Following Up on Arne's Summer Break Idea

At this point the video below is a little dated, but the concept is still being tossed around in Education circles. Get rid of summer break. Like most things on this blog there are two sides I can see, as a teacher, with merits on each.

Duncan's point, that the original summer break, because it was based on the farmer's calendar, and thus children would be needed out of school to help with harvesting, is now outdated, could seem like common sense. We suffer as a country by having so few days in school compared to our international peers. Heck, I feel even more at a disadvantage in Oregon because we have fewer days than many other states, much less Japan. Duncan (and thus Obama's) plan seems to indicate that we either make days at school longer or we add to the summer schedule. This will give students a chance to get those days/hours they need to compete on an international stage.

As a sometimes proponent of getting our children ready for the global marketplace, I can't disagree with Duncan's point. Too many students "forget" concepts between freshman and sophomore, junior and senior, etc. years that I would be okay with shrinking (not eliminating) a long summer break in order to make sure that when those students arrive in my classroom, their previous year isn't a lost blip anymore. I'm also okay with longer hours, because honestly I think that getting off at 2:30 is a little early (and to be honest, as much as I love sports, I don't have an issue with hacking into practice time in order to get better at academics -- so what if the football team isn't as good, since 1% of all high school football players play professionally, and the rest need their academic talents to succeed vs. the global market, why do they get as much time to practice as three classes?)

Now, this said, I can see a few issues with Duncan's argument:

a) The farmer's calendar is not entirely what our school system is based on. Urban schools, when founded, did not have a group of farming children that went out from school so they went to school all year round.

b) Cost. Duncan does not mention that this would cost the US an arm and a leg in local taxes. I love teaching, but I'm paid for 10 months of work from 7 until 3. If we're going until 6, I want to be paid. If I'm working 12 months, which I think I should be inclined to do, then I want to be paid. If the program goes 12 months, into the hottest part of the year, we're going to have to spring for amenities like A/C otherwise school is going to be absolutely miserable for kids trying to learn (that last one is especially an issue in the southern extremes of our country).

c) What is gained from summer break. It may seem odd, but I have a number of students who need summer break -- it is there chance to earn income for their families in larger amounts, a chance to travel to see colleges, a chance to debrief a year a little bit, a chance to actually see their families a chance to engage in camps/activities that are educational yet not school...and I think that it would be hard for many to surrender these. From my own vantage point, I like summer to be able to spend time with my family, who gets neglected throughout the school year (it is nice to have a job that allows for family time), read (which I can never do well during the school year) and travel. I also like to take in a conference or a workshop about school, and even take time to "fix" issues that may have existed in lessons that during the school year I never have time to fix.


So this all said, I like what Arne's suggesting, but I do think that there are some practical issues that need addressing before we start hitting the books on August 1st. Ideas? Concerns?

Union

The initial impetus for this post comes from an article (which you can access by reading the title) about the role of the Teacher's Union in New York City. The article, by Steven Brill, details how the New York Federation of Teachers (NYFT) essentially wastes taxpayer money (I'm summarizing) because agreements worked out between the City of New York and the union has created a series of "rubber rooms" where teachers on probation wait until they either move on to a new job or they have a hearing on their "offense." If you haven't heard much about the New York City conundrum, it all came to a head with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's takeover of the city schools (because they were consistently "failing"). Appointing lawyer Joel Klein (who "understands" education because he taught for one year before going to Harvard law) to be his chancellor, they have battled the Teacher's Union about incompetent teachers, who Klein (and Brill, seemingly by how his argument is structured) are the number one reason that kids fail in the classroom. By the article's end, Brill is summoning the public to challenge the union (again, it seems) because these teachers who are in these rubber rooms (earning salary but doing nothing) are taking money away from "the children."

This brought a few thoughts to my head. I'm a former union rep, having served the Gresham-Barlow Education Association for the past two years. I have been a union defender of sorts since I joined my district, mainly because I worked in a school where there was no union, and that became a liability as a professional, since the principal had no checks on her authority. At the very least, I've found, a union can be a good check on an administration that either doesn't support a teacher (as in cases of academic freedom) or is trying to remove teachers for reasons other than competence issues.

Yet, I have seen how unions can be detrimental to the overall health of a system (not first hand). The issue at stake in NYC seems to be the protection of some incompetent teachers, and I do feel that the unions occasionally do this. The argument in favor of this is that by protecting those incompetent teachers, you guarantee protection of all the rest. It seems to have been an accepted norm, not only in NYC but also nationwide. To parents, this can be troubling. I know that as a parent myself that there are a few teachers coming down the road for my daughters that I don't want them having, and I know that if it weren't for union laws, those teachers would have been moved or dismissed. Since competition is so tight in this global marketplace, I'm unsure if the union mantra of protecting the guilty to protect the innocent can and should hold water anymore.

Additionally, local unions have been in hot water of late because of negotiating tactics in light of the recession. Most notably, North Clackamas District's union was blamed by teachers for not communicating that refusing a pay freeze could result in a loss of jobs for union members. When the North Clackamas district laid off 60 teachers (note: thanks to a union vote in North Clackamas, the district restored 43 of those jobs...news on the North Clackamas story can be accessed through http://www.kgw.com/education/localeducation/stories
/kgw_082309_education_north_clackamas_layoffs.10cccc7da.html ) Admittedly, I was nervous when my union adopted the same line in the spring, that they would not take a pay freeze until they got a guarantee that it would save jobs. While the issue did not come to a head in Gresham-Barlow as it did in North Clackamas, I was a little apprehensive about the strategy.

Yet, I examine this barrage against unions in the media and wonder still if they are being unfairly blamed for many of the ills of the educational system. I do find that Secretaries of Education, who were usually Superintendents, arrive in their positions with an adversarial attitude toward unions. I think that the idea of "competent teachers being the most significant factor in improving student achievement" can be misleading (and self-serving to a Joel Klein) because even superstar teachers face obstacles from their community, the media, parental involvement or lack of, or district support (technology...). Even in the North Clackamas situation, the blame being affixed to the union alone seems odd, because the district WAITED until the very end to announce it was laying off teachers as opposed to earlier in the summer (around the July 15th governor's economic forecast) or before the previous year was up. That fact seems to indicate the district could have known that it would be a media issue (especially in that district) and so sat on the lay offs for maximum impact. Maybe that makes them too devious, but it's worth questioning.

In all, I'm divided on the importance of unions in present day education. I'm not anti-union, and appreciative for all the work that my union does for me in protecting my rights as a teacher. But I can somewhat understand (especially if you read the New Yorker article) the animosity that unions create with parents and communities, and wonder if unions, as they presently exist, are really serving the way that they need to.

Pat on the Back for we Social Studies teachers?

The National Education Association (NEA) recently posted this report from the Higher Education Research Institution noting that more incoming freshman categorize themselves as being politically aware than at any point in the survey's history, surpassing the previous record percentage that was posted back in 1968 (when, note readers, the author was not to be born for another 10 years). While it may seem slight, the current percentage of freshman who discussed politics was 35%. What's more intriguing is that nearly 40% of freshman indicated that knowledge of current events was important, which was also a record high.

Is this cause for a celebration in our ranks? Have we, after seeing students bottom out back in 2000 (low score for students thinking current events was important), bring politics enough to the forefront of our courses that we should take a second to applaud the fact that we are seeing this gain? I know in my own classroom that I spent (and will continue to spend) a substantial amount of time discussing current events (that's actually what I use a blog for with my 11th graders). Most of my peers do the same, and with great statewide programs like the WorldQuest run by World Affairs Council (for world current events) and Classroom Law Project's regular events, it could be easy to see how we are making strides in approaching political issues.

Yet, I guess that one could argue that this is a mere anomaly of the past year. In earnest, this last election elicited a greater response from youth than I can remember, mainly because (I'm guessing) the youthfulness of President (previously candidate) Obama. And while students seemed very aware of political issues around election time, their knowledge and thirst for information on world events (healthcare...) seemed to disappear a little bit. There is also the obvious point to make that no survey is comprehensive, although it seems that HERI has covered its bases pretty well in terms of a data set.

What caught me in this as well is how many students already identify themselves as Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, and I'm curious if our membership thinks they do a good job explaining what these different labels mean. I know that on several occasions I've confronted a student of a various persuasion to ask why they were what they were and usually I get a superficial response. How well do we teach those classifications, and is it a good thing to teach those classifications? Could one argue that we foster partisan bickering by helping students to "choose a side" rather than have them evaluate the issues based on their merits...

Sorry for the brief tangent there, but hopefully there is enough here to chew on -- a) should we feel good about such political leanings or chalk them up to President Obama, and b) how much should we work on discussing the various political classifications that exist in our political system?

The Curriculum We Teach

In the past few weeks, the Oregonian has run two articles by Portland educators. The first, by Franklin High School Social Studies teacher Bill Bigelow, and the second by Portland Public Schools Social Studies Coordinator Rick La Greide. The initial article, by Bigelow, began with Bill stating his concerns about what students are learning with regards to the Climate Change/Global Warming debate in their Social Studies classes. His fear was that in the textbooks that the Portland District implemented, the discussion of this issue, rather significant to he and many other social studies teachers, was given a very small treatment within the text. This led to the larger argument of how much time teachers are able to devote to issues that are significant to them, relevant to the present day, and within the purview of a given class to teach. Thus, a student would leave a history/social studies class with some knowledge, but little concept of a debate or issue possibly more important to their everyday life.

La Greide, who Bigelow did mention in his article, replied back a week later in a letter to the editor, and within his post discussed his concern that by having a Social Studies teacher focus on prevalent current events issues (or issues that they simply are very passionate about), they can leave high school without knowing about important ideas or events from history that they need as building blocks for success beyond secondary education. He cited how his social studies teacher spent weeks on Dante's Inferno because of a personal preference, and then when he got to college, he realized that he was out of the loop about many other events in history. Thus, while he could empathize with Bill's desire to teach global warming better, he felt that making sure students had those building blocks about all of history was more important.

So my initial query is whether individuals think that La Greide is correct or if Bigelow has the point. Bigelow's article can be accessed by clicking on the title of this post (I was unable to retrive a web link for LaGreide's letter, and a few emails to the Oregonian's editors went unanswered).

As I processed this debate, I couldn't help but consider what the implications of their two perspectives mean for those of us teaching social studies. To an extent, I find the debate slightly counter-productive, as sniping at each side doesn't resolve the larger issue -- that we simply don't have enough time to effectively teach high school social studies. 3 years of required education may simply not be enough to get through all of the material that we passionately feel that high schoolers need to graduate -- can we honestly and effectively teach Civics, Geography, Current Events, Economics, Government, U.S. and World History, even in the best of survey courses, in a mere 3 years? It almost seems as if our efforts would be better served (instead of attacking textbook companies and district curriculums) in petitioning for even more Social Studies to be tacked on as necessary to the Oregon Diploma. I graduated my New York high school with the equivalent of 5 years of required Social Studies, and to me, the idea of having to squeeze the same information into only 3 years is hard to live with.
Yet, maybe I've gotten ahead of myself. Maybe I should be resolved to considering those 3 years, and in which case, the Bigelow and La Greide "discussion" is the field on which we should focus.

So, in sum, does Social Studies need to allot time for those critical current events as Bigelow suggests? Or is LaGreide correct in asserting that we need to have a standard curriculum that allows for the creation of building blocks?

The Conundrum Around Merit Pay

Barack Obama made no secret of the fact that he was an advocate of merit pay while he was running for office. His selection of his good friend Arne Duncan, himself a supporter of merit pay, was another indicator that a push toward merit pay would surface over the course of Obama's presidency. As you can hear from the following NPR report, Duncan is challenging the National Education Association, the union for most educators, to drop its opposition to merit pay as a part of teacher's salaries.
(click on the title to get to the NPR web page with the article). The NEA, a vocal opponent of merit pay, is hesitant, but apparently willing to consider because of the fact that a Democratic administration (who the NEA endorsed in the 2008 election) is requesting this suggestion.

The controversy over merit pay raises several issues dear to educators. When speaking to advocates, I am often willing to hear the value of such an approach. To be honest, I have no "real" (meaning financial) incentive to do a better job than my peers, as we are all compensated the same way. Winning teacher of the year, getting better state test scores, writing grants -- none of these do anything to improve my salary. And honestly, that is sort of a downer -- if my brother impresses a client when he is doing work at Ernst and Young, he gets a bonus. If my test scores are really good vs. the state, then maybe I get school recognition, but most times I don't. And that can be disheartening -- not that I always need extrinsic motivation -- but that I don't receive any while most other professions offer benefits (heck, even an occasional gift certificate to a restaurant would be nice) for good performance.

In Oregon, friends of mine are supporters of the Chalkboard Project, which has consistently pushed for us to accept a version of merit pay in Oregon as a means to improve education. They can be pretty convincing in what they present as a "need" for merit pay -- by having a business like model, more people could be attracted to the profession because there is a chance of earning more money, and their significant efforts would be rewarded just like their friends in the private sector. Additionally, they've argued that their system is a "third way" that does not get rid of tenure-based salary advancement. For more info, see Myth #2 on http://www.chalkboardproject.org/about-us/myths.php)

Now, on the flip side of this, my wife and I have always been very cautious about adopting a merit pay system. I think that's mainly because the concept of merit pay seems to be differently defined as you meander about the nation. Is merit pay a replacement for how I presently advance up the salary scale? So if I am a young teacher, am given a series of classes with academically "challenged" students (which is often the case) and then they (surprise!) don't do well on the first state test I am responsible for administering (in NOVEMBER), do I not get any type of raise?
As an IB teacher and department chair, if my salary were predicated by how well my students ended up doing, I don't think I would ever surrender my advanced classes if my family's well being depended on it, and I think many teachers in the same spot would hold onto those classes for years.

This creates a mentality then of "I'm out for myself" and moves me away from the collaborative nature of working in a school or a department. It can thus emulate some of the worst aspects of the business world -- I can remember working in advertising in New York and watching the salespeople bicker and fight over clients and magazine ad space. It became quite petty, and I'm unsure if the education world needs that on top of the myriad issues that already exist.

One opponent of merit pay initiative ponders why we simply don't pay teachers more overall. If we know that good people go where the money is, then why not make the system more lucrative for future teachers? The rationale there is then that if you make the job more attractive overall, you'll get better candidates and by design, the "weaker" teachers will be rooted out by more stringent hiring practices.

About.com does a nice job of summarizing some other pros and cons, so I'd urge you to examine this website as well: (http://k6educators.about.com/od/assessmentandtesting/a/meritypay_2.htm).

I'm curious what your take is, Oregon Social Studies teachers. I would hope that you read this entire post before you comment, and also, that you keep the conversation thoughtful and respectful. I've seen too many blog sites where people disintegrate to attacking all too quickly, so let's start by trying to keep a level head when sharing our viewpoints.

And here we go...welcome!

I don't anticipate that we'll have many responders for a little while, but that will not start us from stopping our blog.

From here on out, I or a member of the Executive Board will be posting forum topics to this blog for opinions and ideas from the members (and others) about issues centering around Social Studies in Oregon and the World. Every week we will have a new topic area under this format:

First week of the month: Issues affecting Oregon Social Studies Education
Second week of the month: Educational Opportunities/Technology/Development in Social Studies
Third week of the month: National Issues
Fourth week of the month: Controversial Topics/Ethical Considerations

I will also be seeking out discussion topics from membership. If you'd like to contribute a topic, please email me at shawn_daley@gbsd.gresham.k12.or.us

Rules for the blog are pretty general:
a) Assume good intentions
b) Respect motive, although you may disagree with judgments
c) Remember that it's hard to read tone accurately online
d) NO CAPS only writing
e) Use respectful language

If any of these rules are broken, you can see a post removed or find yourself banned from using our blog site.

So, starting on July 1, I will post the first topic centering on issues affecting Oregon Social Studies.

Site to Start

Welcome to the Oregon Council for the Social Studies New Online Blog. The goal of this blog will be to foster a community of Social Studies educators in the state of Oregon. It isn't officially online yet, but check back soon and we'll be set to go.