Focus+Chapter+2

Focus Book Study Chapter Two Discussion

Now that you have read Chapter 2, what are your initial thoughts, questions, concerns.

I recently removed my name from the FACS listserv. “What?” you say. “How on earth can a teacher stay connected to the latest, greatest teaching tactics?” All I know is that those tactics all too often ended up being just that: ways to keep students occupied. Most of those cute ideas turned out to be time burglars. I also realized that students weren’t really learning the content because they were too caught up in having “fun.” Most importantly, I was providing little incentive for students to take responsibility to learn. Mr. Schmoker’s acknowledgment that we should strive to develop critical thinking skills in all students, regardless of their plans to work or pursue a college education hit a home run. If we simply stuck to the basics and taught our content using the framework of literacy and ciphering, then we would find we are graduating young adults prepared to face the world instead of getting them into the habit of waiting for “Superman.” Focusing more on those tactics which stimulate creative and critical thinking are the better strategies to consider. After having ditched some of those cute ideas, I replaced them with lessons that build literacy skills, especially creative and critical thinking. What a change I have noticed in student performance! And, they seem to find value in these lessons…at least when it is all said and done. Of course, I also like the idea that the textbook can be a welcomed, useful learning tool to build sound literacy skills. But, my favorite topic revolved around the ridiculousness of never-ending standards. We continually overburden our teachers and student with living up to so many standards. Consequently, our lesson topics become shallow. We’d be better off teaching fewer topics but in depth. Quite frankly, did anyone stop to think about developing strong literacy, ciphering, and articulation skills when developing all these standards? Standards appear to be a way for various school departments to PROVE they have a right to exist in public school. I have a shopping rule: Buy items that are an improvement over what I already own. And for each new item purchased then I must donate one I already own. The same rule needs to be applied to curriculum; assess what isn’t working and ditch it; determine what is effective and keep it; and simplify the path to improved workplace skills.
 * Deb Z.**: Curriculum…I can’t get beyond the fact that we spend so much time worrying about adapting the latest, greatest teaching strategies so we can hold student attention. Okay, lots of people have good ideas about curriculum. However, from the FACS standpoint, what we teach should ultimately prepare students to enter the 21st century workforce. It’s simple. We need to use reading, writing, arithmetic, and articulation to build strong workplace skills: critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and accountability, to name a few. If our lesson plans don’t accomplish these things then, “what is the point of the lesson?”

Shelly E.- One thing that bothers me immediately about this chapter- something that I have chewed on for a week now is the line that states that we need to say no thank you to time gobbling activities such as wikis. Some of the other things that he proposes I agree with saying no thank you at times, but I have found Wiki's to be beneficial to my students. They can really open up and write their thoughts. It forces to critically think and respond with their opinions, interpretations, and thoughts about subject matter.

Kris – I hate to open this can of worms, but what is the point of textbooks, ever? Throughout all of the reading and research we’ve been looking at these past few years, we’ve been discussing the necessity of authentic literacy (i.e. short stories, novels, historical documents, magazine articles, op-ed pieces, even letters to the editor). The problem is that textbooks, while they have much information, are not authentic texts. After leaving college, I have done massive amounts of reading only to discover that the textbooks in high school, undergrad and grad school were the most //in//authentic texts available. They are not primary sources, but are at best secondary sources for information. Additionally, the textbooks are written in such a way as to not be controversial and allow students to have an opinion of any kind. With these “sanitized” presentations of information, can students do any of the activities that Schmoker advocates as authentic reading and authentic thinking activities? Schmoker advocates the use of textbooks as a way to present “context and facts” (p. 31). Additionally he makes great use of the necessity for textbooks in the section “Textbooks? Yes!” beginning on page 35. He talks about the ability to decipher the textbooks as an ultimate skill necessary for college-bound students. The problem, of course, is that the textbooks required in college are far more opinionated than the ones used in high schools. For example, the typical psychology textbook used in high schools, may actually be several smaller books in college with one almost always discussing the ethics, pros and cons, and theoretical viewpoints, things that the high school books hit upon tangentially, but not as a large portion of the grade. So, ultimately, why do textbooks exist at all? If they are indeed not primary texts, and are perhaps the most inauthentic sources for material, do not prepare students for college, why do we still cling to these?

Scott - (sorry I butted in here) Kris - I agree with your 'rant" on the validity of textbooks. The ONLY rational reason, for me, that we use them is the information is in a centralized location. I am speaking strictly from the US history standpoint, that until we have better connectivity and access to internet data at our school the textbook is the info dump for my students. I fill them up with my own conglamoration of info from the web, books, primary sources, plays, debates, etc. but bottom line is that until we get to a place where I have better access to all of the info on the net, the textbook is our "encyclopedia." I guess what I see is a "see-saw" where as internet access in our CLASSROOMS grows, the need for the textbook goes down. My advanced kids are using the Bennett book __//America, the Last Best Hope//__ and we do not use a text. However, those kids have better access to the internet and are able to use their technology to research, BLOG, and create discussion. Ultimately, with one-to-one, I want to get to a "textbook free" place. Here is a quote about an issue I fight with the advanced kids, "Critical thinking is in fact highly dependent on content knowledge. We can't understand, much less critically evaluate, the ideas in a textbook, newspaper, or magazine if they contain too much unfamiliar information (p. 31)" Our advanced book is high vocabulary and some kids really struggle with it. I'm really working with them on decifering text and re-reading info rich segments. I feel like again, when technology access increases, so will our ability to understand those segments better because we can access, here in real time, info and analysis of data/info quickly.

Abby: My concerns with Chapter 2 start with technology. Schmoker seems to believe that we should say, "no, thank you" to wikis, and other computer-oriented activities for students. Like Chrissy said in the Chapter 1 discussion, after watching a TedTalks video on technology and gaming, I'd have to say that I agree with more technology for students because that's how students learn. We have to keep up with the changes that are happening around us, or we will never reach students on their levels. My other concern is with textbooks. It's not that I disagree with using textbooks, but at the elementary level, many of our students are not able to fluently read and comprehend the information in our textbooks because they are written above their reading levels. I know it all starts in the elementary grades with teaching textbook reading, but I believe that we need many more non-fiction books to supplement our science and social studies texts and give students time to read those books. The secondary education classrooms should also have an abundance of books related to the subject area for students to get their hands on. I do like Schmoker's take on reading, writing, and talking because that is what workshop is all about. I agree we should perfect those areas because less is sometimes best. We often get caught up in doing too many things, wasting our time, when we could actually spend less time and be more productive if we focus on priorities.

Debgslp: When the author talks about what a good curriculum should contain (generous amounts of good content and critical thinking skills) I keep asking the same question--Aren't we already providing this and if we are not, then what is being taught? The author seems to think that teachers are not teaching anymore but doing other things (playing?) and that we have lost a focus on what is important. We have not lost the focus but rather have had to adapt to new changes (budget cuts, pressures, etc.. but mostly how our student's lives have changed-little support, parents not able to help with homework, kids attitudes). He goes on to talk about how national and state standards are confusing, overwhelming and burdensome and that they need to be introduced slower and a smaller area to see if they will work or not. My response to him would be: yes, that sounds great but society has a whole will not let us take the time to present things slowly as we are in a rush-rush competive world now so the pace is twenty times faster. To reduce the number of standards makes sense but then these questions arise: who chooses the standards or has the final say-so? Will the chosen standards fix the problems and how? We have to remember that what may work for one area may not work for another. The author brings up many points (some good some bad) but in my opinion it boils down to "each person is unique and we need to work as a team (parents, students, teachers, staff, community members) need to figure out what motivates each student to learn. Instead of changing things drastically and getting stressed out (like the author suggests at times in his book) maybe we just need to adapt the materials we already are using (textbooks, technology, standards, curriculum, etc...) and possibly have more productive collaboration time in a variety of groups (grade levels, school body, corporation wide) to share ideas."

JennyS- Well, I have to admit that this chapter was a bit concerning in different ways. The first thing that struck me was the author’s stance on wikis. My personal opinion is that we need to modify for our students and gain their enthusiasm for learning. Wiki’s are something that the students show excitement for and if used properly are a great tool in the classroom. Eliminating them from students seems to be pointless because of their usefulness. The second item that concerned me was the line that said “say no thank you to technology.” Are we being serious here? Technology is not going away and has only increased the level at which our students think. In the Ted Talks, Ted says that technology has improved our thinking. Why would we want to take away a tool that engages the brain? We use technology outside of school everyday to make our lives easier and to survive in the modern world. This is a lesson that should be taught in school to help our students succeed in life. I think that he is defeating the point of ‘fun at school.’ Teachers use technology and wikis to engage and teach students. If done properly, I do not see any reason why these cannot be used. The author did a poor job of convincing me that I should eliminate these form my classroom.

Teresa W - I agree that there should be fewer standards. Teachers work hard to get through a textbook that is necessary to cover all the standards that are required. If there were fewer standards, but very important standards, teachers could concentrate on those standards and work on helping "all" students succeed on each level as they progress through the year. Now, with so many standards, the pace has to remain steady to complete the teaching to so many standards. We need to stop leaving students behind in the learning process. Once they are left behind, they are always playing catch-up.

Donna L.: Why can't an authentic text be an electronic text? I think that the key to the misuse of technology is just throwing it in for the sake of an activity; not using it as an authentic reading and writing tool. I agree that my textbooks are not my favorite ways to read about history or science. Personally, I learned a lot more from reading "__Johnny Tremain__" in 6th grade than the text book. And I remember it! I also think that text books serve a real purpose in terms of providing visual information as well as written information, and helping to build background knowledge. But there are other resources that do the same. Just because we are digital immigrants and don't always feel comfortable with the technology doesn't mean we should cast it to the side and say it is not a valid source for reading and writing. Our kids use it all the time...we need to be speaking the same language! But we need to be purposeful as well. Interesting to see if the move to common core will really help us narrow and focus more intensely or if it will reproduce more standards in time as different groups express the need to define more skills to be mastered...

Sara T- The thing that immediately sticks out to me in my mind about this chapter is on page 26. Here, Schmoker discusses the use of video skits, movie previews, wikis, etc.. as a waste of time! I don't understand his thinking here. After all, these things are what our world is becomming. If we don't keep up with the kids, they'll never be interested! I think these are the things that, while time consuming, make learning fun. These are hands-on activities that help kids learn and solve problems. They have to map out ideas. For example, last year my junior English class read "A Rose for Emily". Afterwards, we had a jury trial to convict Miss Emily of murder. The kids had to come up with the "evidence" for her conviction and the jury voted on whether or not she was guilty. Time consuming? Yes. But did the kids have to really read the story and understand it in order to "convict" Miss Emily of murder? Yes. I think there's more to English than textbooks and worksheets.