Checking for skills versus procedures

I assess often.  I have many reasons why, but that is for another time.  To help grade efficiency I have rules about writing on one side of paper and leaving space for problems.  I joke about helping an old man out with my students.

But what do we do when a student does not do it?  Should we take points off for not following directions or for being insubordinate?

I don't - I grade math and work with the students for the next assessment.  In the real world you often get chances to correct "format" things (and lets not kid ourselves school is not real world).  And I don't agree that this type of instructions is about responsibility.

I write messages - a :( with a drip of water for a tear on a paper, or a message from a character - like a superhero or singer or a even just from a tree, like this:



While it is tempting to punish, my job is to teach.

Real world consequences? Responsibility? Our job is skills.

If you teach you have heard this from some teacher, "XYZ student does not do his/her work, if they don't do anything what can I do?  And if I do something special, is that fair? Am I really preparing him/her for the real world?  What about responsibility?"

Responsibility? Real world consequences?  Interesting thought, interesting title; let me be clear that High School is not the real world, it is a student world.  And while performance in HS is important, the "direct relationship" between HS performance and job performance is not a guarantee.   I fired a lot of "smart" people who played school well in my previous career.  We shouldn't teach responsibility at the HS level as a pass/fail; we must make sure they have skills, responsibility is second.  (And ever time I hear an employer whine about responsibility - I simply think of supply and demand - pay little, get little.  Interview poorly, get poor hires.) 

We need to try to make sure that responsibility is there, that students understand the difference between HS and the world. But my number one job is make sure my students have enough math to move on outside my walls - I cannot let a student's irresponsibility be an excuse.  That includes the kids who won't play school and do not want to do their work.

I completely believe with students who don't care about their grade that they need more assistance, the world requires them to have a diploma.  When, we teachers, let them fail we are creating a problem and not doing our job.  (Now a disclaimer or point of order, even when we do our job they may fail because the other edge of this sword is not lowering standards.)  We need to make sure, work towards, all students getting the learning done.  Thus the C word, consequences; preferably like the real-world would give.  Cause an F does not motivate them, a zero doesn't, those are not consequences for someone not playing school.

And while HS is their job now, it is not real-world  job.  We can talk about expectations but we cannot treat students who won't play school that school is like a real job.  Cause it simply isn't. 

And why would we want HS to be real-world!  In the world decisions are made more often about money and productivity, not about people - the world will make relationships but only with employees who have made a commitment to the business (and in corporate America that really does not happen).  In school every day can be new with students, chances can be plentiful.  And that is great -- firing and laying people off is overrated and  NO FUN!

So when a student does not work, I work with them.  I don't make it about grades, I make about a skill - about their future.  I also tell them that my job is not to just let them fail - I am suppose to make failing harder than passing!  I make the skill so important that I will pull them from lunch, before school, after school -- from study hall, you name it - I will do it.  And not surprisingly if they get success once and know you care, they start at least doing the minimum.


And if you think that is easy, you are not a teacher.

Can we teach students who refuse to learn? Are we really asking that question?

Recently read a post on loafers, where a math teacher let it be known that he felt it was sad that 382  people voted "yes" that we can teach students who do not want to be taught (out of 734 votes).  Yep, I am one of them. 

The question was "If a student does not want to be taught, can we teach him/her successfully?"  Now 352 said no, and I think we all agree that you simply can refuse and you don't have to do anything (student and teacher alike). But what myself and 381 other people believe is that our job is to reach out and help find a way - and there are ways.  Though those ways are tough and not part of the "normal" school but can be effective.  The question itself is flawed.

The post also stated indirectly that if we are helping these students we must be lowering our standards. I think it is self-centered on the part of the asker to believe that we (or me) are enabling, or just passing students  - which I don't do.   I find ways for students to learn, I assess and progress.

I feel the idea that I have to lower to standards to teach "loafers" allows the asker to feel okay about giving up on a loafer student.  I think the question that was asked turns into a question about responsibility, and it cuts both ways.  There is teacher responsibility and student responsibility -- but are they really equal?  Is it a 50/50 deal?  Are a teacher and a obstinate student equal?  Should we allow a 15 year old to make a life altering decision without a ton of pressure from teachers to push them down a course of graduation?

When I hear teachers take a line of questioning such as the above question, I immediately think they are looking for a way to say they cannot reach all.  But we should accept the challenge and try- especially in math where so many students decided whether they can or cannot before stepping into the room.  It is our job to find ways.

Expectations...

Students meet expectations, period.  They want to know the minimum line, they will test you for it, but once they know where it is most will work to be just above it.  They may not want to do math, but they will -- they do just the minimum they need.  (Very few won't do...  those that can't/don't take some other pushing.)

The key is to hold high expectations and not to allow less than quality work and understanding to receive a passing grade.  Don't allow soft projects to replace mastery.  Don't let the nice student by, that is a disservice to their future - better to be the hard-ass today so the students succeed tomorrow -- in the real world, where multiple chances are rare.

But don't confuse school and the real world -- while multiple  chances are not the norm in the world, they should be in school.  It is the subtle difference between school and jobs.  School is the student's job but there is no immediate paycheck, or product/service to produce, I don't go out of business because a student did not do their work today or did not learn today.  In the world nearly every day counts, at school that is not the reality.  Just like I cannot fire a student, I could fire people in the world as a boss - but that is not a school's purpose.

A school's purpose is to educate a student.  Not to provide just the opportunity for the student to learn but to stand on their head and make sure that minimum standards are achieved.  It means multiple opportunities - it means follow thru.  Telling a student they don't have to do homework is not the solution, they need the skill --- yes in a workplace it would be too late, but school is not a workplace!  The school does not absolutely require every student to believe in the mission to be successful - most workplaces require employees working towards the business's mission.

I believe teachers have to have high expectations.  Our job is to then push, encourage and even beg our students to work hard to get over the line.  And I can hear some talking about teaching responsibility (or this does not teach it...) - but school does not teach responsibility!  Playing school does not make you a good employee, boss or leader.  That old phrase A students work for C Students comes to mind; but the key is that we make all our students have those basic math and problem solving skills.

Is it the job of technical schools, 2 years colleges and state schools to help students through math?

I recently read an article that says a post secondary degree is becoming the new HS diploma for getting a job (degree deflation).  So as good jobs disappear for people with only HS degrees, we see everyone talk about worker retraining -- get them back to school to get the skills for the jobs of today.  And I think that is great, and I agree.

But what responsibility does the technical school/college have to getting students through math.  We often talk about secondary schools providing opportunity, a student must choose to work and do well.  But with most remedial math students (and especially non-traditional students) it is not a choice, they have not done well with math at the HS level and instead of realizing that, our secondary institutions demand more math, faster, at a higher level of performance than HS.  Now I agree high schools must do better but I don't agree with institutions that decide to 'help' but really are entering for profit or pseudo-profit.

What I mean is once you tell prospective students that you can lead them to better training thus to better jobs you have a commitment to that student.  That student is paying for a service.  When you then place students into remedial math courses that as an institution you know only have a 40-50% pass rate you are doing a disservice.  Especially with non-traditional students.  Only in our secondary education system can you look at a 50% pass rate and blame the students.

I am not saying we teach less, but once you run into a wall a few times, shouldn't you look for a door?  Should we look at how we are teaching, how do we expect students who have never mastered numeracy to quickly do that in a few weeks, so we can do lines, expressions and quadratics?  I believe these are skills that a student should master but is the current system correctly doing that; with so many non-traditional students that have not used math skills for so long that they have lost them repeatedly taking remedial math I think the answer is no.  Yet tech schools and colleges advertise themselves as centers of opportunity, get your loan, come on in, we will help....   And sure they offer tutoring, but that is within the context of the existing secondary math curriculum, if you can't keep up, don't worry the institution will still cash your check.

Only in education could you get away with this, blaming the customers (actually failing customers who try).  They have their expectation completely set by their K-12 experience.  Except in HS they somehow got through.  I know many non traditional students studying tens of hours per week in their quest to become non-STEM people.  They face their math fears dead on, as the course sprints forward.  The courses demanding that the skill of distribution learned last week, be mastered to the point to use with equations this week and next week lines.

In 6-12 grade math those subjects and their expected mastery are spread out over years versus weeks.  Yet we teach math the same way at tech schools and colleges as was done in 6-12 grade where the remedial student failed to get mastery but now we expect different results.  Really?   I know a 12 year old more easily learns than a 42 year old (I am reminded about that every day my son and I try to remember a new skill).

Our society needs educated people to maintain our leadership in the world.  We need to be constantly educating our people.   But we need an educational system that works!  Only in education would we say we have a 50% failure rate and believe the answer is more of the same, more courses, more instructors, more repeating!  And when the non-traditional student fights through their 2 remedial courses and 1 course for credit math (usually thinking D for Degree), are they better math students?  Will they apply those skills in the world?  Or did they simply memorize enough to get through.....  What is the purpose?

While some students do just need remedial math as it sits (looks like about 50%).  The rest need something different.  The courses need to meet more, cover less material and push them to success.  I realize I am adding a course, hours and staff; it would take 3 remedial courses versus 2, because the same material must be learned.  Courses need to meet 6 hours per week versus 3 hours.  Less lecture, more guided learning, set lab hours with tutors at a 1 to 8 ratio, we must help students to understand the math.  It is a radical suggestion, but we have a horrific problem, 50% failure.

Yet tech schools and colleges expand, under the disguise of providing opportunity, encouraging students to come back and learn today's skills, they'll help....   Right now they just cash the check....

Skills or responsibility....

So as the quarter ends I am having the same thought as always -- is it skills or responsibility or a little bit of both.  What is a grade?  What I mean is every quarter I am descended upon for help to raise grades at the 11th hour.  So my policy is to have grades represent skills & conceptual understanding, not time and not work ethic.   For that reason I have paths for students to do work and have retakes, but after grading my 100th retake in a few days (for only 95 students) I am left wondering if this path is doable for me and/or best for my students.

It works though, Juda's math abilities are increasing -- whether checked by my assessments, the state assessments or the ACT exam.  And I don't worry about the struggler who works hard and just needs more time.  But I worry about the procrastinator and what I may be reinforcing.

So my new big move this year was only 1 retake a day rule (that works pretty well).  Last year without it I had students lining up for 2 or 3 quizzes, which is just a panic drill.   I also enter whatever grade they get (not the best) so the grade represents current understanding.  Yet when I talk with professors in the UW system I wonder if I am doing my students harm, if I making them think this is how it works after HS (I do preach that HS and college are different - but why believe me...)

So here I sit; quarter ended, grading globs of re-tests and re-quizzes -- but I see growth.  It just takes some external pressure (the end of quarter)  -- so until I figure something better (or copy somebody's "better") I will continue with this.  Because it is better than students just giving up, or deciding not to learn.  It really allows me to hold high standards....