I
read an article in the Denver Post entitled “Advocate for your child withinschool systems.” The article reports one parent’s experience with a child who
has ADHD and the difficulties she had over her first ten years of education. The
parent then came across a brochure, “My Child Hates School … and I Do, Too.” I don’t
have a copy of that brochure but it appears that this parent finally learned
that while the school was not providing accommodations, her child could have protections
based on this developmental disability.
I
think all parents should have this information, but I also think that it is
critical that we go further and understand what protections help and are
actually needed.
For
the most part, protections come in the form of a 504 or IEP. They can only
consist of provisions and accommodations of which the school is aware.
Considering the 504 plans I’ve reviewed, it appears to me that they mostly
consist of good teaching practices, which should be used for all students, and
a few specific ones for the ADHD child – e.g. extra time, preferential seating,
tape recording, hard copy instructions. I have yet to see a 504 plan that
includes homework relief.
Without
homework relief, the 504 will be highly ineffective for the child with ADHD.
That child may or may not be medicated. Either way, the child will be
struggling to hold it together through the full school day. That child needs
relief, not more work, when he or she gets home. That child does not need extra
medication since it will invariably interfere with appetite and sleep. That
child needs to play, to burn off steam, and to get refueled through a peaceful
home that offers respite and relief.
The
problem with more time is that it is absolutely meaningless as an accommodation
at home. At school, more time is actually redistributed time within a fixed
school day. The child may go to school from 9 to 3. If he or she spends an
extra 15 minutes completing a worksheet or test, that is 15 minutes less of other
things to do. If the student takes the SAT, it is not a problem to stay into
the afternoon to finish a test one Saturday of the year.
But
where does the extra 15 minutes, or ½ hour, or couple of hours come from when
the assignment is sent home? Maybe extra time means no penalty for handing the
assignment in a few days late. But as long as the assignments keep piling up,
there is no true accommodation at all.
My
general formula for homework trapped children involves time bound homework. For
children with ADHD, I strongly recommend an even shorter period of time.
When
you go for your 504, keep this formula in mind. More time at school; less work
at home.
There is story today that is making the news cycle that is
worth taking note of. I’m finding references to this story “Many students find
their homework too easy” in newspapers around the country. Here’s one link from
the Seattle Times.
For those of us who seek homework reform, reports like this
can be disconcerting, not that we wish to cover the truth – if many find it too
easy, then they find it too easy – but because of the conclusions that will be
drawn. The report says that about one-third of all children have expressed this
feeling. It goes on to estimate up to three quarters of children understanding
their homework while drawing some distinctions based on economic class.
These results are not surprising and quite consistent with what
I’ve been saying in The Homework Trap.If we think of performance in most areas as falling on the normal curve,
whether it is how fast a child can run or how quickly a child can do his
homework, we see that the average child falls in the middle with some who run
or do their homework quite quickly and those who run or do their homework quite
slowly. The kids who run quickly are often drawn to athletics. The kids who run
slowly get drawn to other things. The kids who do their homework quickly
receive lots of rewards. The kids who work slowly are made to sit at the table
for hours on end until the work gets done, even at the cost of teaching them to
dislike education and hate school.
We may put the slow running child in gym class, but we don’t
make him run the entire school day. He participates in a time-bound setting.
Gym class is over and he goes on to something else. If he loves to run in his
free time, that’s what he does, but it isn’t foisted on him any more than
anything else.
This is why time-bound homework containers are so needed. I
think teachers really try to be fair, and based on the normal curve, we can predict
that about a third of the kids will find the work quite easy, a third will find
it hard, and the majority will say they understand the work and can get the
work done.
The homework-trapped child is also capable of succeeding,
but not without boundaries on what he’s required to do. Place a time cap on the
work, he’ll get the work done. Make him run the full homework marathon and that
sets him up for a bitter experience with potentially dangerous consequences.
I received a
specific request today to promote this link on my blog and website with the
comment that the author feels it coincides with the basic tone of my writing.
The link refers to college students or adults, not children, but the message,
as the writer says, is quite in synch with what I say and its relevance to
children. The message here is that one can use their free time, the summer, to
learn things of personal interest, not necessarily taught in school (or if
taught in school, on a voluntary basis that is driven by interest).
Today, there are
also several articles in the Washington Post that also go to the point of the
meaning of education. Valerie Strauss comments on a view in Texas that opposescritical thinking as upending authority and challenging religious views. ArnoldDodge discusses the downside of common core standards in that they sap the
excitement that teachers can generate when they truly engage with their
students. And Valerie Strauss goes on to discuss how we fail to recognize the
need for skilled tradespeople.
These four
different articles all have bearing on the central concepts of the homework
trap. Homework is like eating vegetables: Some kids like them, some don’t. Some
parents like them, some don’t. Some teachers like them, some don’t. We
introduce vegetables. We may encourage them. We make a big mistake if we force
them down a kid’s throat. Up and down the line, voluntary, caring and committed
interactions between teachers and children, parents and children, parents and
teachers, creates the environment in which learning can occur. In some cases,
pressure is helpful. In most cases, coercion is dangerous.
The message of the
blogster’s suggested summer activity list is to do things of interest that
capture your passions. The problem with the Texas anti-critical thinking
movement is that it values compliance and respect for authority (which has its
place) over initiative, independence, and even the value of trying out both
good and bad ideas. There is nothing wrong with a generally standard
curriculum. There are some things that kids need to know and educators can
define them and teach them to teachers in their schools of education, but to
create a top-down mandate that gets too deeply into particulars, lest we miss some
particular details that kids need to learn, can sap energy and initiative on
the parts of teachers, and, as the writer says, turn “core” concepts into “boring”
concepts.
And as Valerie
Strauss says about the shortage of skilled tradespeople, we need to teach the
trades at the high school and post high school levels, but the foundations are
often built when we are young. I was good in math and loved to do math
problems, so homework in ways was play for me. My next door neighbor spent hours
tinkering with his bike. True, we both had to learn how to read, write, and do
basic math, but the interest and skill that precedes a successful hands-on
career starts with play, and we can’t keep stifling children’s play by making
the sit fixed at a table until they eat their vegetables or until the homework
is done.
I came across two articles today that address the subject of
the purpose of education. One is on the ASCD website, What is the Purpose of Education, and the other is in the New York
Times, Honor Code. Both articles are important since they take us
past the question of what we do, to why we do it.
I have often highlighted the fact that despite my keen
interest in homework, I am a clinical, not a school or child psychologist. I have a general practice and although I have
met with some children; for the most part, my work has been with adults, often
people who are disabled.At times, I
have likened my perspective to that of the legendary radio announcer, Paul
Harvey, whose hallmark phrase was “the rest of the story.”
It’s not that psychologists who work with adults have no
interest in childhood. I was trained in psychodynamic approaches and it is
gospel to the psychoanalyst that the person’s early experiences with his or her
parents are central to understanding how that person evolves. But we did not
talk about school.
I came to realize, working with disabled adults, often men
who have worked with their hands until they got hurt, that they break into a
sweat when they think about needing to go back to school, even though they are normally
bright and should be capable of handling county college or technical
school.This is not some neurosis that
stems back to their relationships with their parents. It’s terror based on school
day experiences: constant negativity for not getting their work done.
I’ve known people who have told me that when they were
children they had to sit at the table for hours on end until they finished their
vegetables. What do you think? Good parenting or a bad idea? These people
usually grow up to hate vegetables and exclude them from their diets as adults.
So what about “sit at the table and do your homework,” and you can’t get up
until you get it all done? It’s no different.
If the purpose of education is to cram a serving of homework
down the child’s throat, then let’s use the vegetable approach. But if the
purpose involves … Well, I’ll leave it up to you. Read David Brooks’ New York
Times article. Read Willona Sloan’s ASCD article. Decide for yourself. Post
your ideas as a comment to this blog. But then ask yourself. Does a serving of
homework, forced down the throat, like a serving of vegetables at the dinner
table, seem likely to accomplish the goal you have in mind?
The Huffington Post published an article by John Thompson titled "Two Cheers for GERM Theory of School 'Reform.'" I stimulated in me the following thoughts that I posted on the Huffington Post.
I think there are two separate “charter” school issues, one
for the affluent, one for the impoverished. We can talk all we want about
competition, but I think most who are doing the talking come from the more
affluent group, the group that already has access to good schools.For the poor, I have no doubt that the
charter school movement is being fueled by desperation, and not just
desperation over their children having “good schools,” but desperation over the
sheer survival of their children. I live outside Camden, New Jersey, in the
suburbs. Do I care that my children went to public, not charter schools? Not
really. They were all afforded educational opportunities to launch them into
life. I have my criticisms, particularly over homework policy, but not
sufficient for me to get excited about the charter school movement. Yet in my
professional practice as a psychologist, I meet citizens of Camden every day. Their
stories are sadly commonplace, to the point that I can predict before they
speak the murder of a father, uncle, nephew, cousin or son, perhaps a few. For
them, charter schools are not some esoteric or academic debate but a matter of
survival against powerful forces which are outside their control.
David Drew wrote an extremely interesting article for the
Washington Post, “Why US can’t get back to the head of the class (because itwas never there).” He makes the point that American education excels at the
university level, but not at the public school level. He further talks about
the role poverty plays in our educational limitations.
Professor Drew makes an excellent point. After all, I don’t
see American youngsters lining up to get visas so they can get their educations
in other countries. We have some of the finest universities in the world, and
we have a comprehensive system of private and state colleges and universities
that is well equipped to meet the educational needs of any student who can
graduate from high school and has the fundamentals to begin a college
education. These are not the young people we need to be worried about, and they
can certainly succeed whether they have an average or much better than average
high school education.
We fall short in the short-changing of young people from impoverished
neighborhoods and through our community college system, where these bright and
motivated young people get stuck at the basic skills level, and never get
beyond.
I live and work in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia. New
Jersey is unique in the United States in that it is parceled into an unusually
large number of small communities, each running its own public services
including its own school systems. It has been said that New Jersey leads the
country in school superintendents per capita. The outgrowth of this system is a
collection of schools that vary greatly from each other, yet, even with
variations between the different suburban schools (and there are some that have
particularly great reputations) the big divide is between the suburbs and
Camden. I live minutes from the city of Camden, in great safety and with
certainty that my children went to good schools, knowing that out of earshot,
there are children who walk to school passing needles in the street and having
heard gunshots the night before.
Professor Drew focuses on the issue of safety, and, I agree.
It is not possible for children to learn if they do not feel safe. It is also not
possible for teachers to teach effectively if they don’t feel safe.
My children were in school when the shootings at Columbine
took place. Our community was shaken. For a few days, my children and their
classmates felt afraid to go to school, and the schools made adjustments those
couple of days. They understood that while the children were so scared, they
could not learn. Yet stepping back, it seems odd that children in suburban New
Jersey should feel scared to go to school because of shootings that took place
2000 miles away, when they do not even register that frequent shootings occur
only ten minutes away.
The solution to this problem is far too complex to be taken
on by the educational system. It involves several systems which include the war
on drugs, the criminal justice system, and the child protection system, in
addition to education. These fuel and exacerbate the problems that are inherent
with poverty and the lack of economic opportunities.
But putting that complexity aside for another day and
another discussion, we can at least focus on what the schools can do. When I
read reports of schools that excel in the inner cities, they are almost
exclusively centered on the presence of an inspired leader, the principal, and a
commitment to make the in-school experience vibrant and vital. The same teacher
who might have been burnt out and afraid, comes to life, and the same student,
who might have seemed angry and rebellious, and may even face terrible
circumstances on the streets and in their own homes, beams with excitement and
gets engaged.
For those who have followed my blogs, you know that I put
great emphasis on keeping teachers in charge of the classroom and parents in
charge of the home. I think homework
should be assigned cautiously, and teachers should never assume that their
assignments override the parent’s ultimate decision about what should happen in
that particular home. It’s in that same spirit that I look for academic
autonomy for teachers in the schools, and believe that the internal motivation
of the teaching team, not the external pressures that we “race to the top,”
provide the foundation for improving the quality of education. And that quality
education cannot start unless the children feelsafe, at least in their school, and the teachers feel safe when they go
to work. Even if the outside community fails to be safe, creating a zone of
safety in the school is central for children to be able to learn.
On June 29, 2012, Pasi Sahlberg wrote an article, “How GERMis infecting schools around the world,” in which he noted that despite the fact
that Finland has been credited with having the best school system in the world,
“the Finns have never aimed to be the best in education but rather to have good
schools for all of [their] children.” He challenges the “’race to the top’
mentality in national school reforms.” I agree with Professor Sahlberg and will
add my own thoughts.
I entered the debate on education, not as an educator, but
as a psychologist whose expertise is in behavior as it plays out in
individuals, in families, and in large organizations. I previously worked with
the chronically mentally ill in day treatment programs, and have considerable
experience in child protection work. There is a commonality in the principles
of human behavior in all three settings (day treatment, child protection, and
education) that speaks strongly in favor of Professor Sahlberg’s remarks. In
each case, people function best (patients, parents accused of abusing or
neglecting their children, children in school, parents of children in school,
mental health workers, child protection workers, teachers, mental health
administrators, child protection supervisors, school principals), when they
feel passion and purpose and operate under conditions of support and respect.
They also do best they stay focused on their zones of control and are supported
by those above them in sustaining that focus. They do best when decision-making
takes places at the lowest level in the hierarchies where those decisions can
be competently made.
When considering the role of tests and measurements, it is
important to see those measure as tools to help inform those charged with certain
tasks in making their best individual and capable decisions. Although one may
want to improve scores, such improvement can be a byproduct of good work, an
indirect measurement of success, and should not confused with the task itself.
I’ll give two examples, one from my professional work and one from my personal
life.
Twice in my career, I had the job of directing a small
mental health clinic. These clinics had less than ten professional workers and
were parts of systems that had a number of similar clinics. We were given
monthly productivity measures, approximately 25 kept sessions per worker per
week. The goal was manageable and
depended greatly on the no show rate, which happened to be a perennial problem.
I realized that clients attended sessions if they felt understood and the
therapists could not be understanding if they were driven by pressures to push
hard to get clients to attend. By switching the tone from pressured to
supportive, and by using my experience to help train beginning therapists in
how to meet people’s needs, the clinics I ran would consistently run about 10%
over our monthly expectations, in contrast with some other clinics that put
pressure on their counselors and would, as a result, consistently run
behind.When I look at reports of inner
city schools that excel despite their difficult conditions, the narratives
always reflect a supportive and inspired principal who sets a tone of purpose,
competency and fun, that is contagious and filters down to the students. These successful
schools are not driven by measurements, but by the desire to do good work.
Now, an observation from my personal experience. From my
teenage years I have always known that at some time in my life I would need heart
valve surgery. In 2009, the operation was performed by a surgeon of my choice,
and as a result, I feel stronger today than I have in years. Yet, a curious
thing happened during this procedure.
While I was in the hospital, the nurses checked my blood
sugar several times a day and gave me insulin based on the results. I was also
given a statin along with my other medications. I don’t have diabetes and my cholesterol
is good, yet these treatments were administered during my hospital recovery.
When I went home, the statin was continued with my discharge medications.
A month later, I asked my surgeon why I needed a statin. He
told me, “The government requires it.” I questioned if there was a clinical
reason why I needed this medication, and he said no, unless my cardiologist
thought otherwise. Once I cleared it
with him, I discontinued the medication.
I doubt that the government actually ordered the surgeon to
use a statin, but I imagine there are formulas that factor into statistics that
rate hospitals and help them win recognition as the “best heart centers in the Philadelphia
region.” I think my medication may have contributed to their “race to the top.”
I have no doubt that if I were a more passive patient, I
would still be taking a statin today. My cholesterol would be good, and no one
would have questioned why the numbers were low, assuming that the statin
contributed to my success.
I think parents want to trust teachers and generally support
what they do. So if teachers use common core curriculum, parents want to assume
that it is the latest professional approach, not a policy dictated by
governmental or political factors. If teachers say that homework is necessary,
parents try to lend their support, generally unaware that the research does not
give the practice much support.
Yet, the realities often get exposed through the children
themselves. The child may operate on a gut feeling about whether or not the
requirements make sense. It is not surprising that children in class tend to
operate much like satisfied customers, for the most part doing what they are
asked to do. Yet, they rebel at home. It makes no more sense to bypass the
experience of the child, whether that child fails to do his homework, cuts
class, or drops out of school, any more than it makes sense for the mental
health counselor to throw up his or her hands, and feel helpless, because large
number of clients fail to show for their appointments.
With my heart surgery, the medication issue was an
observation and minor chuckle. No one has to be perfect, and I can readily
excuse my skilled surgeon for this minor willingness to succumb to outside
pressure. But for teachers to be compromised in exercising their judgments, in
class, when it comes to teaching, or for parents to be constrained from
exercising their judgments, at home, when it comes to homework, are signs of
the damaging and dangerous effects of allowing pressures for excellence to
upend the fundamentals of human behavior and success.
Posts
