Oakland has specified different schools for different needs. Last I knew Carl Munk and Joaquin Miller served students on the autism spectrum, Glenview served visually impaired students and so on.

When I talked to my sons teachers about why they would agree to large classes, they stated that many students leave during the year and many students arrive. It is easier to “take the hit” with a large class at the beginning of the year knowing they will not have to accept transfer students later in the year because their classes are full. I guess for high stakes testing it makes sense if you keep the student for the year you know what they know and have learned.

From a parent perspective – believe it or not – I would rather have 40 students in a class with a teacher who is able to differentiate for GATE and Highly motivated than to have a class of 20 with a teacher who does not or cannot differentiate for the upper performing students.

And to your questions about high stakes testing, yes, the teachers in first and third grades still had that pressure. One teacher was in her first five years and the other was in his fifth to tenth year. The first few years both teachers said that they had to put in 60 – 80 hours per week, but once the habits were in place and they could teach scholarly habits to students, it was easier.

Two interesting things: the group of students with Down’s Syndrome often needed to be reminded to be quiet, they had a different lesson plan, and so on. One of the students seemed to be very anxious with new people or routines in the class. About half or more of the class qualified for free and reduced price lunch.

Both of these teachers also taught from the opening bell to the ending bell. The first grade teacher picked up students about 5 minutes early on the playground. The second teacher left his door open and students came in on their own. As the morning bell rang students had backpacks away, homework in the upper right hand corner of their desks and were seated on the rug in their spaces. In third grade students turned in homework by subject sorted in different baskets. Students had jobs and one job was to put the third grade work in alphabetical order by last name.

In both of these classes students put their things away only after the last bell rang. All desks were required to be neat and students then went to get backpacks and leave. I found it odd, because all of the teachers who did not differentiate had two lines – one for boys and one for girls or line by student number. However, the differentiating teachers did not spend time on lines, cleaning up after class, putting up chairs – students had classroom jobs. It was a pain in the rear picking up the boys these years because they often were in class 10 – 20 minutes after school. I was frustrated – they were happy – no, satisfied and joyful, for the most part.

I don’t expect you to name the school, but I’m curious about what public school in Oakland was a magnet school for Down Syndrome students, had a class size of 33-34 fourth graders (the limit is supposed to be 31), and only had one aide for four DS students (unless they had no major behavior issues).

At any rate, some of the activities you describe involve the need for adequate planning time, supports, and resources to pull off, which are not available at all Oakland schools. Also, the general school climate must have been relatively free of disruption for it to be considered suitable for recruiting special needs students–another difference from many Oakland schools.

As to why the level of differentiation varied from classroom to classroom, I can only speculate since I’m not familiar with the school community. Possible factors, as I’m sure you have considered, are differences on the part of the teachers in the level of training and experience. Also, the make-up of a specific class can affect the teacher’s approach to instruction. A large number of distractible students can make it more difficult to differentiate.

But you are not describing a setting that sounds like there were a large number of distractible students. In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m realizing that there are wide differences in school cultures within Oakland–and, of course, between Oakland and other districts–depending on the student populations. It’s probably difficult for you to visualize a classroom setting where multiple disruptions may occur throughout the day. If you could, you would understand why differentiating across curriculum on a regular basis can be difficult to accomplish.

Because of pressure (high stakes testing) to boost the level of students who are functioning below level, that principal you mentioned is not alone in focusing on differentiating down.

A shift in education policy (which is not currently dictated by educators) must occur if we are to make sure that all schools are in a position to meet the needs of all students. This is something that parents and teachers alike should advocate for.

I have been talking to my sons about what made first and third grades so special for them. (These are the grades in which the teachers differentiated work.) Their elementary school was a magnet school for students with Down’s Syndrome. I do not remember a year when my sons did not have a group of four Down’s Syndrome students in the class. The aide was often there, but when she was sick, it was often hours before an aide was found to come into the classroom. These students were still wearing pull-ups in first grade and the aide had to assist with restroom habits which left the teacher with three of the students and no aide several times during the day.

Here is what my boys remember: Ms. S in first grade pretested everything. Remember the 100 sight words. There was a pretest and if you got 9 out of 10 right on the pretest you didn’t take the test at the end of two weeks. Remember “Everybody Eats Rice?” That’s how we learned geography. Each family brought in rice from their country of origin. The student who brought the rice had to be able to point out the country on the globe, on a flat map and show the nearest body of water. Our reading was tested and we had those textbooks from the 50s and 60s at our grade level. Those books had stories, poetry, science and songs.

I remember the math that was pretested. Addition, subtraction, greater than, less than, equal to, skip counting was all pretested. Students who completed 90% or better on the pretest estimated how tall the vegetables in the planter would grow in a week, or a month. They also worked on tangrams – a set of 100 in which they kept track of their progress on a chart.

One of my sons who was a good reader and writer, wrote a story about a bird who made his own family by flying to all of the continents and gather a bird native to that country. He worked on this book and report while other students were learning to string together sentences. My younger son did a similar project with bears when he was in first grade. The student, teacher and parent all had to sign the contract. Students were not allowed to disturb others.

I asked about the planter – in lieu of an end of the year gift one year the parents got together and had two 10-foot planters made. The students measured the vegetables, brought in pumpkins and estimated the weight, seeds and circumference. Oh, first and third grades were the only years that my sons never, ever had work sheets for homework. They had a package of homework every week, but NEVER was there a worksheet.

The classes ranged from 24 – 28 and did not move to 33 – 34 until fourth grade. Both of these teachers allowed my sons to advance their learning more than a year in the year they had them. All of the other years at the school, my sons learned twice as much over the summer break as they did during the regular school year in ALL areas of academics.

I guess my question is that if these two teachers could do it, why can’t all teachers with five or more years of experience work toward the same thing?

While teachers complain about the textbooks and the workbooks and the training that goes along with them, teachers rely on them too much on these items and Lakeshore learning for classroom materials. Both of the teachers that differentiated used hands on materials from everyday life.

One assignment I remember particularly well had to do with walking in the neighborhood and collecting two each of three different kinds of seeds. The first set was glued in order of the size of the seed and the second set was glued in the order of the size of the plant the seed would grow to be. More advanced students named the plants and even more advanced student researched the botanical name.

Two things were also important: the principal, who is no longer at the school, reviewed the lesson plans for differentiation. Those teachers who differentiated were observed less often than other teachers. The current principal only requires differentiation down to the lowest levels – not even the least bit above grade level. The second thing is was Ms. S told me – it is horrid to have a bored, bright child in my room because the student will make her or his own interesting work and it will probably interrupt others. The second worse thing is when parents come in and complain because they have supported the school and their child is not learning anything, because you can’t really argue with them. Their child has a right to learn at school and I have a responsibility to teach every student. And some years it is easier than others.

If a teacher can’t teach, the district needs to fire that teacher.

If a teacher needs support, the district needs to support that teacher.

If a teacher is getting remarkable results, the district needs to promote, bonus, exemplify and make happy that teacher.

If a principal can’t lead, get rid of the principal.

IT’S SIMPLE.

Once again you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from my statements. I was not trying to say that students who come to school ill-prepared cannot overcome obstacles and thrive.

My point is that they need a lot of extra support to do so, and that OUSD resources either don’t exist or are not being directed to provide that amount of support to all the students who need it. I’ve had success stories in my own classroom, but I also have stories of students who needed more than I could give them.

As for whole school turnarounds, most such schools enforce a strict discipline policy which I completely support. The teaching and learning time at schools would increase dramatically if stronger policies were put into effect in Oakland, and I have advocated for that to happen. Still waiting…

I fully respect what the educators at Frederick Douglass Academy (cited in your post) have attempted, but they, evidently, need more supports in place to sustain their success as well:

http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2009-10/Progress_Report_2010_HS_M499.pdf

Time to acknowledge what truly needs to happen, and get to work!

OUSD and such “schools” are going to collapse with sudden swiftness. It appears they will lose a block of their students fast enough that their budgets will have problems of the “meeting payroll” kind.

Think of it as a death spiral. Yes, there will be the dregs who are not acceptable and don’t want a real school. The continuation school kids.

Other than that, Charters are online, just like Amazon.Com. As goes “Best Buy” so goes the urban public school.

Brave New World!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE