That's a middle school book in the high school library!!!

I've read some discourse over the last month on the library listserve regarding below grade level books in "upper" school libraries.  In my case as a high school librarian,  I often wonder if I should have Tim Green, Mike Lupica, Rick Riordan, Christopher Paul Curtis, Rita Williams-Garcia or Melody Carlson on the shelf to name a few.  These authors are poplular and kids have often read them by the time they have gotten to the high school, but I find that the titles are frequently requested and other students are constatntly recommending them to their friends who haven't read them yet.

In the back of my mind I have this phrase "college and career ready" that makes me think, "Jeez, these kids have already read these books or these books are written at a really low level for high school." so should I offer them to the students?  Is my library "Common Core?" Are Riordan or Williams-Garcia's books getting the students "career ready?"  I mean, they are just "kids books," right?

While that is all true (I guess), is there harm in reading something for fun that is "below level?"  Reading is reading, especially when the books are written by award winning authors and they are well written.  This is a problem I have when looking at schools that have tight Accellerated Reader reading rules for children.  I have heard numerous horror stories and have heard some from my daughter's school that students are not allowed to read anything at school that isn't in their exact reading level.  That is a shame.  I get it that students can read at home and that parents should be there to help choose books, but we all know happens in fewer households that we want to know.  I understand the basis of the AR rules but what a way to discourage a student from reading something that is exciting to them whether it is above or below level.  I do not  understand why a student can't choose something in his or her level to measure progress for the school and choose something that is of interest to them outside (above or below) their level.  If the book is out of the realm for a student, a teacher or certified librarian making suggestions if the book is way below or above with a comment like, "I see you want to read "blank" I think it will be to "hard/easy," why don't you try "blank? It is a lot like the book you chose." would be really effective.  However, if the student insists, the conversation ends with, "Okay, let me know what you think of it and keep this book in mind when you are finished."  I just don't see the benefit of taking a book a student is excited about reading out of his or her hands.

With that idea in mind, I proudly purchase a mix of reading levels (I do not label the books with reading levels by the way!) and encourage even the best and highest readers some of the "easier" books just because they are great stories.  And, who is to say an "excellent" reader might not enjoy the break of reading some "brain candy?"  Another benefit is having a collection of books kid have already read that empowers them to take ownership of the library by recommending good books to friends.  It gives them confidence in their ability to read and choose good books and strengthens their friendship bonds.  And, gasp, what if they were to actually talk about the book with their friend!  A travesty, I know.

If you have had the debate in your head of whether you should or should not put easier reads in your library, do it!  Go for it!  Your students will love you for it and be sure to shamelessly give a "simple" book to your best readers.  Also, challenge your readers with higher level reads as well.  College and career ready?  You bet!  Reading is reading, and if the kids are reading books they want to read in their free time, that is preparing them for life long learning.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic?  What are your thoughts on using AR in schools?  What do you think about offering "easy" reads to students who are capable for high-level reading?  Comment below, I look forward to a conversation.

Wild Wild West or www.regulation

WWW.   Is that World Wide Web or Wild Wild West?  Is it time for the www to come to an end?  Last week,  Wikipedia and its friends went black to protest the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) legislation.  Lots has been said about these topics and anytime something like this hits Washington it gets a dozen different spins.  This post is not designed to rehash the pros and cons of these two acts specifically, but rather to address the topics of legislation in this basically free and "Wild West" virtual world of the Internet.  
The government has basically kept their hands out of the law-making business in regards to the Internet beyond the attempted laws to protect children and citizens from viewing or becoming victims to inappropriate behaviors/crimes.  We may have noticed an increase of legislation as state governments attempt to protect local businesses by taxing online sales.  But this is first, very public, attempt of the federal government to directly hold companies and individuals accountable for use of information (most copy written and owned by others) that is posted online for some kind of profit and ownership or covert reason.  Is it time for this kind of legislation? Are corporations, organizations, governments able to "police" enough to protect intellectual properties with or without a federal law?  
In the schools and education it is common for students and the schools to use information found on the Internet for educational purposes and most uses are protected under fair use copyright clauses.  But what happens when those students who have, for years, used others ideas, images, audio files, for presentations in education and learning now move into the corporate world where now corporate profit, salaries, and promotions are at stake?  Fair use and educational purposes are not vaild when someone is making money or receiving promotions for creating "original" documents and sales presentations from others' ideas.  This is where legislation and laws come into play.  Is it time to address these issues beyond basic copyright laws?  Should the individual be responsible for their actions or should companies like Google, Wikipedia or others be held responsible for allowing postings of copyright materials?  
Most would agree that more legislation is not the answer, but is some legislation needed to draw a line?  The question becomes where is the line and who is going to be in charge of that line?  When it comes to the Internet, those questions are gray and fuzzy.  The concepts and ideas are intangible and when posted online, can even be difficult to attribute to an individual.  
It seems that last weeks protest got the attention of people; I know in our school students and staff noticed that Wikipedia was not accessible.  Will discussion continue outside of Washington now that the "protest" is over?  Will lots of money and interest groups control what happens to the Internet as it does with many other aspects of our legislation?  Discussion between the intellectual properties of education and corporation, and the Internet holders of those intellectual properties of Google and Wikipedia, and government officials need to continue this discussion.  What makes this whole discussion difficult as a general citizen is who is representing whom?  Ideally, the government should represent the people, but that is put into question constantly.  We need to remember who the Internet properties represent because they have positioned themselves to say that they represent the individual.  We need to be careful of that.  We need to follow this and make our voices heard.  The Internet is ingrained in our lives whether we like it or not and this is too important to put in the hands of stake holders who do not have us, the people, in mind.  We are more important than the dollar, hopefully.  
Knee-jerk legislation cannot pass because we all know, once legislation is in play, it is almost impossible to rescind, and it ends up constantly getting morphed with "improvements."  Hopefully, discussion and collaboration can result in laws that do what they are intended to do: Protect those that use the Internet and ideas that are shared. 

Internet Security

Last year at our school, the IT director and I started a series of Internet safety lessons that we teach to each different grade in the school from 6th to 12th grades. We cover topics from evaluating websites for research to Social Networking.  What is always interesting is that the students almost always know more about certain aspects and features of using the Internet than we do, but rarely do they know or even think about anything regarding securing their own personal information and identity.
This week we did a lesson with sixth grade on using Facebook and other social networking websites.  The students were familiar with the workings of Facebook and helped me browse around my own site, but by a show of hands, less than half of them who have an account (which is about 65% of them), had ever visited, to their knowledge, the security section of Facebook to set up the security parameters.  This verified for us that the topic of our lesson was needed, but this is concerning.  My hope is that when students of any age 6-12 grades open a social networking account, that not only parents and adult family visit frequently, but that they also help with talking about and setting security parameters.  However, I visited many of the students' Facebook sites as a "non-friend" to discover that many of them are wide open to view and post. Scary.
We close our presentation telling the students that social networking sites are not bad, but sometimes bad people ruin good things.  They should use Facebook, Skype, Twitter and other social networking sites when their parents allow, but they must be smart about how they use them.  We highly recommend they talk with their parents about the security of their sites and encourage them to visit the security section of whatever site they use. "Go there today!" we say.  Just like everything else in education and working with kids, we know that several will not do anything.  Maybe because they think nothing bad will happen to them, maybe because they just forget in their busy day and minds, or maybe because they are not sure they really understand.  Hopefully, the lesson will get them to think about these issues and someday they will take action to protect themselves.

Is our society asking too much of teachers?

The simple answer to the title of this post is: YES. I always try to remind my friends who work in the private sector that the product of education is the mind of a human being. And while there are a number of responsibilities that teachers must accept and hone, there are many responsibilities that teachers are expected to address that they have little or no control over. And these are things that include basic needs like sleep, security, nutrition, and basic resources. A student who comes to a classroom without these needs being met will not be as effective of a student as the student who comes rested, well fed, and from a secure home with resources. On the same note though, a student who is spoon fed, gets his or her way at home, lives without needs and gets what he or she wants regularly, this student often lacks the discipline or motivation to succeed. Teachers have no control over who walks into the classroom or what that student brings with him or herself.

I digress a bit from what my original intent was here. I want to direct my readers to an Washington Post/Answer Sheet Blog by Valerie Strauss titled "Teachers: Blame Only Where Blame is Due." In this post, Strauss identifies 16 variables that affect student achievement. When I look at these variables, I would identify only four that a teacher has direct influence. About three to four more of those are the responsibility of the school and the rest, nine variables, are up to the individuals raising the child.

I encourage you to read the link to Strauss's post to learn the 16 variables and see if you agree, but I believe that her 16 variable prove that education is not only on the shoulders of teachers. Education is a community effort. Teachers are not off the hook. They must be dedicated to their work, profession and students. Just as schools must be dedicated to their teachers, building, and community, and parents must take an interest and dedicate themselves to their students not just at home, but on the streets and at school.

Oh, what about the students? Everyone seems to forget about them in the discussion about "What's wrong with Eduction, these days?" More and more students seem to have a sense of entitlement. That it is their right to do what they please and if they want to fail, that is their right, too. Is this what we believe as Americans? I believe that should be addressed as well. Is the answer stricter discipline, harsher punishment, higher or lower expectations? I don't know. But I do know that the attitude a student brings to the classroom has a large impact on not only his or her achievement, but also those around him or her.

Teachers have a lot to manage and most do an excellent job of it. Does our society ask too much. Indeed, it does.

History's history

I found myself reading a CNN article online called Subject Matters: Why students fall behind on history. History as a subject is one of my favorites because of the way it impacts everything we do. With a good understanding of history, we have a much better understanding and appreciation of how our world, country, state, etc. work.

The article states how history is being shortchanged because it is not a mandated No Child Left Behind subject and even though it is a growing subject, because history is new yesterday and will be new again tomorrow, the history classroom gets no additional time to cover the subjects. One individual commented below the article that history classes cover basically colonialism to World War II. I would consider that a sizable amount of information in a two semester course.

What I found to be, in my opinion, very sad was what one teacher was quoted as saying. He said, "I think they (students) learn information by itself, in isolation, but putting the big picture together is not happening." I would argue that when students learn history in isolation it keeps them from learning the big picture. My experience has shown that teaching history in the context of other disciplines like English, music, and art help students to understand the cultural values of the people they are studying, which in turn helps them to place the events of the day in time. Integrating history also helps students to understand why people reacted and passed policies, started wars, migrated. The photographs and discussion of the photographers of the 1930's help students to understand the people and conditions. A study of the music and poetry helps students to understand the Great Migration of the 1920's. And an understanding of the rise of cities and industrialism, in turn, helps us to understand why the poetry and music changed.

When I taught an American Studies, combined US history and American Literature class, my co-teacher and I enjoyed challenging the students to think and discuss, what affects what. Does history impact literature or did the literature affect the history. Sometimes it was clear and sometimes it was not.

The article mentions that teachers use history as a "throw in" (in quotes because that is how I interpreted it) to help improve reading skills. A noble attempt; but if we want to confuse students as one teacher was quoted as saying that students could identify an event like the Declaration of Independence but they could not identify the century it happened, we should continue just "throwing in" history to "improve" reading. Agreed that most of the state testing reading selections are non-fiction and some are historical, others are scientific, and others are literary. The answer to improving student test scores is to teach reading in all subjects, not just English class.

I have traditionally been opposed to a national curriculum, but articles like this make me realize that maybe we (the teaching community) cannot prioritize. We struggle, not because we lack professionalism, not because we lack passion, not because we lack know-how, but because we lack leadership. Perhaps it is time for the education community to take decision making out of non-teacher hands. It has been a mystery to me what qualifies a elected officials to make decisions about what should be taught and tested. Elected officials should oversee schools, the money, and hold schools accountable, but educators should be in charge of the what and how.

I have ideas, but I don't have the answers. I sure would like to see some real discussion on a national level. History class is not the problem. It is one of the many problems. What do you think?