Thursday, September 17, 2020


Should We Quit Teaching Cursive in a Digital Age?

Forget Marx vs. Mises. You want to get a spirited debate going, ask pretty much anyone over the age of 8: Should kids still be taught cursive writing?

I posted this question to Facebook, and for the next hour or two, every time I checked in someone was busy typing a response. Which, I think, proves my side of the argument: These folks weren't penning flowing notes on scented paper. They were using the most dominant method of written communication today: keyboarding. When most of your life will be spent tapping keys, why bother to learn two different ways of writing with a pen or pencil?

Because it is super-important historically, physically, psychologically, therapeutically, and cognitively—that's why, said the pro-cursive folks. And as I talked to teachers, therapists, and education gurus, it started to seem to this cursive-challenged gal that perhaps they have a point.

One of script's biggest benefits, they said, is that because the letters are strung together, it makes reading and comprehending easier (yes, even though books are rendered in print).

"First graders who learned to write in cursive received higher scores in reading words and in spelling than a comparable group who learned to write in manuscript," reported researchers in Academic Therapy in 1976. This could be because when a kid isn't lifting his pencil all the time, the linked letters provide "kinesthetic feedback about the shape of the words as a whole, which is absent in manuscript writing."

The gains can go beyond mere reading and spelling to processing whole thoughts. "Kids that write in cursive don't just form words more easily, they also write better sentences," claim the folks at Scholastic.

Is it possible we've been so focused on print that—like a toddler's lowercase bs and ds—we got it all backward? At many Montessori schools, that is the belief. There, kids learn cursive as early as age 3—before they learn print, says Jesse McCarthy, host of The Montessori Education Podcast. Then, using a "movable alphabet" of script letters, "you'll have a 4-year-old on the ground and they're basically writing sentences."

Barbie Levin, an occupational therapist in public and private schools, told me she has seen cursive work almost as therapy for some kids with coordination problems, learning disorders, or cognitive limitations that make it hard for them to learn how to print. "When a fourth grader is referred to me with poor handwriting," says Levin, "I can't unravel the handwriting habits of five years. But if it's within their capabilities…I teach them cursive. It's a fresh start, instead of harping on something they've given up on, and they are learning rather than unlearning. Also, they feel motivated because even 'the smart kids' (who they've been unfavorably comparing themselves to for years) don't know how." Once her kids get the hang of script, she says, they often do better not just at classwork but even at things like tying shoes and buttoning buttons. It's a win all around.

Beyond that, says retired elementary school teacher Michele Yokell, who was teaching an after-school class in cursive right up until COVID-19 hit, script "is part of our history—our heritage." You don't want kids squinting at the Constitution as if it's in cuneiform.

Yet despite all these boons, cursive seems to be going the way of the IBM Selectric—and for the same reason. While script may wire the brain, connect to history, and come more naturally to many kids, digital print is winning.

Cursive is not required by the Common Core curriculum, though a few states have mandated it. And a survey of handwriting teachers by Zaner-Bloser, a cursive textbook publisher, found that only 37 percent of them write exclusively in script. Another 8 percent write only in print, while most—55 percent—use a print/script mashup.

As do I. But 99 percent of my writing time involves a keyboard. So, sure, give kids a chance to learn script if print is tough for them, or if they want to research anything older than Betty Crocker recipes. Or maybe teach script and skip print. But teaching two ways to write the same letters when a third way—tap tap tap—is the real skill everyone needs? That seems as wacky as writing a capital Q that looks like a 2.

SOURCE







Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Reopen America’s Schools

In late July, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report titled “The Importance of Reopening America’s Schools this Fall,” which makes a clear and convincing argument that America’s students should return for in-person learning.

The report notes, “The best available evidence indicates if children become infected, they are far less likely to suffer severe symptoms. Death rates among school-aged children are much lower than among adults. At the same time, the harms attributed to closed schools on the social, emotional, and behavioral health, economic well-being, and academic achievement of children, in both the short- and long-term, are well-known and significant.”

As of September 9, CDC data show that 377 Americans under the age of 24 have died from COVID-19. Although one death of a young person is tragic, we need to put this number into context. For instance, during the same period, far more American children have died from other causes, such as vehicle accidents.

In fact, as the CDC data show, a total of 35,642 Americans under the age of 24 have died from other causes during this period. The odds of an American under the age of 24 dying from COVID-19 is nearly zero.

Although many teachers unions argue that reopening schools will put teachers in jeopardy, the data, once again, tell a very different story.

According to the CDC report, “Based on current data, the rate of infection among younger school children, and from students to teachers, has been low, especially if proper precautions are followed. There have also been few reports of children being the primary source of COVID-19 transmission among family members. This is consistent with data from both virus and antibody testing, suggesting that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.”

So, students are practically invulnerable to COVID-19. And they are not likely to spread it to adults. Yet schools remain closed throughout America.

As if that is not enough to warrant schools to reopen, perhaps we should consider the wide-ranging impacts of keeping schools closed, as the CDC report details.

“Educational Instruction”

“Extended school closure is harmful to children. It can lead to severe learning loss, and the need for in-person instruction is particularly important for students with heightened behavioral needs.”

“We also know that, for many students, long breaks from in-person education are harmful to student learning.”

“Disparities in educational outcomes caused by school closures are a particular concern for low-income and minority students and students with disabilities.”

“Social and Emotional Skill Development”

“Extended school closures are harmful to children’s development of social and emotional skills. Important social interactions that facilitate the development of critical social and emotional skills are greatly curtailed or limited when students are not physically in school.”

“Additionally, extended closures can be harmful to children’s mental health and can increase the likelihood that children engage in unhealthy behaviors.”

“In-person schooling provides children with access to a variety of mental health and social services, including speech language therapy, and physical or occupational therapy to help the physical, psychological, and academic well-being of the child.”
“Safety”

“Extended school closures deprive children who live in unsafe homes and neighborhoods of an important layer of protection from neglect as well as physical, sexual, and emotional maltreatment and abuse.”

“Nutrition”

“Extended school closures can be harmful to the nutritional health of children. Schools are essential to meeting the nutritional needs of children with many consuming up to half their daily calories at school.”

“Physical Activity”

“When schools are closed, children lose access to important opportunities for physical activity.”

“The loss of opportunities for physical activity from school closures, especially when coupled with potentially diminished nutrition, can be particularly harmful to children.”

As a former public school teacher, I can attest to the fact that children are much better off attending in-person classes than remote learning. During my teaching career, I had a few students who had to rely on remote-learning because of extenuating circumstances that prevented them from being present in the classroom. In almost every case, it was a monumental struggle for the remote learner to keep up with the pace of the class. In several cases, the student took an “incomplete” because he or she fell so far behind, simply could not keep up, and failed to pass tests and quizzes.

It is difficult to imagine the problems that remote learning would place on students, teachers, and parents, when implemented on a mass scale. I can credibly say, based on experience, that remote learning pales in comparison to in-person learning.

It would be a travesty to prevent millions of American students from attending in-person classes this fall. In fact, these students have already suffered enough, considering they were out of school for much of the spring term.

As the CDC report documents, there is little to gain by keeping America’s children at home for months more, however, there is a whole lot to lose. The saddest part is that the children will pay the ultimate price for this anti-science, anti-data decision to keep schools shuttered. I, for one, hope commonsense will prevail and schools will reopen ASAP.

SOURCE






Wisconsin Supreme Court Blocks Order Barring Schools From Opening

MADISON — In a stunning defeat to Dane County’s overreaching health director, the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear three lawsuits against Public Health Madison & Dane County and issued a preliminary injunction against the agency’s order barring in-person education.

The decision is a huge victory for Dane County’s private schools, forced to switch to an all-virtual learning model last month after the health department issued the 11th-hour order under the guise of COVID-19 concerns.

“It’s light in the darkness,” said attorney Joe Voiland. “I have been fighting these orders since May, and we finally have light in the darkness.”

Voiland, of Cedarburg-based Veterans Liberty Law, represents Sara Lindsey James, a single mother of two elementary students.

The order consolidates three petitions asking the court to take original jurisdiction, meaning the plaintiffs won’t have to seek rulings in lower courts first. And the Supreme Court’s briefing schedule keeps the preliminary injunction in place for the next couple of months before justices hear oral arguments.

There are strong signs that the health department will ultimately lose in its defense of the health order, which requires pre-K-12 students in 3rd grade and up to learn remotely for at least the first quarter of the school year. The decision by the conservative-led majority states the petitioners are “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim.”

“While reserving the remaining claims for later disposition, we conclude that local health officers do not appear to have statutory authority to do what the Order commands,” the court ruled.

“We are pleased the Court took swift action and agreed to review Dane County’s school closure order,” Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), said in a statement. “We are heartened that the Court concluded that our argument is likely to succeed on the merits and, for now, barred the closing of private schools. Our clients will be able to do what they do – educating children in Dane County.”

WILL filed an original action on August 26, on behalf of eight Dane County families, five private schools, School Choice Wisconsin Action, and the Wisconsin Council of Religious and Independent Schools (WCRIS).

“All of WILL’s private school clients were planning on providing in-person instruction this fall and had invested significant resources into creating a safe environment for their students to return,” the Milwaukee-based civil rights law firm stated.

Dane County Executive Joe Parisi issued a statement warning of dire consequences.

“Public Health’s order prioritized the safety and well-being of kids, parents, teachers, and the communities they call home,” Parisi said. “Tonight’s order will jeopardize those goals and may lead to more illness and needless human suffering.”

St. Ambrose Academy in Madison also is suing Public Health Madison & Dane County Director Janel Heinrich and the agency. The grades 6-12 Catholic school raised more than $100,000 to fight the order, and has enlisted the help of a top constitutional attorney, Misha Tseytin, former solicitor general for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, to lead the legal challenge.

The Supreme Court’s order notes that state law gives specific powers to the state Department of Health Services, including the authority to “close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics.” The powers entrusted to local health officers, however, are different.

“…(T)he legislature conspicuously omits the power to ‘close schools’ in its grant of authority to local health officers,” the majority wrote. The explicit power to “close schools” is statutorily absent.

Heinrich argues she is not closing schools, just preventing in-person instruction. But, as the court notes, this statute was drafted in 1923, so the most reasonable reading of what it means to “close schools” would seem to be to preventing in-person instruction, not just preventing learning generally.

Not surprisingly, the court’s three liberal justices dissented, standing with big government. Justice Rebecca Dallet argues the interference “with a local health officer’s ability to make difficult, health-based decisions pursuant to her statutory authority.” She decried the majority’s decision to take the cases and not allow a local circuit court judge to resolve a local dispute.”

Justice Rebecca G. Bradley begged to differ, writing that the “court removed nothing from any circuit court but instead exercises its constitutional authority to decide a case presenting significant issues of statewide importance.”

“This is exactly the type of case the people of Wisconsin elected us to decide,” Bradley wrote. “Declining to hear the case would amount to an abdication of the court’s institutional responsibilities constitutionally conferred on the state’s highest court.”

Voiland agreed the case has broader implications beyond the boundaries of Dane County.

“This is not simply about reopening schools in Madison. The case will be about what authority, if any, these health officers have,” the attorney said. “This is about making sure government power is in check.”

SOURCE





Professionalism to lift teaching status

Lifting teaching’s status can be achieved through embracing — rather than obstructing — market-based reform.

Australia’s education unions falsely blame alleged underfunding for the declining status of teaching, rather than failure to adopt the professionalism commonplace in other highly valued professions.

Any pretence that the source of teaching’s decline is low average rates of pay is debunked by evidence — as definitively shown in OECD data.

Instead, the fundamental problems are the flat pay structure — which has virtually no nexus with performance — and that this has made teaching unattractive to a generation of high-ability graduates.

Ultimately, the greatest threat to the status of the profession is its failure to embrace performance management — which undermines the efforts of hard-working teachers across the country.

Scathing government reports have repeatedly identified a lack of performance evaluation, few financial incentives for performance, and limited opportunities for career advancement.

But consistent, independent, and objective assessment of staff performance in the classroom will help teachers improve their craft, and ultimately deliver improvements in student achievement.

It’s also clear there’s a need to better attract, recruit, and retain high-ability teachers. But policy efforts have mistakenly imposed supply restrictions as the sole policy lever of choice.

These have included the blunt instruments of: tightening the eligibility to become a teacher (such as ATAR cut-offs and aptitude tests); increasing the hurdles needed to jump for accreditation (through compliance with additional professional standards); and requiring additional years of study and professional development to qualify for positions.

Rather than cutting the supply of teachers, policymakers should be expanding it. A wider pool of teaching applicants means schools — and the universities who admit prospective teachers — can be more selective in who they accept.

Reducing the barriers to entry for teaching — which currently prevent mid-career transitions and alternative on-the-job training pathways — will better target existing workforce challenges. More flexible pay structures can follow from more flexible teaching recruitment approaches.

All Australians will benefit from the education dollar being spent more wisely than persistent calls for more funding without accountability to match.

To genuinely address the declining status of teaching demands divorcing the profession from the anti-professionalism that holds back our educators.

SOURCE

No comments: