[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (72.233.94.32) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (76.74.254.123) and so is spam.

I see no disagreement, except in the implication that our “fundamental difference” reflects anything other than a difference in student populations, and in the backhanded slighting of direct instruction. I teach ELL and SpEd kids drastically behind grade level, about 10% who actually started seventh grade with pre-primer reading abilities. Your methodology would do very little to remediate those problems, as would any other that assumes basic skills are obtainable through some form of intellectual osmosis. I teach my ass off to provide and instill the skill level necessary for them to one day be successful in the kind of classroom you run.

All due respect, but if you really ARE T-ing YAO, I think we’ve found our fundamental difference. My English classes are basically workshops–I propose a question, distribute a book, assign a project, and try to get out of the way, letting the students struggle through and find their ends. I used to TMAO but stopped when a) I Staff Developed MAO and wound up at an all-day sales pitch and b) my kids’ scores (in both subjects I taught) on the state exams were actually HIGHER than anyone else’s at the school the year that I decided to hang it all and take a more self-directed, student-centered approach. Facilitating writing and lit discussion works way better for me than does standing in front of the room and waving my arms about.

So I’ve just shot my argument about NCLB in the foot, I guess, since not teaching to the test might be the best test prep out there. My students are going to take the CAPT test in a month, and I’m really hoping that they’ll be good enough at the practice test later this week that I won’t feel bad about not really addressing the thing for the next few weeks.

Dan clearly does not believe NCLB is perfect as is, despite many people pointedly making that assumption. He also has been condescending, bordering on rude in a number of posts, though I very clearly recognize that he does not intend to be a jerk. I too tend to brow beat and condescend when I have a point to make and I feel like the opposition is not responding with substantive logic. Ultimately though, as is often the case in the toneless medium of the internet, the discourse boils down to a series of misinterpretations on both sides, followed by a point-counterpoint discussion focusing mostly on those misinterpretations, often rather aggressively. Quite the opposite of the “elevation” that I think Dan honestly wants to achieve.

Dan’s prose, which is penetrating, direct, and occasionally defiant is a large part of what attracted me to his blog. He asks tough questions, which is an essential part of facilitating positive changes in any field. He makes a lot of very strong, logical points, and they should not be discounted solely due to a disagreement with his tone. I also see no reason for him to change his tone, except that he might not enjoy regularly irritating some of his readers. Certainly I do not see the logic of completely dismissing him now and forever due to a single disagreement, no matter how heated. I think perhaps with some time to reflect Chris might reconsider his hasty action on that front.

But, to Dan: I see much of the same behavior from you. Granted, you essentially cite tone as a big part of your objection to other people’s discourse (at least that’s how I read your “it’s not what, but how or why” comment), but then I’m sure you can see why it’s not unreasonable for people to subsequently discount your own ideas because of your tone. Jumping on someone who was venting frustration, even if you had some good points to make, will only get people to focus on your attitude instead of your ideas. A question that immediately occurred to me upon reading your comment was “what is he trying to accomplish by saying this?”

For example, you start your first comment to Sarah by saying “Yeah, look, I don’t want to deny you your reality or anything…” which is hardly an example of elevated discourse, and immediately sets a combative atmosphere. This is compounded multiple times when you call her “beyond persuasion,” or when insult her editing/lack thereof.

Allow me to propose an alternative approach for someone espoused to your same viewpoints. First, while she certainly uses a lot of language that you are quite right in calling “gasoline,” I wouldn’t go so far as to make the absolute assumption she is completely against accountability simply because she is passionately against NCLB. Asking for clarification, e.g., “It seems to me that you think we should not hold teachers accountable for the success of their students. Am I reading that correctly?” followed by a reminder of why accountability is an important part of any profession, would be appropriate, and less likely to piss people off. You could continue with a measured argument of why you think the use of inflammatory language about NCLB is harming to other teachers, to students, and to the future of creating more effective tools for teacher accountability. Calling her out for being the paragon of everything wrong with most NCLB detractors was not likely to gain you any more support, and unsurprisingly lost you some instead.

Mostly, Dan, it seems that you are approaching that pool of gasoline and throwing lit matches into it. Perhaps you want it to burn itself out? I would venture to guess that many teachers calling for the revocation of NCLB may not have considered the clear benefits of more focused accountability. Heck, many may have just ridden the momentum of their knee-jerk initial reaction, feeding off of one another because they were never presented with a calm, measured counterpoint. First they had an enemy in Bush and NCLB, then they had an enemy in the teachers that thought they were too angry/lazy/crazy/reactionary, etc. These people might in fact not be “beyond persuasion,” at least not if you actually attempt to persuade them (that’s “persuade,” not “tell”). As someone who often has a big mouth, but who can usually admit when he did not think things through (even if the admission takes me a while!), I know that even the most inflamed have a shot at cooling off to the persistent sound of patient logic.

By the way, I truly enjoy your blog, and I nearly always read it as soon as it pops up in my aggregator. It has even inspired me to reconsider my decision to enter the school system as a teacher-librarian in favor of classroom teaching. You have some great stories from the trenches that make me itch to take a more personal role in the development of the students. Keep on trucking.

Neal

I’ve taught in Program Improvement, Title I, Title X, under-resourced, about to be shut down school under NCLB, and no one ever made me teach with less passion, or prevented the use of portfolio assessment, fieldtrips, experential learning, or the occasional joke about pirates and boogers. It never happened. If what you’re teaching is a standard or the path to a standard, and you’re doing it well, this will translate into strong test results (those 25 hours in May we’re all so freaked about), and the methodology is your call.

I can’t handle the sky is falling rhetoric about a piece of law that told us to test, pay attention, expect to be called out if we suck, and then spend years fixing it. I can’t handle the sentiment that somehow this is about US. It’s not about US or how we like to teach or whether we find lessons comparing two pieces of informational text fundamentally interesting at the core of our souls. It’s about what kids need, and with all due respect to folks who bemoan the lack of critical thinking skills taught in schools, I wonder what good all that thinking is if you can neither read, nor speak, nor write effectively enough to communicate or utilize thoughts you had thunk. With all due respect to folks who are so deeply hurt by the lack of art and music programs that weren’t that great to begin with, I wonder how many kids are dropping out and loosing access to a job market because they didn’t get that two years of French Horn or learn how to make a God’s Eye.