The Management

Ahhhh, classroom management.

The bane of every first-year teacher’s existence. Well, maybe I should not speak for others, but it was certainly the bane of my existence that first year. That horrible sinking feeling as the room spins into chaos. Watching potentially-cooperative kids slowly go to the dark side as they give up on my ability to seize control of the situation. I would love to share some humorous anecdotes, but I think I blocked much of it from memory because when I try to retrieve it, there is very little there. Foggy scenes and words occasionally escape from the vault of my subconscious--the charming phrase “fugly bitch” drifts around in there somewhere.

Making it all worse was the feeling that I was hopelessly circling a drain with nothing to grab onto. Around Thanksgiving of that first year, I remember being told by a sagely 2nd-year teacher in one of my graduate school courses, “You know, they say that if you don’t set the right tone that first week, you’ve pretty much lost them.” I resisted the urge to smack him upside the head with my overpriced course packet. Why was he telling me this? There weren’t any puppies to kick on the way to class that day?

Furthermore, I was (as I think many aspiring teachers are) haunted by the ghost of inspiring-teachers-past. Well, inspiring-movie-teachers-past, anyway. Michelle Pfeiffer, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman--kicking butt and igniting dreams. Who wouldn’t want to follow in their footsteps? I am exaggerating. I was actually pretty aware of the silliness (and inaccuracy) of these teacher images. But it was still hard to resist the desire to be one of those magical teachers.

But that’s the trouble with those teacher images. They seem magical. They reveal an underlying belief that truly excellent teachers have a “special something”--zing, charisma--and that “special something” is not learnable. It is just something a lucky few are born with. And if you’re not born with it...well, then the most you can hope for is mediocrity.

Education courses, I found, also did little to demystify the art of magical teaching. For the most part, they focused on theory and history and left us to figure out specific classroom strategies and techniques on our own. This was not necessarily a bad thing. Some of those courses have helped me begin to think more deeply about teaching and develop my own pedagogical philosophy...but pedagogical philosophy is not terribly useful when hardcovers are zinging past your very reflective and introspective head. (“Ah, that must be one of my kinesthetic learners,” I thought to myself...)

People often say, “Oh, you can’t really teach someone how to teach. It’s just something you have to figure out as you go.” But that response is just not good enough! If we believe what much research seems to show--that the greatest factor in a child’s success in school is the quality of his or her teacher--then we sure as heck better figure out how to teach people how teach! Yes, what you learn from experience in the classroom is invaluable and no one will become an excellent teacher through reading, coursework and professional development alone, but this does not mean that we give up on trying to identify specific, successful strategies that can be taught, shared, and spread to the masses of struggling teachers who want to do better by their kids. There were days during that first year when I wanted to sneak up to the roof and spell out a giant “S.O.S.” in copy paper (if there had been any). “Somebody, please, teach me something I can use!” I wanted to cry.

You can imagine, then, how much my ears perked up when I recently heard similar sentiments echoed on a recent episode of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.” I turned up the volume and discovered that I was listening to an interview with Doug Lemov, the managing director of the Uncommon Schools network of charter schools. He was describing his reasons for writing his recent book Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. Lemov expressed having felt the same frustrations that I have when he was a young teacher. He could not get anyone to pin down specific--“actionable,” as he calls them--strategies that would help his teaching. This led him to do thorough research within the Uncommon Schools. He observed champion teachers who have had extraordinary success with their students--defying the statistical odds for kids in high-poverty areas, from Newark to Bed-Stuy. From picking their brains and watching them in action in the classroom, he named these 49 techniques and organized them into a very readable, approachable book.

I am very glad that I heard this radio interview. After hearing Lemov describe a few examples of techniques in the book, I went to the local bookstore and found a copy. There it sat on the Education shelf, and it was exactly the kind of book I would usually skim right by. My mom was a teacher for 10 years. When I followed in her footsteps, I inherited a ridiculous number of teacher books. It did not take much browsing to discover that the majority of these books offered the same brand of teacher wisdom that I found in grad school--thought-provoking and philosophical, but not very “actionable” (at least not in any immediate sense). They have since been collecting dust on the shelf.

I would have written Lemov’s book off as just another drop in the overwhelming sea of edu-babble, but thanks to the radio interview (and curiosity, because of friends who teach in the Uncommon Schools), I gave it a go and bought the book. It has been really helpful so far. I skipped straight to the chapters “Setting and Maintaining High Behavioral Expectations” and “Creating a Strong Classroom Culture.” Lemov gets right down to business and he is very thorough. For each of the tips, there is far more than just a summary of the technique. He includes a step-by-step breakdown, transcripts of teachers using the techniques in the classroom, and contingency plans for pretty much any “what if” scenario you could think of. There is even a DVD with clips of these techniques in action.

I started experimenting with some of the strategies (100%, SLANT, Do It Again) in the last 6 weeks of school. I know what you’re thinking. “New behavior-management strategies in the last month of school? Are you a glutton for punishment?” But, I swear, even in the last month, I began to see the effects of just these few strategies alone. Take the “Do It Again” technique, for example. Basically, Lemov explains that if students do not perform a routine task (a transition from mini-lesson to independent work, for example) the right way--quietly, quickly, efficiently, purposefully--then, you require them to do it again. At first, this did not strike me as a revolutionary idea. I had heard similar advice before. But whenever I had tried it in the past, it always came off as a kind of punishment. A power struggle. A sort of, “If you don’t do things the way I say, then I am going to torture you by making you do it over and over until you submit to my omnipotence! Mwa ha ha!” (Insert clap of thunder and ominous pipe organ music here.) But, joking aside, the way Lemov presents it, this method is not about a power struggle at all. All of these techniques, including “Do It Again,” are driven by the idea that your classroom is a space where time is precious and every moment is an opportunity to learn. Those moments must be protected with the ferocity of a mother lion. When delivered the right way, students understand that “Do It Again” is about making sure that we are not wasting time, that we are not throwing away any opportunities to learn, that we hold ourselves to the utmost standard within those four walls at all times.

I began using “Do It Again” (with the right spirit) with my students in May. There was some eye-rolling the first couple times, but within two days, doing things the “right way” had become our norm. In fact, by the end of the week, students were moving so efficiently and purposefully from the carpet to their independent work that I had to make a conscious effort to keep the surprise and giddiness from showing on my face. It freed up an enormous amount of energy and time to be given to our work rather than behavior problems. And if that was the result of implementing these techniques in May, just imagine what it will be like to establish these behaviors as the norm right from the first day of school. It makes me--dare I say it--almost wish it was September already!

I have been babbling about the book to just about anyone who will listen. This soon led me to learn from a charter-teacher friend that Lemov’s jargon has been a staple in the charter-school and TFA communities for years. “Oh yeah,” my friend said matter-of-factly, “Lemov’s Taxonomy.” Apparently, Doug Lemov is to charter-school teachers as Jeff Kinney is to my students. I felt like I had been raving for weeks about a fantastic little-known band I had just discovered, The Beatles. (You’ve just got to check them out). This realization brings me back to the running theme of my posts. There needs to be more communication between traditional public schools and charter schools. We have too much to learn from each other to let politics get in the way.

Lemov’s book is a big step in the right direction. He seems to have made an effort to make the book universal. While most of the blurbs on the back cover come from people associated with various charter school networks and the content of the book is coming straight from the Uncommon schools, the cover design and title of the book are neutral and the introduction invites all teachers to use these techniques. In fact, in the NPR interview that led me to buy this book in the first place, Lemov and Julie Johnson (one of the champion teachers cited in the book) both assert that these are techniques that can be used by any teacher in any situation, whether the techniques are embraced on a school-wide basis or not.

Like I said, I have not read the whole book yet. I have focused mainly on the sections that deal with behavior techniques. I plan to delve into the lesson-planning sections next, and there may be advice in this area which I will find less easy to reconcile with my current methods and beliefs. I work at a school which encourages a lot of student autonomy, choice and freedom in reading and writing. We do not read whole-class novels, for example, nor do we conduct universal genre units as a class. I believe deeply in the way we teach and wonder how my school’s philosophy will gel with Lemov’s ideas. I am curious to read Lemov’s take on rigorous lesson-planning and to look at my current methods through this lens.

At any rate, I recommend Teach Like a Champion to any teacher (whatever “type” they may be--traditional public, charter, private) who is interested in working on his or her classroom management. My guess is that this means all of us--perhaps with the exception of Michelle, Hilary and Morgan.

The Lottery (directed by Madeleine Sackler)

So, as mentioned in my last post, I saw the new documentary The Lottery this past Friday. First of all, I will say that, on an emotional level, it really moved me and I salute Madeleine Sackler’s skill in storytelling. The film follows four families through the two months leading up to the lottery for admission into the Harlem Success Academy charter school.

A tone of urgency is set from the very beginning. If you have not been living in a cave or plugging your ears for the last decade or so, then you’ve heard of the achievement gap. I worry sometimes that overexposure to the term causes it to lose its bite, so it helps that The Lottery opens with a series of statistics that breathe life into what the gap really means. For example, we learn that “the average Black or Latino 12th-grader reads at the same level as the average White 8th-grader.” Your stomach sinks more and more as each statement comes into focus and then fades away over shots of Black and Latino four- and five-year-olds laughing and playing. These statistics and the opening interviews of the film set up admission into a charter school as a veritable ticket out. As the ticket out.

We are then introduced to four of the children who would be vying for one of those tickets. Regardless of how you feel about the political debate surrounding city-wide charter school expansion, there is no ambiguity about what getting into Harlem Success would mean for these four kids. Yes, there are many factors involved in the academic success of a child, but you can’t help but feel that you are about to witness something life-changing. Each Harlem Success hopeful is about to have a railroad switch pulled on the track of his or her future.

From there, the film does what you would imagine. You are brought into the world of each child. They are beautiful children. They are funny and thoughtful, and they are absorbing and reacting to everything around them, the way small children do. Each of these children carries the hopes of their parents on their tiny shoulders. As a teacher, one thing that hit me was the regret expressed by several of the parents when thinking back on their own school experiences. The mother of Ameenah, the only girl followed by the film, thinks back on her own time as a student. She was lost. One of those kids who falls through the cracks. Ameenah’s mother is deaf and in one of the most poignant moments in the film, Ameenah, who often acts as interpreter, clings to her mother’s side during an interview and translates for her, “She said...her daughter—I am her daughter,” Ameenah clarifies, frankly, to the camera, “She wants an education for me.”

In another interview, Greg Jr.’s father, Greg Sr., who is currently incarcerated for 25 years to life, painfully wonders how things might have turned out differently if someone had thought to tell him that he was going to go to college (as students at Harlem Success are constantly told). He thinks of his son and beams, “Greg is amazing.” Later, in a moment that gave me more insight than I ever thought possible into the feelings that could drive a father to remove himself from his child’s life, Greg Sr. reveals the pain of a father who regrets his choices, hating what his son has to go through just to visit him. He does not know how to be good for his child. He asks, genuinely bewildered, “What can I do? I can’t just leave him. I’m responsible. What if something happened to him?”

I am rambling. My point is that the film shows four wonderful children who are all wrapped up in the love, hopes and dreams of their families and on this level it is a beautiful film and should be seen. So...why don’t I just say, “Go see it,” for goodness sake? Well, I am hesitant because there is another aspect of the film that worries me. Interwoven with the emotionally-charged stories of Ameenah, Greg Jr., Eric Jr. and Christian, is the political story of the charter school movement. In between scenes of the children and their families are, for example, scenes of angry anti-charter school activists fighting to keep Harlem Success Academy out of a public school space and away from public school money. At a hearing, we see Eva Moskowitz (founder and CEO of the Success Charter Network, which runs Harlem Success) and council members go head to head over the shutting-down of one of Harlem’s failing zoned schools.

It gets the viewer’s blood--already pumping from the cathartic family scenes—pumping even faster. Are “they” going to take away little Ameenah’s hopes for a future? Are “they” going to send Greg Jr. down the same path as his father?

Who is this “they” anyway?

The ominous “they,” as portrayed by The Lottery, is the teacher’s union—the UFT. Moskowitz tells us that, in fact, both the anti-charter school protestors and the anti-charter school government representatives are in the pocket of the union and she even describes the union’s methods as being “thuggish.”

Whether this portrayal of the UFT is truthful or not, I feel unprepared to say. In all honesty, I am woefully ignorant about the practices of my union at its highest levels, and I want to learn more in the coming months. My interactions with the union have always been on a much smaller, more personal level. And, so, this characterization of the union as “thuggish” makes me squeamish. I feel a bit like a little kid being told that her father is a crook. As a public school teacher, I am a member of the UFT. When I was excessed last year due to budget cuts, it was the contract that protected me and made it possible for me to conduct my job search in a rational, non-frenzied way (leading to a position at a school I have come to love dearly). I (as do all my teacher friends), by choice, give far more than the official number of working hours stated by the union contract. When the state was considering making drastic school budget cuts, it was my school’s union representative (a very hard-working teacher) who gathered us together to make phone calls demanding that the cuts not happen. It would mean larger classes and fewer resources for our kids. Based on my personal experiences with the union—on the teacher level—I see hard-working, ethical people who want the best for our schools.

On the other hand, I recognize the dangers. In my past experiences, I have encountered teachers who consistently gave far less than their best to their students but were protected by tenure. And when, as I mentioned before, I was excessed, I couldn’t help but feel some bitterness that my being selected had nothing to do with my work or quality as a teacher, but was entirely determined by the fact that I was the last one hired (a standard dictated by the union contract).

Back on that first hand, as little as I know about the union and its history, I do know that before it existed, teachers could be terminated with little-to-no cause and that this put experienced, highly-paid teachers in great peril of being wrongfully let go.

My point? This issue is complicated. The union is not all good or all bad. Just like anything in life, right? Why are we forever trying to alternately demonize and idolize the organizations and people around us? Perhaps because it is easier to point a finger at a scapegoat than to probe the deeper issues.

Therein lie my qualms about The Lottery. I would have loved to see the film explore some of the grey of the charter/public debate. I also would have loved to hear some voices of cooperation between charter and public schools. If this could not be found at the higher levels (as Sackler suggested when asked during the Q&A, explaining that her offers to interview UFT leaders were declined), I guarantee it could be have been found at the teacher level. I am able to say this with confidence because I am a public school teacher and I am interested in and open to what is happening in the charter schools. I have plenty of friends who feel the same way. I also have plenty of friends teaching in charter schools who have expressed interest in the many different methods being used in successful public schools right now. The charter schools and public schools have lots they could learn from each other.

The only voices of the public schools in The Lottery are that of a principal at one of the struggling Harlem public schools and that of a former public school teacher who now works at Harlem Success. Neither of these voices offered any hope that the public school problem could be solved in any other way than to abandon ship. The public school principal sounded utterly resigned when talking about the limitations of working with the union. The former public school teacher seemed to have concluded that nothing could be done to fix the system she had left.

I fear that the audience of Friday night’s screening left the theatre with only one possible conclusion. Abandon the public schools. Expand the charter school networks, full steam ahead. I just don’t believe this is the only answer. What is up with this “us” vs. “them,” “you’re either with us or against us” mentality? I look at my own school, a successful and happy place that operates very differently from what I understand to be the charter school way, and I wonder, “Is what’s happening here not valuable? Is this not worth working on and sharing?”

Enough divisiveness. (Cue “We are the World.”) There are innovative things being tried in both charter and public schools, and there needs to be a dialogue about these methods and strategies. The Lottery does a fine job of pulling at the heartstrings (I shed my fair share of tears by the end of the screening), but I think it is irresponsible to evoke these kinds of inflammatory feelings without channeling that energy toward cooperation. The film felt like a call to arms against the traditional public schools. What we need to do is take a deep breath and ask, “What can the charter and public schools learn and borrow from each other to start providing real and beautiful learning for all of our kids—not jut the ones lucky enough to hit the educational jackpot?”

...confused

Lately, I have been feeling...confused.

I am a New York City public school teacher. I have been for three years. I believe in public education, and I love my school.

But in the last few months, I have been thinking a lot about…charter schools. The classroom management, the test scores, the presidential attention—how could it not turn a girl’s head?

Wait—relax! Don’t get the wrong idea or anything. I mean, I’m not pro-charter schools. What, you’ve never even thought about it? It’s not like I’m leaving the system to go 100% charter. I’m just, you know...

charter-school-curious.

~~~

All joking aside, I am a teacher in the NYC public schools, and I am curious. In my first two years, I was hesitant to venture beyond the haven of my classroom. Whatever political tensions brewed outside those four walls, whatever drama and uncontrollable circumstances, I closed the door and accepted that all a teacher can hope to do is make a difference with her students in that room, during those (always too-short) minutes. Anyone who has experienced the first year of teaching can attest that this alone poses a challenge.

Now in my third year (certainly still far from being an expert but at least no longer drowning), I find myself feeling that this just isn’t enough. Education is at the center of a political firestorm right now and I want to understand...and sometimes feel like I don’t know where to start.

I have been curious about charter schools for a while now. I’ve read a few books, talked with friends who work in charter schools, read some of the news. But as tensions rise, it feels more and more that a traditional public school teacher expressing curiosity about charter schools is akin to a vegan considering adding an occasional veal chop to her diet.

Let me rewind a bit. For anyone unfamiliar with the increasing “us” vs. “them” situation between traditional public and charter schools, here is a quick run-down...

1. What is a charter school anyway?

According to Merriam-Webster, a charter school is “a tax-supported school established by a charter between a granting body (as a school board) and an outside group (as of teachers and parents) which operates the school without most local and state educational regulations so as to achieve set goals.”

I am primarily interested in the charter school/public school debate in the NYC area. Typically, charter schools have been created here (beginning in 1998 with the New York City Charter Schools Act) to provide alternatives for families in low-income areas with failing zoned public schools.

For the record, charter schools are public schools. Partly for the sake of brevity and partly because the word “traditional” holds other connotations in educational history/philosophy (i.e. “traditional” versus “progressive” education), I often refer to traditional, non-charter public schools simply as “public schools,” but it is important to understand that charter schools are public as well. They do not (and cannot) require tuition and are held accountable to NYS Regents Exams.

2. What are the major differences between charter and public schools?

It can be hard to generalize, but...

-Most charter schools have a longer school day and longer school year than public schools.

-Charter schools typically have a different philosophy/methodology than public schools. In NY, there are several charter school networks (KIPP, Achievement First, and the Uncommon Schools to name a few) that hold a similar philosophy and even use similar phrases, mantras and methods throughout their schools. (I am very interested in this aspect of the charter school movement and plan to explore it through future posts.)

-Charter school teachers are not members of the teacher union (UFT).

-While this statement certainly does not apply across the board, I think it is important to say that in many low-income neighborhoods of NY, charter schools are drastically outperforming their neighboring public schools on standardized tests. Hence what some are calling an exodus from public to charter schools and the overflow of student applications that lead to charter school lotteries.

3. So, what’s the beef?

Charter schools have been receiving a lot of attention lately--admiring visits from Arne Duncan, glowing endorsements from President Obama, news coverage up the wazoo (sp?...What? I can’t help it--I’m an English teacher). What’s more, there is talk of major expansion. Maybe the best way to characterize the heart of the debate is to present a brief play which I shall entitle Charter vs. Public: The Ultimate Smackdown. Curtains up...

The Crusher (Our Charter-School Champion): Yo! Public schools, you better watch your back! You’ve been getting flabby and it’s time someone showed you the door, grandpa. Get ready to be schooled! (wink, wink)

The Pulverizer (Our Public-School Protector): You think you’re hot stuff don’t you, Charter? Must be nice to sap away all the students with involved parents (i.e. those statistically likely to be successful in school) and forget all about Special Ed students. Try serving the whole community, ya snob.

C: What are you even talking about? We do Special Ed. Besides, I wouldn’t say you are doing any of your kids a favor. Here’s a tip--try teaching them how to read.

P: I wouldn’t talk, Charty. There’s plenty of you guys struggling, too. When a charter school goes bad, it goes really bad.

C: Yeah, but when we get things right, we send entire graduating classes to college while your kids are left in the dust. How do you sleep at night?

P: So, if you think we’re doing so badly, help us get better! Don’t just shut us down. Oh, but I’ve heard that’s how you deal with it when a student struggles, too. Just kick them out. Who do you think ends up taking those kids in?

C: Whatever, man. All you can do is whine. At least we have teachers who know how to put in a real day’s work. Looking forward to your two-month paid vacation coming up?

P: That’s a low blow. We have teachers who work their a**es off, and you know it. Look down your nose at the contract all you want, but do you even know what it was like before the union? You need to educate yourself. A teacher could be fired on a whim. And what chance do you think a veteran teacher had when the same amount of money could buy two novice teachers? Is that cool with you? Work your teachers to the bone and then kick them to the curb when they get too expensive?

C: We hold our teachers accountable. You just throw money at them no matter what they’re doing in the classroom. News flash: In the rest of the world, you get compensated for the quality of work you do, not just for breathing.

P: You are so off-base. But I guess I would be too if I spent all day creating little zombies. You’ve got your kids regurgitating answers like parrots, marching through the halls like they just got labotomized. What ever happened to individuality? Or does that not really matter as long as they pass the tests?

C: Our structures create discipline and success--concepts that may be a bit foreign to you. The bottom line? We are closing the achievement gap.

P: Well, I know you’ve been very busy stroking your own ego, but FYI, we happen to have successful schools, too. Did it ever occur to you to ask them what they’re doing? No, you’ve already written the entire system off. You’re taking over our spaces, sapping away our students and monopolizing more and more government money. But we’re not going to let you take over without a fight.

C: Bring it, Public. We’re the wave of the future, and you better deal with it.

Exeunt.

...OK, so clearly I am having a little fun here and showing the extremes of the argument. But in thinking about what issues are at the heart of this charter/public tension, I have come to realize how much confusion there is on both “sides.” The problem, as I see it, is that there is very little productive, rational communication happening between charter and public schools. This really hit me last night after attending a screening of a new documentary called “The Lottery” directed by Madeleine Sackler.

The film follows four families in Harlem who enter the lottery to get their children into Harlem Success Academy (one of a booming number of charter schools in the neighborhood). I plan to talk much more about the film in my next post, but for now I just want to share the question I found myself pondering as the film came to a close. In fact, I asked the question during the post-screening Q&A with Ms. Sackler.

In my opinion, the film (whether this was the intention or not) comes off as very pro-charter/anti-traditional public school--or, rather, anti-union. After listening to several fellow viewers ask questions that reflected the combative tone of the situation, I asked Ms. Sackler if she knew of any space--a forum of some kind--where charter and traditional public school teachers were having a cooperative and rational dialogue. I explained that as a public school teacher, I wanted to do for my kids what the film showed Harlem Success doing for its children, but that I was feeling increasing pressure to “choose a side.” Ms. Sackler was kind and encouraging in her answer, emphasizing that the film was in no way anti-teacher (I didn’t feel it was), and that she felt that sometimes the UFT and its teacher members were not always on the same page.

But to be honest, that doesn’t really answer my question, does it? To be fair, I don’t think she was being evasive. I think she was unable to point me in the direction of such a dialogue because it has not been happening.

That is why I have started this blog. I would love for this to become a space for that dialogue. A sharing of ideas between teachers in the charter and public schools. A rational conversation about the good and bad, what can be improved and what we need to be wary of.

To be a conversation, people would need to read it and respond to it, I suppose...But until that starts happening, I will have a conversation with myself! There is so much about education that I want to understand, question and reflect on. And it seems only appropriate that an exploration of public education take place in a public forum.

With that, I’ll sign off. I’ve got to go be lazy and incompetent now. Isn’t that what us public school teachers do?

(...just kidding. Obviously!)