The Low Rhetoric of High Expectations

by Robert Pondiscio
December 17th, 2009

Tags: ,
Posted in accountability | 2 Comments »

At Public School Insights, Claus Von Zastrow calls out the casual use of the phrase “high expectations.”    It’s de riguer for education reformers to claim high expectations for schools and children.  “But scratch the surface of their rhetoric,” Claus writes, “and you’ll find that some of them have expectations that are really quite low.”   His list:

  • Low Expectations for Assessments. Many state tests are lousy. For some reformers, though, lousy is good enough to determine the fate of teachers and students alike.
  • Low Expectations for Curriculum. Foreign language has all but disappeared from elementary schools. High school research papers have been a rarity for years. But c’mon–What can you expect at a time when we have to boost scores on those lousy math and reading tests?
  • Low Expectations for Policymakers. It’s just way too expensive to level the economic and social playing field for poor children. We can gush over the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), but you just can’t expect policymakers to strengthen poor communities. We might as well expect schools alone to do the job.
  • Low Expectations for Kids. We’d love to help poor students become creative, inventive, sophisticated thinkers, but we have to focus on academic triage because resources are scarce. All that other stuff seems pretty touchy feely, anyway.

The rhetoric of high expectations has long been a sore point for me.  As a practical matter, too many of us are content to set the finish line for other people’s children where we set the starting line for our own.  Here’s my litmus test:  if every child in the U.S. read on grade level and graduated from high school on time, would you call that a success?  Of course you would.   So if your child reads on grade level and graduates on time — nothing more, nothing less — would you count him or her as well-educated?  

“The rhetoric of high expectations will remain,” Von Zastrow concludes.  “It’s far more resilient than the reality.”

The Danger of “High Expectations”

by Robert Pondiscio
September 2nd, 2009

Tags: , ,
Posted in Teacher Training, Teaching | No Comments »

High expectations?  Not so fast, says teacher Gary Rubenstein, who points out that the standard advice to have high expectations for their students is “one of the most dangerously misinterpreted pieces of advice given to new teachers.”

The reason the advice ‘have high expectations’ is dangerous is that new teachers, in trying to follow this advice, commit one of the worst mistakes a teacher can, teaching over their heads.  The advice should be ‘Have realistically high expectations.’ This would force the new teacher to consider that there is such a thing as too high of expectations, and to try to learn what sorts of things are realistic.

Set the bar too high and students won’t rise to your high expectations.  “They lose confidence in themselves and, more importantly, they lose confidence in the ability of their teacher,” notes Rubenstein, whose blog is filled with great advice for new teachers. “Once they decide that their teacher is not competent enough to make ‘appropriate level’ lessons, they stop listening, start talking, and make it impossible to teach.”

Rafe Esquith, Excuse Maker

by Robert Pondiscio
August 28th, 2009

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Teaching | 9 Comments »

Experience, not talent is what makes a great teacher, says the man widely acclaimed to be the nation’s best classroom teacher.  In an interview in Teacher Magazine Rafe Esquith says, “I speak all over the country, and I meet so many great young teachers, and I’m trying to show them that I’m a truly ordinary guy, but because I stuck with it and persevered, I got good at it. Not because of talent, but because of experience!  I’m really trying to encourage a lot of young teachers to try and stick with it and get through those tough times because there are better times ahead if they can do so.”

Asked if every child can be as successful as the kids in his legendary Room 56 at Hobart Elementary School in Los Angeles, Esquith is unequivocal:

I don’t. I think there are some students where the odds are so far against them because of their family situation and other social issues. But here’s what I do know: There are hundreds of thousands of students in our school district who could be like the students of Room 56, who are absolutely capable, but they’re not being given the opportunity. I do think that the goal should be that we’re going to give every child the opportunity to be the best they can be. Right now, we’re not doing that. And as I always tell the kids, ‘It’s not my job to save your soul, but it’s my job to give you an opportunity to save your own soul.’ I can’t make a kid smarter or better, but I can give them the opportunity to become that and show them how to do that. That’s my job, and that’s a parent’s job creating opportunities.”

Obviously, this is not a page ripped from the no-excuses, teacher-must-overcome-all-obstacles hymnal.  It echoes a bracing moment in the superb 2007 PBS documentary The Hobart Shakespeareans, where Esquith is seen lecturing at a Teach For America conference in Houston.    “I want to let you know that some children should be left behind.  I know, you read your magazine articles, ‘every child is a golden drop of sunshine.’  It’s a lie.  All children must be given an equal opportunity, and our children do not get an equal opportunity.  But once given that equal opportunity, the children have to produce,” he concludes.  Later, offstage, speaking to a handful of young TFA corp members, he goes one step further.  “Anybody who sits in there and goes, ‘I get to all the kids?’ It’s bullshit.  They don’t.’”

Esquith may not be invited to future TFA conferences after his comments in Teacher Magazine.  “The concept for getting some of our very bright students into the classroom is a good one. But to give these folks five weeks of training and throw them into tough classroom situations is questionable to me,” he says. “I’ve had hundreds of TFA people in my classroom, and they’re wonderful. But I don’t think the concept is going to work because nobody is a great teacher after two years.”

Esquith, who has a new book coming out this fall, also admits to being “panicked” about the current state of American education:

I think if we continue along the path that we’re going, our greatest days are behind us. But, I still believe we can turn it around. That’s why I’m still in the classroom, and I’m gonna do my best. But as long as we embrace “testing is everything,” and as long as we keep shrinking art programs and physical education programs, we’re not in a good place. Those are the things that inspire kids to do great things, so I hope we keep enlarging them, not shrinking them.

When a teacher of Esquith’s stature and experience says we’re headed down the wrong path, it’s time to sit up and take notice.

What It Takes

by Robert Pondiscio
November 26th, 2008

Tags: , ,
Posted in Curriculum, Educational Policy | 21 Comments »

Over at Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham posts a pair slides of 7th-grade writing assignments from two different middle schools in California, culled from a presentation by Ed Trust.  In the first, students are asked to submit a detailed character analysis of Anne Frank; the second asks students to write about “my best friend” or “a chore I hate.” The point is stark and obvious.  ”When you hear people talk about the expectations gap, this is the sort of thing they are talking about,” Rotherham writes. 

Would that it were so simple as “raising expectations.”  In the comments section, the smart and fiery John Thompson, an occasional contributor to this blog, describes a disappointing exercise at his Oklahoma City high school similar to the one posted by Eduwonk, and gets to the heart of the empty slogan that is “high expectations.” 

Had it been done as a wake-up call, and a first step towards raising standards, it would have been constructive. Had they asked why some teachers wrongly lowered standards too much, making class dull, it would have been a great professional development tool. Had they addressed the extreme classroom disruptions in neighborhood 7th grade classes that make it virtually impossible to do more than busywork, it would have been a contructive excercise….But our district leaders had the the same visceral response as you seem to be having, and mandated immediate and much much higher standards. Instantly, many core teachers were intimidated into teaching five years above the students reading level, and failure rates soared to 95% in some. The dropout rate exploded and the distrcit immediately abandoned the experiment.

“The reality is so shameful, when administrators/lobbyists with no relevant experience in the classroom come in contact with it, they have no idea how complex the problem is,” writes Thompson. ”Then when the consultants offer the simple and free solution of just “raise expectations,” the blame and shame game takes over, and the students are hurt even more.”

In my own comments on Eduwonk, I point out that curriculum is an undiscussed piece of the “high expectations” dodge.  To John’s point, students don’t just show up in middle school five years behind their higher-achieving peers.  You can’t feed kids a thin gruel of content-free, “self-directed” reading and writing for their entire academic career and then expect them to suddenly be able to write a nuanced character study of Anne Frank in the 7th grade.  You can’t ask kids to do “self-directed” writing about their family, their friends and their personal experiences throughout elementary school to the exclusion of nearly all else, then expect them to dazzle you with their insights into literature in middle school. 

The policy community, alas, continues to be nearly silent on curriculum, focusing instead on incentives, “teacher quality,” and other structual issues.  Read Eduwonk’s post and the responses.  May I humbly submit that the time has long since come to a) start looking at what students are actually being taught and, b) listening to teachers?

The Dark Side of High Achievement

by Robert Pondiscio
September 15th, 2008

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Education Leadership, Education Practice | No Comments »

Is there room for average students at a high-achieving school?  An open letter on ednews.org from an anonymous parent calling himself John Dewey to the Principal of Langley High School, McLean, Virginia, takes exception to that principal’s assertion that the “middle child” – unexceptional academically or in extracurricular activities -may not be happy at his school.

Langley is widely considered one of the top public high schools in the country.  A new principal, Matthew Ragone, has just come on board and wrote a piece in the school’s newsletter.

One topic of discussion has been the concept of the ‘Middle Child’.  The ‘Middle Child” is the type of student who does not feel at home at Langley because, while they may be smart and academically focused, they are not academically superior like many of their peers.  Nor are they outstanding in extracurricular activities.  This student does not enjoy the prospect of coming to school to face the intense competition, which is ubiquitous in excellent schools, only to be disappointed.

There is no simple answer to this problem.  In my ideal world every student will walk through the front door on September 2 with an exuberant, positive attitude and feel comfortable and be happy throughout the entire year.  Of course that does not happen.  As we start the school year, the Instructional Council will open dialogue with the general faculty and I will talk with parents at PTSA meetings and parent coffees to solicit your input and ideas.  As the discussion continues with all the stakeholders, I am confident we will find a way to serve the ‘Middle Child’.”

Dewey’s advice to principal Rangone:  “Your message should be ‘There are no middle children here. Every child matters; every child is as important as the next.’ And you should mean it. You should provide a culture in which students who aren’t getting the material are identified and the school works with them after school or in special sessions to make sure they understand.”

Dewey, however, does not expect his plea to be heard.  “My experience tells me that Mr. Ragone is not going to be persuaded to change one thing about Langley except perhaps to make things even more competitive, reduce the number of top performers, and make the middle of the bell curve even larger,” he writes. “Isn’t that the name of the game in the ‘winner takes all’ environment that passes for high quality education these days?”

In fairness to Rangone, his missive sounds like he’s concerned (if inartfully so) about the middle child, not suggesting to parents that they go elsewhere. 

(Hat tip: Kitchen Table Math and Joanne Jacobs)

Strong Parents, Strong Performance

by Robert Pondiscio
September 4th, 2008

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Parents, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Want to see improvements in education?  Start insisting that your children fully apply themselves in school, counsels Daniel Akst in the Wall Street Journal, in an essay that will surely be clipped, copied and passed out on curriculum nights and at parent teacher conferences.  “Let’s face it,” he writes, “more than budgets or bureaucrats, more than textbooks or teachers, parents are the reason that kids perform as they do in school.”

Citing a summary of research by the Michigan Department of Education, Akst notes “the most consistent predictors of children’s academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child’s academic attainment and satisfaction with their child’s education at school. Parents of high-achieving students set higher standards for their children’s educational activities.”

He also shoots down the stereotype of the overachieving, upper-middle-class parent “bombarding their precious little ones in utero with Mozart and then hectoring teachers and hiring tutors right up until the Harvard application essay.”

Researchers at Brigham Young and the University of Michigan found that parents preferred teachers who make their children happy over those who emphasize academic achievement. My experience in a nonobsessive school district is consistent with this. Our family’s intense focus on learning is regarded warily by some parents, whose dissatisfactions with school are mostly about testing and creativity but never about a lack of foreign-language instruction or overall academic rigor. Indeed, teachers have reported watering down the public middle-school curriculum in response to parental complaints that it was too difficult.

The lack of demand for serious schooling is the least of it, writes Akst. Too many kids are growing up in homes with little emphasis on reading, learning or culture.  “Kids form lots of habits over the years, some good and some bad,” he concludes.  “What a nice surprise that doing well in school can be one of them.”

I suspect a lot of teachers will hurt their necks vigorously nodding in agreement with Akst’s essay.  There may not always be a cause-and-effect relationship between engaged parents and student performance.  But like the race going to the swift and the fight to the strong, it is the way to bet.