The former Yankee skipper has been around a long time (he was in his late 60’s during the writing of the book), and in his experience, personnel moves have been much more subjective, drawing on the impressions of coaches, scouts, and the manager himself as much as anything else. Torre truly believes that the numbers can’t tell you everything. He says that statistics may be fine, but “don’t forget the heartbeat of the players.” In other words, don’t forget intangibles such as a player’s competitive drive and leadership qualities.

The interplay between Torre and Cashman got me thinking about education as we prepare for the new school year. As you know, we are in the midst of serious educational discussions focusing on school improvement, standards, and accountability. Many say that the future of our nation depends on reinventing our schools. A tall order, to be sure.

But the Obama administration seems determined to do just that with, among other things, promises of significant funding to states truly committed to school reform. Meanwhile, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan barnstorms across the country, threatening school districts that don’t appreciate the severity of the problem. (See my blog entry “All Hail to the King.”) In addition, rigorous national standards are being developed, not without a bit of controversy, I might add. So a foundation for change is forming. At this point, it’s anybody’s guess what will actually happen and when and with what results.

While all of this tough talk and planning goes on, most of our schools will start the year with fewer teachers, program cuts, and outdated textbooks and/or technology because of budget shortfalls. Yet the students will be expected to meet demanding curriculum standards and will be assessed (perhaps multiple times) to see if they are. The results of these tests will be the statistics that educators and policy wonks use when evaluating our schools. The results get posted in local newspapers for everyone to see in the spring. Naturally, most administrators and principals dread this time of year because poor test scores put them under a lot of pressure.

I don’t expect that this year will be any different from others, so we’ll hear about our students’ deplorable math scores. We’ll also learn that they can’t write a basic essay or they can’t analyze nonfiction texts or they can’t problem solve or they can’t think critically. And we will be told that our schools are falling further and further behind, that we must make significant changes without delay.

While the discussion continues, as new policies are considered, as more tests are given, and as new approaches are implemented, let’s not forget that our schools should be about more than results and scores. They need to become stimulating and secure—places young people want to be, for all of the best reasons. And above all else, let’s not forget the heartbeat of our students. As we go through this period of change, let’s remember that each and every one of them deserves time and space to explore her or his unique thoughts, feelings, and desires.

(See my personal blog, DaveKemper.net, for prose poems that address the heartbeat of my former students.)

—Dave

• “Engfish” is a name given to the bloated, lifeless, pretentious writing that has been seen in schools for years.
• A writing program should include exploratory free writing, positive reactions to this writing, a giving and sharing classroom atmosphere, the need to recapture the intensity and liveliness of childhood writing.
• Effective instruction should alternate between having students writing freely and learning the discipline and craft of writing.
• A writer must make discoveries that matter to him as he works; otherwise, he will bore himself and his reader.
• All good writers speak in honest voices and tell the truth.
• The traditional research paper is “a triumph of meaninglessness”—for both writer and reader.

Macrorie is part philosopher, part rhetorician, part lover of good writing, part caring individual. He displays a sense of humor, an open mind, and a great deal of professional integrity. He is, as far as I know, one of the first in a distinguished line of researcher/practitioners (think Nancie Atwell, Linda Rief, etc.), developing and refining his instruction while working with student writers. A hallmark of Macrorie’s books is the compelling student examples, all the result of his approach to writing instruction. The man clearly backs up what he preaches.

I love how Macrorie cuts through the BS you typically find in guides to instruction. He has no patience with manuals that insist on the importance of following formulas, of assuming an appropriate level of objectivity, of parsing sentences, and so on. Everything he says addresses the essence of effective writing, from writing about what you know to recapturing your childlike imagination. But it may be his approach to research that has meant the most to me. Instead of have students slog through pointless research papers, he proposes that they develop I-Search papers, which are researching adventures that genuinely engage young learners. (See The I-Search Paper.)

In my own writing (in the Write Source handbooks), there are three people that I quote more than any others: Donald Murray, William Zinsser, and Ken Macrorie. Here are a few of my favorite Macrorie quotations:

• “If you’re freewriting well, you’ll concentrate so hard on truth telling and write so fast you’ll put yourself in a kind of trance, like that state between waking and sleep…when a gaggle of good ideas or memories come together for you.”
• “Good writing is formed partly through plan and partly through accident.”
• “Comment on what you like in the writing. If it contains things you don’t like, refrain from commenting on them. What you say must be honest, but you don’t have to say everything you feel.”
• “The discipline of real learning consists of The Self and The Others flowing into each other.”

The July 21 NCTE Inbox reported that Ken Macrorie has recently passed away, pointing to an obituary in the Las Cruces Sun-News. I’m sure that I am joined by many others who are saddened by this announcement. Since the late 60s, his contributions to composition theory and practice have been so important. If you are a writing teacher and not familiar with Macrorie, you must get to know him. Start with Uptaught; then move on to his other books. You’ll enjoy the experience—and you’ll learn so much in the process.

—Dave

Later, as a young married person, I stumbled across the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator test, based on Carl Jung’s psychological theories. Amazed at how well it explained the way things looked through my eyes, I asked my wife to take the test. The results indicated that she and I were polar opposites, her ISTJ to my ENFP, she the practical-minded safe harbor to my adventurous soul. (Happily, it also gave advice for how an ENFP might best communicate with an ISTJ, and vice versa.) So, clearly, there was more than one template for a human being, each an equally valid way of perceiving.

Still, I’ve often joked about government, saying that I’m willing to pay taxes to employ people of a governing mindset to argue with one another, so they’ll leave the rest of us alone. The trouble is, they don’t. Especially when it comes to teaching. As I watch administration after administration “crack down” on education, demanding ever more testing of reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic, I can’t help but wonder:

• Don’t these people remember what it was like to be a student?
• Don’t they recall how dreadfully boring drilling and testing could be?
• Do they seriously believe they’re better writers today due to grammar study as a child? Do they even remember what a preposition is, or a subordinating conjunction?

Considering these questions, I first conjectured that legislators treat students as if everyone fits a single template. After all, testing tends to check facts more than it does ideas. This would suggest that politicians suppose more emphasis on facts will result in better education. That, in turn, would predict that politicians might tend to be of an ESTJ-type personality: extroverted, fact-gathering, logical, and careful planners.

However, a bit of online research indicates instead that politics draws ENFJ and ENTP types. Notice the intuition and feeling in the first type, and the intuition and “perceiving” in the second (indicating spontaneity rather than careful planning). Neither of these types seem prone to believe in “skill and drill” teaching. Both would appear to be global thinkers, willing to experiment and innovate solutions to any educational problems.

So why the perpetually increased emphasis on testing, from conservatives and liberals alike? Don’t they realize that increased testing forces more “teaching to the test,” which crowds out individualized instruction, impoverishes arts programs, and drives the most enthusiastic educators out of careers in teaching?

Apparently not. I don’t, as yet, understand why. Your thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

—Les

Aside: I first learned of this writer many years ago, when he contributed an engaging essay about writing news stories for one of our handbooks, Writers Express. (HMH).

Clark gathered and developed his thoughts for Writing Tools at the Poynter Institute, a prestigious school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Florida. The author refers to these strategies as tools (not rules) for students, teachers, bloggers, critics, columnists, and first-time novelists to use to develop their writing skills.

Each strategy comes in the form of a delightful personal essay. What holds each essay together is Clark’s appealing voice. He’s likeable, knowing, trustworthy, witty, genuine…heck, he’s just fun to read.

A Case in Point

TOOL 7 states: Fear not the long sentence. The subhead adds: Take the reader on a journey of language and meaning.

Clark plants the hook in the beginning: “Everyone fears the long sentence. Editors fear it. Readers fear it. Most of all, writers fear it. Even I fear it. Look. Another short one. Shorter. Fragments. Frags. Just letters. F…f…f…f. Can I write a sentence without words? Just punctuation?…#:!?”

In the middle, he provides examples from Tom Wolfe (a master of the long sentence) with thoughtful and clear explanations of each one, plus an interesting example from English essayist Sir Thomas Browne, an unkown to me.

Clark closes with this witty play on words: “The good writer must believe that a good sentence, short or long, will not be lost on the reader. And although Flesch preached the value of the good eighteen-word sentence, he praised long sentences written by such masters as Joseph Conrad. So even for old Rudolf, a long sentence, well crafted, was not a sin against the Flesch.” (Clark is referring to Rudolf Flesch, author of The Art of Readable Writing.)

I may not write a long, meandering, Wolf-like sentence today, tomorrow, or ever, but the technique is now part of my writing toolbox; Clark made sure of that is his clever essay.

Not every essay is as memorable as the one for Tool 7, and not every strategy or tool may be worthy of my (or your) toolbox, but overall, Writing Tools offers plenty of practical advice, plus a number of strategies designed to push writers out of their comfort zone.

Why types of tools does Clark include? Here’s a sampling:

TOOL 1: Begin sentences with subjects and verbs.
TOOL 8: Establish a pattern, then give it a twist.
TOOL 22: Climb up and down the ladder of abstraction.
TOOL 30: To generate suspense, use internal cliffhangers.
TOOL 39: Write toward an ending.
TOOL 49: Limit self-criticism in early drafts.

How should you become familiar with the contents? Here is one of Clark’s suggestions: Writing Tools contains 50 strategies, “one for every week of the year. You get two weeks for vacation.” Each strategy is followed by workshop ideas, four or five ways to practice or learn more about the concept. Because of this feature, the book would work very well in the writing classroom or workshop.

I have a special section on my bookshelf for favorite writing books, including, among others, On Writing Well by William Zinsser, The Art of Readable Writing by Rudolf Flesch, Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg, and Learning by Teaching by Donald Murray. Space has been made for Writing Tools.

—Dave

Then I joined the staff of our campus newspaper, and my attitude towards grammar changed. Within weeks, I was poring through my AP Style Book to learn when team takes a singular versus plural verb, when and how to properly shift verb tenses, and the difference between beside and besides.

What caused this swift shift in attitude? Why did I suddenly care about grammar? And how can you get your students to care?

Three factors contributed to my own grammatical renaissance:

1. Working on the newspaper staff helped me to take ownership of my writing. Instead of being assigned topics, I was responsible for finding my own stories and doing my own reporting. In short, I was more invested in my stories.
2. I had editors (peers) pointing out my grammatical mistakes, offering suggestions, and motivating me to write cleaner stories.
3. Most importantly, I was writing for a real, authentic audience. Up until that point, teachers, classmates, and parents were the only ones reviewing my work. A missed comma here or there may have hurt my grade but not my ego. That’s not so true when your stories reach 5,000 pairs of eyes.

Since that time, I’ve made an investment in grammar. I don’t always enjoy it, but I care about the correctness of my final products. I want to get things right.

So what are some ways to get students interested in grammar?

• Be flexible in assigning writing topics. Encourage students to brainstorm new ways to tackle assignments.
• Set up peer revising groups to discuss grammar issues.
• Celebrate writing by sharing well-written passages or stories that you come across.
• Implement minilessons (10-12 minute lessons) in which you address various grammatical issues.
• Put conventions in context: In other words, don’t focus on them until the editing stage of the writing process.
• Consider starting a classroom newspaper, blog, or wiki.
• Look into ways for students to publish their work (local newspapers, writing contests, etc)

Above all, remember this: To get students to care about grammar, you must first sell them on the joy of writing.

—Tim

Having just come out of a fledgling career in nursing at the time, I was pretty familiar with how low pay was for that traditionally female occupation. In fact, I’d been told more than once that as a male I stood a better chance of advancement and higher pay even in nursing than most women did. So much for gender equality. As for the issue of race, having been born into a family with working-class roots in the rural South, I also knew something of what overt racial bias looked like. I was eight when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I grew up hearing grumbling about his “betrayal” of the South. (Prior to Johnson, “Southern Democrat” was a byword. Consider how different the case is today.)

My childhood public schooling and church attendance were in the North, however. “Red and Yellow / Black and White / They are precious in His sight” was simply a given in my young heart and mind. I couldn’t imagine why anyone would don a KKK robe and hood, nor why Malcolm X wanted to fight.

Little did I understand just how deeply unequal things were—in the North as well as the South.

That English 101 course provided a first clue, when one of my students presented a paper arguing “reverse discrimination” concerning college quotas. Unable to conceive that equality must include equal opportunity, and that impoverished neighborhoods do not provide the same opportunities that middle- and upper-class neighborhoods do, all my student could see was that some White males were being passed over by Black males with lower entrance-exam scores. I’ve heard that “reverse discrimination” argument many times since (including a recent Supreme Court ruling), and it’s always difficult to reason against, because it focuses on a couple of scores that are easy to see, rather than a broader social situation that is harder to grasp.

So let’s look at another couple of scores that are easy to see. According to recent national testing, while both Black and White students at fourth and eighth grade levels have made some gains in math and reading scores, the gap between Black and White students at both grades remains virtually as wide as ever. This is true in every state for which results are available, regardless of geographic region.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why. I live near Milwaukee, which among its many ethnic groups has a considerable population of impoverished Blacks. One of my daughters teaches in an after-school reading program there, trying to help second through fourth graders catch up to the national standards. Many of her students are children of single-parent homes. Many live in buildings that have the windows boarded up. Street crime is ever present. From an early age, these children learn as a survival skill “Don’t let anyone diss you.” It’s difficult for them to focus on traditional learning with that mindset, especially when the career paths available seem to be either minimum-wage job (for the girls) or street gang (for the guys).

Lest you think I oversimplify the difficulty of overcoming such a background, let me repeat something I’ve mentioned in previous posts: Because of my own lower-middle-class blue-collar upbringing, I couldn’t even conceive of college until age 30. It might as well have been Shangri-la. Once I finally found the path, however, my all-White Midwestern public schooling had prepared me to succeed. On the other hand, for far too many impoverished Black students, even once they’ve found the pass through the mountains into the fabled valley of higher education, it is only to discover that the language they speak doesn’t mean the same thing here, and that they simply haven’t been prepared to survive.

This is racism.

Those fourth and eighth grade test scores say more about our civilization than about the students tested. Those scores say that we do not provide equally for all our children. They say that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right: America is still in default on its promissory note to the people it once enslaved.

—Les

This episode was of special interest to me because my wife is a first grade teacher, and I am well aware of the challenges and responsibilities she and her colleagues face. I’ve also met with plenty of other early elementary teachers because of my position in educational publishing. Make no mistake; they truly have their hands full.

In a past blog posting, “Time Bound,” I’ve talked about all that is involved in elementary teaching in terms of planning, instruction, and record keeping. (If you’re in any way associated with early education, you know what I am talking about.) Well, there’s much more to this story—there’s the students themselves, classrooms full of six- or seven-year-olds, many with special needs. In terms of health issues, a teacher may have students who…

• have peanut allergies.
• have allergies to food dyes.
• are lactose intolerant.
• are on protein-limited diets.
• are on glutton-free diets.
• react severely to bee stings.
• (You fill in the blank.)

Then there are students with emotional problems who…

• need medications to function.
• are prone to sudden outbursts.
• have little, if any, appreciation of right or wrong.
• will throw a desk or chair if they are set off.
• can’t sit still.
• need attention, nonstop.
• have no social skills.

Plus there are students with various “home situations” who…

• are overprotected.
• are left to fend for themselves.
• want to be babied.
• are absent frequently.
• (You fill in the blank.)

The list could go on, but you get the point. There are some very vulnerable, needy youngsters starting out in our schools. Let’s say a teacher has a classroom with 22 or 23 students; she can expect, perhaps, three or four students with special needs. And all it takes is one or two students with, let’s say, some type of emotional problem to disrupt the dynamics of the classroom (i.e. make life miserable and/or unsafe for the students and the teacher).

Not too long ago, teachers had trained aides to help manage the classroom; but today, because of deep budget cuts, teachers are lucky to get an aide for a half an hour, one or two days a week. Especially challenging students, of course, may spend part of the class day in a special-needs room, if their problems have been identified very early on. But that still leaves the regular classroom teachers with plenty of time, especially at the beginning of the year, to manage everyone by themselves. For a young teacher, as Bergen states, that is too much to ask

I’ve been told that after grades K-2, most students are easier to work with because they seem to mellow out, become a bit more independent, and/or work more closely with a trained specialist. It’s those early years that can be the true test—for everyone involved.

Now I’m not sure if more students today have more special needs or problems than they did 25 years ago when I taught, but that certainly seems to be the case. Let’s just hope that a good chunk of the stimulus money will address staffing in the early grades so teachers can have the proper support to ensure that their classrooms are safe, protective, and productive.

—Dave

» NCTE inbox (6/2/09) had an article from the Los Angeles Times entitled “Spitting in the eye of mainstream education.” The article describes the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, California. This school offers no frills (including no computers), long school days, and a lot of seat work. The only exception is physical education, in which the students actually exercise.

The students are hard-working and disciplined; even the slightest infractions merit punishment, no excuses. For example, getting up during class is a no-no, so is missing a problem on a homework assignment. Each is punishable by an hour detention—for the first offense. The punishment increases after that. How about an hour after school and four hours on Saturday morning? (Is this a charter reform school or what?)

Yet there is a waiting list to get into American Indian and its two satellite schools because the students there excel academically, scoring extremely high on the state tests, right along with the best and the brightest in other parts of California. Students must be extremely motivated and/or supported (pressured?) at home to survive in such a draconian system.

» According to a recent report on public radio, U.S. students in the first years of their schooling perform just as well in math and science as students in other parts of the world do. So why do U.S. students so precipitously lose ground as their schooling continues? One theory is that family and cultural expectations play a significant role in student performance.

In an Asian family, for example, it is expected (demanded?) that the sons or daughters will pursue careers in science, engineering, or medicine, so they work very hard in their math and science courses. Not so in the typical American family. Students here are expected to do as well as they can in school, get into college, and “find” an area of interest, be it anthropology, graphic design, business, art, medicine, or so on.

» An article in New York Times “Health” (5/25/09) entitled “Texting May Be Taking a Toll” provided some surprising information. Some young people may make up to 80 text messages a day. Physicians and psychologists say extreme texting like this may lead to anxiety, sleep deprivation, and failing grades. The article reports that some experts worry it may actually stunt adolescent growth because if young people are in constant contact, they won’t have time (or the interest) to think for themselves—to become their own person.

Not being in constant contact means being out of the loop, which is the last thing that young people want to have happen. That, of course, is the allure or attraction of texting for so many. Apparently, it goes on all of the time in classrooms, even when it is against the rules. Perhaps teachers should collect cell phones at the door before the start of class.

» NCTE inbox (6/9/09) previews a book entitled Readicide: How Schools Are Killing Reading and What You Can Do About It by Kelly Gallagher. Gallagher defines readicide as “the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practices found in school.” Gallagher says that schools overteach reading with systematic programs and instruction and with preparation for reading tests. By the time students finish high school, they have little, if any, interest in books because of instruction that eviscerates the reading process. Sounds like a title teachers should put on their summer reading list.

Aside: I have always thought that we spend far too much money on reading programs and place far too much importance on systematic reading instruction. Is learning how to read really all that hard? Many youngsters come to school already knowing how. Perhaps learning to read depends on a student’s readiness more than anything else.

—Dave

The accompanying article suggested that he was impatient with his Milwaukee subjects because they weren’t doing enough planning for significant school improvement. And of course, when the king speaks everyone—including the governor, mayor, and school officials—listens because he controls the coffer (i.e. stimulus money). He has $10 billion in discretionary resources to invest in states that make a real commitment to reform. Of course, this money is only part of the money targeted for education. (Talk about a power high.)

Now, I have never met the man, and know next to nothing about him, other than he was appointed to run the Chicago school system. He must have done so with some success; otherwise, President Obama wouldn’t have appointed him Secretary of Education. I’m not aware of any significant opposition to his appointment, nor any significant criticism of the way he has been running things so far, except for the high-and-mighty attitude he sometimes displays. But it is, of course, very early in his reign.

He has scheduled 15 “listening tours” to hear what his subjects have to say about their educational needs. Milwaukee was not on that tour, so the king’s visit wasn’t to listen, only to declare: “Milwaukee has a heck of a long way to go.… What Milwaukee needs is dramatic change… with a dramatic sense of urgency.” I can’t say that I’m impressed by his get-tough attitude—that by his decree our education system will change, becoming more rigorous and more standardized, or heads will roll.

He has been ranting that to make real improvement we need ambitious national standards—that with rigorous standards, officials in all corners of the kingdom can control what is taught and how it is taught. It will be interesting to see who is, or will be, establishing these standards, probably a group of court jesters, I mean court-appointed officials, who can’t wait to stick it to the students. Standards, as you know, are inextricably linked to assessment. How else can officials tell if the standards are being met if not through a test? So it follows then that teachers (voluntarily or by decree) will tailor their instruction to prepare students accordingly. You know the program: Instruction essentially boils down to “teaching for the test.”

Isn’t that pretty much what is happening now with state standards and state tests? And we all know how well that is working, don’t we? If you’re not involved in education yourself, just ask a few teachers in your district about the effects testing has on instruction. But apparently, King Arne knows better—and he’s got the money—so national standards and tests it will be.

I’m sure a case can be made for the need for standards, but they are not, by themselves, going to improve our schools, not in this country. I’m much more interested in learning about other models that might actually lead to significant improvement. One approach that interests me is to customize learning depending on each student’s needs and desires. That sounds like an approach worthy of serious investigation considering our diverse student population. I’d much rather we spend the time and the king’s money exploring something like this.

I do hope the king makes teachers, parents, and students significant contributors in the discussion during his listening tours, and beyond. These three groups, after all, have the most to gain, or to lose, by his decisions. Who knows what works or what is needed in the classroom better than experienced teachers? Who knows what triggers their interest in learning better than the students themselves? And who has more vested in their children’s education that the parents? You can put your trust in the king and his court (undersecretaries, politicians, state-level educators, etc.) if you want, but, at this point, I’m not ready to do that—not by a long shot.

—Dave