Steve H on differentiated grading vs tiered homework

Catherine wrote:

"A teacher can easily print out easy problems for the slow kids, medium problems for the medium kids, and hard problems for the hard kids."

Steve H wrote:

I mentioned before that our schools do not have tiered homework. Parents would find out and (rightfully) go ballistic. They do it using a nonlinear rubric between 1-5. Anyone can do the extra work and try to get a 5. The nonlinear aspect allows many lower ability kids to get 3's, but it drives the more able kids crazy when they try to get a 5. The grading is differentiated, not the assignment. All the teachers have to do is vary their judgment slightly when they grade the work.

Spiraling works perfectly with this idea. They present the same material to all kids. If you don't get it this time, you will see it again. The teaching is not differentiated. If you don't understand something, then (by definition) it's your problem. With full inclusion, this means that the student is either slow or just not ready for the material yet. They might be sincere about teaching the best they can, but they have no way of knowing one way or the other.

[snip]

Full inclusion is the goal, and differentiated instruction is the cover. Actually, a number of years ago, they used the term "differentiated learning". I'll have to see if I can find that. At least that would be more honest.

At our schools, the goal is social for K-6; warm and fuzzy. Starting in 7th grade, they put the screws to the kids, but it's made very clear that any issues belong to the student. They have to work hard and take responsibility for their own learning. The school sets them up in K-6, then whacks them on the head when they get to 7th. And the kids really believe that it's their own fault.

paging Dr. Willingham

We need Daniel Willingham to break this down:

Study gives more proof that intelligence is largely inherited
UCLA researchers find that genes determine brain's processing speed

Because unfortunately that headline has quickly turned into this one:

Bad at Math? Blame It on Your Parents
And if your kids aren't good at math, blame yourself

Just imagine the kind of damage this kind of headline can do.

We've been talking about cultural attitudes towards ability and this absolutely sends the wrong message that effort doesn't count for much. If you're not good at something, blame it on your gene pool and get on with it.

We already have a serious problem with believing that we're either good at math or we aren't. This just adds fuel to the fire.

In Why Don't Students Like School? Daniel Willingham asserts, "Our genetic inheritance does impact our intelligence, but it seems to do so mostly through the environment. There is no doubt that intelligence can be changed."

Children need to know that it is within their power to increase their intelligence. That ability can be improved with effort. If parents and educators buy into the you're-either-born-smart-or-you're-not mindset, we're doomed to continue declining on all internationally benchmarked assessments of academic ability.

We need Dr. Willingham to counteract this spin and control it with headlines that make sense. Changing cultural perceptions about learning needs to happen now.

I blogged more about it here .

middle school advisory

Seeing as how CT has apparently mandated advisories in middle school, it's time to post this article by Daniel Deitte (pdf file):

When I was first hired as a middle school sixth grade teacher, I was thrilled. This was a position I had coveted for over four years....Soon after I started, however, I realized that one piece was missing; we did not have a strong advisory program. Yes, we had a structured advisory period for 29 minutes at the end of every day, but there was very little focus to our advisory. Something needed to be done about the lack of interest and focus during that time.

[snip]

As I spoke about this with several of my colleagues, something else became very apparent to me …none of us had a clear picture of what was supposed to happen in a true advisory program.

Good reason to institute an advisory program and pay teachers a stipend to advise!

The worst part about running the advisory I described above was that I found myself dreading the last 29 minutes of each day. Inevitably, I had students who did not want to participate in S.Q.U.I.R.T [Super Quiet Uninterrupted Reading Time], or who never had any homework to do. Additionally, somewhere, early in my first year of teaching, I had decided that my advisory time would be a quiet time with the students needing permission to speak.

"A quiet time with the students needing permission to speak" is not an advisory.

In order to achieve this, I found myself yelling and constantly getting frustrated with the students.

Definitely not an advisory.

My first plan of action in making my change was to do some heavy research over the summer. I did not have a clear understanding of what an advisor’s role was. The Internet provided me with resources that would help me move toward this goal.

Taxpayers, take note.

We are paying certified teachers to assume roles that have not been defined by their superiors or the school board and for which they have no training. No one in this woman's school knows what an advisor or an advisory is and yet they've got advisors and advisories up the ying-yang because the middle school model includes advisories.

I found this definition to be the following: “An organizational structure in which one small group of students identifies with and belongs to one educator, who nurtures, advocates for, and shepherds through school the individual in that group” (Cole, 1992, p. 5).

Bingo. That is what takes place inside an actual advisory group headed by a teacher in a private or parochial school. One educator nurtures, advocates for, and shepherds through school the individuals in that group.

Furthermore, I found that, “Advisories should help students develop meaningful interpersonal relationships” (Dale, 1995, p. 3). Lastly, “Activities should be provided … that lead to the development of positive attitudes, values, and emotional control” (Connors, 1990, p. 165).

oops

That's not an advisory.

An advisory (called a mentor group at Hogwarts) is focused on school first, relationships and attitudes second & then primarily as they relate to school. The mentor follows the kids' grades and steps in if grades start to slip. Since Hogwarts is a Catholic school, charity activities take place inside the mentor group, too, but the focus is academics and the kids' progress in their studies.

It bears repeating that the mentor advocates for the student. If the student is having a problem with another teacher, the advisor straightens things out. When we toured Rye Country Day, the student showing us around actually called the person heading advisory "your mom at school." Those were her words.

These definitions clicked immediately with me. It was that affective domain that seemed to need the most work with middle school students. It did not take me long to realize that my focus for advisory would be character education, teamwork, and community building.

Not an advisory.

Not worth the stipend taxpayers are shelling out.

As I delved deeper into my research, I found that out of 9,000 letters sent from middle school students to their U.S. Representatives, “Over 15% were concerned about their home and school environments” (Hoversten, Doda, & Lounsbury, 1991, p. 9). The question I formulated from all of my research, which would be the root of my year-long inquiry, was, “Will the development of character education, in the sixth grade advisory, create a strong sense of community, nurture teamwork, and help develop a sense of pride between each student and his/her fellow advisees?” This became my focus for the 2000-2001 school year.

The advisory is not a research project.

[M]y next task was to figure out how I would go about facilitating the implementation of character education into this advisory. I knew I did not want it to be in a lecture format. The last thing I wanted was to conduct lectures, and then to require them to take notes. My feelings were that I would quickly lose the kids if I tried this type of structure. Then I found a book written by Tom Jackson that discussed the importance of “Active Learning.”

Saw that one coming a mile away.

“Active Learning has people participate in their own learning process by involving them in some type of activity where they physically become a part of the lesson” (Jackson, 1995, p. 2). I knew I had what I wanted; I would use Active Learning to foster character, teamwork, and community building. I remember feeling the excitement building inside of me after having found a place to begin.

Character Education Provides Focus for Advisory by Danielle Deitte (pdf file)

There's plenty more where that comes from, none of it having to do with academics or responsible adults advocating for the students in their charge.

bonus points: Advocacy for Children by Siegfried Engelmann

Diagnosis diagnosed by Galen Alessi

This is the unedited section of Galen Alessi's classic article, "Diagnosis diagnosed: A systemic reaction" that describes his study of school psychologists blaming the child:

On the completely different theme of values, I agree with Joel Meyers that a dramatic shift in conceptual models is needed in school psychology diagnostic systems. And, I agree that what is required is a switch from an individual to a systemic (ecological) perspective. Perhaps the most important, recent discovery in school psychology in the past 50 years has been that every school pupil interacts daily with teachers, peers, a basal curriculum, parents, and school administrators. Some school psychologists now are suggesting that these factors may contribute to (and perhaps even be the source of) many pupils' school problems. But such school psychologists are only a tiny minority (cf. rump group?), and considered to be egregious radicals by their individually centered colleagues. What makes school psychologists hold so tenaciously to an individually centered conception of behavior? Could it be that giving up this schema would change the professional role in fundamental ways that neither the schools nor school psychologists are prepared to accept?

The major part of the school psychology role involves case studies to determine the sources of learning and behavior problems in school. Not only are school psychologists experts in tracking down factors contributing to such problems, but they also are bound by professional ethics to report the results objectively as they are determined. Parents trust school psychologists not to adopt assessment practices that are inherently biased in ways that could hinder, rather than help, their children. But school psychologists with an individually centered perspective may have adopted naturally, and with the best intentions, inherently biased assessment models.

When a child has difficulty learning or behaving at school, the source of the problem usually can be traced to one or more of five broad areas. First, the child may be misplaced in the curriculum, or the curriculum may contain faulty teaching routines (cf. Becker, 1986; Carnine & Silbert, 1979; Engelmann & Carnine, 1982; Silbert, Carnine, & Stein, 1981). Second, the teacher may not be implementing effective teaching and/or behavior management practices (Becker, 1986; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982; Paine, Radicchi, Rosellini, Deutchman, & Darch, 1983; Sprick, 1985). Third, the principal and other school administrators may not be implementing effective school management practices (Brookover et aI., 1982). Fourth, the parents may not be providing the home-based support necessary for effective learning. Fifth, and finally, the child may have physical and/or psychological problems that may be contributing to the learning problems.

With several groups of school psychologists (about 50 each), in different areas of the country, I have replicated the following informal survey that highlights the crucial problem with current individually centered diagnostic practices. First, the psychologists were asked whether all agreed that each of the just-mentioned, five factors may play a primary role in a given school learning or behavior problem. They almost always agreed. Next, they were asked for the number of cases each had examined in the past year to determine the source of learning problems. The answer was usually about 120. Using 100 as a round number, multiplied by the group size of 50, yields about 5,000 cases studied by the group in the past year.

At the next step, the group was asked for the number of psychological reports written that concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to curriculum factors. The answer was usually none. All cases out of 5,000 examined confirmed that their schools somehow had been fortunate enough to have adopted only the most effective basal curricula.

When asked for the number of reports that concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to inappropriate teaching practices, the answer also was none. All cases out of 5,000 examined proved that their districts had been fortunate enough to have hired only the most skilled, dedicated, and best prepared teachers in the land.

When asked how many reports concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to school administrative factors, the answer again was none. All cases out of 5,000 examined demonstrated that their districts had hired and retained only the nation's very best and brightest school administrators.

When asked how many reports concluded that parent and home factors were primarily responsible for the referred problem, the answer ranged from 500 to 1,000 (10% to 20%). These positive findings indicated that we were finally getting close to the source of educational problems in their schools. Some children just don't have parents who are smart, competent, or properly motivated to help their children do well in school.

Finally, I asked how many reports concluded that child factors were primarily responsible for the referred problem. The answer was 100%. These 5,000 positive findings uncovered the true weak link in the educational process in these districts: the children themselves. If only these districts had better functioning children with a few more supportive parents, there would be no educational difficulties.

As an addendum, I offered informal data collected in local Individual Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) meetings that suggest that family factors are invoked most often when the parent does not attend the meeting or if the parent is involved in a way deemed inappropriate by the school staff. Otherwise, child factors alone seem to carry the explanatory burden for school learning and behavior problems.

One does not need complex statistical analyses to know that these results are significant beyond the .0000001 level. The set of all cases studied by these school psychologists comprises a needs assessment for their districts. And, the results indicate clearly no need to improve curricula, teaching practices, nor school administrative practices and management. The only needs involve somehow improving the stock of children enrolled in the system, and some of their parents. But, it is equally unclear how school psychologists can help resolve this kind of problem. School psychologists seem to define school problems in ways that cannot be resolved.

At this time, of course, many psychologists raise their hands to protest that all five areas are indeed responsible for problems in cases they have studied, but that informal school policy (or "school culture") dictates that conclusions be restricted to child and family factors. Many feel that they could lose their jobs were they to invoke school-related factors. Certainly, they claim, their professional lives would be made very uncomfortable. Others note that not all evaluations determine that serious problems exist. But the fact remains that no school psychologist in the group had determined that any existing problems were due to school-related factors.

School psychologists, however, appear to have come by their child-as-the-problem biases quite honestly. The bias trail leads back to graduate training programs. Graduate core requirements in school psychology programs usually focus on child factors to the virtual exclusion of school-related factors. Workshop and paper presentations at school psychology conferences share the same restricted focus. Articles in the leading journals focus on child factors.

Textbooks also stipulate the child-as-the-problem bias. An informal survey of a few widely adopted texts on diagnosing reading problems yields the following results. Sources are not referenced out of respect for the authors, but the reader can find similar results by quickly surveying texts off the shelf. The first text devotes 4 pages (7% of total coverage) to school factors related to reading problems, 2 (3%) pages to home factors, and the remaining 55 pages (90%) to child factors. The second text devotes 1 page (4% of total coverage) to school factors related to reading problems, 0 (end p. 149) pages to home factors, and 22 pages (96%) to child factors. A third text devotes 0 pages to school factors related to reading problems, 0 pages to home factors, and 250 pages (100%) to child factors. A fourth text devotes 10 pages (4% of total coverage) to school factors related to reading problems, 9 pages (3%) to home factors, and 237 pages (93%) to child factors. The classic book on reading disability edited by Money (1962) does not include chapters addressing school or home factors related to reading problems. All chapters focus on child factors.

There are isolated and recent exceptions to this long-standing bias. Carnine and Silbert's (1979) reading text devotes almost no space to the discussions of child factors (other than pres kills) and close to 100% of coverage to school-related factors (teaching and instructional management). The Silbert, Carnine, and Stein (1981) mathematics text follows this same general formula.

The widely adopted textbooks, however, also may have come by the childas-the-problem bias honestly. Texts cannot review school factors unless researchers select those kinds of factors to study. Perhaps the proportions of pages included in these texts represent fairly the amount of research available in each respective area.

A comprehensive review by Arter and Jenkins (1979) of process models for explaining and treating learning problems indicates how extensively the childas-the-problem bias pervades our research and practice. The continued wide use of such process models, in spite of clear evidence that they not only are invalid but also ineffective, indicates the persistence with which such biases are held. Coles (1978) presented an extensive review of the research on learning disabilities. He noted with some surprise that of the approximately 1,000 studies reviewed, not one examined the relation between school factors and learning disabilities. Most studies examined child factors, some home factors, and a few both child and home factors. Coles suggested that such an extensive research literature focusing on child and home factors, to the exclusion of school factors, could be interpreted as pointing to some kind of conspiracy by researchers against examining school factors as they relate to school learning problems.

Educational researchers, however, also may have come by the child-as-the-problem bias honestly. Perhaps school administrators (or teacher unions) are reluctant to permit researchers to study school factors as they relate to learning and behavior problems. Perhaps researchers are only approved for projects that focus on child and home factors. Reports from school psychologists in the informal surveys just cited seem to support this interpretation.

Recently, however, educational researchers have produced very valuable data on school factors and learning (cf. Becker, 1986; Brookover et aI., 1982; Carnine 1978; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). As this body of research grows, school psychologists will increasingly face the burden of deciding whether they work for the schools or for the children, in cases where the interests clash.

We end with a discussion of the ethical burdens on school psychologists to be forthright and honest when reporting their findings. Are we really helping children by concluding that children alone are responsible for educational problems? Are we helping the school system at the expense of the children? How do we balance the rights of those who pay for our services against the rights of those who receive our services, when interests clash? Is the role of the school psychologist to label children to help schools avoid improving faulty educational practices, or to help schools improve faulty educational practices to avoid labeling children?

In this social context, I think Joel Meyers's proposed model will benefit school psychology if the ecological and systemic aspects are embraced. I think it will be transformed into "old wine in new bottles" if emphasis is refocused exclusively on the individually centered aspects (e.g., cognitive factors).


REFERENCES
Alessi, G. J., & Kaye, 1. G. (1983). Behavioral assessment for school psychologists. Stratford, CT: National Association of School Psychologists Publications.
Arter, 1., & Jenkins, 1. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517-555.
Ashlock, R. (1986). Error patterns in computation: A semi-programmed approach (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Becker, W. (1986). Applied psychology for teachers: A behavioral cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
Brookover, W., Beamer, L., Efthim, H., Hathaway, D., Lezotte, L., Miller, S., Passalacqua, J., & Tornatzky, L. (1982). Creating effective schools: An inservice program for enhancing school learning climate and achievement. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
Carnine, D. (1978). Analysis of achievement data on six cohorts of low-income children from 20 school districts in the University of Oregon Direct Instruction Model: Appendix A, formative research studies on direct instruction. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Follow Through Project.
Carnine, D., & Silbert, 1. (1979). Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Coles, G. (1978). The learning disabilities test battery: Empirical and social issues. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 313-340.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.
Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Money, J. (1962). Reading disability: Progress and research needs in dyslexia. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Monteiro, M., & Heiry, T. (1983). A direct instruction supervision model. Direct Instruction News, 2, 8-9.
Paine, S., Radicchi, 1., Rosellini, L., Deutchman, L., & Darch, C. (1983). Structuring your classroom for academic success. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1981). Direct instruction mathematics. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Sprick, R. (1985). Discipline in the secondary classroom: A problem-by-problem survival guide. West Nyack, NY: Center for Applied Research in Education.
Ysseldyke, 1., & Christenson, S. (1987). TIES: The Instructional Environment Scale. Austin, TX: PRO:ED.

Received April 9, 1987 Final Acceptance April 13, 1987

Requests for reprints should be sent to Galen Alessi, Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology, Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY, 3(2),145-151 Copyright @ 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 148 – 151

Siegfried Engelmann on Galen Alessi (short)
Siegfried Engelmann on Galen Alessi (longer)
Engelmann on inputs versus outputs
Mothers from Hell 2

Open Letter from John Dewey

For those who do not know me, I am a parent and deeply concerned with the poor state of education in the U.S. I write under the name of John Dewey in order to prevent retribution for what I say about the things I see wrong.

The Langley High School in McLean, Virginia is –according to the Newsweek ranking of U.S. high schools—number 55 in the country, and the highest ranked of high schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. A new principal, Matthew Ragone, just took over this fall, and as part of his introduction to the parents of Langley students, he wrote a piece in the PTSA newsletter. My wife and I read what he wrote on separate occasions, and later we both talked about two paragraphs in the piece that we found disturbing. He was talking about issues that the department chairs are working on:

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

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

Reading this, I was reminded of my first year in high school when my high school counselor addressed her new charges by telling us that we were going to be shocked out of our minds come first card-marking when we saw the D's and F's on our report cards. I admit to being shocked first card-marking, when I received 3 A's and a B. Luckily for all of us, this loud-mouthed idiot was not a teacher nor an administrator. The rest of the school was quite good and I was fortunate to have had teachers who really worked to make sure their students learned, and an administration that supported their efforts. In the case of the new principal, he is the new principal. The man in charge, the one who sets the tone. And his message is rather clear. One can read "middle child" as someone in the broad expanse of the bell curve representing the middle. Those familiar with bell curves know that this middle is encompasses a rather large area. Langley follows a pattern of high schools in the US which cater to the elite; i.e., the right hand tail of the bell curve. They let the minority top performers define their school, and for all the others it's sink or swim. Translating his message in even blunter language, he is saying "Your kid is going to be miserable at Langley." He tries to soften this message by saying "I'm not sure what to do about it but we're discussing it." Oh gee, I feel better already.

I showed his message to the chair of a math department at a high school in Iowa.Her reaction was as follows:

"I absolutely abhor such generalizations as that given in your note about the middle child! To me, that is no different than generalizing by race, gender, etc. I am appalled that this was coming from a PSTA newsletter, and I would complain big time. As a department chair, there is no way I would ever agree to even discuss such a ridiculous topic, because I have far more important topics to worry about regarding student achievement! Our school has many high achieving students, but there is no way I would ever try to communicate to anyone that his/her child won't cut it in this environment or even that (s)he would struggle. I prefer to communicate on the positive side, and lay out expectations rather than negatives, and also indicate a supportive tone, not a belittling tone."

To that end, here is some advice to Mr. Ragone if in fact he is looking for any, or even condescending to be. Your message should be "There are no middle children here. Every child matters; every child is as important as the next." And you should mean it. You should provide a culture in which students who aren't getting the material are identified and the school works with them after school or in special sessions to make sure they understand. Students should be encouraged to try out for sports. And really, Mr. Ragone, stop requiring try-outs and three weeks of practice in August when most rational families are trying to get away for a vacation.

My experience tells me that Mr. Ragone is not going to be persuaded to change one thing about Langley except perhaps to make things even more competitive, reduce the number of top performers, and make the middle of the bell curve even larger. Isn't that the name of the game in the "winner takes all" environment that passes for high quality education these days?

From the bottom of my heart, and the middle of the bell curve, I remain

Faithfully yours,

John Dewey

John Dewey is a pseudonym for a concerned parent who, like many parents, knows the difference between good and bad educational practices when he sees it. And like many parents, he is protective of his child of potential retribution for speaking out against bad practices, and thus chooses to write under a pseudonym.

Published September 11, 2008

Open Letter from John Dewey to the Principal of Langley High School, McLean, Virginia

Number one: parents should assume that their children may be retaliated against by school personnel if they dissent. It happens.

Number two: Perhaps I'll lodge a complaint with Mr. Rangone myself! After all, there is nothing he can do to my kid, now safely squirreled away at Hogwarts.

Speaking of Hogwarts -- and of my own local high school, as well -- it is simply false that the vast majority of kids enrolled in a high-ranking, competitive high school "don't enjoy the prospect of coming to school," etc. It's not the case in my local high school, and it is not the case at the new school, either. Both schools are happy places, and both schools are filled with talented and competitive students.

At a minimum, what it takes to create a happy atmosphere inside a competitive school is a highly competent leader who knows what he or she is doing. Yes, indeed, the person at the top sets the tone. A new principal who takes it for granted that the "middle" students will be miserable and promises to ask the PTSA for advice is probably not that person.

As to that, I think I'm learning something about how happy schools work.

More later.

A Barrier to Academic Achievement: Difficulty with Handwriting, and a Solution

According to a recent study, somewhere between 10% to 30% of children have difficulty learning to produce rapid, legible hand-written work(1). Handwriting difficulty is often linked with other problems such as attention deficit disorder. Poor quality of handwriting of children with handwriting problems seems particularly related to a deficiency in visual-motor integration. (2)

Children who do not acquire fluent, legible handwriting in the early years often experience far-reaching negative effects on both academic success and self-esteem.(1)

“Handwriting is one of the basic building blocks of good writing and plays a critical role in learning,” Graham, Currey Ingram Professor of Special Education at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College, said. “Young children who have difficulty mastering this skill often avoid writing and their writing development may be arrested. They also may have trouble taking notes and following along in class, which will further impede their development.”

There are three possible sources of children developing handwriting difficulties: a problem with the child, a problem with the teacher, or a problem with the curricula (and related materials).

In " How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey",(3) the authors found that

Nine out of every ten teachers indicated that they taught handwriting, averaging 70 minutes of instruction per week. Only 12% of teachers, however, indicated that the education courses taken in college adequately prepared them to teach handwriting. Despite this lack of formal preparation, the majority of teachers used a variety of recommended instructional practices for teaching handwriting. The application of such practices, though, was applied unevenly, raising concerns about the quality of handwriting instruction for all children.

In a less-formal presentation of the national study data, Steve Graham is intereviewed:

Graham suggests that a return to consistent handwriting instruction, with an understanding of the challenges different children face, would not only result in more legible papers but also support overall learning across subjects.

“Teachers need to continue to teach their students how to properly form and join letters. We found that this sort of instruction takes place for 10 minutes or less a day in most schools, down from two hours a week in the 1950s,” Graham said. “At home, there are many things that parents can do to help their young children improve their penmanship. Activities such as identifying and tracing letters, forming letters from memory, copying words and playing timed games to see how quickly they can accurately produce written letters and words all go toward building this skill.”

There are two common handwriting approaches or curricula used in U.S. schools--one: traditional, based on the Palmer method, and two: "italicized" -- more flowing. The most popular of the former is Zaner-Bloser and the most popular of the latter is d'Nealian (developed by Donald Thurber).

There is very little research on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of each approach.

There is, however, a third way: Handwriting Without Tears.

I spent Friday and Saturday at a Handwriting Without Tears seminar. Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) was created in the 1970s by an occupational therapist as a remedial program, and over the decades, has grown into (1) a pre-K through 5th grade classroom curriculum and (2) a remedial program..

It works as a classroom curriculum because the letters are taught in logical order, the letter formation skills are taught to mastery, and the curriculum uses multisensory methods. The teacher watches for, and immediately corrects, errors in letter formation, and the curriculum includes frequent "Review and Mastery" opportunities.

It works as a remedial program because HWR's authors have structured remediation in small, precise steps.

I highly recommend Handwriting Without Tears.


1. Feder KP, Majnemer A. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007 Apr;49(4):312-7.
2. Volman MJ, van Schendel BM, Jongmans MJ. Am J Occup Ther. 2006 Jul-Aug;60(4):451-60.
3. Graham S, Harris KR, Mason L, Fink-Chorzempa B, Moran S, Saddler B Reading and Writing 2008 21(1-2):49-69.

Elsewhere:

Handwriting Key to Learming, Newsweek, November 12 2007

LD Podcast: Dr. Steve Graham on writing development.

Interview with Steve Graham

Previous KTM Posts referencing Handwriting
Somewhere in a Well to Do District

Learning in a Castle of Fear

Speed Test

l squared on "collect and correct"

I teach college, so I feel a little as though I shouldn't have to collect homework...but, of course, I do. If you don't collect it, they don't do it. Collecting the homework may be the single most effective thing I do to improve student learning. I don't check all the problems, just 2-4 representative ones, but it still makes a big difference.

Steve H on collecting and correcting

bring back self esteem

I've mentioned a couple of times that I regret the fact that "character education" has replaced "self-esteem" as the psychosocial focus of public schools.

Of course, I have to assume that in practice any given school's definition of "high self esteem" may have been "self esteem on our terms," which in turn probably meant low self esteem, not high. But I still prefer self-esteem to character as a school's guiding principle.

Character education, in my experience, has been quite punitive. It almost has to be given its premise, which is that the character students have developed at home needs improvement -- and that the character of school personnel doesn't.

This is where the Bible has it right.

I'm not crazy about the notion of children as inherently more flawed than grownups to tell the truth. Very young children possesss all kinds of sweet, altruistic impulses along with the usual obnoxious impulses. Rightly or wrongly, I tend to see kids as innately good in a fundamental sense.

I'd like my kids to attend a school in which administrators, teachers, and support staff feel the same.


middle school and depression

Which brings me to middle school.

The difference between a middle school and a junior high, we have repeatedly been told, is that middle school "educates the whole child."

What does that mean?

It means, first of all, that academics often take a back seat to "character" education activities. Middle school kids here are required to attend a character ed assembly each and every month; to my knowledge the school has never, not once in 2 1/2 years, staged an assembly devoted to an academic or intellectual topic. Ed, reading Martin J. Wiener's English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850-1980 last summer, wondered whether character education is always be opposed to academics. I think it may be.

Beyond this, I am coming to feel that character education, as implemented by so many of our public schools, is incompatible with the creation of a positive school environment. You don't hear Karen Pryor talking about "bad" horses and "bad" dogs -- quite the opposite. Pryor's view of dog aggression is: "It's just a behavior!"

Middle school kids would be far better off if middle school behaviors like not knowing how to keep track of 6 or 7 different courses at the same time were not viewed not as a sign of poor character.

Disorganization is just a behavior is a far more humane way to understand a spacy 11-year old. Giving a 6th grader an "F" on his notebook for disorganization strikes me as bad for the 6th grader.

Little did I know that middle schools crop up in research on the development of depression in adolescence as a contributing factor:

…evidence has accumulated to suggest that, in addition to the family influences just described, schools and neighborhoods contribute to patterns of academic and psychological adjustment, especially during the transition from elementary to middle schools (National Research Council, 1993). Therefore, the school environment is likely to be implicated in the development of depression. This view is corroborated, at least partially, by the fact that certain forms of psychological distress, including depressive symptoms, increase during the middleschool years. Perceptions of being academically competent and receiving good grades have been linked with a reduced risk for emotional and behavioral difficulties, whereas low perceived academic competence is related to depressive symptoms in children (Blechman, McEnroe, Carella, & Audette, 1986; Cole, 1991). Moreover, adolescents who do not feel a connection with school may be more likely to engage in antisocial activities and substance abuse in efforts to boost their self-esteem and sense of belonging (Rosenberg, Schooler, & Schoenbach, 1989). In general, it has become increasingly clear that problems of academic alienation, poor school performance, and minor delinquency that become more prominent in early adolescence are linked to negative mental health problems such as depression that are manifested later in adolescence (Eccles, Lord, & Roeser, 1996). Such negative outcomes have been related to diminished support for the development of competence, for feelings of belongingness, and for autonomy promotion characteristic of elementary school, but not of middle-school, environments (Higgins & Parsons, 1983). Evidence such as this suggests that the failure of the school environment to facilitate development as children progress into middle schools may contribute to motivational and mental health problems. Inappropriate school environments during early adolescence can place many young people at risk for the negative trajectories that some lives take, including alienation from prosocial activities and peers, depression, and involvement in antisocial pursuits. Importantly, positive adjustment to school, including academic engagement and achievement, is likely to serve as a protective factor against negative mental health outcomes (Eccles et al., 1996).

source:
The Development of Depression in Children and Adolescents
Dante Cicchetti and Sheree L. Toth
February 1998
American Psychologist
Vol. 53, No. 2, 221-241

Blechman, E.A., McEnroe, M.J., Carella, E.T., & Audette, D.P. (1986). Childhood competence and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 223-227.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Roeser, R.W. (1996). Round holes, square pegs, rocky roads, and sore feet: A discussion of stage-environment fit theory applied to families and school. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Volume 7. Adolescence: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 47-92). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Higgins, E. T., & Parsons, J. E. (1983). Social cognition and the social life of the child: Stages as subculture. In E. T. Higgins, D. W. Ruble, & W, W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social behavior: Developmental issues (pp. 15-62). New York: Cambridge University Press.

National Research Council. (1993). Losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54, 1004-1018.

I have more than once seen the "transition" to middle school cited as a source of profound stress in the lives of young adolescents. Typically researchers and authors seem simply to assume that "transition" from one school to another per se is the source of difficulty.

I am coming to think that the middle school model in and of itself, its core assumptions, is bad for children -- bad, or at least not good. When you assume that other people's children universally require substantial character education, how reinforcing can you be?

The Teacher Who Couldn't Read

Retired Teacher Reveals He Was Illiterate Until Age 48

"I can remember when I was eight years old saying my prayers at night saying, 'please, God, tomorrow when it's my turn to read please let me read.' You just pretend that you are invisible and when the teacher says, 'Johnnie read,' you just wait the teacher out because you know the teacher has to go away at some point," said Corcoran.

Corcoran eventually started acting up to hide his illiteracy. From fifth through seventh grade he was expelled, suspended and spent most of his days at the principal's office.

The former teacher said he came from a loving family that always supported him.

"My parents came to school and it no longer was a problem for me reading because this boy Johnnie -- the native alien, I call him -- he didn't have a reading problem as far as the teachers were concerned. He had an emotional problem. He had a psychological problem. He had a behavioral problem," said Corcoran.

The further you go in the public schools the more clearly you see the profound destructiveness of a massive, half-trillion dollar institution^* in which the employees cannot be wrong ever.

This is something I've been thinking about lately.

What happens to business and professional relationships, friendships, and marriages in which one party can't be wrong ever?

How productive and satisfying are business and professional relationships, friendships, and marriages in which one party is always, by definition, to blame for problems?

thought experiment:

Suppose someone handed you a magic wand that, when you waved it, would make just one change in the schools.

Suppose you decided that your one change would be to turn all the zeroes in Galen Alessi's survey of school psychologists into positive numbers significantly larger than the number one.

Would things be better?

I don't know what to think about that.

On one hand, Alessi's psychologists were diagnosing individual children; they were blaming individual children, by name, for their failures to learn or to behave. To stop doing that would be a radical step. I hope I live to see the day when a school psychologist's report says, "There's nothing wrong with this kid that a decent math curriculum wouldn't fix."

At the same time, our schools have been churning innovations for at least a century, often in the name of reform. The fact that our schools have apparently been in need of so much reform for lo these many years hasn't led to much in the way of a self-critical stance.

At some point shouldn't the ed schools just give up?

"Damn! We've been at this for a hundred years and we still haven't got it right. Let's say we get into another line of business."

Vicki Snider is right. We need a science of teaching. We also need school boards, administrators, and teachers who want a science of teaching. That's a trickier proposition.

Here is Corcoran's foundation.


^* Current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education totaled $424.6 billion in FY 05, with $280.0 billion (65.9 percent) spent on instruction and instruction-related activities, $22.1 billion (5.2 percent) on student support services, $46.8 billion (11.0 percent) on administration, and $75.7 billion (17.8 percent) Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2004-05 (Fiscal Year 2005)

Steve on teachers, homework, and Extra Help

"I check to make sure they made the effort and tried the assignment while they check their answers, and we go over every single problem that is asked."

Do you collect the homework? You should. I did. I didn't grade each problem, but I saw what the issues were myself on a daily basis and I gave each homework a check/plus/minus effort grade. If you don't collect the homework and grade it somehow, then students don't have any incentive to do it in the first place. When I went over problems in class, I didn't have to rely on students to ask questions. Few do.


"How can you assume that it's a "teacher problem" when something isn't understood in class?"

How can you, the professional, assume that it isn't when you rely on the kids to tell you if there is a problem. You see and grade the tests. What do you do if students have major issues? By the time you get to a test, it's really difficult to go back and fix things. Perhaps eliminating homework and giving weekly quizzes would work better. Something other than monthly tests needs to push the students and inform the teacher about what is going on.

High school kids should take more responsibility, but you can't use that as a prerequisite for a good education. You have to try to structure things to prevent failure, not just leave it up to the kids.

Many students would NEVER come to my office hours. I never threw that back at them. I tried to think of ways to make it unnecessary for them to need extra help. Students hate going for extra help. It's a last resort. By then, the problem is really bad. A large use of extra help by many students implies that there is something fundamental going wrong, and it can't be blamed on the students.

Steve is on a roll today.

Having just finished Karen Pryor's Don't Shoot the Dog - a life-altering book - I've been thinking about this issue here at home.

We were reaching - had reached - the point at which I was using "aversives" to compel C. to get things done.

Of course I learned years ago, from behaviorists who taught us techniques for raising autistic kids, that aversives aren't very effective. Pryor goes further. Pryor argues, rightly I believe, that negatives have negative side effects.

A "negative reinforcer," by the way, increases the likelihood that a particular behavior will be repeated in the future. That's why it's called a "reinforcer," and that's what makes it different from a punishment. A punishment doesn't increase the likelihood of the punished behavior occurring in the future.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), punishers also don't particularly decrease the likelihood of the behavior occurring again. Behaviorists universally seem to think that punishing bad behavior just is not an effective means of getting people to straighten up and fly right.

In theory, a negative reinforcer should be no different from a positive reinforcer; in both cases the behavior being reinforced is likely to be repeated. Thus doing your math homework to get a good grade should be no different from doing your math homework to avoid getting a bad grade.

But in reality, negative reinforcement has side effects. This is Pryor's view; I don't think this is a consensus view in the field. Pryor is a researcher and a trainer. Her many years of animal training have made her an advocate of the exclusive use of positive reinforcement.

More on side effects later.

Everything Steve has said in his comments thus far could have been written by Pryor. I think.

Here at home, I've been working on increasing positive reinforcement while reducing negative reinforcement and punishment.

Pryor is right: positives work far better than negatives.

Why is it so much more difficult to use them, I wonder?

Steve H on collecting & correcting

"He needs to collect and correct the homework and have them re-do the problems they missed. That's what works."

I agree 100%. It's astounding that math teachers don't collect homework. It's lazy and THEY KNOW they should do it. Waiting for the test to figure out what areas need work is TOO LATE! I ALWAYS collected and went over each paper carefully. I would give a check plus, a check, or a check minus for each homework based on effort. But it was MY job to see what the issues were each day. I would then be prepared to make the most of the time allocated for reviewing the homework. I would NEVER just "go over" the homework. That's lazy teaching. I don't care how many problems that adds up to. That's their job!!!!


"...the onus falls upon him or her to 'seek extra help.'"

OK. Mark the problems you get wrong on the homework and ask for extra help. Does the school require the teacher to provide extra help after school? Does some other group or person do the job? I can't imagine (probably I'm wrong) that the school would allow a teacher to avoid providing extra help, but then make big bucks tutoring. That's unethical.

I suppose that if you pay for tutoring it's OK, but if you ask for too much free "extra help" that means you shouldn't be in the class.

Generally, I didn't like to call students up to the board. It is extrordinarily stressful for many students and it takes time. It would be nice to have some mechanism to get them to prepare more each day, but I liked to give weekly quick quizzes. Students pay attention to quizzes much more than homework.

I never thought of my (college) classes as a tool to build character, love of learning, or to develop their self-learning skills. My goal was to get them to learn the material as easily as possible. It wasn't a game. There were no trick questions. If I wanted them to know something, I would teach it to them and they would see it in their homework. I would cover the material in class, they would do it for homework, I would collect and grade the homework, I would review the problems in the NEXT class, they knew my office hours, and I tested them on exactly what was in the homework. I told them that I was on their side and that I wanted them to succeed.

All teachers should be required to provide "office" hours for extra help. Our school has a "late bus" that leaves one hour later. Children can tell their parents that they will take the late bus and go for extra help. It's quick and simple, with no complex need to arrange something. I had certain students coming in all of the time for extra help. It was no big deal.

I am now extremely skeptical of Extra Help because of our experience here: a public school district in which the provision of Extra Help (specified in the union contract no doubt) is viewed as the solution to all teaching and learning problems across the board.

Extra Help, at the middle school (and the high school, I gather), is the answer. If the student "doesn't understand," he must be "proactive in seeking extra help." It's up to him.

The school, however, apparently does not need to be proactive in improving classroom instruction.

No word on what happens when the student dutifully shows up for Extra Help and still doesn't understand. Apparently the reasoning is that while classroom instruction leaves students not understanding material, Extra Help is 100% effective.


the teacher is great; school culture is not

C's teacher this year is terrific: C. is actually making up for lost time, I think, and that is extraordinary. I'm in a position to know just how difficult it is to regain lost ground because I accelerated C. nearly 3 years ago when I decided he should be in a position to take algebra in 8th grade. It is very difficult - and to do it in a classroom setting is miraculous.

What makes this teacher so good, I think, are 3 things:

• he's a positive, upbeat guy who has terrific rapport with the kids: they are learning in an "emotionally safe" environment
  
• his classroom presentations are probably very good (haven't seen one, but that's the impression I get from C.)
• his homework assignments are brilliant - every homework assignment is "shuffled"; every assignment includes problems from many previous lessons; no skill left behind!
  

Given the way this year is going, I am extremely glad we hung in there.

C. is learning and he's learning well.

BUT he wouldn't be learning if I weren't collecting and correcting the homework. I am functioning as the course T.A. The math chair, in issuing her no answers for parents edict, has gone out of her way to make it as difficult as possible for me to do what I need to do to make sure my kid learns math.

The school needs to establish a policy that homework is collected and corrected, and if the school is not going to do that, the school needs to make it possible for parents to perform this function.


in the TIMES

Every advertisement my district runs in the TIMES employment section sports the following boilerplate:

We are seeking highly qualified, professional educators to join this outstanding and innovative district in southern Westchester....the Irvington School District is committed to excellence for ALL students, welcoming parental involvement, and dedicated to ongoing professional development.

help desk - percent change

from Glencoe Algebra, page 163:

46.
China has a population of 1.24 billion in 1997, with a projected increase in population of 22.6% for 2050.
What is the population of China projected to be in 2050?

India has a population of 0.97 billion in 1997, with a projected increase in population of 57.8% for 2050.
What is the population of China projected to be in 2050?

The US has a population of 0.27 billion in 1997, with a projected increase in population of 44.4% for 2050.
What is the population of US projected to be in 2050?

47. Which of these three countries is projected to be the most populous in 2050?

I assume that I know how to do these problems, but I'd appreciate an answer check if anyone has the time or inclination. Seeing as how I don't have the answer key.

The fact that I am asking this question on a blog is further evidence of the ineffective pedagogical practices employed by my school district (per pupil funding: $22,000/yr).

C. worked this problem in a homework set a couple of days ago.

Or, rather, he attempted to work this problem.

The next day, the teacher sent around a student monitor to mark down whether the kids had or had not done their homework. I assume everyone got credit for having done the homework, since the kids who haven't done it just write a different date on an old assignment and the student monitor gives them credit.

Then the teacher went over the homework in class.

So.

My child has attempted to do this problem.

He has seen the problem "gone over" in class.

He still can't do the problem -- and until last night, when I had him attempt to do the problem in front of me, he didn't know that he couldn't do the problem. He followed the demonstration in class, or thought he did, and thus felt no need to "seek extra help."

The fact that he was not "proactive in seeking extra help" is viewed by our teachers and administrators alike as a character flaw, a sign of immaturity or both.

It is not viewed as a sign of ineffective teaching.

Where is Galen Alessi when we need him?

on a certain arrogance, part 2

A couple of years ago I posted this passage from Siegfried Engelmann's The War Against the Schools’ Academic Child Abuse summarizing Galen Alessi's classic study of school psychologists:

I didn't post the full passage, however, which I re-read last night. The full passage has to do with arrogance. Seeing as how Concerned has raised the subject, I thought I'd chime in:

Diagnosis Diagnosed: A Systemic Reaction, Professional School Psychology, 3 (2), 145-151


Galen Alessi wrote an article in 1988 in which he diagnosed diagnosis. He asked 50 school psychologists to indicate how many cases they referred during the year. The average was about 100 per psychologist; so the group provided information on about 5000 kids. Alessi next tried to determine the different causes of the kid's learning problems. How many of the kids had the learning problem because of inappropriate curriculum? How many had learning problems because of poor teaching, or because of school administration problems? How many kids had problems because of home problems, or because there was some defect in the kid?

The percentages came out something like this:

• The curriculum caused 0% of the referred problems:

• The teaching practices caused 0% of the referred problems;

• The school administration caused 0% of the referred problems;

• The home environment caused 10-20% of the referred problems;

• The child caused 100% of the referred problems.

The results tend to leave little doubt about whether the school psychologists work for the schools or the children. It further leaves no doubt that the sorting machine is alive and well. Consider the presumed infallibility of the schools suggested by this outcome. Not one of 5000 failures is presumed to be caused by school practices.

[snip]

The arrogance of many administrators is not apparent in their personality. They may appear thoughtful, concerned, and open to suggestions. Their arrogance is in their decisions and their actions. Their actions reflect a fundamental lack of important values. Galen Alessi alluded to the problem with school psychologists: “Mere logic and research data will not change the role of school psychology, because the problem is not one of science but of values.”

Source: War Against the Schools’ Academic Child Abuse by Siegfried Engelmann, page 65-6

I hadn't thought about the arrogance this betrays.

100% infallibility!

The schools involved in this study have never, in 5000 cases of school failure, been at fault. Perfection has been achieved.

Years ago, when C. was first in school, I noticed that our district never admitted error. Ever. Not admitting error was a principle.

Very often, though, when a problem was brought to someone's attention, the school would publicly deny it but then privately fix it. I always thought that was fine. The school was responsive in its way.

Today, given what we've seen in the middle school, I've changed my view. Schools need formal, public mechanisms for identifying error, admitting error, and working with parents and students to remediate errors in teaching, curriculum, and/or administration.

I think I've mentioned my friend who sends her children to a private school down south a ways. The school gives the kids standardized tests 4 times a year, then meets with parents to go over the results. If a student has fallen behind in an area the school tells his parents why they believe this has occurred.

This means telling parents whether or not other students have been having the same problem.

If a child is the only one having a problem (this will be a true statement as opposed to the non-true statement that is routinely made or implied to parents in public schools), the school says so and tells the child's parents what steps the school is taking to bring him or her back up to speed. I remember one spring my friend's older child had lagged in usage of personal pronouns. This was a bright and capable child, so the school gave the family a packet of worksheets for their child to do over the summer. They said that was all it would take, and that was all it took.

If all of the kids, or a large portion of them, have fallen off the track in a particular area the school says so and explains what they are doing to bring everyone back up to speed.

All schools should function this way.

If a student is having a problem the school should:

• know the child is having a problem
  
• remediate the problem at once
  
• analyze the situation to see why the problem developed
  

That is not what happens in public schools.

Instead, in public schools the child develops a problem and the teacher grades his work accordingly. Parents find out when the report card comes home. If the district sends out Interim Reports parents can get the bad news sooner instead of later.

And that is that.

If the parents care to contact the teacher or the school, fine. If not, that's fine, too.

In either case, the solution will be Extra Help, which the child and/or the parent will be responsible for "seeking."

If Extra Help doesn't work, there's nothing more to say.



Galen Alessi on the odds

First, the psychologists were asked whether all agreed that each of the just-mentioned, five factors may play a primary role in a given school learning or behavior problem. They almost always agreed. Next, they were asked for the number of cases each had examined in the past year to determine the source of learning problems. The answer was usually about 120. Using 100 as a round number, multiplied by the group size of 50, yields about 5,000 cases studied by the group in the past year.

At the next step, the group was asked for the number of psychological reports written that concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to curriculum factors. The answer was usually none. All cases out of 5,000 examined confirmed that their schools somehow had been fortunate enough to have adopted only the most effective basal curricula.

When asked for the number of reports that concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to inappropriate teaching practices, the answer also was none. All cases out of 5,000 examined proved that their districts had been fortunate enough to have hired only the most skilled, dedicated, and best prepared teachers in the land.

When asked how many reports concluded that the referred problem was due primarily to school administrative factors, the answer again was none. All cases out of 5,000 examined demonstrated that their districts had hired and retained only the nation's very best and brightest school administrators.

When asked how many reports concluded that parent and home factors were primarily responsible for the referred problem, the answer ranged from 500 to 1,000 (10% to 20%). These positive findings indicated that we were finally getting close to the source of educational problems in their schools. Some children just don't have parents who are smart, competent, or properly motivated to help their children do well in school.

Finally, I asked how many reports concluded that child factors were primarily responsible for the referred problem. The answer was 100%. These 5,000 positive findings uncovered the true weak link in the educational process in these districts: the children themselves. If only these districts had better functioning children with a few more supportive parents, there would be no educational difficulties.

As an addendum, I offered informal data collected in local Individual Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) meetings that suggest that family factors are invoked most often when the parent does not attend the meeting or if the parent is involved in a way deemed inappropriate by the school staff. Otherwise, child factors alone seem to carry the explanatory burden for school learning and behavior problems.

One does not need complex statistical analyses to know that these results are significant beyond the .0000001 level. The set of all cases studied by these school psychologists comprises a needs assessment for their districts. And, the results indicate clearly no need to improve curricula, teaching practices, nor school administrative practices and management. The only needs involve somehow improving the stock of children enrolled in the system, and some of their parents. But, it is equally unclear how school psychologists can help resolve this kind of problem. School psychologists seem to define school problems in ways that cannot be resolved.

Wait!

I know the answer to that!

Extra Help.

.............................

Until schools agree to connect teaching with achievement -- inputs with outputs -- and to do so publicly, matters will not improve.