http://tinyurl.com/yc7dfru

I promise this will be my last rant on the widely popular Accelerated Reader program, but I feel the need to share an essay posted last summer to the New York Times.   Author Susan Straight’s “Reading by Numbers” gives a parent’s perspective on the negative impact this “reading management” software that reduces reading to a system of points and rewards based on multiple-choice online quizzes can have on young readers, even when they are growing up in what I assume is a highly literate home environment.

Librarians and teachers report that students will almost always refuse to read a book not on the Accelerated Reader list, because they won’t receive points. They base their reading choices not on something they think looks interesting, but by how many points they will get. The passion and serendipity of choosing a book at the library based on the subject or the cover or the first page is nearly gone, as well as the excitement of reading a book simply for pleasure.”

I can’t help wondering about the  8th grade language arts teacher Susan Straight references in the first paragraph, who announced at back-to-school night that she “refused to use the program.”  Did her administrators and English department colleagues know about her refusal? If so, were conversations about the impact of  AR on nurturing “a lifelong love of reading and learning” happening? Were parents joining in the conversation?

Or was this teacher the lone dissenter at her site? I hope not.

I know that districts tend to value programs they have to pay for (an observation shared by NCTE colleague and mentor Allen Webb) and that given all that teachers have on their plates already, it’s understandable to like a program that can be reduced to automated scoring. So depending on the climate and culture of a site or district, taking a stand on AR could get messy.

If you or any of your colleagues are looking for some support, I recommend reading the comments posted to:

• Accelerated Reader -Time to say no?
• On Promoting a Love of Reading
• Accelerated Reader – Four questions for administrators

As always, your comments are welcomed!

The subtitle for yesterday’s Academic Literacy Summit was Writing to Think and Learn in All Content Areas. Definitely Giving Voice to Students was also an common thread running through all sessions – starting with my EETT team presentation Integrating Digital Literacies into Upper Elementary Classrooms .

Our lunch break was amazing. Students from the Sacramento Area Youth Speaks project shared their passion for poetry. If you are an educator in the greater Sacramento region, I encourage you to share the video below, get the word out to students in your district about the SAYS summer program – and find out how to arrange a SAYS site workshop!

1st Annual SAYS Summit (MAY 2009) from SAYS on Vimeo.

It would take a powerful speaker to follow on the heals to the SAYS presentation. Brandy DeAlba’s compelling, straight-from-the heart keynote (a mini-workshop in itself) was the perfect choice -

Through writing, students can discover their voices and be heard. They can learn to use writing as a learning tool as well as a powerful platform to success. Writing can help students find their place in our schools.”

Sorry but no sessions were streamed…I’m sending that on as a strong suggestion for next year’s event!

I’ve been to NECC several times, but as a first-timer to EduCon, if I had to choose between the two conferences, I’d lean towards EduCon for the following:

Reason #1: Sessions are more like conversations than presentations. Every session I attended truly was “an opportunity to discuss and debate ideas – from the very practical to the big dreams.”

Reason #2: There are no extra fees to attend certain sessions, no matter who the “conversation facilitator” might be.

Reason #3: Meeting in real-time many of the people I follow in Twitter and/or whose blogs I subscribe to.

Reason #4: Ignite Sessions (a.k.a. Enciendas). OK, I didn’t actually make it upstairs to the Science Leadership Academy library in time to hear any of the lunch time, 5-minute presentations. But if the rest were on par with Andrea Zellner’s 5-minute  piece,  The Writing Revolution – R U Literate?, then I definitely like the injection of the encienda format into a 3-day conference.

Reason #5: Science Leadership Academy – Real-time students greatly added to the conversations, sharing their enthusiasm for their SLA community, acting as guides into a 1×1 laptop environment – and providing just-in-time tech support to all in need. And, hey, SLA is in Philadelphia. What more can I say?!

My take-aways from today’s Educon sessions come from two workshops:

The Cost of Copyright Confusion: The Future of Intellectual Property in a Remix Generation – Kristen Hokanson – Today’s session was actually my second time to participate in one of Kristen’s copyright workshops.  Last summer I joined the 3-hour NECC session she and Rene Hobbs facilitated – and I blogged the session, with links to all their resources.

I attended today’s session to see how Kristen would compact her presentation into 1 1/2 hours.  It was a fast-paced 90-minutes – but still highly participatory.  I lucked out by sitting at the same table as Rene Hobbs. So here are a few gems I gathered today:

* Effective use of copyrighted materials enhances the teaching and learning process.  It’s important that as educators we exercise our fair use muscles – and teach our students to do the same.  Our students need to think about why they are incorporating copyrighted materials and the amount needed to accomplish whatever their message is. Kids have to think critically about the materials they’re using.

* The big question: Is the benefit to society greater than the cost to the copyright holder? It’s all about balance.  But as Rene points out, “Fair use is never crystal clear until a judge rules on it.”

It still amazes me that Cost of Copyright Confusion wiki did not win a 2009 Edublogs Eddie Award. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one to nominate – and recognize -Rene’s, Kristen’s, and the Center for Social Media’s substantial efforts to make this complex topic accessible.

Youth Voices – A Social Network Where Teachers Nurture Student-to-Student Conversation – Paul Allison – What if students were allowed to participate in “passionate inquiry’? Would they write more? Would they write at a deeper level? Would they connect with others who shared – or disagreed with – their ideas?  If you take a tour of the Youth Voices project, I think you’ll agree the answer is “yes” to all of the above. The Youth Voices project is a great example of what can happen when a group of teachers, with encouragement from Paul, continues to grow the project, both in the thoughtful, sometimes experimental, use of technology and the structure and support offered to their student community.

My gems from Paul’s session are the Youth Voices Guides – http://youthvoices.net/guides! Workshop participants had a chance to use the Agree or Disagree form – http://youthvoices.net/node/1904. The forms/templates are there for as long as the students need them.. I knew Paul and YV colleagues Susan Ettenheim and Chris Sloan had been working on a few guides, but oh my, there are currently over 30 guides, with some available in Spanish. Great take-aways!

Heading off for meet up with NWP colleagues @Pauloh and @azellner to debrief the day:-)

Here are my take-aways from the three Saturday Educon2.2 sessions I attended:

2.Go – Paul Bogush – I really liked the way Paul Bogush rolled out the Web 2.0 tools to our group, most of whom were new to wikis, blogs, podcasts and Google Docs. Paul presented these tools “from the trenches” via his class wiki – http://collaborationnation.wikispaces.com/. As he walked us through samples of students’ collaborative writing, he shared lessons learned along the way, such as creating a classroom culture for checking the wiki each morning for assignments: you simply continue to refer students the site for FAQs about assignments.

My favorite question & answer from the session was the difference between a blog and a wiki: “A wiki is for team hardcore content  and empowers the class as a whole. A blog is for the outside world and empowers the class around a ’total question.’”

Learning 2.0 – Overhauling Classroom Best Practice – David Warlick – As if Son of Citation Maching were not enough, David Warlick is working on a new program: http://knitterchat.com/plotter/. Think about assignments some of your colleagues are currently giving students. Maybe the classic Write a State Report assignment. Using this ‘plot-a-thought’ tool, as teachers collaboratively brainstorm how to bring the assignment into the 21st century, they could watch the assignment move  up on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Of course, teachers could do this without an online tool…given some common planning time…but that’s another conversation.

Using Technology to Foster Exploration and Reflection in Science – Lucy Gray & Debbie Leslie – I really enjoyed the shared conversations in the session about ways to leverage technology to support hands-on, inquiry-based science instruction. Lucy Gray and Debbie Leslie work together at the University of Chicago Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education on the Science Companion program – http://www.sciencecompanion.com/. Although this program is connected to a textbook adoption, you can preview some of the units on the Science Companion site.  How can we promote a love and understanding of science in our youngest students? As the  “I Wonder Circle”  shows, students need permission to wonder without a right answer.  The discipline of science is really about the questions, not the answers.

I have the good fortune of extending my Educon experience through morning and evening meet ups with my NWP colleagues – which is where I’m headed right now:-)

I spent Day 1 of Educon 2.2 at Philadelphia’s Science Leadership Academy visiting classrooms, chatting with students and staff, and pretty much standing back in awe of what teaching and learning look like when a school site believes that:

• Our schools must be inquiry-driven, thoughtful and empowering for all members
• Our schools must be about co-creating – together with our students – the 21st Century Citizen
• Technology must serve pedagogy, not the other way around
• Technology must enable students to research, create, communicate and collaborate
• Learning can – and must – be networked

In every classroom, it was clear that students were maximizing the school’s 1×1 laptop program.  In the chemistry class on the left, for instance, students were working on creating a movie series about their microscopic findings. In Mr. Kay’s  English class,  students delved into a thought-provoking discussion about the impact of the environment on the actions of four characters in Octavia Butler’s novel Kindred, drawing from their online journals when they needed time to clarify their own thinking.

From the moment I entered SLA and throughout the day, I could feel the positive energy generated by students’ taking ownership of their own learning. But I’ll let SLA student Matthew tell you why he values his SLA education.

Looking for examples of what’s working in public education? Spend a day at SLA.

I walked away from media teacher  Vernon Bisho’s Thursday night SEVA session Understand > Care > Feel > Learn with a whole new understanding of the art of creative non-fiction writing for video.  Vernon provides his high school students with the scaffolding needed to produce award-winning entries.  But his program could easily be adapted to elementary and middle school students.

I’m betting that if I roll out Vernon’s strategies with 4th and 5th grade filmmakers, particularly tips for interviewing, they too will gain a better understanding of this genre,  and very likely improve their media literacy skills in the process.

In a nutshell, Vernon’s believes:

“If you don’t understand, you won’t care.  If you don’t care, you can’t feel.  If you can’t feel, you won’t learn.”

He embeds this philosophy in his non-fiction idea web/brainstorm worksheet, which includes the reminder: “Must capture  your audience’s attention in the first 15 seconds: interesting B-roll, music, or a catch lead line is key.“  And just in case we weren’t familiar with the term B-roll, Vernon shared a YouTube explanation.

So here’s how Vernon’s students move through the process of creating a non-fiction story:

• Part 1 - Start with the back-story (who, what, where, when, why + how). The back-story clarifies the reason for the story. It is the first step in helping the audience to UNDERSTAND the problem. Connect Part 1 to Part 2 by explaining the goal or the motivation for the story – building the transition for your audience to CARE.
• Part 2 - Introduce the specifics about the reason for story and the process (obstacles – or moral premise). Create tension and deal with feelings.  Between Part 2 and Part 3, introduce the lowest point or emotional high. Your audience needs the emotional impact in order to FEEL.  And the most important thing in telling a story is to make people feel.
• Part 3 – Make visible the lesson learned/payoff.  Where do we go from here? As your audience makes connections between the story and their lives, they LEARN.

How can your students begin practicing and applying the above  concepts? How about by viewing samples of creative non-fiction video clips, such as CBS’s High School Hero comforts Kids with Cancer or a sample from one of Vernon’s students: Gabe Lock, Rising Star.

Elementary teachers and secondary content area teachers often struggle with how to include media literacy within their programs. Why not start the day/period with a recent TV news interview, local or national, which most likely will run no more than 3 -5 minutes (about the time needed to take attendance, etc.), and ask students to identify how the producers provide the audience with the opportunity to understand, care, feel, and learn? Such a simple way to help students make those inter-textual connections that lead to higher literacy levels!

Vernon has posted a number of his handouts to our newly formed Digital Media Communit (which you are warmly invited to join):

• Rubric
• Project Score Sheet
• Project Work Flow
• Common Terms
• Idea Web

As soon as he posts his 2-column storyboard for non-fiction and his overview handout, I’ll add them to this post.

I’m heading into the SECC site to find the date for the next SEVA training event!

So glad I made it home in time tonight to login to Teachers Teaching Teachers and join the conversation on teaching about Haiti and its devastating earthquake.

New York Times Learning Network editor Katherine Shulten shared the dynamic resources she and her co-editor are developing for the Teaching and Learning with the New York Times site. Check out 5 Ways to Teach About Haiti, and the new lesson plan: Project Haiti: Holding a Teach-In.

Other resources shared from the chat room included:

• Kid4Haiti wiki – from NYC elementary teacher Lisa Parisi
• 4haiti.litcircuits.com – from 6th grade teacher Jared Benne
• Teaching about Haiti – from Rethinking Schools
• Best Sites to Learn about the earthquake in Haiti – from Larry Ferlazzo

Despite audio issues with Skype, tonight’s TTT session was too good to end. So mark your calendars for next Wednesday because Katherine Shulton has agreed to join hosts Paul Allison and Susan Ettenheim for a second session on teaching about Haiti.  Katherine invites us all to visit the above resources and to bring questions and suggestions to next week’s session.

How are you and your colleagues teaching about Haiti?

As school districts everywhere brace for yet another round of budget cuts, I have a question: Why not drop the annual online testing fee to Accelerated Reader? This question has been on my mind  ever since NCTE colleague and mentor Allen Webb shared his observation that “school districts tend to value programs they have to pay for – regardless of the actual value or impact of those programs.”

I fully support the first two components and possibilities of the AR program:

It’s the third component – test the heck out of students with online multiple-choice tests – that I find troubling. As to the fourth component – provide students with prizes – I think researchers such as Alfie Kohn have already made a compelling case against reading incentive programs.

I understand that change is hard, especially if it involves giving up programs sites are currently paying for. But given the realities of the  budget crisis, I think it reasonable for an administrator to consider the following questions before renewing the annual AR subscription:

#1 Have you checked into the research on AR? No, I don’t mean the research the Renaissance Learning folks post about their own products.  I’m talking about research such as the above paper by Alfie Kohn, or recent findings by Stephen Krashen, who has generously shared his insights on the English Companion Ning:

Accelerated Reader (AR) may be “the most influential reading program in the country” (”If you’re shopping, find the books that work for kids,” December 17) but there is no clear evidence that it works. It fact, it might be harmful.

AR has four components: It makes sure children have access to books, provides time to read, quizzes children on what they read with a focus on details, and awards prizes for performance on the quizzes.

It is well-established that providing books and time to read are effective, but AR research does not show that the quizzes and prizes are helpful. Studies claiming AR is effective compare AR to doing nothing; gains were probably due to the reading, not the tests and prizes.

AR encourages an unnatural form of reading, reading focusing on often irrelevant details in order to pass tests.

AR rewards children for doing something that is already pleasant: self-selected reading. Substantial research shows that rewarding an intrinsically pleasant activity sends the message that the activity is not pleasant, and that nobody would do it without a bribe. AR might be convincing children that reading is not pleasant. No studies have been done to see if this is true.”

#2. Have you polled your parent community on their opinions about AR? NCTE collegue (and former district colleague) Teresa Bunner recently shared her perspective (which is very close to a scene and conversation I witnessed last year at my county library):

As a mom it often irked me to no end to watch a big deal be made at awards assemblies for earning so many points on AR when I knew my kids read all the time, just not AR books or not short easy read books that earned them points quickly! … Truly, truly when we take time to match kids with the right books, they enjoy reading. I believe that having taught elementary, middle and high school.”

#3. Have you started a conversation with your veteran teachers on their views on AR? About a year ago, I first blogged my AR concerns. I’d like to re-post comments by two educators/bloggers whose opinions I very much value:

From Mathew Needleman:

We had a similar but differently named program at my last school and I absolutely share your concerns. The program we had took over the computer. In other words, teachers would use that computer exclusively to run (insert program name here). In addition to leaving behind advances in computing/technology of the past decade, I too felt that the quizzes really weren’t getting to higher level thinking and were essentially replacing the SRA kits we used when I was in elementary school. If we can do it with paper and pencil, why use the expense and electricity to do it on a computer?”

From Cathy Nelson:

I would wager that the improvement in reading seen is not from “students reading and taking tests,” but rather just from reading. The more practice one has at something, the better they get, and testing (even a computerized commercial program) has nothing to do with it. Do you really want to give credit to a program for the hard work you have done in getting kids to read? Credit goes to the teacher, not the tool. AR is as good as the one who implements it–not the tool itself. Let’s not inflate the egos of Renaissance Learning anymore than they are already inflated. This is a tool and nothing more. Success is based solely on the implementation (by the teacher.)”

#4. What are you students saying about AR? A teacher in my district recently shared with me that one of her 4th graders brags about being able to pass an AR quiz just by reading the write-up  on the book jacket. Hmmmm…..In taking a closer look at the winning entries in our district’s No Excuses…Go to School poster contest, I’m thinking  this winning entry by a middle school student provides a window into the student perspective. I wish I could see the title of the book the student is gripping as he hops the fence to skip school.  What do you bet it’s not on the AR list AND it’s got “the flow” going for this escaping student.

I’m sure there’s a 5th question administrators should be asking of AR.  If you think of one, please post a comment.

What ed philo & tchg styles are likely in a schl whose walls feature motivational posters w/can-do slogans about effort & success?” Alfie Kohn

Alfie Kohn’s Friday morning tweet was on my mind as I headed down the hill yesterday to my school district – and 24 hours later, I’m still thinking about how I would answer his question.

I visit a lot of school sites, both in my day-time job and through a number of organizations I belong to. Most front offices and libraries have professionally done motivational posters. Some have student-done posters. I think the latter may be more reflective of a site’s educational philosophy than the former. I think the purchased posters reflect where sites would like to be; student-done posters reflect more the realities of the school day.

Take these three student samples, for instance, which were entered in a district-sponsored campaign to motivate students to get to school on time (click for an enlarged view). Could it be the lack of motivation for students to get to school on time stems from being greeted with messages such as “Take out your textbooks”or “Detention – Be Quiet” or a major part of the school day being spent sitting (daydreaming, sleeping) in rows?

I recognize that change is hard and that all of us who are teaching in 2010 were born in the past century. But I am optimistic that change is happening, due in large part to how easy it now is to access mentor texts and teachers 24/7.

Cheryl Oaks, in a recent post to her Tech & Learning blog, What’s it like to be a students in today’s classrooms?, asks, “Would I be a different type of learner than I was 50 years ago?” She answers the question by providing some great online resources.

What if students started the day, for instance, with a message on the board something like “log on to the Newseum and …” or “team up and head into David Warlick’s sources for Raw Data and …“? Would the No Excuses posters featured above  reflect a different learning environment? I’m betting yes.

I’ll end this post with a great video by Kevin Honeycutt, one I plan to share with colleagues as we continue conversations on what 21st classrooms should/could look like – maybe even eliminating the need for motivational posters;-).