Count Down

      A 34 year career of teaching English—31 spent in some of New York City’s most disrespected schools—is comprised of…what?  What picture pops into your mind when you think of spending a score of years walking into classrooms at Evander Childs H.S. in the Bronx (named one of the 12 most violent public schools in New York) or a decade in JHS 117 in notorious district 9 during the burned out years?  What do you imagine it was like for a skinny, 23 year old, Italian-American product of Catholic schools to walk into Haaren H.S. in 1972 down in Hell's Kitchen (a school that was so bad it would be closed before the 80s arrived)?

      If you picture a long, slow, grinding torture with surly kids, cynical teachers, incompetent administrators, disinterested parents and hostile communities, you’d be right—about 1/34^th of the time.  I estimate that approximately 180 of my teaching days were the stuff of nightmare, about 150 students were hard-down bad’ns, 20 teachers were burned-out and/or cruel, and six administrators were stupid and/or vicious.

     Early in my career, I spent a lot of quality time thinking about leaving the profession.  I savored the thought of taking one insult too many from a kid or supervisor, giving a little shrug, turning on my heel and sauntering out of the building with never a glance back.  After all, I was a smart guy.  I knew people in advertising.  I could probably sell wart remover with the best of them!  It was a soothing fantasy; it was warm milk before bed; it was an afternoon at the beach; it was a smile from a pretty girl.

     Then something strange happened; gradually, just as my experience began to grow, the kids got better!  At least enough of them did to keep me in the business.  Oddly enough, at the same time, my older colleagues were spending a lot of time complaining about how much worse these same kids were than the intelligent, hard-working, respectful students of yore.  As I happened to have been a student back in those days and knew for a fact what rotters we all were, this confused me.  Although this nostalgia for the old days and the old students was a constant of teacher room conversation throughout my career, I had just the opposite experience.  On the whole, the students continued to improve in how they acted in my class and the kind and amount of work they were able to do right through to my last year of secondary school teaching.

     By the end, there were 6,000 days when it was a joy to enter the classroom.  I enjoyed at least 30,000 classes, working and learning with young people who wanted the same things all young people want—to have fun, experiment, discover themselves, push their boundaries, escape the embarrassment of ignorance, be respected, challenged, disciplined and loved.

     It’s been a career of adventure, with all that the word implies: uncertainty, discovery, sudden threat, startling beauty, unexpected twists and the possibility that there won’t be a happy ending.  It also implies that the adventurer will need to learn from more experienced guides, will have to innovate on the fly, and, every single day, will be made very aware of being alive.

     Of course, I was the guide on this adventure, not the client.  I expected my talent, knowledge and ability would be respected and valued and I expected to be paid for my time.  That this attitude was not universally shared was brought home to me in a thousand ways, perhaps best illustrated by the time I was walking from the subway to City Hall to participate in a rally for a long overdue contract.  As I passed a slow-moving white-haired woman, who was obviously bothered by the crowd, she clutched my arm and asked where everybody was going.  When I told her, she grunted, “More money!  With the kind of crap you people are putting out on the street, they should be paying you less money.” 

     That’s New York.  Everybody’s got an opinion and, whether you’ve asked for it or not, you’re going to hear it.  

     For this blog, the point of view is one that is conspicuously missing from the public debate on education; that of a life-long teacher—one of the people who has had to make it happen in the classroom—one of the people who knows that we teach the students who walk in the door, no matter what their backgrounds, attitudes, readiness, social skills, quickness of mind, stability of home or pleasantness of personality.

     Education policies are predicated on hypothetical children; I taught the real ones.  They had names and bodies, lives and experiences.  Here’s a glimpse of the last 90 days of my career and those who peopled them.

Vetting a website

In the four year run up to the recent election, I was one of the millions of people who were disgusted by the seeming endless stream of false news stories that were Facebooked and Twittered around the world. This was upsetting but not surprising. I realized a number of years ago that students have little understanding of the difference between a "reliable" website, a site that needs heavy skepticism, and one that should be dismissed out of hand. Further, I came to know that many of my adult Facebook correspondents have even less ability to discriminate.

With that in mind, I searched for a quick, clear set of criteria for making judgements about what the internet makes available. That's when I came upon the CRAAP test out of the California State University at Chico. I liked it a lot -- Currency, Relevence, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose. Of course, it may be difficult to judge accuracy, but if that sends you searching for more answers, then that is a good thing.

Still, I didn't think it covered all sites and all searches, so, in the same scatological vein, I came up with two tests of my own. The first looks at the source of the sites (POOP). The second looks at scholarly sites (SSHIT). Take a look for yourself below.

 Finally, for those who want or need something less, um, well you know..., I include Kathy Schrock's Five Ws.

 Enjoy, use, share! Let's learn to control the beast.

The CRAAP Test

California State University at Chico

Evaluation Criteria

Currency: The timeliness of the information.

When was the information published or posted?

Has the information been revised or updated?

Is the information current or out-of-date for your topic?

Are the links functional?

Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.

Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?

Who is the intended audience?

Is the information at an appropriate level?

Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?

Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?

Authority: The source of the information.

Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?

Are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given?

Is the author a teacher or student of the topic?

Does the author have a reputation?

Is there contact information, such as an e-mail address?

Has the author published works in traditional formats?

Is the author affiliated with an organization?

Does this organization appear to support or sponsor the page?

What does the domain name/URL reveal about the source of the information, if anything?

Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the informational content.

Where does the information come from?

Are the original sources of information listed?

Can you verify any of the information in independent sources or from you own knowledge?

Has the information been reviewed or referred?

Does the language or tone seem biased?

Are there spelling, grammar, or other typos?

Purpose: The reason the information exists.

Are possible biases clearly stated?

Is advertising content vs. informational content easily distinguishable?

Are editorials clearly labeled?

Is the purpose of the page stated?

Is the purpose to: inform? teach? entertain? enlighten? sell? persuade?

Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

Sites that passed the CRAAP test:

http://espn.go.com/ - Passed most of the evaluation criteria of the CRAAP test

http://www.usatoday.com/ - Another site that passed that CRAAP test, having good scores in all of the sub categories of the test

Sites that failed the CRAAP test:

http://www.wikipedia.org/ - An informative site with a lot of good facts, but because it can be edited by any person, there is also a lot of false information in the site. Best to pursue the citations.

http://www.foxnews.com/ - A news site with good information but is very biased towards a certain political approach. It only reports what supports its bias.

The POOP Test (A shorter version of the CRAAP Test)

Producers:

Who created the site?

o A Commercial organization? A political one? A government one?

Knowing who created the site can help us understand their point of view and intentions

This is important in determining which information is likely to be influenced by attitude.

Objectives:

What is the producer trying to accomplish?

o Some sites have as their purpose the spread of information, others are trying to foster an attitude. This makes a difference in what information is chosen and how it is presented.

Obligations:

To whom does the producer owe something?

o Some sites are created primarily for site visitors. They are influenced by visitor needs.

o Others are beholding to a parent organization. They are influenced by the attitudes and needs of that organization.

o Sites created by businesses are deeply concerned with making money for themselves and any possible stockholders.

Proposals:

What are they suggesting the consumer do or believe?

o How will the site producers benefit from the actions they propose?

o What is the cost to the visitor in time, money, or effort for doing what the site suggests?

o Who is benefited? Who is hurt?

The SSHIT Test (the real dirt)

Finally, we're looking for sites that we can trust because they provide:                                                               Studies that repeatedly produce the same results

Statistics that are long term and inclusive

Historical reliability, having been proven accurate again and again

Independently reviewed information

Timely studies that reflect the most recent trends

If you are of a less scatological bent you might prefer Kathy Schrock’s

THE FIVE W’S OF WEBSITE EVALUATION

WHO

Who wrote the pages and are they an expert?

Is a biography of the author included?

How can I find out more about the author?

WHAT

What does the author say is the purpose of the site?

What else might the author have in mind for the site?

What makes the site easy to use?

What information is included and does this information differ from other sites?

WHEN

When was the site created?

When was the site last updated?

WHERE

Where does the information come from?

Where can I look to find out more about the sponsor of the site?

WHY

Why is this information useful for my purpose?

Why should I use this information?

Why is this page better than another?

(http://kathyschrock.net/abceval/5ws.pdf)

or

the University of Southern Maine’s Checklist for Evaluating Web Resources

Is the Web a good research tool? This question is dependent on the researcher's objective. As in traditional print resources one must use a method of critical analysis to determine its value. Here is a checklist for evaluating web resources to help in that determination.

Authority:

Is the information reliable? Check the author's credentials and affiliation. Is the author an expert in the field? Does the resource have a reputable organization or expert behind it? Are the sources of information stated? Can you verify the information? Can the author be contacted for clarification? Check for organizational or author biases.

Scope:

Is the material at this site useful, unique, accurate or is it derivative, repetitious, or doubtful? Is the information available in other formats? Is the purpose of the resource clearly stated? Does it fulfill its purpose? What items are included in the resource? What subject area, time period, formats or types of material are covered? Is the information factual or opinion? Does the site contain original information or simply links? How frequently is the resource updated? Does the site have clear and obvious pointers to new content?

Format and Presentation:

Is the information easy to get to? How many links does it take to get to something useful? What is the quality of the graphical images? Do these images enhance the resource or distract from the content? Is the target audience or intended users clearly indicated? Is the arrangement of links uncluttered? Does the site have its own search engine? Is the site easily browsable or searchable?

Cost and Accessibility:

Is the site available on a consistent basis? Is response time fast? Does the site have a text-based alternative? How many links lead to a dead-end? Is this a fee-based site? Can non-members still have access to part of the site? Must you register a name and password before using the site?

Other Tips:

Check the header and footer information to determine the author and source. In the URL, a tilde ~ usually indicated a personal web directory rather than being part of the organization's official web site. In order to verify an author's credentials, you may need to consult some printed sources such as Who's Who in America or the Biography Index. Check and compare the web site to others which are both similar and different.

For more information on how to evaluate:

This site has an excellent bibliography of other internet and print resources on evaluating web resources. It is updated by a librarian, Nicole J. Auer, at Virginia Tech on a regular basis.

http://www.lib.vt.edu/instruct/evaluate/

The Kind of Schools Teachers Want

Not long ago an acquaintance shared his true feelings of about teachers. He expressed nothing but scorn for us and for our pushback against the constant barrage of tests and the misuse of the test results in rating teachers, schools, and districts.

He expressed quite clearly the general feeling of those who see teachers as ticks growing bloated on the public carcass.  They hate what they see as the "whining" that comes out of the mouths of 6 hr. 40 min., 180 day loafers, who abuse children for a living. They see tenure as a job guarantee; they see a public school teaching position as a sinecure; and their opinions, often biased by an unpleasant personal experience, reflect an unwillingness to see the job of teaching as significantly different from many other professions. 

This person complained of his own difficulties with teachers as he struggled though his school years. He felt mistreated, misunderstood, and misled by a string of mediocre teachers. Why, he wondered should the public be forced to grant such teachers tenure and be forced to accept mediocrity for their children?

He also spoke of his son and daughter, both young lawyers, and compared the way his children were treated in their jobs to the expectations of teachers, drawing the conclusion that teachers are, at best, wimps. Young lawyers, he says, work almost non-stop, are expected to do everything the partners demand, and can be summarily fired if they do not produce excellence.

I asked him if he believes that the work done by his son and daughter is improved by the long hours, and meat-grinder conditions they are made to endure.  If so, then we could have no basis for discussion.  Also, if he feels that children need not be treated any differently than adults, that a child and a contract are the same thing, again we will have to just agree to disagree.

If, on the other hand, he recognizes that overloaded, discouraged, exhausted, lawyers cannot possibly perform their jobs with optimum effectiveness, and that overloaded, discouraged, exhausted teachers can have damaging effects on large numbers of the most vulnerable, then we had something to talk about.

I tried to explain that teaching is different.  It involves, primarily, our children. It is a humanist job. It means dealing with the needs and futures of children like the child he was when he was in school. I pointed out that his sad history as a public school child is not what we teachers want for our children and that none of his teachers ever went into the profession hoping to be no more than barely adequate. In fact, I noted, many good, effective, smart young teachers choose to leave the profession all the time because the conditions are too much for them to take. For the most part, it's not the poor pay that drives them away, but rather those conditions in schools that demoralize both teachers and students; that make it nearly impossible for the teachers to grow towards excellence. These young people want to see schools where students have a chance to succeed and teachers have a chance to prepare them for that success.  

I asked him if his lawyer children were told exactly how they must do their job, or if they were left to figure it out for themselves. He told me it was the latter. I then explained to him about state-created curricula and packaged curricula that many school districts have adopted and expect their teachers to present lock-step -- whether they are appropriate for the children or not. I explained to him how misguided administrators can make nonsensical demands that set teachers up for failure (as when my wife's principal decided that teachers could no longer have desks or when she decreed that an expensive veteran teacher should teach Spanish even though the teacher had never taken a single course in the language in hopes it would drive this otherwise excellent teacher into retirement) .

I tried to help him see that we have to change the conditions, because if we don’t then the only teachers who remain will be the mediocre ones who put more energy into playing politics than teaching students. 

What we want is to have the majority of the people teaching with us be able to do the job with excellence.  We want the potentially excellent teachers to stay in the profession.  We want them to be able to achieve that excellence.  Grinding up the good teachers and spitting them out is NOT in the best interest of our children.

This man may have some issues with the public school system, but teachers are not the system, they are subject to the system. It is a system that we teachers want to see changed, and we believe that he should want to see it changed too.

I would also like to talk to him about the issue of tying teaching to performance measures, and I want to talk about the effects more money might have, but maybe not now.  I’d rather he think about my main point that teachers want to be able to do the wonderful job they dreamed of doing when they chose to go into the profession.  I want him to think about how the conditions he describes prevent people from doing that wonderful job.  I want him to think about how important it is to all of us, not just the clients, that teachers be given conditions that allow and encourage that kind of job.