Weather and Politics

Two weeks ago we traveled to Colorado for a family wedding.  The wedding was beautiful and I also appreciated the fact that this was an academic love story in every way.  The bride (my niece) who holds a Master’s in Math and the groom who has a Ph.D. in Math fell in love in graduate school and their love of math was an important catalyst.  What a beautiful story and it all added up to a wedding to be followed now by an increasing number of anniversaries.

While the wedding was beautiful, the weather was memorable. After we arrived, picked up our rental car, and began the journey from Denver to Greeley, lightening appeared in the distant sky.  Relatively muted at first, it quickly evolved into very prominent cloud to cloud and cloud to ground lightening.  The effect was highlighted by a series of unlit roads and dark open fields.  And then it happened.  The lightening continued but now was accompanied by heavy hail.  Yes, summertime hail, which became noisier and noisier and heavier and heavier. In those few times in the past when I was driving in a winter hail storm in the New York area, I never remember any storm that had the intensity of this one.  My older daughter was sitting next to me in the front seat following the navigation system which was clearly our lifeline since the visibility for almost 30 minutes was at most a few feet. And all of us in the car were very tense and apprehensive as we drove to our destination and we did keep driving since there were very few and very far between places on these rural roads where you could safely stop.  Even when we got to the hotel, we still stayed in the car for an additional 15 minutes just to give the lightening time to move away and then allow us to safely enter the hotel.

The next day, Friday, there was a rehearsal and a dinner and on Saturday the wedding took place.  The weather was clear, hot and very dry.  Not comfortable but nothing to worry about.  Except we could see from the wedding site, what appeared to be a fire far in the distance. On Sunday, our last day in the Denver area, we decided to drive to Fort Collins to spend time in a nice college town.  As we drove closer to Fort Collins, we could see the fire more clearly and the smoke and smell were now permeating the entire area. When I was able to see the flames first hand, I could see the enormity of the event and get a clear sense of the toll it was enacting on the area. The fire was caused, according to the news reports by lightening that struck during the Thursday night storm.

Today, a little over a week since the fire began, it continues and the devastation it causes continues as well.  On the news this morning, a story on the fire noted that more than 180 homes were lost and also noted, unfortunately, that the fire was continuing.

As I think about the hail storm and the resulting fire, I also think about the November elections which are now less than 5 months away. So many candidates are talking about cutting spending and cutting taxes.  The candidates seem very specific on how and they would cut taxes for everyone and much less specific on how spending would be cut. There is no question that some government inefficiency exists, but not nearly enough to compensate for the tax cuts being proposed by some office seekers.  Let the candidates talk openly about how they will cut costs—will it be a reduction in spending for weather related research, for fire prevention and firefighting, for national defense, for education, for cancer research etc. And let them talk precisely about why taxes need to be cut for everyone.  Give the public the specifics and let’s see whether they think the math adds up to what best serves our country.

Newsies

I have already stated on multiple occasions that I am a musicals fan, preferably Broadway but I’m also passionate about college theater, middle and high school theater, not-for-profit theater, and off-Broadway theater. Hopefully I have covered all the applicable venues. But for me theater has always been more than just entertainment. Studying theater, working on a theater production, and watching/listening to theater all serve to enhance learning and accomplish this in a very dynamic way. Yesterday provided me with another excellent example of learning while watching and listening. I took my younger daughter plus a friend of hers as well as a daughter of a friend to Newsies. Since this production was announced, I have been looking forward to seeing it. For me it was much more than just an opportunity to take the younger generation to a show. Everything about the show worked well, the cast, the score, the story, and the music all combined to tell an important story. And different from many of the Disney musicals (which I typically enjoy), this was a true story and an important story. Newsies is the story of the newsboys’ strike of 1899. This was a successful strike that forced Joseph Pulitzer to change how newsboys (newsies) were treated as they sold newspapers. Often homeless children, the newsies worked long hours for miniscule pay and even had to pay for papers they were unable to sell. The importance of organizing to stand up for what was right and the importance of unions in the history of our country all came across loud and clear. The kids loved Newsies and they learned from it. One day before the 2008 Presidential debate on the Hofstra campus (and once again one day prior to the upcoming 2012 Presidential Debate), we had (and will again have) a day of “Democracy in Performance.” Three outstanding faculty members organized (and are again organizing) a day where historical figures roam the campus and vignettes on key issues and key moments are performed. These vignettes, performed as historical re-enactments (in costume), come alive thanks to the “living history performers” as well as our talented student performers. It is a moment to learn and to reflect and we share the moment, not only with our own community, but also with the local schools in the area. A great time is had by all and the learning is continuous. In this time of constrained budgets, when many schools are looking at arts budgets as potential areas to cut first, careful attention should be paid to consider all the benefits of the arts. We all have to live with these financial constraints but living with the arts needs to be considered a priority with wide ranging learning benefits. My headline is very clear: Support the Arts.

LOTE

Serving on a school board has increased my exposure to acronyms. I started my board service already understanding STEM, and have now gained a familiarity with (but not a respect for) the APPR evaluation system. I am also familiar with ELA, especially when it involves an added emphasis on testing, and have now added LOTE to my acronym assortment. LOTE stands for Languages Other Than English, which for me is a very important part of the education a student should receive before entering college. At my local school board meeting this week, we dealt with the elementary school language experience and it was one of the best discussions we have had as a board. In addition, it was enriched (in the public comment section of the meeting) by both the participation of language teachers and members of the public. At the present time, my district’s elementary school students receive exposure to Latin beginning in grade 4 and continuing in grade 5. Everyone is in agreement that this exposure to Latin is a positive factor in the education of our students with benefits that extend beyond Latin language and culture. The discussion on the agenda was precipitated by a proposal by the superintendent to begin language at the kindergarten level and to specifically choose Mandarin as the language that would be taught. Part of the impetus for this change was the added testing at the 4th and 5th grade levels and the added preparation that helps our students do well on these tests. With this testing being concentrated at the same time as the Latin language exposure, it resulted in an overly pressured situation both for the students and for teachers. Another part of the impetus was that the earlier you start foreign language training, the greater the potential for mastery of the language. And here the goal is clearly fluency, rather than exposure. A student beginning Mandarin in elementary school will hopefully have the option of taking Mandarin through 12th grade.  Why the change to Mandarin? Understandable given the superpower status that China has achieved especially in its economy. I regularly see the Chinese students who are studying on Hofstra’s campus. Their motivation is clear as is their desire to enhance their second language skills, first learned by these Chinese students taking English starting in elementary school. U.S. students, on the other hand, have much more limited 2nd language skills and often seem to lack the motivation to achieve sophisticated second language skills. In an ever more competitive world economy where not everyone is willing to use English, language skills matter and as we strive to educate our students to succeed, mastery of Mandarin will clearly help. In the course of the board discussion, I endorsed the early start of second language education but suggested that the case could also convincingly be made for Spanish, the most used language on our planet. What I really wanted was to offer both languages from kindergarten on, but the funding just isn’t there to make that happen. Ultimately what we perhaps should consider is to start Spanish in 3rd grade (now it starts in 6th grade) while at the same time consolidating some of the language options presently available beginning in 6th grade. As part of the overall discussion there were advocates for continuing and perhaps expanding Latin, advocates for Mandarin from kindergarten on, advocates for Mandarin and Spanish from kindergarten on, and also advocates for a FLEX approach, with a one or two year exposure to one language, followed by another language, and even perhaps a third language. When it came time to vote, I voted in favor of Mandarin feeling that given the complexity of the language, an early start was essential and feeling also that this was an important language that would become more important in the years ahead. But what I also realized is that there is no one right answer to what the language should be and how much exposure there should be. Any of the proposals being considered had the potential to provide our students with outstanding language preparation. Voting for Mandarin was actually easier when I realized we were choosing what we thought was the best option from among a series of options that would all serve our kids well. It’s always better when no alternative available to you represents a bad choice. In summary, we need more language skills as part of an excellent k-12 education (and I also wouldn’t mind fewer acronyms as part of the education vocabulary).

School Board Reelection

Three years ago, when I first ran for the local school board, I was one of two people running for two seats.  The campaign was easy and winning was never in question. My total expenses for that campaign consisted of one first class postage stamp. Three years later, I debated long and hard whether I should run for another term.  What finally convinced me to run for reelection was that we are in a critical time for public education and I felt I could make a positive difference.  A property tax cap, increasing unfunded government mandates, an overemphasis on testing, a flawed evaluation system for teachers all come together to create an environment where public education is under attack and I’m not willing to sit on the sidelines and just watch it happen.  I need to be involved.  I have very strong qualifications and I want to make sure that the enormous benefits of education receive at least as much attention as the cost of education.

This election was very different for me from the initial stages to the conclusion.  The summary is easy to give: there were three qualified individuals running for two seats and I was reelected and received more votes than either of the other two candidates.  At the initial stage of the campaign I was advised that having lawn signs was a key part of the outreach for a local election.  I have never been a fan of lawn signs or signs stapled to utility poles.  I find them to be visual pollution.  So before I made my decision on having or not having lawn signs, I asked a very knowledgeable journalist, who had covered school boards for a major newspaper for a decade, what she thought.  Her response was very immediate, direct and clear.  If you want to win, you will distribute lawn signs.  I immediately ordered the signs.  What happened next surprised me.  A comment was made by a member of the community at a subsequent school board meeting that I was unable to attend, that lawn signs could be construed as bullying.  It took me a moment to think about the comment after I heard it second hand but my reaction at that time, and my reaction today is identical.  Bullying is a very serious matter and to compare a lawn sign to bullying is to trivialize what is an important concern in many, many schools.

I loved Meet the Candidates night. It provided an excellent opportunity to address all the key issues and all the candidates focused their articulate remarks on these issues.  I felt completely comfortable throughout the evening:  I was not only aware of all the issues raised but more importantly I had given a significant amount of thought to each of these issues.  When I wrapped up my remarks, I also endorsed one of the two other candidates and asked the audience to vote for her in addition to voting for me.  I felt this candidate was not only qualified (as was the other candidate) but that her views were more closely aligned to mine in regard to significant issues such tracking (which I oppose), over testing (which I oppose) etc. There were some interesting subsequent reactions – first and foremost that a sitting board member shouldn’t endorse another candidate for an open position.  And here I strenuously disagree.  Being a member on a school board does not and should not require me to give up my first amendment rights of free speech.  It is common practice and expected that elected officials (with very limited and very specific exceptions such as judges) endorse other candidates.  The school board should not, as a body, endorse any candidate just as Congress shouldn’t endorse any candidate and just as the local or state legislature shouldn’t endorse a candidate. But individuals can and do and the grounds are typically what I mentioned above; the person being endorsed is more aligned and in sync with the philosophy of the person doing the endorsement.

My last comment is a concern that the cost of being a candidate, even a school board candidate, where the costs are very modest (lawn signs, banners, ads in local papers), will likely be significant enough to discourage very qualified candidates from running, especially in a difficult economic time such as this when so many individuals and families are hurting.  In more and more elections, the money you have and the money you are able to raise become key factors in the result.  In my opinion to get the best pool of candidates requires a much more level playing field when it comes to expenditures.  I still believe that candidates should be elected based on the merits and not the money.

Extreme Testing

My older daughter came home last week, after taking a New York State ELA (English Language Arts) statewide exam.  Normally after she takes a test, she mentions whether the test was easy or hard and what, if any, were the areas that give her difficulty.  This time it was different.  She complained about a reading passage concerning a race between a pineapple (that did not move) and a hare.  She indicated that the passage made little sense and that the questions/answers made even less sense.  I actually thought she was overreacting until I saw a copy of the passage and the questions in the newspapers and on the internet. The paragraph was inane and the questions had no logical answers.  Ultimately New York State agreed, and will not count this question in the scoring of the exam.

My younger daughter’s elementary school New York State ELA took place over three days with a ninety minute exam each day.  The exam also started the day the spring vacation ended.  Not even a school day in between for the kids to adjust to being back in school.  Why does an exam like this need three days and a ninety minute exam time each day?  There was also a question on the math assessment for 4^th graders that had two correct answers as well as an 8^th grade math assessment question that had no correct answers.  Not good on any count.

Exams are necessary.  Evaluating students is necessary. We need to be able to measure a student’s learning on a regular basis and use the results to continuously enhance the education that is provided. But there are very substantial costs if the exam is nonsensical in part or if the exam is overly stress inducing.  The first and most obvious cost is the loss of confidence by both parents and educators in the government entity that oversees the exam process. Can bad questions really measure learning? Can questions without correct answers or with multiple correct answers really measure learning? Or instead, when a student is told to select the correct answer, will this just serve to confuse the student?  And will three days of testing of 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th graders measure learning or, even more, seriously stress out the students?  How many of us, when we were in third grade, would have the sitting power, patience and perseverance to handle an exam that long for that many days?

But the real cost is a potential loss of the love for learning on the part of our kids.  What we all want from education is not only a knowledge base but also a respect for the importance of lifetime learning. If the questions and answers make little sense, if the exam stresses out young kids, and if the end result is a dislike for school and for education we have done a huge disservice.  This is a time for corrective action.  We need to rethink some of our exams and even more importantly some of our exam philosophies.

The Lessons Learned

On the same day a few weeks ago, I happened to be looking at a Hofstra Alumni newsletter and an article that I had clipped from The New York Times.  To digress for a moment, “clipped” is the right expression since I was reading the actual newspaper, not the online version.  I only read the paper version on weekends.  During the week, I read my paper online and am very efficient in reading only those articles that I identify as of great interest.  On the weekends, and at a more leisurely pace, I look through the entire paper and just by skimming find additional interesting articles to read.  There is clearly a role for both, though it will be interesting to see if the economics of printing a paper, in an online world, is viable. 

In his alumni update, the Dean of our Honors College notes the criticism of higher education, most specifically the allegation in Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, that some students in some colleges finish their education with minimal learning taking place.  The Dean does this as a prelude to talking about how a liberal arts education supports “genuine learning,” because students spend “a significant amount of time studying exemplary works in literature, history, philosophy, religion, art, music, drama and the rest of the natural and social sciences, … [and thereby] come to see shadings and complexities in a world that previously seemed black and white.”  I am in total agreement with this position and the concomitant position that writing across the college curriculum also enhances the learning that is taking place.

The New York Times article on “Trying to Find a Measure of How Well Colleges Do,” takes the question of learning or not learning and couples it with outcomes assessment measures of value added.  More testing as the article notes already permeates k-12 education, and now “Pieces of such a system may be taking shape, however, with several kinds of national assessments—including, most controversially, standardized tests….”  We should be able to demonstrate that learning is taking place and we should be able to document value added.  But nevertheless there are serious concerns that must be taken into consideration.

On the k-12 level, the curriculum is becoming more standardized with the “Common Core,” which stresses revising existing educational norms by including for example, more nonfiction reading and more practical math.  But is this really the only viable road to be followed to strengthen the k-12 educational experience?  Enhanced student testing will then have to be in place to measure the value added.  This testing will in turn impact the evaluation of many teachers.  Schools in response, to ensure that their students test as well as possible (as early as third grade), may well shed some of the diversity and richness of the curriculum to stay focused on the test materials. 

As higher education gathers evidence of student learning (which we are all more and more required to do) and  strives to place that evidence in a context of other students in the same college and other students in colleges across the country, standardized test will provide a convenient yardstick for what we are trying to measure.  I understand the value of a yardstick but I also recognize the tremendous expertise that faculty bring and have brought to the design and implementation of the curriculum.  Rather than see us move to a Common Core college curriculum, we need to involve our faculty in the development of overall degree assessment instruments that effectively measure that learning/value added is taking place but preserve our right to design a curriculum that best serves the learning goals of our students.

Experiential Learning

It is clearer and clearer that incorporating active learning and incorporating experiential learning enhances the learning experience.  And I believe that any robust assessment program will underscore the importance of more such learning opportunities.  It is also clear to me that experiential or active learning shouldn’t take place only in higher education.  It should in fact be built into as much of the k-12 learning experience as possible. And of course, experiential learning isn’t just the province of the schools.  It should also be fostered in the home environment, though I recognize that in this era of two parents working or a single parent household (and a weak economy), these opportunities may be more limited or even severely limited.

Resources in support of experiential learning are all around, especially when you are near a major metropolitan area or a major college or university.  For example, and this is one of hundreds of different examples I could give when focusing on the New York area, the American Museum of Natural History is a fabulous resource.  Now I admit I am partial to the AMNH.  When growing up in Manhattan and being able to ride the subways alone with my friends at an early age, I often gravitated to Natural History.  I was fascinated by dinosaurs and there they were—not a picture in a textbook, not a small scale model but the actual skeletons.  No Hollywood special effects.  No Godzilla. No Barney.  Just the real thing in an outline form.  And I was also fascinated by the Hayden Planetarium and the look it gave us to the world outside of our world. 

If anything the Museum is even better today than it was then.  The exhibits and the programs provide an even more vivid involvement.  For example, the current show, Creatures of Light: Nature’s Bioluminescence, highlights those organisms that generate their own light. I took my kids and their friends to the exhibit a week after it opened and they were fascinated by what they saw and what they experienced. Me too.

This blog is not designed to just praise one special resource. Resources that are worth experiencing are all around us.  Schools should do more to build in these resources on a regular basis, and schools and the media should do more to make all of us aware of the resources that are in or near our home neighborhoods.  I know, in this era of scarce resources for education and a decided emphasis (or overemphasis) on testing, that these experiences may be a casualty of our environment.  Serious mistake.  The world becomes more alive through experiences; we become more educated through experiences; and we become more passionate about education through these experiences. 

For us and our kids not to be dinosaurs, we need to keep the experiences alive.