Libraries and Lemonade: Maybe it's just me,

itssnix:

librariesandlemonade:

but these all seem like pretty shabby reasons to unschool. Homeschooling and unschooling in the US education model might be right for some people, and there are lots of reasons for that, but these really bug me, both because they discredit a lot of the legitimate reasons people do it and because they’re traits and experiences LOTS of kids who wouldn’t benefit from unschooling probably share.

I almost never even check the #education tag anymore. It used to be full of things that added to my knowledge, both of education itself and of the people working in the field (whether traditionally or in other ways). Now, most days, I get a lot more from the unmoderated #teaching tag, so I usually pay more attention to that.

It’s always pretty easy to tell which posts get promoted by which editors, too. Variety of voices is nice, sure, because the input of a variety of kinds of educators with a variety of philosophies is important, but this has been more than that, and not often in a positive way.

Might I just add that I agree. I liked #education better when it was just the Fab Five. I would gladly give up my editorship if that would help!

[I also want to take this moment to say that in order to promote great content, people need to create great content.]

I’m with itssnix. I promote very rarely—mostly because I can’t promote on my phone and so I can only do it in the evenings when I am usually too tired to explore Tumblr. I’m hoping to be able to be more active in 11 days.

But it’s also because when I do go off exploring for posts people have tagged as “education,” I don’t find a lot of good stuff that has not already been awarded that shiny blue tag. I’ve been promoting a few things out of the science tag, as the lone (I think?) science ed person.

So I don’t know that I personally am contributing a whole lot as an editor, and if reducing the number of editors would get the quality of #education back to where it was three months ago I’d be fine with that.

Source: librariesandlemonade

NYC Educator: What Real People Think about State Exams

jbizzle329:

misseducation:

Yup. Yup. I feel like all us teachers should post our real-life conversations with real-life non-teachers about how messy the system is against us. For example:

Me on testing (in September, January, and May):

Me: I have to test my kids this month.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Wait, what do you mean, month?
Me: Well, they have this test called the NWEA. They have to take three tests: reading, math, and language. And the worst part is, I have to miss teaching my kids while testing them.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Well, won’t they be testing with you? You shouldn’t miss any teaching days, then.
Me: No, I teach a kindergartener, four second graders, five, now six third graders, and five 4th graders, and they all test at separate times. So I’m going to miss 8 to 12 instructional days while I’m testing the other kids.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Wait, so you’re saying while some kids are testing the other kids don’t get you? Who gets them, a sub?
Me: No, either they’ll be taught by their aide who I give the lesson plans to, or I have to create a big review packet for them to do on their own while the gen ed teacher teaches material that’s too hard for them because they haven’t been in the gen ed room, or they just learn under the gen ed teacher and don’t get my services as their special ed teacher.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Wow, that must suck.
Me: Yup, it does.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Well, at least it only happens once a year, right?
Me: Nope, I had to do the same thing two more times this year. Meaning I was basically testing for three months while trying to figure out when I could give my kids their minutes according to their special education services.
Friend/Dad/Brother: Wow, I could not do that.
Me: I hardly can myself.

This sums up how it is for me every time we do the Scantron Assessment. And, if the kid spoils it by answering too quickly, or working too slow, they have to take it again. When they take it again, I’m once again pulled out and not teaching.

Always assessing…

I’ve complained a lot about the testing I’ve had to deal with this week. This is a good reminder that you poor elementary /special education teachers test way more than I can even comprehend.

Seriously, the amount of assessment and data analysis you all do is absurd.

Source: misseducation

itssnix: When you were a student, which were you? The “repeatedly sharpening pencil” is my current least favorite.
View Separately

itssnix:

When you were a student, which were you?

The “repeatedly sharpening pencil” is my current least favorite.

Source: itssnix

musatecamiyo:

“Measuring the Universe” una animación para la Royal Observatory Greenwich

mb24jg—for your GT kids?

Source: musatecamiyo

Senior prank penalties don't stick long: Indy Star

girlwithalessonplan:

When you read the story, you appreciate the headline more…

;)

But it does bring up interesting, contrasting views on the role of “pranks” in schools today.

At my school, the senior prank was “Occupy ____HS!

The seniors set up tents and sleeping bags in our huge entrance hall. It was all set up early in the morning, before school started, so that when the first bell rang everyone had to navigate through it to get upstairs for class.

My school has an “official prank” policy: everything gets submitted to administration in advance, and the administration says yes or no. This year, the seniors were permitted to miss the first half of first period to clean up the “Occupy!” stuff.

It seems to work OK for everyone.

Source: girlwithalessonplan

First Impressions: Next Generation Science Standards (Draft)

  • I am loving the “assessment boundaries,” statements put in parentheses after each standard limiting the level of detail that can be tested.
  • There’s a series of standards in life science on basic neuroscience/psychology, which strikes me as bizarre and unnecessarily anthropocentric. Also, both of those things are on the List of Things I Know Nothing About.
  • Very nice limits on the details of photosynthesis and metabolism.
  • The pervasiveness of “using models” is a positive step, but in order to effectively implement that we’re going to need weeks of high quality PD. Somehow I doubt we will get that, but it looks like I will be doing that two-week modeling workshop next summer with my fellowship dollars.
  • Much needed emphasis on mathematical data in biology. So often that gets cut because it’s not in our current standards.
  • Anthropogenic climate change is written in!
  • Weird specific standard on group selection’s role in evolution. Especially weird given how much controversy there is in the primary literature right now about just how powerful group/kin selection actually is.
  • I like the rigor of the ecology-related standards; that unit is always the most lackluster. But I worry they might be too ambitious.
  • NO MORE STEPS OF MITOSIS/MEIOSIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I might have actually done some chair-dancing when I read that.)
  • There’s some basic developmental biology, which I support. There’s none of it in my current curriculum. I don’t know much about developmental bio myself, but it is an important sub-field and the kids are always curious about it.
  • I’m very comfortable with the evolution standards. I’d have liked to see human evolution codified into standards, but I am more than happy with a set of standards emphasizing the interpretation of empirical data to draw conclusions about evolutionary theory.

On the whole: less chemical detail (yay!), strong focus on modeling (pedagogically excellent, but even competent teachers [like myself] don’t know how to do this]), strong focus on the interpretation of data, and “designing carrying out investigations” (inquiry-centered lab work!) is actually written into the standards. The assessment boundaries are wonderful.

This science teacher is pleasantly surprised. These standards are a significant improvement and I’m looking forward to implementation.

Longest Week Ever

Seriously, if I didn’t have to get my ecology unit finished in the next ~4 days, I’d be calling in sick tomorrow. So over this week:

  • Yesterday I supervised a half-day in-school field trip for my 9th grade ecology students
  • It was like herding cats (thanks mb24jg) except without the cute
  • My paras/co-teacher were no help (Note: In general, I love my paras + co-teacher. They are usually very capable and supportive and I appreciate that their work is generally more underpaid and undervalued than my own. But please don’t walk over to me to tell me that the group of 9th graders 200 yards away that you just checked in with have all switched groups. Fix it!)
  • When I got back my department head informed that in my one class he covered a boy made an offensive comment about a girl’s weight; the girl left the room in tears and had to leave school early. I was irate. It was probably the angriest I’ve been all year. And I was upset that a student had been so bullied in my classroom. It made me feel like I had failed to establish a safe space in my classroom, and that I had failed to protect a student.
  • Every goddamn time I leave that class there is a legitimate incident requiring phone calls home and office referrals. Every. single. time.
  • Today a student with a 56% came to see me about her grade and we had the conversation I wanted us to have in October.
  • Which made me feel like a failure for not forcing the conversation in October.
  • Today as I graded I came across an assignment, a case study, on which one of my students had written: “I’m not smart” as her answer for an experimental design question. She is definitely in over her head in my gifted class but she is certainly a bright student, and she has tried hard all year. It broke my heart, and made me feel like a failure for not giving her more active support sooner.
  • But they know that I’m available, and they need to take the initiative to let me know when they are confused and when they need clarification.
  • Maybe I also need more patience.
  • Happy Teacher Appreciation Week?
gjmueller: Happy Teacher Appreciation Week!
Pop-upView Separately

gjmueller:

Happy Teacher Appreciation Week!

Source: gjmueller

approachingsignificance: 8 Myths About Scientists I stumbled across this in Thick Books and Thin Films by Adam Ruben. Pretty good. Myth #1: Scientists frequently make “breakthroughs.” Truth: Scientific discovery is agonizingly slow. The only time I’ve ever run naked through the streets yelling “Eureka!” is when I forgot to refill my prescription. Myth #2: Scientists work in isolation. Truth: Scientists are even prouder of setting up collaborations than they are of actual results. Most scientific talks end with a slide listing all collaborators like little badges of honor—and the less similar the collaborator’s field, the prouder the scientist. “Well, you know, I might have discovered a cure for tuberculosis,” a scientist will say, “but what I’m really excited about is this new collaboration with an Icelandic poet!” Myth #3: Scientists possess useful skills. Truth: Scientists possess useful laboratory skills. But you should never allow a physicist to wire your house. Myth #4: Scientists follow the scientific method as it was taught in high school: Observation, Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. Truth: In reality, the way scientists work is more like: Fiddle Around, Find Something Weird, Retest It, It Doesn’t Happen a Second Time, Get Distracted Trying to Make It Happen Again, Go to Chipotle, Recall the Original Purpose of Your Research, Start Over, Apply for Funding for a Better Instrument, Publish Some Interim Fluff, Learn That Someone Has Scooped You, Take Your Lab in a New Direction, Apply for Funding for the New Direction, Collaborate With an Icelandic Poet, Eat Chipotle With an Icelandic Poet, Co-Write Scientifically Accurate Ode to Walrus, Get Interested in Something Unrelated, Apply for Funding for Something Unrelated, Notice That 20 Years Have Passed. Myth #5: Experiments always yield data that teach or reveal something. Truth: Let’s say you’re doing an experiment with five mice. These particular mice will turn either yellow or blue. So you walk into the lab expecting to see five yellow mice, which will point to one explanation, or five blue mice, which will point to the other. Instead you would see one yellow mouse, one green mouse, one striped mouse, one plaid mouse (dead), and one mouse that has somehow sewn himself a little blue jacket, though he doesn’t wear it all the time. Myth #6: A personal tragedy can turn a scientist evil. Truth: Very few scientists are legitimately evil, though the number rises if you ask graduate students to characterize their advisers. Besides, it’s hard to be truly evil when you don’t have any practical skills. Myth #7: A scientist can be proficient in all branches of science. Truth: Exactly what discipline did the professor from Gilligan’s Island specialize in? Chemistry? Mechanical engineering? Coconut-based transistor radio construction? Any time a problem needed solving or a device needed building, the professor knew exactly how to do it. That guy could make anything. Except a boat. People who don’t understand science assume that scientists can master any subfield. That’s why we’re often asked for our opinions about scientific news items, and we can only reply, “Uh … sorry … I know I’m a molecular phylogeneticist, and this story was about molecular phylogenetics, but, well, I’m a different kind of molecular phylogeneticist.” Myth #8: Scientists are not sexy beasts. Truth: Scientists are indeed sexy beasts. Not only do our lab coats make us look dapper and charming, those same coats look even better strewn unceremoniously over a standing lamp while we make passionate love to you.  
Pop-upView Separately

approachingsignificance:

8 Myths About Scientists

I stumbled across this in Thick Books and Thin Films by Adam Ruben. Pretty good.

Myth #1: Scientists frequently make “breakthroughs.”

Truth: Scientific discovery is agonizingly slow. The only time I’ve ever run naked through the streets yelling “Eureka!” is when I forgot to refill my prescription.

Myth #2: Scientists work in isolation.

Truth: Scientists are even prouder of setting up collaborations than they are of actual results. Most scientific talks end with a slide listing all collaborators like little badges of honor—and the less similar the collaborator’s field, the prouder the scientist. “Well, you know, I might have discovered a cure for tuberculosis,” a scientist will say, “but what I’m really excited about is this new collaboration with an Icelandic poet!”

Myth #3: Scientists possess useful skills.

Truth: Scientists possess useful laboratory skills. But you should never allow a physicist to wire your house.

Myth #4: Scientists follow the scientific method as it was taught in high school: Observation, Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion.

Truth: In reality, the way scientists work is more like: Fiddle Around, Find Something Weird, Retest It, It Doesn’t Happen a Second Time, Get Distracted Trying to Make It Happen Again, Go to Chipotle, Recall the Original Purpose of Your Research, Start Over, Apply for Funding for a Better Instrument, Publish Some Interim Fluff, Learn That Someone Has Scooped You, Take Your Lab in a New Direction, Apply for Funding for the New Direction, Collaborate With an Icelandic Poet, Eat Chipotle With an Icelandic Poet, Co-Write Scientifically Accurate Ode to Walrus, Get Interested in Something Unrelated, Apply for Funding for Something Unrelated, Notice That 20 Years Have Passed.

Myth #5: Experiments always yield data that teach or reveal something.

Truth: Let’s say you’re doing an experiment with five mice. These particular mice will turn either yellow or blue. So you walk into the lab expecting to see five yellow mice, which will point to one explanation, or five blue mice, which will point to the other. Instead you would see one yellow mouse, one green mouse, one striped mouse, one plaid mouse (dead), and one mouse that has somehow sewn himself a little blue jacket, though he doesn’t wear it all the time.

Myth #6: A personal tragedy can turn a scientist evil.

Truth: Very few scientists are legitimately evil, though the number rises if you ask graduate students to characterize their advisers. Besides, it’s hard to be truly evil when you don’t have any practical skills.

Myth #7: A scientist can be proficient in all branches of science.

Truth: Exactly what discipline did the professor from Gilligan’s Island specialize in? Chemistry? Mechanical engineering? Coconut-based transistor radio construction? Any time a problem needed solving or a device needed building, the professor knew exactly how to do it. That guy could make anything. Except a boat.

People who don’t understand science assume that scientists can master any subfield. That’s why we’re often asked for our opinions about scientific news items, and we can only reply, “Uh … sorry … I know I’m a molecular phylogeneticist, and this story was about molecular phylogenetics, but, well, I’m a different kind of molecular phylogeneticist.”

Myth #8: Scientists are not sexy beasts.

Truth: Scientists are indeed sexy beasts. Not only do our lab coats make us look dapper and charming, those same coats look even better strewn unceremoniously over a standing lamp while we make passionate love to you.

 

Source: approachingsignificance

Quiet

Today, as we kicked off our ecology unit, I took my GT kids outside. They had to mark off one square meter of nature and make field observations.

One of their instructions was to “silently observe for three minutes.” Before we left the room, I pointed this out.

“Hopefully you know by now that I wouldn’t ask you to do something for no reason. This instruction is on here for a reason. Please do it. Sit silently for three minutes and just focus on  the ground in front of you. It’s important. You’ll be surprised at what you notice!”

And much to my own surprise, once we were outside and the squabbling over location had died down and the stakes had been placed, the field was silent. My kids were spread out over a fairly large area in small groups—large enough that for me to walk around to all them took a full 3 minutes. And for about 3 minutes, none of them said a word. Then they just started right in with their observations.

When we got back in, I asked what they had noticed. Here’s what one girl had to say:

“When you first looked, it looked like there wasn’t anything there. But then, after you really started paying attention, you could tell that there was actually a lot going on.”