You Shall Not Pass: The Role of Grade Retention in Secondary Schools

"Jazelle, focus please..."

The aforementioned phrase has become par for the course as of late in my fourth period Spanish II class. Working at a brand new charter school has offered me many opportunities and one of the best opportunities is the ability to have small, intimate classes. Jazelle is one of four students in my class and I have the ability to work closely with her on a daily basis. Well, I shouldn't say daily. Jazelle is frequently out due to unexcused absences, and because of this she often comes in only three days a week, if that. She has ability, but falls further and further behind because not only does she not make up work, but she also wastes valuable time when she is in class. Students like her bring to the forefront one of key educational issues of today: Grade retention.

Most of us have likely never been retained. Studies have shown that most students who are retained are minorities, English language learners, and tend to be male. We can all think back to someone in our past who was retained. Odds are that this person was the "cool guy" at the onset. This was the guy who could drive during his freshman year and the guy who bought the younger guys cigarettes as soon as he turned 18. We all initially worshiped this guy and many young ladies wanted to pursue a magical evening with him. However, once senior year came around and this guy was the super senior, well he wasn't as cool anymore. We could all drive ourselves and buy our own cigarettes and therefore this guy was no longer needed. As we wrote our college essays and began receiving college acceptance letters, we began to see this guy less and less. In fact, come to think about it, we really don't even know if this guy even made it to graduation.

Sound familiar? I know it does for me. It is inevitable that in a nation that strives to educate all its children that some children will not be properly educated. These students don't progress as society expects them to and yet we expected that somehow and some way they will magically do better the second time around, even though they proved they couldn't do it the first time. Think about it in terms of running a mile. You struggle, sweat, and gasp for air with your peers all the way to the end but fall just short of the finish and everyone else passes you and completes the distance. As you stand there, exhausted, your coach pats you on the back and says "Alrighty, didn't quite get there this time. Why don't you head back to the start and try it one more time the exact same way?" Sounds absurd, right? Yet this is exactly what we do when we retain students.

Having taught at an urban middle school, I have had seen many students be retained and I can tell you this: Retention did not work. The students who were retained were the worst behaved students I had. They knew their peers idolized them so they made it their business to entertain them, at the expense of the learning process. The problem was that many of these students had already thrown in the towel, even at the ripe old age of fourteen. They weren't good at school, didn't like school, and didn't care about any of it. Why did it even matter what grade they were in anyway? They were going to enjoy their last moments in public school by causing as much trouble as possible and hoping to get suspended so at least then they wouldn't be wasting their time in the school building. For these students, being retained did a lot more harm than good and it ended up hurting all parties involved.

So the solution is obviously social promotion right? Well, I wouldn't say that is necessarily the case either. The truth is I am a concerned citizen. I'm worried about the future of this country, hence the title of my blog. I don't want to churn out high school graduates who can't read or write and yet that is exactly what we are doing. Do I really want someone with a fifth grade reading level to have as much political sway with their one vote as I do? Of course not. Yet, this is exactly where our country is headed because we are creating test factories where students cannot think on their feet. I, for one, do not think we should automatically promote a student who doesn't deserve it in an effort to keep him from being retained. So now this begs the question: If we don't retain him or promote him, what exactly do we do?

First and foremost, I think we need to re-analyze the very foundation of public schooling: The grade levels. Being out in southern California, I have begun to see an increasing trend of combination classes. For example, elementary schools often have class combinations such as 2-3 or 3-4. This to me makes perfect sense. If you are an advanced third grader, who says you shouldn't be in a class with a lower-level fourth grader? Teachers have a hard enough time differentiating in the classroom where we have multiple ability levels for our students. Imagine being able to cater your instruction, based on ability. I can see teachers reading this blog and just licking their chops at this possibility. After all, in college we take classes with all grade levels with freshmen and seniors often in the same classes. Last time I checked, nobody was arguing that freshman should only take classes with freshmen, sophomores should only takes classes with sophomores, etc. If this model works at the collegiate level, shouldn't it be implemented in the early grades as well?

But again, this makes too much sense and so this is why I am a lowly high school teacher and not the secretary of education (yet). As for me, I am stuck in a situation with Jazelle which forces me to decide if I should limit her life opportunities by retaining her, or jeopardize her future by sending out into a real world she is obviously unprepared for. If I pass her and all her other teachers fail her, have I done a lick of good? If I fail her and have her in my class again next year and she decides she'd rather be the class disruptor than even try to learn, have I done a lick of good? Is it this girl's fault she isn't good at school even though society expects it of her?

I don't know what I will end up doing with Jazelle. She acted the exact same way last semester. I had hoped that by giving her a passing grade, it would have lit a fire under her and given her a paucity of motivation. However, general apathy has quashed any potential fire that lies dormant inside of her. Begging and pleading do not work. Parental contact does not work. Vince Lombardi motivational speeches do not work. The glaring F on her progress report does not work. This is a girl who has given up on school and could care less about where she ends up in life. She is there everyday to kick it with her friends and if she has done that, then it has been a good day for her. As her teacher at the end of the day, it is up to me to determine if she has earned the right to advance to a further course of study. As of this very moment, I am at an impasse.

So are the rest of her teachers.

A Plight of Passion: How Schools Kill the Excitement Factor in Learning

"Are you guys excited about this?"
"Not really."

This is the exact reaction I heard last week in my classes as I introduced the first major language project for the students in the 2010-2011 school year. Our school has adopted the project-based learning model, which allows students an opportunity to work in small groups in order to create a project that has real world applications. The idea behind the model is that the majority of professional work in the 21st century is done in small groups which a goal and a deadline in place. It is up to the group members to divvy up responsibilities and to create a product that is efficient and purposeful. At our school level we will have an exhibition night where students will showcase all of their project-based learnings to staff members, parents, as well as members of the community. We hope to instill upon our students the work ethnic and cooperation techniques they will need to succeed beyond their high school days.

This is one of the reasons why it is so disheartening to hear student responses like the one above. We as teachers try our best to come up with innovative and exciting project ideas. The beauty of working at a charter school is that we can do this without district personnel breathing down our necks and wondering why we aren't following the standard course of study to the T. For my language project, I am having my students create an educational video to post on YouTube about anything, I repeat, ANYTHING having to do with the Spanish language. Students can do it on a musician, actor, country, city, movie, song, grammar topic, whatever they fancy. They can do a song parody, a satire of a television show, a mock interview, or even a traditional teacher-centered lecture. The possibilities are endless. And yet, there my students were after being presented about the project, nearly all of them with the same unenthusiastic response to my query.

Normally, I wouldn't think twice about my students' response to the project. I mean, they are high schoolers after all, and apathy seems to be the norm, even in charter schools. However, last week put me in a situation that I had never been in before: A situation of teaching elementary school children. I was fortunate enough to come into contact with one of my professors who needed a Spanish teacher for an eight-week enrichment session from now until winter vacation. I offered my services since my tutoring gig had expired and the fact that I was looking for teaching opportunities outside of my regular day job. Last Tuesday, I taught nine elementary school children from first to fifth grade the Spanish alphabet. We sang songs, made flash cards, and ended up by playing hangman on the board. Here were students who were excited and animated and wanting to learn, even though it was past the end of the regular school day. It was a stark contrast to what I had experienced just hours before with my high school students.

So these two instances got me thinking: What causes excitable elementary school students to become apathetic high school students? For me, the first thing that comes to mind is the peer pressure and adolescent component. Nobody wants to be seen actually "enjoying" school when they get to high school. Even if you do enjoy it, you keep it to yourself and shrug it off if somebody asks you about it. The most important thing is to be accepted by your peers and the only way you can do it is to appear to be just like them. Granted, there are exceptions, but for the most part the idea of having and maintaining an image is most critical to high school students. This is why the prom king and queen are traditionally the star athlete and head cheerleader as opposed to the valedictorian. I don't think I was even more proud of my high school class than on the night of my junior prom where they selected my friend Matt as homecoming king. Matt was a quiet, but academically gifted individual who would go on to become student body president and eventually graduate first in our class before heading to Harvard. Unfortunately, feel good stories like this one seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

The second thing that causes apathy is a lack of choices in high school curricula. This is an ongoing problem especially in today's high-stakes testing environment where electives are often the first thing to go. Imagine how fun high school would be if you could venture out and choose a class you might not have traditionally taken. I remember my freshman year in high school where I had signed up to take a class in small engines technology. I was all set to become the resident mechanic in my household. Unfortunately, as is the case with most of these kind of electives today, the class got scrapped due to low enrollment numbers. Think how great it would be if schools offered classes in drama, art, music, and film. How much more well-rounded would our students be in they had the ability to take a variety of classes before setting foot on a college campus or joining the military or work force? Giving students choice in their classes would help alleviate some of the apathy that eventually rears its ugly head.

The last thing that kills student excitement is the sheer pressure we put on kids starting about halfway through their elementary school experience. Nowhere else in the modern world are students expected to perform well on high-stakes tests at such an early age. Should a third grader's promotion to the next grade really hinge upon how well he or she does on a single year end test? Of course not, yet this is the case time and time again in today's high-stakes testing environment. Whereas once upon a time every hand would shoot up when the teacher asked a question, now only a few of them shoot up as the rest begin to doubt themselves and their abilities for the very first time. Sure you thought you were good in math, but when you got that failing score on the state exam last spring, now you're not so sure. You think you know the answer to the question the teacher is asking but to be safe you just sit back and wait for one of the "smarter" kids to jump right in there. After all, it's a lot safer that way.

There is no doubt in my mind that all three factors are equally important reasons why student excitement levels wane as they get older. One thing I struggle with on a daily basis is trying to get my students to actually ENJOY their learning. Even if they are doing individual work, I encourage them to carry on a conversation with their neighbor. They look at me like I have three heads. The problem is they have all come from environments where the fun has been sucked out of learning. Where test preparation has replaced recess. Where student schedules are set for full years with no other options. Where those that are smart and can critically think are immediately ostracized. High schoolers quite simply have forgotten how to have fun when learning. It's not their fault. They are products of a system that sucks the life out of its students and leaves hollow shells of what the students were when they first started school. Students want to have fun in school. The problem is they have forgotten how. So it is up to us as teachers to reignite that long-lost fire.

Now, who wants to go and make a super fun video?

Money Talks: How Affluent Families Have the Advantage in Today's Public Education

"Your services are no longer necessary..."

The six words that no employee wants to hear. They're the words that sting the soul, words that indicate that despite our best efforts, for some reason or another, we failed. I've heard those words twice before: Once when I was sixteen and working at the local gym. The other time was this past year when my long-term substitute position terminated at the end of the year and there was no permanent position available to me. Each time I could see the logic behind the removal. At the gym, they couldn't afford to keep providing me with a free membership for my otherwise non-paid work. For my previous school, the truth was that staff with seniority were placed ahead of me and there was nothing for me beyond the school year. This past Monday, I heard those nonmagical words for the third time from a woman whose son I was tutoring. The reasons behind my dismal this time are not as clear cut as in previous situations.

Let's start with economics 101. As I often talk about in my blog, there is a tremendous discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots in education. The truth is that money can't buy you happiness, but in this day and age it can buy you opportunity. And nowhere is this opportunity more apparent than in the education field. Think about how many opportunities money can buy you in education. Transportation to and from school and extracurricular activities. Transportation on the weekend to sports events that might earn you a scholarship. Money for field trips, both local and long distance. Computer access at home. SAT prep books, classes, and tutors. College guide books. Money for multiple college applications. And the list goes on.

Despite dedicating my life to helping those students who have had their lives stacked against them by society, I also feel the need to work with those who are more affluent and who do have those opportunities I have mentioned. The reasons for this are twofold. First, it is important for a classroom teacher to be able to work with all students in his or her classroom. I know that working at a start-up charter school, I will be working with the whole spectrum of students, especially this first year. Secondly, I'll be honest: I enjoy making money. Working with the more affluent students outside of school in a tutoring situation gives me the chance to not only enhance by teaching bu also to make a few dollars on the side. Simple theory of supply and demand: There is a demand for language teachers in Southern California and I am part of the supply of teachers in that field. Who am I to argue with basic theories of economics?

So, with that logic in mind I decided to take a tutoring job with a local high school junior. This student was enrolled at a private school about 30 minutes north of his home. The family lived in a nice home in an area that overlooked San Diego Harbor. This student had struggled in Spanish the year before and his teacher recommended that he continue studying the language only if he got a tutor for the upcoming school year. Knowing that competitive University of California colleges and state universities expect three years of foreign language in high school, the student's parents asked around for assistance in Spanish. Fortunately for me, I went to Kenya with another graduate student who is friends of the family and she recommended me. The rest, as they say, is history.

I worked with this student for an hour a week for 4 weeks. There was no question he was bright. Despite "struggling" in Spanish as his mom told me, he still had a B-average. However, that wasn't cutting it and so I was brought in to help raise that B to an A. In working with the student, I noticed he lacked a lot of the foundation needed to be successful in a third year high school Spanish class. We spent a lot of time reviewing material from the previous school year. The structure of the class was one that required a lot of outside studying. I had to convince the student that vocabulary flash cards would help him learn the material in preparation for the weekly quizzes. We went to the classroom website and he learned how to use the links to practice with material that was presented in the notes for the previous day. After 4 weeks, the student still had a B, but his needs had been analyzed and we were ready to move into a positive direction for his upcoming assessments.

Then, I got the ax.

On Monday morning, the student's mother told me that his grade wasn't improving at the rate at which she would have liked. She thanked me for my efforts and told me that the student would take it upon himself to work with the teacher during lunch and after school to try and bring up his grade. This news hit me like a ton of bricks. I knew that we had turned a corner and that the student was on his way to steadily improve. I also found him to be an interesting case study, and in my working with him I was hoping to help lay the foundation for my action research project that I had to do next semester for my last graduate course. I also was disappointed to lose out on the added income that tutoring was bring me. It wasn't a tremendous amount, but in this economy each and every dollar matters and I enjoyed the fact that my gas would be paid for monthly thanks to my new tutoring endeavor.

So why did I get canned? Simple. I didn't live up to the ridiculously high expectations of this family. They assumed that I could somehow and some way make their child an A-student in Spanish class, a class that he had barely passed the year before. This same student also had tutors for both chemistry and algebra as well. Do I blame the family? No. Why not? Because they expect their child to do well. The parents both did well in school and graduated from college. During one of the tutoring sessions, the mother informed me that the tutoring session had to be done in exactly an hour because it was junior college night and they had to return to school for it. That meant two hour-long trips to and from school in the same day, a sacrifice that mom was willing to make. These parents fully expected their child to succeed and end up at a top tier university.

This family is not unique. Not in San Diego, not anywhere. I do not fault this family for trying to help their only child succeed. It's what we all want for our children. It's why my twenty-five year old self has a financial planner as a way to start saving money now so that my children will have all the opportunities I had as a child. And those opportunities were given to me thanks to a super hard-working father. Thanks to his efforts, I had many of the same opportunities that the student I tutored had. I went on the field trips throughout school. I traveled all over New England to play sports. I took an SAT Prep course that raised my score by 150 points. I applied to eleven colleges and universities, writing multiple college essays on the desktop computer in my room. It was never a question of if I was going to college, it was a question of where I would end up. The same can be said for the student I tutored.

I leave you with these thoughts: How can someone from a less affluent home be expected to compete against someone who has had all these advantages? How does a struggling student stay after school if he or she has no ride home? How does the high school athlete with no transportation compete year round against those who travel all over the region for tournaments? How does the elementary school student go to the art museum if his single parent hasn't yet gotten her paycheck for the month? How does the middle school student type up his social studies report if he doesn't have a computer at home? How does the high school student apply to multiple schools if she doesn't have that much money available and doesn't qualify or know about scholarships? How does she get into college with low SAT scores? Does she have any hope for her future?

You tell me.

Kryptonite Revealed: How One City Intends to Defeat "Superman"

This past Friday, the movie Waiting for Superman debuted in selected cities. The documentary follows five students that had negative experiences in public schools and thus turned their attention toward the world of charter schools. The movie is already being met by both praise and criticism, hardly a shock to anyone who has seen how divided our country has become in the past few years. Proponents of the film view it as a realistic showcase of public schooling and its failures. Opponents see the film as unfairly representing public schools and being overly generous toward charter schools. Regardless, there is no denying that there is a great battle taking place between public and private schools today. I know. I'm part of that battle.

I currently am employed at a first-year charter high school in the Kearny Mesa neighborhood of San Diego. We are the product of Dr. Coleman Furr, the founder of the local Coleman University. Dr. Furr wished to start a charter high school in San Diego that would echo what Coleman University stands for: that is, small class sizes, group interactions, and using the latest technology to prepare students for the outside world. The school's charter was approved in early June leaving the leadership team a mere three months to not only recruit students, but also to make sure we had a workable building that was up to code and ready to house up to 120 freshmen and sophomores. By mid-August the staff had been finalized and the team of ten administrators and teachers were brought together and began embarking on the establishment of a brand new charter high school. Despite well-designed marketing and local television appearances, the student enrollment was to only be roughly 35 students. However, these small class sizes combined with a laptop upon entry would give students a unique learning opportunity not available anywhere else in the county.

Then, the shit hit the fan.

The day before Labor Day we were called in for a late afternoon staff meeting. It was revealed that despite doing everything asked of us and going through the proper channels, the city planning office had suddenly deemed our building unfit to house students. This was despite the fact that we teachers had been in the building for over three weeks and had never once questioned the building's safety. Our administrators met with our board members and held an emergency parent meeting. It was decided to start school a week and a half later in hopes that we could get our building up to "code." This "code" required the installation of an interconnected fire alarm system as well as the removal of all classroom doors and hinges. Apparently doors that open inward are not a fire hazard in the business world but are a hazard in the education world. Who knew?

As all this was going on we made contingency plans. Our first day of school involved us being off-campus at a charter school roughly 45 minutes away because you have to open school in a building approved for education and education only. The next day we went on a field trip. On Friday, our computing teacher brought his wireless router on the bus and students collectively wrote a letter to San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders, making him aware of our situation. We then showed up unannounced to the mayor's office and presented the letter. One of the mayor's assistants met with our assistant principal and we were given assurances that the mayor's office had our support. Would Mayor Sanders stay true to his word? Only time would tell.

This past week, we still did not have the needed permit to enter our building and so our "mobile classroom" continued. Each day we scheduled an appointment with city planners but on more than one occasion they refused to see us. Yes, you read that correctly. City planners refused to see a school that needed its approval to let students into the doors. Apparently free, public education is not a priority of the San Diego city planners. We again adapted by going on field trips and providing students with meaningful work on the bus and at home. Friday was a teacher work day to see where we stood in terms of our building permit. As we came in, our assistant principal looked glum. We found out why. The city had thrown a new set of rules and regulations at us before we could open our building. This latest set of guidelines relates to a law that will be enacted in December of 2010. However, they feel that with lag time needed to process all the paperwork, our school should be up to these guidelines. I guess city planners think that they're Superman and can magically rotate the Earth forward to make it three months from now. Mayor Sanders is nowhere to be found.

Our last resort is to now have an independent study for our students for the next three weeks. We will use building space at Coleman University and will work with our students twice a week for individual instruction. We have already lost a few students. We have a building with four ActivBoards, a digital media lounge with a flat screen television, and multiple classrooms ready for use. We have seven teachers who have been working furiously for six weeks to prepare our ever-evolving curricula. We have an administrative team who has gone to bat for us multiple times including our Director of Student Services driving to and from Sacramento in a 24 hour span to demand that the Department of Justice allow her teachers to be fingerprinted so that we would be allowed to teach our students. We have nearly 30 students who have become disillusioned by traditional education and want a place to call their home. They have a home waiting for them on Aero Drive. One that the city of San Diego will not let them enter.

So why the resistance? Who has a vendetta against our school? Why are we being held to a standard that nobody associated with the school has seen in nearly forty years of public education? The answer relates back to the inherent battle of charter versus public school. Our school is a threat to traditional public schools and thus a battle of epic proportions is being waged against us. The fact is, if we are allowed to survive we open up the floodgates to other charter schools who want to convert office buildings to school buildings. San Diego public schools are hurting big time right now. The entire district is in year two improvement. If scores don't dramatically improve (and odds are they won't) then the possibility exists that as many as one-third of the failing schools will have to be converted to charter schools. The district would lose a third of its schools and thus a third of its income. Our little school has become a microcosm for the problems that are plaguing the country's eighth largest school district.

So this is how the Lex Luthor's of public education defeat the Superman charter schools: With kryptonite. The kryptonite in this case is the one unforeseen weakness that we never saw coming: fine print. Legality. Or in our case, non-existent legality. Made up rules. The city planners of San Diego are playing hardball with us. However, they are just pawns in this game. The forces that be are behind them and are those with powerful connections that would lose a lot if we are allowed to succeed. They are proponents of public schools who see the charter movement as a fringe movement. They are firmly entrenched into the ideals and values of their teacher's union. They represent the status quo, something that the very nature of the charter school movement threatens. These are the same people who will inevitably stand outside the theater when Waiting for Superman comes to San Diego. I, for one, will be in line with these people. I will talk to them. I will ask them one question: Is it worth ruining the education of 40 dedicated students and staff members to prove a point?

I can't wait to see how they respond.

Par for the Course: Designing and Implementing a New Curriculum

"Just choose what you think is important and go from there..."

The magic words. The words every teacher longs to hear. The words that give the teacher, the instructor, the trained professional the autonomy and control to teach what he or she wants the way he or she wants to teach it. However, this amazing gift in this day and age has become like winning the lottery. Everybody wants it, yet a select few ever have their wish come true. And yet, here I was one week ago, being given that elusive gift via my school administration. I'm normally not an emotional person. The last time I got visibly choked up was when the Patriots lost the 2007 Super Bowl. And yet there I was, slightly teary-eyed after having been giving the green light to teach with ultimate freedom and autonomy. In other words, I am one of the few teachers in America who can teach the way teaching was meant to be.

Herein lies the advantage of teaching a non-tested subject. The state of California has no say in how I teach Spanish as long as I teach it. I currently have the ability to teach Spanish any way I damn well please, pardon my French. And it is invigorating! I can look at tons of websites and identify what first year language learners need to know and be able to do. I can look back on my own experiences and those of my classmates and co-workers and ask them what worked and what didn't work when they were learning a foreign language. I can ask other Spanish teachers for their resources and can pick and choose what topics to present and when. If my students just can't get a topic for whatever reason, then I can try to reintroduce it later in the course or even in a follow-up course if need be. The sky is the limit. For the first time in my professional career, I am my own boss. I am the only language teacher currently at my school so the buck stops at me: literally. If the curriculum isn't working, I have nobody to blame but myself. I will drop back and punt and make it work. Because the success of the entire school's language learners depends on one person: me.

So as much as I would like to continue to brag about my new-found curricular freedom, this ultimately begs the question: Should all teachers, regardless of subject, have this much autonomy? Are our state standards enough? Or should we have national standards that all teachers must adhere to? Ah, herein lies the debate. Spanish is one thing, as it is not a tested area. It doesn't matter what exactly I teach my students because they will never have to deal with a national norm-referenced test. But what about our tested areas like math and reading? What about science and social studies where there are common bodies of knowledge? Should there ultimately be lists of what every student should know or be able to do by the time they graduate from college? There are many questions raised and many viewpoints supporting all sides of these arguments.

Let's first look at the idea of a common body of knowledge. E.D. Hirsch in the late 1980s brought forth the idea of each student knowing or being aware of a list of common facts and people. However, he was immediately attacked for being too conservative and not including valuable people and events that are traditionally neglected by our history books. He was accused of promoting the idea of "drill and kill" and not having our students think critically enough. As much as I agree that this list would ultimately neglect valuable parts of our history and culture, it made me wonder. Do we need some sort of national standards for our core curricula? If Johnny transfers from Oklahoma to Nebraska during his sophomore year, shouldn't he theoretically be able to pick up where he left off in his world history class? What happens if all of a sudden he leaves Mr. Brown's class discussing the Roman Empire and enters Miss Jones' class where they are in the middle of discussing the Qing Dynasty. This means that Johnny is now behind and doesn't have the core knowledge that his classmates have. And guess what? Johnny will be expected to take the same end of course test that all his classmates are despite missing out on the first portion of the year.

Think this is an exaggeration? Curricula can vary not only across states but even across schools. Yours truly opted to take a freshman year seminar in high school that combined language arts and social studies. My peers opted to take the traditional world history and freshman English classes. Yup, you guessed right. Yours truly, paid professional teacher of social studies, never formally learned about the Greek or Roman empires because they weren't taught in my seminar class. Well, technically we briefly discussed the Greek empire. But all I remember from that portion of the class is Doric, Corinthian, and Ionic columns because we had to do a video project on them. When people mention Caesar to me I first and foremost think of the delicious salad. So, what do you think? Is it really fair that people go their entire schooling in American public education and don't know basic facts about the Roman Empire?

And yet, I have to go back to the fact that if we taught the same things to everyone, we would not only lose out on student critical thought, but we would lose out on teacher creativity as well. There would be no way to pursue outside interests or areas of expertise. Maybe a certain teacher discusses Bartolome de Las Casas in his world history class. A student learns about Las Casas, someone his teacher studied and shared with the class. The student asks the teacher about him and the teacher tells him how he was one of the very first people to protest the European treatment of the natives in the Americas. The student wants to further study Las Casas and the teacher gives him some resources to look into. The student takes the initiative and learns all he can about not only Las Casas but other early protesters on the European invasion. Eventually, this student goes on to study other oppressed peoples and eventually decides he wants to be a public defender to fight for those current-day people who have been oppressed and haven't been given equal opportunities in their lives. All of this, thanks to a teacher who taught slightly outside of his given curriculum.

There is no easy answer to the curriculum dilemma. If I had to approximate one, I would say that teachers should use their state curricula as guides but have freedom to teach about what they are passionate about. If a U.S. history teacher wants to spend two weeks on the Era of Good Feelings, then let him or her spend time on that era. If another history teacher in Texas acknowledges that Charles Darwin wrote an important book about something called "evolution", then he or she should be allowed to do so without facing consequences. If an English teacher in Virginia wants to study Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, then with parental approval and administrative support, she should be able to. Not all teachers can have full autonomy but they should have the ability to teach beyond the simple drill and kill that have bogged down the tested areas. We all got into teaching because we are passionate about what we teach. It's time for school districts and national education policies to realize this and let us share our passion with our students.

From the Heart: A Genuine Graduation Speech

Erica Goldson, the valedictorian of Coxsackie-Athens High School, completely nails why public education today is failing our children. Kudos to her for using her moment in the sun to bring attention to the issue.

On The Hunt: Reflections on Job Searching in 21st Century America

For those of you that are reading this blog after getting home from a long day at your workplace, I salute you. No, really, I do. The fact is that you all are coming home to your friends and loved ones after a hard, productive day. You have helped make your company/business/workplace better because of the time and effort you put in today. You might be tired and dragging, but that shouldn't diminish what you did today. You gave it your all. You got up in the morning, despite the fact that rolling over and sleeping for an extra view hours was mighty tempting. You survived the morning commute once again. You enjoyed your lunch on site. You made it home through rush hour traffic. You might not realize it, but there are people who are jealous of what you have accomplished today. I know I am.

As I sit at home composing this newest entry, I felt compelled to discuss what it is like for an unemployed teacher in 21st century America. For the third time in four years, I have entered the month of July not knowing what I would be doing come September. Already I am describing myself as a career educational journeyman and yet I am only 25 years old. The fact of the matter is that in today's educational setting, jobs are hard to come by and even harder to maintain. I have left one job already because I was unhappy there. I have left another job that I was happy at, but my position there got cut. I now stand before you on the other side of your computer screen looking, hoping, wishing that somebody would once again give me a chance to teach at their school.

The truth of the matter is that my situation is not that unique. Once upon a time this country had a shortage of teachers. Nowadays, there is a surplus of teachers and you combine that with budget cuts left and right and well, you have the makings of a very difficult job hunt. If you teach the tested areas of math and science, then you at least have a shot. For us social studies and foreign language teachers, it is much more difficult. The truth is that foreign language programs frequently get the axe and are seen as unnecessary. Even here in Southern California, I have seen very few postings for language teachers and that is with a heavy Latino population. For social studies teachers, it seems now that being a coach is valued more than the teaching of social studies. Schools are much more likely to hire a coach and stick him in the classroom rather than the other way around. It is sad to think of social studies as a throwaway class, but due to the testing premium in today's society that is exactly what it is becoming.

The problem also lies in the huge bureaucratic machines that are the public city school districts. Long gone are the days when you turned in your resume to the school secretary and then sat down one-on-one with the principal of the school for an interview. In today's world, everything is done online and through human resources. People who know little about educational pedagogy are making decisions about who gets interviewed based on what you have submitted in your online portfolio. My patented youthful exuberance pales in comparison to someone who has taught for 20+ years. Even if you somehow manage to make it to an interview, that interview is with people not even associated with the school you might end up at. Already I have received auto reply messages from principals who are on vacation until the middle of August. They, like many others, are placing all their trust in the hands of the district's human resources staff. They are assuming that the most qualified candidate has gotten the job.

So, what's a young teacher to do? How do I "play the game" in this kind of dog-eat-dog environment? Well, seeing as I'm currently unemployed, I'm not sure. However, I do have some theories. First and foremost is to forgo the bureaucratic juggernaut of online job postings through the school district website. I'm not saying you ignore it completely, but you need to know that any job that you are qualified for that pops up you most likely won't get. This means that you turn your attention to the charter schools in your area. The majority of charters have their own interview process, independent of the main school district. These are the schools that are more likely to actually read your resume and grant you the traditional sit-down interview in person with the school's principal. Charter schools get a bad rap from time to time, but the truth is one thing they definitely get right is the hiring process. They have a certain vision for their school and their candidates must fit that vision for the school to succeed.

Lastly, you need to get your name out there. Contact people that you know and can speak highly of you and let them know you are looking for work. This can be previous employers, professors, former colleagues, etc. Contact schools directly. For me, I've found that emails are extremely effective. Even if a school doesn't have an immediate opening, things might pop up later on and they will remember your email. This also gives you an advantage as the school will already be familiar with your name. Call me old-fashioned, but I firmly believe in taking initiative and if something as simple as an email can help make an impression to a potential employer then by all means I will do it. You never know when an employer might email you back thanking you for your email and suggesting another school that might have an opening to your liking. In today's job searching world, any tiny advantage will go a long way in helping your procure that elusive job.

Those are my current thoughts on the matter. Whether or not I'm successful remains to be seen. I like to think of myself as a qualified candidate and already I have gotten several complements on my resume and what I'm done thus far in my first three years in public education. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger and I have already survived two job searches, so why not one more? At the very least, it has helped me get back into the swing of updating my blog, which I have been away from for this past month. Speaking of my blog, if any of you reading this happen to know of any schools that need a history or Spanish teacher in the greater San Diego area, please let me know. I know it's a long shot, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.