Author Archives: Stephen Seyfer

School Is Where Children Grow Up: Education Is How They Grow Up

Posted on by
Reply

Children grow up.  As K-12 educators, we know them well in increments, sometimes a school year only and sometimes as elementary, middle or high school students.  Then, they graduate and we lose track of most.  Who they were and who they become are influenced by how we interacted with them while they were ours and by how they react to what and how we taught them.  We are not responsible for everything in their young adult lives, but now and again they let us see our work and its effects.  I am amazed by so many when I see them in latter years.  They are full-grown and in the world we believe we prepared them to occupy and I smile at their stories.

I turn wood on a lathe and create useable personal and home craft products.  At a recent craft fair a young man and young woman were examining an ebony-handled razor and shaving brush set.  They stood on the other side of my display table under a red-topped canopy.  There were a dozen folks looking at my work and whenever anyone picks up an item, I engage with them and tell them about the wood or how the item was crafted.

“The razor handle is turned in ebony”, I said over the display table.  “Ebony is grown in equatorial Africa and turns into a very smooth and durable handle for razors and brushes”.  The young man manipulated the razor in his hand looking at the young woman and mimicking his shaving.

“You don’t remember me, do you”, he said turning to me while examining the accompanying shaving brush handle.

This is not a foreign question for a retired teacher, coach, principal, school superintendent.  I have known thousands of children.  As young adults, some are exact replicas of their former teen-age selves.  Others are not.  I could not name him.

Still holding the razor and brush, he told the young woman, “I was trouble when I was in school.”  She smiled and said, “Nothing new there.”

“Help me”, I said.  “You are grown and I cannot place the face or voice.” 

“Shane (I will omit the last name)”.

I immediately knew his story from Kindergarten through his graduation.  “I am pleased to see you again”, I said and held out my hand and we shook.  I was also pleased by his firm grip and willingness to shake.  These two facts told me about his memory of his studenthood – he was equally pleased to see again.

I turned to the young woman and said, “I explain to every person accompanying a former student that I knew your friend when he was a student.  I always say, with hand flourishes, ‘He was a stellar student, a fine athlete, courteous to his teachers, and a good friend to his classmates.’”  She smiled a look of understanding yet knowing better.

Looking at Shane, I told her “Shane grew quickly in elementary school.  He was big for his age and wanted to be big among all the other boys, but some things got in his way.  One was temper.  The other was independence.  He did not like being told ‘No’.  This obstinance also put him on the wrong side of some teachers and he spent time out of the classroom.  As his principal, I knew him fairly well.  A little of his home life influenced his need to be loud and defiant in school and we did not fault him for that.”

“Shane was athletic but did not like sports.  Cooperation was not his thing.  He was school smart, talented in music.  He was inquisitive.  In middle school, he was ‘all boy’ and got into the usual mischief.  In high school, Shane showed a real attachment to teachers who took a personal interest in him.  His principal did.  His music teacher and his computer science teacher, also.  Like many high school students, Shane did well in subjects he liked and skated through those he did not.  He graduated.  And, I have not seen him since shaking his hand at graduation.”

Turning to Shane, I asked, “Bring me up to date.  What are you doing back in this area?  Where have you been and what are your plans?”

He explained that he graduated from college, majored in computer science, was employed with a software company that, due to the pandemic, allowed him to work from anywhere.  He and his girl friend were renting-to-buy a home several miles from his former school and they intended to make this their home.  Not surprisingly, Shane did not introduce her, so I introduced myself and welcomed her to the community.

Shane was tall, well-built, looked healthy, and stood straight.  He looked me in the eye when we spoke with each other.  He had learned professional skills and was gainfully employed with plans for a future. 

I rounded the displayed tables to stand next to him saying, “I am so pleased to see you today.  I am pleased that you looked at my woodwork.  And, I am most pleased that you told me your story.”  He did not make a purchase, but took a business card and smiled as he and his girl friend walked on.

School is where children grow up.  They give us thirteen years of their life and the opportunity to teach them.  School is all about preparation; it is not an end.  Education is how children use what they have learned, some learning from school and some from life, to become adults in the world. 

We see many Shanes in our work.  It is easy to characterize them early in life by their school successes and failures, behaviors and misbehaviors, and how they seem to conform to our pre-conceptions of what and who they should be.  School is a little like lathe work.  A block of wood goes between the head- and tailstock, we give it a turn, apply a chisel, and begin to imagine a finished product.  It is only an imagining, though.  I never know the true grain inside a block of wood until it is exposed.  Almost always, it is a natural work of art.  I also never know, once it is purchased, if an ebony-handled razor and brush will become part of an owner’s daily practice, how long he or she may use it, or what will happen in its future.  I only know that it was well-turned, prepared and finished for long service, and ready for the world. 

I liked Shane as a student and hope to know him as an adult in our community.  He is still turning out.

Reading Wars Redux – A Good Fight

Posted on by
Reply

We are a contentious lot – people in general, that is.  It is not that people like to fight, I hope, but that they will rise to the occasion.  There are many arguments in the realm of public education and the pandemic fueled these and bred even more.  I write this morning about one that has history, many bouts, and still rages. It is a good and worthy engagement in public education measured by the distance between the opposing forces and the significant differences in outcomes should one side prevail.  This is the Reading Wars Saga Redux.

A reader may snub this this post believing that the Reading Wars are old news, a story that is put to rest.  But, it is not.  Three key points make the Reading Wars more than relevant today.  They are:

  • In the absence of daily in-person reading instruction during the pandemic, we need the most effective and efficient reading strategy to cause all children to be proficient readers.  This is more that compensatory, because children in K-3 who missed 30 months of direct reading instruction are in danger of a lifetime of ineffective language acquisition skills and reading behavior.
  • Public education sermonizes the need for all children to be well-educated, yet categorizes a percentage of children as learning challenged.  The achievement gap between non-categorized and categorized children is clearly demonstrated in their reading proficiency.  A strategy that will cause categorized children to acquire language and read and write with equivalency to non-categorized children compels us to consider that strategy for all children.
  • The status quo in the Reading Wars is not based upon the merits of an argument but upon the politics of state legislation.  Once again, money plus lobbying causes legislation and policy decisions not the righteousness of an argument.

Two sides stand in opposition regarding the teaching of reading, the Reading Wars Saga redux in Wisconsin, and it is important for any person concerned with educating children to understand the battle line.  I use the singular battle line, because I find the arguments boil down to a single question.  Shall educators use the understandings and instructional strategies of the Science of Reading (SoR) to teach reading and language acquisition to children or not?  There is not an argument for other strategies for the teaching of reading.  Those strategies are an amalgamation of ideas and approaches for the teaching of reading, usually encompassed as whole language or blended reading.  No, the issue is whether we will use the phonics-based strategies of SoR.  It is the same argument of the 1980s and 1990s Reading Wars grown up, because we know much more about reading and language acquisition today than we knew in the last century. 

I point to the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE) for an example of SoR.  This document summarizes the approaches of SoR that are pertinent to the argument.  There are many others – I picked this.

What is the Science of Reading?

At the heart of SoR are a child’s abilities to encode sounds into words and decode words into sounds and from these abilities acquire vocabulary, learn to spell, learn to read complex and complicated text, and to write with fluency.  Children who cannot encode and decode reading and language are exiled to a life of frustration and low achievement in a world that requires literacy.

When I ask someone who opposes SoR why they do so, two statements invariably are heard.  Phonics-based instruction requires drilling in the sounds and spellings of phonemes and morphemes and some children are put off by this repetition.  They are bored.  And, some children can learn to read naturally – just let them read and guide their reading as it grows.  Schools have adopted complete reading programs based upon not boring children and the belief that with minimal foundational skills and maximal reading opportunities children will become successful readers.

Is that it?  Yep, that is the long and short of an argument.

On the other hand, SoR speaks of foundational encoding and decoding skills for all children, especially those who have learning challenges or whose early home life does not present much reading encouragement or whose natural abilities satisfy primary grade reading material but struggle with more complex vocabulary and language in the secondary grades. 

In simple terms, SoR teaches children phonemic awareness of sound-letter correlations, to use phonetic patterns to understand and use regular and irregular words, to read and pronounce words with fluency, to build complex and technical vocabulary based upon phonetic patterns, and the comprehend the meaning of words and word families.  This is a structured approach that is individualized to a child’s learning needs.

Therein lies a compelling difference in the argument about reading instruction.  Shall we leave success to each child’s native abilities and opportunities presented at home and school when then are young or shall we instruct every child with the skills to read and understand language for a lifetime? 

In the 1990s the forces in Wisconsin for blended and whole language moved the state legislature to adopt language favoring non-phonics-based reading instruction.  A simple phrase in the WI Stat 18.19 says that teacher preparation shall include phonics-based reading, but that a course is phonics-based reading is not required.  Over the past 30 years teachers in our state’s teacher prep programs have received such nominal instruction in phonics-based reading that when asked to describe encoding and decoding skills, phonemic awareness, and linguistics, most cannot.  Elementary teachers today are illiterate regarding the SoR.  Sadly, legislation and lobbying efforts against SoR stymy teacher education.

Educational data, especially data that is disaggregated, describes a flattening of reading achievement in Wisconsin over the past fifteen years.  Whole language and blended reading instruction cause some children to succeed as readers, but less than half of all children can achieve proficiency in reading or language assessments on state assessments.  And, children with learning disabilities invariably achieve at a basic or minimal level.  When we disaggregate the data, we find that children with dyslexia not only do not achieve, they decline in achievement over time and educationally “die” in frustration.  Our systems are not working for all children.

This is a good fight in the non-combative and non-life-threatening struggles of the public education Wisconsin provides to all enrolled children.  Shall all children learn to read?  All children not just those who can read without explicit instruction.  Shall state legislation and teacher preparation programs be reformed to endorse SoR or will they continue with a status quo of minimal and selective achievement?  It is fight for the future of our children.

Assure There Will Be No Yada Yada in September

Posted on by
Reply

Gut-check time.  A gut-check is a moment of reflection, introspection, clarity, and commitment.  This September, when schools return to as close to normal as they have been in 18 months, when the need for a remote education has been eased by vaccination, and school activity levels rise nearly to pre-pandemic engagement, we, public schools, need to do a gut-check of our priorities.  After becoming what we are not, closed and diminished campuses for child education, what is it that we want to be in the new normal?

Try these small checks.

  • Re-examine your school mission statement and educational objectives.  Mission and objectives are designed as the philosophic base for your school’s educational programming.  Read the entire statement beginning to end.  I did and I heard Elaine from Seinfeld muttering “Yada, yada, yada” in my ears.  Thinking maybe it was just my district’s document, I read the position statements of other regional districts and Elaine was in my ears again and again. 

What safely worded drivel!  We “encourage” and “ provide opportunity for” generalized educational achievements that prepare our students and graduates for a world we only think we apprehend.  Or, for the world we, as current adult school leaders, live in today.  We “enhance” and “aspire” and “hope” children will be these things.  And, then we shoot for average, state or national statistics, that we know from the beginning of our hopes are below par.  Weak verbs leading to weak outcomes. Drivel now and when we wrote it.

Is this the best we can be in our time of renewal?  Is this best we can do?

  • Reread your curriculum guides.  To what extent are the outcomes of each instructional unit compelling and a demonstration of significant learning growth?  Or, are they statements of things done, time spent, a check list checked off?

Children in remote education engaged in too much non-compelling curricula, especially when instruction included lengthy screen time, and expectations were set at the “just get it done” level of performance.  Such was education in a pandemic.

I observed flashes of strong teaching and learning from individual teachers using highly interactive, daily connection with remote children in the 20-21 school year.  There were “All Star” teachers working in a completely foreign school environment who caused their children to learn.  However, there were many more examples of classrooms where minimum was all that was given and all that was required.

That can not be the case in September.  Compelling engagement and strong demonstration of learning must describe our new requirements not just expectations.  If we, and there is no reason to, continue with pandemic-level teaching and learning in September, apathetic and lethargic student engagement in remote education will be our new normal. 

  • Realign your programming.  Remote education caused schools to prioritize reading, mathematics and academic book subjects and to minimize or eliminate instruction that required hands-on and one-to-one interaction, such as art, music, foreign language, and technical education. 

Prior to September, rebuild your capacity for total programming.  Daily instruction in the total curricular program must be visible in the school schedules made public in July and August.  Equity must be apparent, not a valued and devalued set of programs.  Don’t wait until September. 

Totality of programming includes the arts, athletics, and student activities.  While classes may begin in late August or early September, fall sports, theater, and marching and pep band begin weeks before.  Get in front of all 21-22 programming with new, inclusive, high requirement statements of learning and performance outcomes. 

This is not an attempt at a “best we can be or do” question.  It is a “we must be better” imperative.  If we cannot be compelling and strong in our requirements, COVID will have caused another pandemic fatality – public education.

Every organization must do its own gut-check as it emerges from the Time of COVID.  Some organizations will not survive the pandemic.  Schools will.  Our gut-check must be a matter of conscience.  We will not be guilt-driven but conscience-compelled to be better than we were in the pandemic but also better than were pre-pandemic.

The purpose of gut-checking is not an organizational selfie.  Gut-checks clarify what was and define what must be.  It is time to be better!

“Yesterday Is Gone And There’s No Getting It Back”

Posted on by
Reply

I hear Robert Duvall’s voice as Augustus McCrae in Lonesome Dove say, “Yesterday is gone and there’s no getting it back”.  There is no false fact in his words.  We can do things differently going forward, starting right now if we choose, but we cannot redo what was or what was not done in our rear view mirror.  To the point: the education of children during the Time of COVID beginning last March and to this date is part of our history.  Whatever children as students have learned or not learned across these five months of two school years is their yesterday and there’s no getting it back.  The issue is what we will do for their future.

Take Away

The physics of time remain irrefutable – we move forward not backward.  We can attempt to re-interpret our understanding of our past, we can attempt to change the inferred value of what we experienced, and we can attempt to re-knit experiences into a different story, but the realities remain the same.  Learning experiences that did not happen did not happen.

Educators at their best are teachers and often reteachers and correcting teachers  It is a fact in our work that 100% of our students do not learn 100% of what they are taught 100% of the time.  As educators, we constantly are working to teach again, reteach, clean up what was mislearned.  We strive to create a quality of learned knowledge and skill sets when initial teaching and learning are not successful.  RtI programs are designed to improve the percentage of successful students by scaffolding this continuing teaching and learning. 

Compensation is a different beast.  We compensate when we accept the fact that something did not occur, was not achieved, or missed the mark by creating strategies to counteract that reality.  We counteract the reality with a new, parallel status quo.  Or, we apply equal or greater effort in opposition of what occurred in order to rebalance things.  Applied to schooling in the Time of COVID, many children did not learn and are not learning the curriculum they typically would learn if there were no COVID.  In the next months, we will assess and understand the differences between what was expected and what is.  And, as these yesterdays are gone and there is no getting them back, we will compensate.

What do we know?

The COVID Effect to the education of children to date is that a percentage of the learning we expected to accomplish in the close of the 2019-20 and the current 2020-21 school years did not happen and is not happening as intended.  To see the total landscape, some children are exceeding our school-based expectations and some are not.  Our assessment may show that some children flourished either as at-home learners of school instruction or as learners of virtual curricula from non-school providers.  We observe highly motivated AP students digging into their school-based assignments and online AP resources who will score the 5’s on their AP exams this spring.  High personal motivation at any time, COVID or not, is an ingredient for personal success.

We observe Kindergarten children who walk into a K-classroom mid-year where in-school learning have been delayed since September and demonstrate mid-year or better reading skills.  Parental support of school-based K instruction or parent substitution for school-based teaching has been highly successful.  We observe children at all grades and in all subjects who have enjoyed strong parental support for school-based learning, good Internet connection, and exercised personal commitment to their school work and are where they would expect them to be at this point in a school year in terms of their academic learning.

At the same time, we observe children who are the opposite of flourishing.  Causes abound and reasons can be understood.  The reality is that too many children at all grade levels and in all subjects have not learned their intended curricula.  Or, any curricula.  The reality is that some children have separated from our school entirely and will not return.  Some children were clearly idled by lack of school connections – Internet, personal, social – they were idled and stranded.  Their parents may not have sought other options because options were not available or due to time and/or money not obtainable.  The COVID Effect for manny of our continuing children is that across the yesterdays of their schooling, we/they were not successful in causing them to learn.  Yesterday is gone and there’s no getting it back.  Today we begin compensating.

Why is this thus?

We shall not generalize a compensatory strategy.  This is not a philosophical statement, but a descriptor of our reality.  If a school has 500 children enrolled, today we have 500 different educational stories.  Parse this among the 13 grades of a K-12 education and every grade and subject hold children spread across the field of expected learning, including motivated, diligent and supported students and students who were largely disconnected from school.  We cannot generalize a solution or remedy or compensatory strategy to rebalance all children in their school-based learning.  There are and will be groupings of children who demonstrate common needs for whom we can apply a common compensatory strategy.  We need multiple, well-designed compensatory strategies.

We shall not generalize educational outcomes.  There is no time like a crisis to evaluate what is essential for your well-being and future prosperity.  Annual curricula is a daisy chain of scaffolded learnings.  Each link in the daisy chain is essential for next learning.  Some single links blossom into multiple strands of curriculum.  Consider multiplication and division, then fractions, then Algebra.  Every school child knows this daisy chain first hand and many experience the challenges of manipulating fractions on their way to Algebra.  No fractions – no Algebra.  These are essential learning. 

But, is everything in an annual curricula essential.  As we cull 180 days of instruction, the scope of required compensatory education can be reduced.  If we could get yesterday back, we would not need every yesterday to prepare for our future.  Our compensatory strategies must be essential learning.  We will fill in the rest as we can when we can.

Compensatory teaching and learning will be woven into ongoing teaching and learning.  A child in fifth grade needs her compensatory instruction as well as her ongoing fifth grade instruction.  If not, we only trade lost yesterdays for lost todays and she will still behind where she needs to be tomorrow.  Weaving is a good verb for this teaching and learning.  Educators can do this.

Education is roundth not length.  Our yesterdays are not just academic, but contain all the elements of child and student development.  Again, we cannot generalize gain or loss because the COVID Effect treats different children differently.  That said, we need to explore our expectations for child experiences in creativity, artistry, musicianship, craftsmanship, intellectual development, exploration and inquisition, tradesmanship, entrepreneurship, physical and athletic development, collaborative and collegial capacities, and social-emotional development.  We need to know how children have grown in every aspect of a school-based education, not just academics.  A compensatory strategy just became much more difficult.

To do

Understand the learning status and needs of each individual child.  COVID is a universal pandemic but education is a personal endeavor and experience.  While our pandemic strategy moves children en masse from in-school to at-home and back, from in-class to quarantined based upon health data, and does these on a daily basis, we need to treat each child’s compensatory as an individualized and personal story.  The education of each child needs to be brought forward.

Chew what you can bite off.  The work will be in bite-sized chunks.  These are child-sized bites.  If compensation were a vaccine, what was lost could be regained in a moment.  As there is no quick fix, educators must create child-sized mini-curricula that in the aggregate create a child’s up-to-date education.

Get it right.  What a sin it would be if we compound what has been lost with less than our best work now.  Checking for understanding is required at every intersection of old and new learning and new learning upon new learning.  If a child is not solid in their compensatory learning, the entire design fails.

Think effect not time and effort.  A COVID Effect strategy will not be completed in what remains of the 2020-21 school year.  If we work on personalized educational needs, in bites, and ensure quality learning, our work will stretch well into the 2021-22 school year.  If we really are interested in compensating all children for the downside of their COVID Effect, this will be time well spent.

Don’t do what you can’t do.  A non-educator might tell us, “In the future, all children must be able to speak Mandarin”.  Whereas, we might agree with that futuristic educational outcome, it does not fit into the scope of necessary work in the Time of COVID.  Curriculum is always in a state of change, but now is not the time for large scale overhauls.  Tweak what would normally be tweaked and create child competence in the taught curricula.

The big duh!

Educating children remains our culture’s most noble enterprise.  In the Peanuts cartoon, a character asks, “I wonder what teachers make?”.  The other character says, “Teachers make a difference”.

The Time of COVID has clearly laid out the parameters of the magnificent difference teaching needs to make in the lives of children today.

School Board Work Is A Wonderful Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

To each person duly elected to the local school board, I say “Welcome.  Today you will begin to see, listen to, and think about school in an entirely new dimension.  Engage with fellow board members in a thoughtful discussion of how your board will meet its responsibilities to educate all children.  Then, get to know your school from the inside out.  We have a lot to learn and talk about.” 

An introduction to the school board was not always like this.

A few years back a newly elected school board member was chastised by the board president for visiting school classrooms and talking with teachers.  He was told, “Follow the chain of command.  Board members speak with the superintendent.  The superintendent speaks with principals and other administrators.  Principals and other administrators speak with teachers and other employees.  Don’t violate this chain for command”.  A conversation with the executive director of the state’s school board association confirmed this absurdity.  “Follow the chain of command”, he advised, “it exists for a purpose.”

And, they also should have said, “Take a firm grip on your rubber stamp, because the limiting funnel of information allowed through such a command structure will require little to no discussion by board members.  One voice.  One interpretation of information.  No discussion necessary.”

How absurd and how wrong! 

A quick review of state statutes describing the duties of a school board member disabused this new board member of what the president and executive director said.  The statutes contain no such limitations on the scope of a board member’s interaction with the district’s schools.    Our statutes tell us that our duties, among others, include these:

120.12 School board duties. The school board of a common or union high school district shall:

(1) MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT. Subject to the authority vested in the annual meeting and to the authority and possession specifically given to other school district officers, have the possession, care, control and management of the property and affairs of the school district, except for property of the school district used for public library purposes under s. 43.52.

(2) GENERAL SUPERVISION. Visit and examine the schools of the school district, advise the school teachers and administrative staff regarding the instruction, government and progress of the pupils and exercise general supervision over such schools.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/120.pdf

Any board policies or regulations restricting a board member’s interactions are not founded in statute and are propagated only to protect an antiquated concept of the status quo.  The only valid admonition is a board member must refrain from discussion that might compromise the board member’s future role should the board meet in a judicial hearing.  For example, don’t engage in discussion of a specific employee’s work performance or a specific student’s discipline record.  A Board may fulfill its statutory role in hearing a case related to employee termination or student expulsion and the prior discussions of these by a board member may compromise the board member’s capacity to be objectively neutral. 

Better rules to follow are – “Treat everyone, adult and child, with integrity and respect.  Be informed.  Be a voice for the future of all children.  You are a legislator not an administrator.”

  • Integrity and respect are gold standards for boardsmanship.  Each person you speak with requires these two qualities from you.  No matter the person’s role in school – parent, student, teacher, custodian, administrator, community taxpayer – that person has a legitimate claim to your attention.  You are that person’s representative on the school board.  The integrity and respect you demonstrate sets the role model standard for the school district.  If integrity and respect are not present at the school board, how can you expect them be present anywhere else in the school?
  • Integrity and respect are demonstrated by listening rather than talking.  You want to understand their perspective not overlay your own.  You can do that at the board table.  Integrity is demonstrated by sharing the multiple perspectives you have heard.  Integrity is making fact-based decisions and holding to a decision as long as the facts support a decision.  And, when the facts do not support a decision, adjusting the decision to reflect new facts. 
  • Board members need first-hand information.  The old chain of command assured that most information was second- and third-hand.  Create your information base by proactively visiting classrooms to observe instruction, the use of curricular materials, and student and teacher interaction.  I call this “perching”.  You are not in a classroom to interact or participate, but to see and listen and feel.  However, if the teacher invites your participation, do not hesitate.  Enjoy the moment.

Engage in hearty discussions about employment policies, responsibilities and expectations, and practices.  Gain firsthand information about the school environment from an employee and student perspective.  See teachers, aides, district and school office staff, kitchen and food service, custodians and maintenance staff, bus drivers, and coaches, directors and advisors doing their work. 

Then, with respect and integrity, share your information appropriately at the board table. 

https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=13914
  • Your real constituency is the children of the school.  You may be elected from a precinct or supported in your election by voters who favor certain programs or want specific changes and improvements in the school district.  However, your focus should always be on the quality education of all children, emphasis on all.  When the board is called upon to vote on a matter, your vote is powerful.  Of all the voices speaking to the matter, when the votes are tallied, only board voices/votes are counted.  Make your vote stand for the highest quality of programming your schools can provide to all children.
  • You are a legislator not an administrator.  Board members work with policies stemming from the mission and goals of the school district.  Affirm policies that are creating desired school district outcomes and amend or delete policies that are not.  When in the school, watch, listen and feel – don’t direct.  You have no authority to tell anyone what to do.  That is a role of school administration and supervision.