If you didn't get the title for this blog post, then you probably haven't read The Hunger Games. And if you haven't read The Hunger Games, then I'm sorry. You should probably read it. Even if you aren't into "that kind of stuff". I mean, let's be honest. Who is really into kids playing a game where they have to slaughter each other? No righteous human being who doesn't murder for a living is actually into "that kind of stuff". But it isn't about the killing that makes the story interesting. It's about how these children are forced to kill each other until there is a lone victor. They don't actually love doing it, they have no choice. They live in a society where their government controls everything they do, including who gets to live a normal life and who doesn't just because of where they come from. The book is actually genius, demonstrating how our politicians get to make every important decision for people, whether they deserve it or not. They don't get the choice to go to college or decide what they want to be when they grow up. That decision is already made for them. Their future is already decided.
The other day, we had a professional development session and we found out, during a series of silly games that we were forced to play, that our principal is currently reading The Hunger Games. I couldn't help but chuckle at the irony of this because that's all we do for a living. Play a little game to see who survives and doesn't. Our education system is one big giant dome that is not controlled by people who have ever stepped into the dome and fought, they only watch and play with the fun buttons and mess with the players like they are playing Barbies. And what is the point of it all? To remind the country of who is really in charge. I feel like I am in a game like this every day. I get to teach students a curriculum that was developed by money-hungry companies who bank millions of dollars a year selling their materials. I get to teach standards that were made by people making 3 times what I make and have never, ever stepped into a classroom. I get to force crying, learning disabled students to sit for 2 hours a day and take a comprehensive assessment on everything they have learned from the past 5 months (not even a whole year because tests take place in March). Most of these kids can't even remember what they ate for breakfast. And to top it off, my evaluation that determines whether I am an effective teacher depends on this test of my special education students. Of the very limited amount of time we are given to deliver the hundreds of standards we are forced to deliver. Oh and did I mention how much money these test-creators are making? Let's forget the fact that our schools can't even afford repairs to leaking roofs, or pay for books that weren't written before 1983, but we can somehow afford these tests? Because that's clearly much more important.
But is this what education has really come to? Is this what we want for our children? Is this what we, as teachers, want to do for the rest of our lives? I know, for a fact, that this is not what I signed up for. And I know, for a fact, that our parents want the best for their kids. Don't we live in America? Aren't we the land of the free? We carry bragging rights for being the nation where you can follow your dreams, no matter what your situation. And don't get me wrong, there are people (a lot of people) who have defeated the odds out there. But is it fair that the majority of our children growing up in low-income situations won't be able to defeat these odds, not because their parents are poor but because of the perception that follows them? And what about those kids that don't live in a "situation"? They aren't much better off. Sure, they will go to college and they will get a job, but they won't be able to think for themselves. Why, you ask? Because we are so busy trying to look like a successful country but we aren't really taking the right steps to get us there. Our kids might be able to tell you what time they have to be at their class, but can they actually read the watch on their wrists? Can they actually go to the store and calculate what 25% off of that cool shirt is? Can they conduct a meaningful science experiment that hasn't been done before? Odds are, the majority of our kids cannot. They might be able to rote memorize their multiplication facts, but that doesn't mean anything. Memorizing the Individual with Disabilities Act is important in my job, but does it make me an expert? No. I have to apply much more to be good at what I do. A lawyer can read her law books and know the law, but in order to effectively practice law, she must apply herself. Can our children apply themselves? Or are we just dumping an excessive amount of content on a kid and expecting them to remember, understand, and carry out these skills in a matter of 1-3 days of teaching something?
Let me ask you this. When did you learn to multiply and divide fractions? When did you learn how to solve for x? When did you learn how to write a 5 paragraph expository essay? I for one, did not have to learn this until I was in middle school. So why do our 3rd graders have to learn how to find 2/3 of 24? Why do our 5th graders have to explain what the freaking author's purpose is? Who cares?! (I know, I am not supposed to say that because I am teacher, but I really don't care why an author wrote something). My question is, what is the PURPOSE of forcing our students to learn this stuff at such an early age??? Is what we are expecting our kids to do developmentally appropriate? A lot of people will say it's totally developmentally appropriate. Sure, a kid can learn how to add a fraction or long divide decimals. But are they able to apply their thinking? The problem isn't whether it is developmentally appropriate, it's the volume of learning that we dump on these kids and then expect them to apply their learning. After only a few months of school.
Did you know that in the Common Core Standards (which 46 states have adopted currently) for 3rd grade math, there are 25 standards? You may not think that's much but one standard also includes multiple sub-standards. For example, CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3: Explain equivalence of fractions in special cases, and compare fractions by reasoning about their size. This standard has 4 sub-standards:
- CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3.A: Understand two fractions as equivalent (equal) if they are the same size, or the same point on a number line.
- CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3.B: Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions, e.g., 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3. Explain why the fractions are equivalent, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.
- CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3.C: Express whole numbers as fractions, and recognize fractions that are equivalent to whole numbers. Examples: Express 3 in the form 3 = 3/1; recognize that 6/1 = 6; locate 4/4 and 1 at the same point of a number line diagram.
- CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.3.D: Compare two fractions with the same numerator or the same denominator by reasoning about their size. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with the symbols >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model.
In a book called All About Words: Increasing Vocabulary in the Common Core Classroom, Pre K-2, by Susan B. Neuman and Tanya S. Wright, there is a discussion on a study done by Pinkman, Newman, and Lillard (2011) involving 60 six year olds and their ability to learn a new word. What they found was that it took 24 repetitions of the word for the children to actually remember the word. 24! Wow! And what about the learning disabled child? We are talking hundreds of repetitions (depending on the child, of course). So we need a lot of repetition to learn something new. But what about if we finally learn it and then we start learning something else and are asked about it again later? Are we able to remember it? In order for something to last in our long-term memory we have to retrieve it here and there. And if don't then fading will occur and we will start to forget. If we are retaught the concept, no doubt, it is easier to relearn, but we still need a refresher. Kind of like if you are making a recipe you haven't made in a year. You might forget how to make it because you haven't made it in so long. Or when you are driving to a friends house you haven't been to in forever. You might need them to send the address again because you forgot where it was.
In a study determining how much of textbook material was retained over a period of time, (Memory and the Importance of Review), the following was discovered:
| After 1 day | 54% was remembered. |
| After 7 days | 35% was remembered. |
| After 14 days | 21% was remembered. |
| After 21 days | 18% was remembered. |
| After 28 days | 19% was remembered. |
Robert Bjork, a professor of psychology at UCLA, has conducted numerous studies on memory and cognition. He agrees that we need a lot of repetitions to learn material but that we also need to space out when we learn these concepts. "It is common sense that when we want to learn information, we study that information multiple times. The schedules by which we space repetitions can make a huge difference, however, in how well we learn and retain information we study. The spacing effect is the finding that information that is presented repeatedly over spaced intervals is learned much better than information that is repeated without intervals (i.e., massed presentation)." Bjork's Learning and Forgetting Lab. Makes sense, right? If we relearn material over a period of time, we will become more able to learn material and then apply those skills. But we can't do this with the time we are given and the amount we are given. We just pray that cross our fingers that most of our students will remember most of the content and perform well on a test.
So if you ask me, there is A LOT of research out there on the amount of time it takes to learn something. But why don't our legislatures and politicians pay attention to this stuff? I guess, because it would make sense, right? They think that 25 math learning targets is simple enough to expect a 9 year old to learn but have they ever tried it? Come on in to my classroom, I invite you politicians and curriculum makers, and try it! Let's see how you do. By the way, we don't really have curriculum to teach from for every subject, so you will have to find most of your materials to teach if you want meaningful learning to take place.
So I beg the question again. Do we want this for our children? Do we want their knowledge to be determined by a score that that they get on a test? Do we want our kids to be a number to our government? Do we want to participate in a game where we are players in a video game and our every move and outcome is determined by the politicians? We are just players in a game to them. A game that is making our country look good from a distance for the moment. Hey China, look at the standards we are setting for our students over here! We are superstars! But don't you dare look at our test results. And forget about giving more money to the schools so we can actually try to achieve these results. After all, citizens that are allowed to vote, aren't really the ones sitting in our free, public education classrooms, right? What they won't know won't hurt them. And for our students and the future of our country, may the odds be ever in our favor.
Next Blog: Property Taxes: Is a Child's Zip Code a Fair Way of Determining His Future?
