is causing some folks to move their kids out. But either way, we find it doubtful that the 50% figure is a random fraction of students each year. If the school made the effort, they'd probably be able to identify many students who attend for several years.

None of this excuses the school from the hard work of teaching young children knowledge and skills, regardless of how long the student attends. And the most fundamental of these skills is the teaching of reading, possibly the most important task for any elementary school. On this front, the school has allies:

Helping Duckrey is nearby Temple University, which the school district pays $400 per student annually as part of a reform effort begun in 2002 for the lowest-performing schools.

Temple has bought thousands of dollars in reading books and other materials for the school and has contracted with Dr. Darrell Morris of Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C., who created a reading program for struggling first-graders.

$400 per child per year represents quite a cash cow for Temple, so we would certainly hope they'd point schools in the right direction. But we're a little troubled by Dr. Morris's program for "struggling first graders" being that first grade for many is their first year of school, since preschool and kindergarten are not required. It should then fall to the school to teach those children everything they need for success in reading, such as the body of knowledge of phonics.

In our experience, if a first grader is struggling, it is usually because the school is not doing its job.

Having never heard of Morris, we did some checking and found some interesting information. For starters, the good "Dr." is not even a real Ph.D., and secondly, the program he created, The Howard Street Tutoring Program is not designed for schools, but rather for volunteer tutors who can only spare a few hours a week. In other words, it doesn't appear to be scalable for the classroom.

Having done a fair bit of study into what best helps kids to learn to read (which is of course a solid grounding in explicit phonics above all other considerations), we were dismayed to learn his philosophy of reading instruction. Morris calls English spelling "hopelessly irregular" and brushes off the battle between phonics and whole language, saying that "supervised reading time" is what is really needed for struggling readers.

By "supervised" he of course means one-on-one supervision. (Contrast this with schools of a bygone era, which used phonics drills and McGuffey's readers in classrooms of 48 pupils or more, and had a mere 99% success rate.)

Morris writes in The Howard Street Tutoring Manual about the origins of his program in north Chicago: "The program is now in its 20th year of consecutive operation, serving 20+ children each year..."

Color us unimpressed! Here is their flagship tutoring program, located on its namesake Howard Street, and after twenty years they can only serve a few dozen kids a year? Might we suggest this is not the best choice of program for a school with 400 students? Especially one which emphasizes word lists rather than explicit phonics.

We're not the only ones who've noticed the huge inefficiency of the Howard Street program, the folks in Philly are well aware of this shortcoming. Dean writes: "Though effective, teachers can use it to help only seven Duckrey students this year." Effective? Sounds like propaganda to us, for it would seem oxymoronic to call a program effective when it can only help 2% of a population where well over 80% is classified "below basic" in reading.

Unfortunately one of the professors helping Duckrey in the literacy department seems enamored of shopworn excuses for failure to teach children to read:

"If our children are behind in reading, it's not because they are not every bit as intelligent as any other group of children in the suburbs, in gated communities, Volvos in the driveways, what have you," said Tom Gill, a Temple literature professor.

"It simply has to do with opportunity and exposure. Reading takes a particular exercise that our children, for many, many reasons, may not have had those advantages and opportunities."

We are very tired of the ivory-tower vision of the suburbs, what with their gated communities and Volvos and all. Teaching kids to read is not rocket science, and has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomics!

But here the good professor's claiming that reading is all about "opportunity and exposure." You mean it doesn't have anything to do with the explicit teaching of all the phonemes in the English Language? The hopelessly old-fashioned method known as Phonics was responsible for teaching legions of children for centuries, many of them first-generation Americans, with a nearly flawless success rate.

None of this prattling on about "disadvantaged children" and "at-risk youth," those teachers just rolled up their sleeves and taught roomfuls of kids how to read, using effective methods.

Enough about reading, what are Anderson's ideas for turning her school around?

[P]rincipal Anderson said more money is essential to counteract the issues many of her students bring to school.
. . .
"If you go into a school where everyone is already achieving and you have children coming from homes with strong parenting skills, the homes are filled with books and computers," Anderson said. "Of course, those are much easier children to teach. When you have our children, it's a challenge. It is harder."

More money is essential? And why mention parenting skills and computers? Is she suggesting that because her kids come from less-than-ideal circumstances, they are more expensive to teach? Talk about setting yourself up for failure. Once she's declared that more money is essential, it's a sure bet that if she doesn't get the extra cash, she'll have a ready excuse for why the school isn't performing.

We suggest that Ms. Anderson carefully read No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty, Schools and she might find some of her cherished beliefs about children of poverty are little more than excuses people use for failing to teach them. (No Excuses is available as a 125 page pdf file, or visit the No Excuses website.)

Imaginary funding problems aside, what is the top goal of Duckrey's principal?

Dean writes, "More than anything else, though, Anderson wants more Duckrey parents to come on board." Principal Anderson and Home and School Association president Grace Garnett detailed some of the ways they've tried to get parents to become more involved, including giving out prizes, offering food, holding meetings in the morning and the evenings to accommodate work schedules, and of course, begging.

Nothing works, and the school gets turnouts in the single digits.

Might we suggest that the reason why parents don't really care about the school is precisely because of the school's mediocre academic performance? A few months ago we discussed the classic complaint of under-performing schools that "We need more parental involvement!," so let us reiterate our point.

While folks can point to highly involved parent organizations at high-performing schools, this does not mean that a lack of parent involvement causes a school to fail! The best strategy for an underperforming school? Focus on getting student achievement up (which usually involves a healthy dose of higher expectations in both behavior and especially academics) and parent participation will naturally follow.

David Levin, of the KIPP Academy in the Bronx, writes in No Excuses, "Schools that are not performing well will never achieve parental support and do not deserve it either . . . The only thing you can do to earn parents' support is to educate their children."

Parents are a wonderful resource, but don't blame them for your failing school.

Elmer Boehringer, principal of Bridesburg School
While the learned individuals above mentioned the affluent suburbs with their Volvos in despairing the struggle to teach poor kids, they forgot to mention Bridesburg, where almost half the students come from low-income families. Bridesburg isn't exactly a gated community, but it certainly is doing well with its children.

Bridesburg's principal, Elmer Boehringer, said more money would be nice, but he'll make do with what he has. The K-5 school has a library, but cannot afford a librarian. There is no art teacher, and a part-time music teacher works with students in a storage room.

Teaching in a storage room? Where are the "Volvos in the driveway" that we're supposed to see when encountering a successful white school? Surely this principal could do with more money, right?

"It's not the money that makes the difference. Whatever you're handed you have to be grateful for it and you have to know what to do with it," said Boehringer, who over the years has been able to purchase 95 computers for his students and 12 additional laptop computers for his teachers.

"It's not the money that makes the difference." Either this guy is nuts, or he's absolutely right.

The numbers support the latter. 68% of Bridesburg's kids are proficient in reading, and three-quarters are proficient in math, both categories beating the city and state averages.

But surely it's because of all the white people, right?

The 30-year school district veteran said Bridesburg's minority students - 2.0 percent African-American, 3.8 percent Latino and 0.5 percent Asian - are faring as well as their white peers.

This is important, for it shatters several ideas. One is that whites can inherently learn better than blacks (an old racist notion which surprisingly many folks trot out in the eternal quest for more funding for minority schools). The second is that to do well in school blacks need to be surrounded by similar-complexioned students, another racist notion.

Kids are kids. They will learn what you teach them, regardless of race. Period.

So what does Bridesburg's principal credit for this success?

The school works, Boehringer said, because he and his teachers put in the hours and set high expectations for all of their students.

"We consider ourselves a team, that's key."

These are awfully quaint notions: hard work, high expectations, and teamwork. But we consider them "oldies but goodies" in that they are time-proven methods for success in any organization. They are especially important in an urban school, where often there are crushingly low expectations.

We've seen many schools where these three factors have worked together to produce student success, and in turn the school becomes a place where parents want to become involved, a place where folks want to send their kids to school.

Bridesburg parents and teachers agreed. "This school is a family," said Ann Evans, who has a son and daughter enrolled. "These teachers really care about their students...There's been times when Mr. Boehringer has been here until 7, 8 o'clock at night. He's like a father to every single one of these kids."

Said third-year teacher Dara Savage: "I would send my child here in a heartbeat. Excellent staff, every one, from the principal to the aides to the entire staff.

As we mentioned before, Bridesburg draws from the same pool of employees as the rest of the school district, and often the principal has little direct control over hiring and firing. For a school to have built a strong, effective team speaks volumes about the efforts of the principal over time.

One of the most important aspects of urban school success is the attitude of the place. Do the teachers inspire greatness in their charges? Ms. Savage continues:

"The school has a tone that we can achieve anything, and it trickles down to our students. They know that there is no limit to the level of success that they can achieve."

In the spirit of full disclosure, we've worked briefly with Mr. Boehringer, and he's simply an effective, enthusiastic leader. We've often talked about the need for strong principals for urban school success, and folks would do well to study this man and his methods.

Two Schools, Two Visions
While principal Anderson means well, she's an excuse-meister. Blame a lack of funding, blame the crappy neighborhood, blame the crackhouse that's blocks away, and even blame the parents. None of this is likely to change, so performance will likely remain mediocre. Even worse, they've seemingly placed their literacy eggs in precisely the wrong basket. Instead of simply going with a time proven and inexpensive explicit phonics program, they've got their sights on an incredibly inefficient one-on-one tutoring scheme.

We don't have much hope that the situation at that school will improve any time soon.

Contrast this with principal Boehringer, who's a mover and shaker, and "places the blame" for success squarely on the shoulders of his team. He knows success doesn't depend on money, but rather is the product of relentless high expectations. These expectations, plus a pervasive tone of limitless achievement, are added to the blood, sweat and tears of the school staff to form not just a school but a family.

And this family will continue to enjoy success.

This is not a story of a black school versus a white one, but rather an illuminating example of ineffective versus effective leadership. Let's learn from their experience.

Reflections on Brown: More segregation today?

May 18, 2004 As with the elimination of slavery, the prohibition of Jim Crow era separate-but-equal laws helped bring America one step closer to living up to her founding principle of equality for all.

Unfortunately, in marking the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, many folks are observing that "today's schools are almost as segregated as fifty years ago." In a recent article in the Baltimore Sun the reporter claimed "many schools are resegregating" with only demographics--but no hard evidence--to back her assertion.

These well-meaning folks make the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causation. They're also abusing the word "segregation" which in 1954 meant an artificial separation, but today is taken to mean any observable separation.

While we at ReformK12 often criticize numerous aspects of public schooling in America, to charge it with segregation (in the artificial sense) is simply unfair.

Overwhelmingly the so-called segregation in today's public schools is due to the demographics of a given neighborhood. The reasons why certain neighborhoods become racially homogenous is a complex issue dealing with a host of issues (some of which may relate to forced busing enacted in the years after Brown). But the bottom line is that there's an extremely close correlation between the racial makeup of a given neighborhood with the makeup of a public school in that neighborhood.

To say that "schools are resegregating" is a smokescreen to draw attention away from an exploration of the real reasons why minority achievement lags behind whites. We might suggest looking at the low expectations and mediocre standards which arise so naturally in a system with few avenues of parental choice and precious little competition.

More "segregation" today? Don't be fooled.

Reflections on Brown: A racial problem?

May 17, 2004 Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, which eventually helped break down the color barrier in public education where it previously had been enforced by law.

Today, many people are wondering about the racial gap that still exists in public education in America. It is a sad fact that in our cities, far too many largely-minority schools are simply not providing their students with the same level of service as suburban schools, many of which are largely white.

But does this mean that Brown v. Board of Education has failed, or that there's a conspiracy afoot to keep children of color uneducated?

Consider a few facts. In America's urban centers with the largest proportion of Black and Hispanic citizens, Blacks and Hispanics are very well ensconced in city leadership, including the mayor's office, city council and especially local representation to state legislatures.

This trend is matched in these cities' school districts, where minorities hold significant positions from the Superintendent's office and school boards through the leadership ranks, such as regional superintendents, supervisors, and other levels of middle management.

But it is in the schools themselves where the conspiracy theory falls apart. A significant percentage of predominantly-minority schools (where the percentage of white pupils is in the single digits if not zero) are run by principals and teachers of the same race as the kids.

In some areas this trend extends to charter schools. For example, in Philadelphia a number of charter schools were created where the founding coalition came from a close-knit, all-black neighborhood, thus it is not uncommon today to see a school with not only a 100% black student body, but a 100% black staff, administration, and school board. And we're talking about schools of choice here!

No, our current problem with urban education is not a racial problem, however it is often assumed to be.

Thomas Sowell writes (emphasis ours):

[B]oth the explicit language and the implicit assumptions of the Supreme Court in Brown depicted the answer to problems of blacks in general as being essentially the changing of white people. This was yet another line of reasoning that led straight into a blind alley.

Today, there are all-black schools that succeed, all-black schools that fail, and racially mixed schools that do either. Neither race nor racial segregation can explain such things. But both can serve as distractions from the task of creating higher standards and harder work.

Rather than point fingers at racial causes for our troubles at largely-minority schools, we think it makes far more sense to step back and look at the big picture. Sure, Brown has eradicated forced segregation by the powers-that-be. But that doesn't ensure a quality education where there are few avenues of choice and competition (which naturally occurs when parents can afford to choose private schools).

Expose our embattled urban school systems to the irresistible forces of the free market, and watch truly effective schools rise to the surface. By these we mean schools which not only serve largely-minority student bodies, but have tremendous track records of success, such as the No Excuses schools or the KIPP academies, all of which thrive on a steady diet of high expectations in both behavior and academics.

Of these schools Oliver Brown would be proud.

Free Market Triptych (part two): Freedom to Teach

May 15, 2004 One of the best ways to solve many of our current educational problems is to have K-12 education join the free market.

Most folks who talk about the free market are concerned with the free choices available in the consumer market, as we discussed last time. While "voting with one's wallet" is an extremely potent force, there are two other aspects of the free market which are also important. Both of these involve the employment market: the freedom to work and the freedom to hire.

In today's installment, we'll cover the inalienable freedom which all adults should have in a classless society, the ability (within reason) to choose one's profession.

Freedom to Work: Our point here is simple: any citizen who wants to become a K-12 teacher, should have the right to teach, without being faced with artificial obstacles. The only restrictions to this career choice should have to do with the job, such as a lack of a criminal record and substantial subject-matter knowledge.

Our argument has several parts. First, we'll contrast the role of teacher certification between public and private schools, and question the value of certification programs. We then will point out a bit of hypocrisy in that public schools surreptitiously hire uncertified teachers, and that certification is not required in areas very similar to K-12 education.

Public versus Private
Currently, in the public school system, teacher candidates must satisfy "teacher certification" requirements. Typically this involves about two years of coursework at one of our many Colleges of Education, coursework which we find to be largely part of the problem with education today.

It's been our experience that this coursework is indoctrination at best--and brainwashing at worst--into the ways of Progressive education. (We spare no expense mocking the tenets of Progressive education, as taught at the College of Education, but we do concede not all Progressives are bad).

Contrast the public school certification requirements with those found in private and parochial schools: many of these schools don't have a certification requirement.

As much as we disparage the curriculum of certification programs (and "becoming certified" doesn't necessarily make one a bad teacher), the lack of certification doesn't necessarily make one fit to teach. So how do private schools--many of which are largely free of the state mandates smothering public schools--pick their future teachers?

For the most part, private schools' criteria are centered around one simple attribute: subject matter knowledge. All other considerations are secondary. Some of these criteria are fairly important, such as a lack of a criminal record, and a college degree, but it cannot be emphasized enough that mastery of one's subject matter is the most important criteria for a teacher, for any age range of pupil. While this does not automatically make one a good teacher, the converse is even worse: one who's an expert teacher, but knows little about the subject at hand!

Value of Certification
This is the biggest problem with the current certification scheme, which focuses on pedagogy while slighting content-knowledge. (In our experience, we've taken "Science Education" courses which were science-free!)

This problem is replicated in the recent debate over "National Teacher Certification" as offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. These standards are "all hat and no cattle" in that they emphasize pedagogy while their content-knowledge standards are weak. In a recent article in School Reform News, education professor M.O. Thirunarayanan warns, "You can't use pedagogy to teach what you don't know."

In a recent often-quoted article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (free registration required), it turns out that appalling numbers of middle school teachers failed subject-area tests in the very subjects they're supposed to be teaching! True to form, district and union officials rushed to their defense. One argument was that the test was, like, really hard, you know? Lisa Haver, who's been teaching sixth grade math for several years, failed the math exam and says, "There was stuff on there that I've never seen."

We might add that it's a sure bet that her students never saw the material, either.

Ms. Haver continues: "When it was over, we just put our pencils down and looked at each other, like: 'What was that?' "

Turns out the test covered mostly middle school math, with a smattering of high school algebra and geometry (at least one middle school teacher got a perfect score).

Another defense was that these were really good teachers (all of whom were certified, by the way). Says Arlene Kempin, chief personnel officer of the Philadelphia teacher union, "We have so many middle school teachers who have been doing a terrific job all along. They've been doing it for years." Emphasis ours.

Maybe it's just us, but this sounds like a call for seniority to rule the day, not irrelevant subject matter knowledge.

How good can you be if you don't even have a solid grasp of the very material you're trying to teach? We suspect the "very good" moniker refers to pedagogy or self-esteem inflation skills (very important in today's classroom).

Uncertified Public School Teachers
Here's a dirty little secret about certification requirements in public schools: they already hire non-certified teachers in full-time teaching positions.

There are several ways to do this. One is through a route called "emergency certification," usually meaning they need the teacher so badly, so they'll dub thee "certified" just to pass muster. Unfortunately, "Emergency Certification" is only a step away from actual certification, in that you have to be enrolled in a College of Education certification program.

The second way to teach full time without certification is to become a substitute teacher, and then get lucky. Most of the time substitute teachers are per diem, and they work day-to-day as needed by the school district to cover teacher absences. Occasionally a teacher will become seriously ill, and need to be away for an extended time, in which case the per diem sub becomes the de facto full time teacher.

And in some cases, especially in schools which aren't overwhelmed by teacher candidates like in our tougher neighborhoods, there will be vacancies at the beginning of the year for which no certified teacher is available. These spots will fall to substitute teachers, who will serve in a long term capacity. If the principal can get away with it, there is no limit to the length of time a full-time sub can be kept on at a school. In one school where we've taught, one uncertified substitute teacher continued for over four years, and she did an excellent job.

We mention Emergency Certification and Long-Term Subs to point out there are people in public schools who are not certified, but teaching full time with the blessing of the powers-that-be.

Certification not required Elsewhere
Defenders of certification are quick to point out that we can't eliminate it because then "we'll be just hiring bums off the street to teach our kids." Well, not exactly. There are plenty of places where we don't require certification of the folks who work with students, from young children to young adults.

We have Scout leaders for Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts and Brownies, coaches for Little League, Gymnastics, and Pee Wee Football, to name just a few sports, and of course Sunday School teachers. In each of these areas, the first two job requirements are a thorough knowledge of one's area, and a desire to work with kids.

The third is a no-brainer: actual success with these same kids. If there existed the world's worst Little League coach, who not only lost games, but was roundly hated by all his players, well this fellow wouldn't have a dugout to prowl come next season. In a free market, things have a way of working themselves out.

But it is with one group of professionals who works with young adults that the "certification-required" policy really becomes farcical, and that is college professors.

Take a successful college professor, of freshman physics, calculus, English, or History for example, and you'd probably have a person who knows the subject matter cold, and does a fine job of imparting this knowledge to 18 and 19 year old students. But if this professor were to show up at a public high school and ask for a job to teach 17 and 18 year old students, the message would be a polite, "Sorry, you're not qualified, er, we mean certified."

Of course we're not suggesting that all college professors are successful teachers, for subject matter knowledge doesn't automatically make one a good teacher. All we're suggesting is that the door be opened.

Conclusion
The bottom line is that teacher certification (as it exists today) is an artificial obstacle, and worse than useless in that it indoctrinates teacher candidates into wonderfully-sounding, but ineffective, methods. It takes a special kind of person to put up with the two years of brain-dwarfing curriculum, which automatically shuts out a lot of folks who would otherwise make great teachers.

Why don't we take the lead from effective private schools: hire people who know their stuff, regardless of how many "Education" courses they've taken. Give these folks the freedom to teach.

Thoughts on parenting, lessons for schooling

May 12, 2004 Glenn over at Hi. I'm Black recently became a bit contemplative at the thought of someday having kids. In penning some thoughts on children and parenting he mirrored ideas that are very apropos to the discussion of students and schooling.

MENTAL TOUGHNESS. I believe in letting kids being kids, but I also believe that kids should be put in situations in which they can gain confidence in themselves and not let people [mess] with them. Mentally or physically.

Stuff like mental & physical discipline, work ethic, responsibility. I'll let their momma worry about their emotional development. I'm trying to teach them how to build up their "exoskeleton" and how to become a responsible citizen.

Now, we must admit that Glenn is not a parent, is not a teacher, and is a rather salty character (just the way we like him). How refreshing that in a few sentences he could unwittingly "cut to the chase" of some of what's sorely missing in modern-day schooling.

Letting Kids Be Kids
Heaven forbid we should permit kids to be kids! Boys who are exhibiting distinctly boy-like behavior often have this scourge medicated out of them. High school girls (and in some places, middle school girls) get thoroughly schooled on the ins and outs of sex (sorry), regardless of parental wishes, with free birth control just a request away.

One way to let kids be kids is to let them make mistakes. Minor mistakes should be accompanied with a "everybody makes mistakes, just try harder next time" with more serious ones including appropriate consequences.

But in today's schools it seems that certain behavior in certain schools is simply tolerated (like the wanton disruption of school) while at other, more peaceful, schools Zero Tolerance policies require the notification of the National Guard when a drug-sniffing dog barks at a ham sandwich.

But more crucial than Ritalin or Sex Ed, one of the most important aspects of making mistakes is learning from them. If kids are shown that making mistakes is not only perfectly natural, but is also a great way to learn the ways of the world, then they can do a great deal of growning up in their formative years. (Contrast this with the Def-Con response to Zero Tolerance situations like being suspended for a month for possession of Nutter Butters, where the lesson is that adults are quite insane.)

Gaining Confidence
If kids are permitted to make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes, then they will naturally build confidence as they put their lessons to practice and get better at this game called life. Unfortunately far too many educators believe we should actively work to boost kids' self esteem instead.

Everything we've heard about so-called self-esteem building in fact turns kids into Narcissists: love of self for its own sake. The most effective way we know to give kids a healthy, positive outlook is to encourage the development of self confidence, a far different beast than self-esteem.

Self confidence grows when students are successful in challenging tasks. Instead of trophies for just showing up, we prefer recognition for hard work and a job well done. As we've mentioned, it is also important not to make a big deal out of little failures, especially if you're going to reward genuine success.

But one of the hardest concepts to swallow it the fact that to genuinely build confidence, success cannot be easy. Kids aren't idiots, and they regard praise made of puffery as a joke, just like the rest of us.

Self Defense
While the teaching of self defense is not a task for schools, they should permit kids to at least defend themselves. Too often if a kid is assaulted and heaven forbid defends himself, both kids get hauled off to the principal's office for violating some inane policy of non-violence.

As educators, we do not advocate the "someone hits you, then you hit back" line of thinking, for that reduces us to cave dwellers. But self defense, experience has shown, is quite an effective way to deal with bullies, who love to pick on the "defenseless."

A while back we posted an entry on bullies, referencing Michele's story from A Small Victory. And in the comments section of Michele's post, there were a number of stories of how folks successfully overcame bullies, most involving legal action, media pressure, or martial arts.

We simply must permit students to defend themselves.

Mental & Physical Discipline
While physical discipline is probably more in the realm of gym class, mental discipline should be a concern for all educators. In Parris Island, South Carolina, where young recruits are molded into future Marines, we marveled at how much of boot camp really is mental.

The concept is simple: subject a recruit to incredible amounts of pressure (ie, mess with his head) in a relatively safe environment, and when he's successful, he'll have the mental discipline which will permit him to remain calm and in control in other areas, such as combat.

The same goes for school. If educators insist upon high standards--including things like memorization, writing research papers using real books (not just online sources), conducting laboratory experiments with proper documentation and writeups, and doing homework--then students will have the mental discipline to be successful elsewhere.

"Habits of mind" are some of the best habits we can give our kids.

Work Ethic and Responsibility
We could easily go on for days on this topic alone, so we'll try to be brief. In too many schools, we have failed to encourage the development in our students a work ethic which will help them be successful in future schooling or a later career. (This goes hand-in-hand with mental discipline, above.) Worse yet, when students fail to meet expectations, we've accepted responsibility, virtually guaranteeing that this will remain a problem area for our students.

While hard to swallow at first, one of the best ways to encourage responsibility is to make kids responsible. Responsible for their actions, words, and yes, work.

At times it seems some educators excel at finding excuses for their students--"oh, he's from a single-parent home" or "it's a shame her father's got that problem"--it is only natural for kids to feed into this.

Students won't develop responsibility until we give them responsibility and make them responsible.

Emotional Development
Glen writes about his future progeny: "I'll let their momma worry about their emotional development," not realizing that this applies perfectly to schools.

Why should schools try to "teach" or "guide" children's emotional development, when parents send their children to school to learn academic subjects? Any hours spent on teaching things like self-esteem (a misguided cause) are hours that cannot be spent preparing children for future scholarship.

One of our favorite Elaine McEwan quotes comes from her book 10 Traits of Highly Successful Schools: "To create a school environment that is 'nurturing, collaborative, meaningful, and authentic' sounds impressive. But stop to think about why we are sending our children to school in the first place. I did not send mine to be nurtured. I did that at home. I sent them to learn how to read, write and do math."

---

Let's take Glenn's advice, and help our kids develop self-confidence and mental toughness, with a healthy work ethic and a sense of responsibility. Which is all possible while letting kids be kids. Yes, it is a balancing act, but we educators are up to the challenge.

Not letting bad students demoralize

May 06, 2004 Recently a teacher was feeling a bit down and out after some particularly trying episodes with students, and was entertaining thoughts of leaving the school at the end of the year, to seek work elsewhere. The disruptive and disrespectful students were monopolizing classroom time, and they were working overtime to drive the teacher nuts, and for the moment, the teacher was bowed.

This teacher shared these thoughts with a colleague at a faculty meeting, and she responded simply, "If you think they're having an effect on you, please remember you're having even more of an effect on them."

She meant this in the positive sense, for this teacher is strict and has high standards for conduct and academics, but was completely unaware that this, over time, was cultivating a reputation.

She continued, "When my students are acting up, I just say I'm going to send them to [you] and the class gets deadly quiet."

This was exactly what the teacher needed, a shot in the arm to reverse a spell of demoralized thoughts and mild despair. The following week went much better for this teacher, for in the periphery was the constant thought that a positive impact was being made, despite all the recent drama with the negative students.

Are you doing the right thing? Are you working in your students' best interests, even if they don't appreciate it? Are some students quite vocal with their displeasure, even though they've got it all twisted around?

Don't give in!

Just think that behind your back, you might be getting a respectable reputation for having firm limits and high standards, a reputation which only time and consistency can create. Keep fighting the good fight, and you will prevail.

Embracing creativity the wrong way

May 03, 2004 On the subject of creativity, allow us to quote the School of Education party line:

Embracing Creativity is a wonderful idea. Schools are so rigid with all their rules and procedures, it just kills children's spirit. Over time, this harms their self esteem. We don't want to extinguish the light within our students, we should instead kindle this spark into a flame.

Pardon us while we throw up.

Don't get us wrong, we think creativity has its place, most notably in the arts. But parents do not send their children to school so we can encourage creativity, they send us their children for us to teach them academic subjects! The teaching of reading, writing, math, science, history, and geography must be our primary concern every day a child is in school.

If you think we sound like old-fashioned fuddy-duddies, you haven't been paying attention. The whole idea of creativity versus complete lack of creativity is yet another false dichotomy upon which a great deal of Progressive education precepts are based.

If you think about it for more than a moment, you realize that there are plenty of places a child can be creative, and plenty of places where teachers for eons have encouraged it, all within the quote-unquote "confines" of traditional instruction.

• Rule: Textbook must be covered. Solution: Creatively cover the book and decorate it to your liking.
• Assignment: Book report must be double-spaced with an introduction, body and a conclusion. Solution: Creatively use adjectives and adverbs in your report to make it interesting! Add a cover and illustrate a scene from the book.
• Instructions: Draw a bar graph of the data from the science experiment. Solution: Creatively shade or color in the bars. Make your graph not only accurate and easy-to-read, but pleasing to the eye as well.

The real problem with this obsession with encouraging creativity and self-expression is that some schools have lost all perspective. For example, sometimes students "express themselves" in ways that are inappropriate for school. The phrase "expressing themselves" is simply a smokescreen, for this behavior is classic limit-testing, and it is a natural part of growing up.

The adults in this scenario need to do their part and respond with reinforcing the limits, while encouraging creativity by more acceptable means. Unfortunately, too many adults don't have a grown-up response, worrying about harming the child fragile self esteem.

This is a crock.

Students can express themselves with their clothes and jewelry, so long as they are within the dress code. The same goes for any student's "creative" interpretation of other school rules and procedures.

Extend this problem further, some students are so used to having their egos massaged, that when they encounter a teacher or school that enforces rules and procedures, the student thinks it is just about harrassment.

For example, one of our students displays buttons on his backpack expressing gay pride, but unfortunately some of these use profanity or vulgar phrases. When asked to remove the obscene buttons, the student made a big scene, for no one else had ever said anything to him! He for all the world believed he was simply being harrassed.

Do kids a favor, and teach academic subjects as rigorously as possible, and leave most of the creative lessons to art class. And when kids find ingenious ways to test their limits, do the right thing and reinforce the limits, redirecting their creative juices elsewhere.

Students will find that there are a myriad ways to be creative in a traditional, structured classroom, one just has to . . . be creative.