An article in the New York Times suggests that NYC parents are looking more and more for bilingual nannies to help teach their children another language from the early days.  Click here to read the article.  The trend is not surprising given the push across the country to make our children more globally equipped with additional language training.  But is it effective?  Can a Spanish speaking nanny, who may spend hours upon hours with the child, really make them bilingual. 

In my experience, language learning is better approached as language living.  If you really want to learn a different language than you must immerse yourself in it.  Nannies provide an invaluable service to the working families of the world but I don't think that language education should be included in their duties.  While the nanny may be able to encourage the development of a second language, if the language is not used in a setting outside of the home that gives it validation, then the child will not retain it as an important method of communication. 

Some children will develop difficulties with speech and communication as a result of the pressure, whether real or precieved, to learn another language, especially when the parents aren't able to reinforce that learning with relevant applications.  In a home where two languages are spoken it is completely appropriate to raise bilingual children, although it will take diligence and care not to create language confusion or other issues.  But in a home where only English is spoken, does it really make sense to push the issue?  If you are that serious about it, consider an immersion school, where learning is legitimate and applicable.  Or better yet, make the drastic move to another country and learn the language as a whole family.

Our economic situation is putting the strain on education, the very thing that needs the most nuturing and protection by the government.  School districts across the nation are preparing to start or have already started the school year minus many well-qualified, much-needed teachers and other support staff.  It's a sad state that we are in when schools are forced to cut teachers who have a direct and lasting impact on our country's future while the federal government holds millions of tax payers dollars out like bait to hungry, jumping fish.  Once the bait has been taken, school districts must decide how to wisely put the money to use while also examining where the financial future may take them.  Click here to read an article about this very thing. 

I've heard a lot about teacher cutbacks and salary freezes but I've heard very little about other creative and innovative ways to save money in our schools.  It seems that it is easiest to sacrifice the people rather than the stuff that clutters the halls of academia.  Districts are cutting teachers left and right but are still purchasing brand new computers for every lab in the school.  Superintendents and school board members are passing on pink slips but aren't crunching numbers on how to make the bus routes, utility consumption, and paper usage more financially sound. 

And what is going to have a more direct and lasting impact on our children's futures; the newly installed white board found in every classroom on the first grade hallway or smaller class sizes and more individualized attention and instruction?  I think our focus has gotten off.  We tend to think that the more equipment, or stuff, we have in the classroom, the better off our students will be.  But I say we need to downsize the purchasing of stuff and stop looking at the quantity of things and put the focus back on the quality of everyday learning.  Use the federal money to hire back those quality, skilled, and impactful teachers and between now and next year determine how you can cut back on the purchase, consumption, and reliance on stuff.  Our greatest resource is found in what people can bring to the world of education.

Some D.C. area schools are experimenting with separation, where girls and boys attend the same school but are seperated during classes.  Some traditional educators may question the value of such extreme measures, but reportedly, the results are self-evident.  Click here to read more about it.  As a public school educator for many years, I have observed some of the challenges that are associated with trying to educate boys and girls in the same room.  However, I have also observed many positive results of combined classes.

Boys and girls are different.  While I know that is stating the obvious, sometimes I think it is a critical piece of information that educators and administrators overlook.  Because of the major differences between boys and girls, teachers must structure their lessons to either group or somewhere in the middle.  These experimental schools in D.C. and other parts of the country eliminate this problem by creating an environment where, at least, the gender variable is removed. 

The results, for younger children especially, are pretty strong; showing improvement in test scores and other areas.  I wonder what the results are for older students.  Are the scores dramatically different?  Are social issues taken in to consideration?  As a mother, I would just as soon keep my children seperated from the opposite sex until they are ready for marriage.  However, I know that this isn't possible and, in fact, it may be detrimental.  Does separation in the classroom, like the old saying goes 'make the heart grow fonder'?  By keeping the students separated are we encouraging behavior outside of the classroom that is more risky?

A Boston area school is going to experience a new approach to filling vacant teaching positions, a team approach.  According to the New York Times, a team of teachers from an organization called Teach Plus will be filling a large number of vacancies in a high-risk, high-turnover school.  Though the article doesn't give a lot of details on the extent of the team mentality, I tend to think that as a method of delivery, the team approach is successful.

My experience to team teaching was limited to a few years in a rural North Carolina school system.  And although the team mentality had not fully caught on with the teachers, the validity and strength that it brought to student achievement was notable.  During that time, the school administration desired that teachers of the same students adapt their curriculum to reinforce what was being taught in all the disciplines.  For example, when students were studying ancient Eygpt in history, English classes were reading fiction stories set in the same time and geographical location, and science classes were studying mechanisms developed and used to build the pyramids.  As an elective teacher it was my duty to incorporate the major theme within my class, too.

Students showed a better understanding of the big picture with this type of approach.  They began to see the overlap and connection between the disciplines.  For the teachers, it required really knowing the material that needed to be covered in a year so that topics could be organized appropriately.  It also required a lot of planning and forethought, flexibility and communication.  In the long run, I think it was worth it.  This was a comprehensive team approach, and it worked. 

Variety is the spice of life.  But what about in the classroom?  An article in the New York Times describes the variety experienced by an autistic child attending a public school in Madison Wisconsin.  This particular school is known country-wide for its inclusion practices, allowing special education students the benefit of exposure to their peers. 

Reportedly, parents and families relocate to Madison so that their autistic children can benefit from the expertise of the teachers and staff.  And based on the article, it works and works well.  So why isn’t that the case across the country?  Well, money for one reason.  According to the article, it is quite expensive to educate autistic children.  Wouldn’t it be great if some of the money from “Race to the Top” could be spent on increasing inclusion classes and training across the country?  How many kids and families would benefit from that?

And the educators in Madison, what do they think of inclusion?  Well, the article doesn’t specifically state it but I would suspect that because it is done and done well with the right kind of support and training from the higher-ups, I suspect that the teachers enjoy having some spice in their classes.  And just look at how the classmates respond!  Madison doesn’t have a magic potion, but they may just have something that we could all benefit from. 

Growing up, my brother was, like most older brothers, mean.  He used to tease me unceasingly and use every opportunity to embarass me.  Normally, I gave him what he deserved for his cruelty.  However, I remember several ocassions when his rude comments would cause me to lose my breath.  He would tell me how dumb I was and point out how smart he was, "just like mom and dad" he'd say and then the kicker, he would tell me that I was adopted.  I know that most younger siblings have heard this claim more than once but rarely do they stop to consider the possibilty.  For me, though, it made perfect sense that I was adopted.  In the most general sense, I was different from the rest of my family but when it came to specific traits that I assumed must be genetic, I was pitifully lacking.  The reading gene was one that did not appear in my life until my early twenties, while my parents and brother have been avid readers since they were old enough to hold a book. 

As a kid, reading was never enjoyable for me.  Much like many children today, I suspect.  Kids are given lists and lists of books to read and series that they ought to have already read, combined with the dry textbook writing that they must read.  Even with the enticement of reading clubs that reward you with free pizza and other junk, reading can be a chore for kids.  My own son, who is 6 and learning to read, shows interest only in certain books and only at certain times. 

An article in the New York Times reports on the value of summer reading for children.  While I agree in theory, I would hate to be that child who is forced to read when they absolutely abhor it.  In my own case, I avoided reading at all possible costs because I remembered vividly how torturous it was as a child.  Thankfully, now I am over it.  I love to read, however, I rarely get the opportunity to.  I encourage my children to read and will read to them whenever asked, but I'm not forcing anything.  I think they will discover the joy on their own time.   

An article in Chief Learning Officer talks about the value of being flexible in a learning environment.  Silly Putty is used as an example of a substance that displays the qualities vital to the learning process.  Click here to read the full article for yourself.  As I reflect on the learning process, it occurs to me that flexiblity is important but so is plain flexing.  Sometimes in education or training circumstances it is necessary to remain rigid and unmoving. 

There are appropriate times to be fluid and stretchy, for example, in the delivery mode.  Learners may need to recieve the material in a variety of ways.  It is necessary that the educator be flexible enough to accomodate those variety of learning styles.  However, the WHAT of the delivery may not be a flexible point at all.  Educators need also to be able to recognize what they must remain firm on. 

As with any physical workout, the mental workout of learning a new skill or process will require some stretching and then some flexing.  The stretching allows the muscles to prepare for the development that is inherent in the flexing to follow.  Educators demonstrating the stretching through the use of a variety of methods and approaches to the classroom while the toning and building of change is based on remaining firm.   

Have you ever marveled at the sheer number of possible career paths available to today's students?  There are so many options out there that students can't possibly know about them all well enough to make informed decisions about their futures.  How is a child from a small farming town supposed to gain experience, interest, and understanding in the field of structural engineering?  As the Washington Post reports, the opportunity may come in the form of summer enrichment or intership programs offered through the collaborative efforts of public high schools and local colleges and universities. 

Sure, some students have not only the access but also the know-how to follow up on possible career choices for themselves, but there are so many career opportunities that are just not presented into the scope that many students don't find their fit until later in their college careers.  Other careers require experience and time served in different fields before their are even accessible.  But without the knowledge of their existence student's won't even know which direction to pursue.

I am a big fan of the summer enrichment opportunities that allow kids to explore a variety of different academic interests in a non-threatening, non-GPA-affecting manner.  Kids are given the chance to experiment with different career options before making a long-term, expensive committment.  Local business and corporations would be wise to consider developing programs that allow students the opportunity to glimpse the a "day in the life" of whatever their company specializes in.  It's a win/win for the company because it build community relations and potentially assists in recruiting future employees that are well-suited for the job.  

"One Size Fits One", the title of an article in CLO magazine, discusses the importance of making the engagement in the workplace of utmost importance.  In order to do that, the article suggests that the workplace be "customizable and flexible", especially on issues like where and when employees accomplish their agendas, how they pursue and have access to further education and training, and how and when they progress through the workforce hierarchy.  The idea is that employees whose needs are met, who are challenged, and who feel comfortably engaged will become loyal to the employer. 

I agree that the ideal, utopian workplace is one where each individual is treated as such and valued for that individuality.  Where thoughts are encouraged, where hard times are understood, where ideals are shared, where folks feel at home....these are the hallmarks of such a workplace.  This type of environment is fostered through intentionality, being intentional about cultivating the potential within each individual.

But is this too lofty a goal?  Part of me thinks that the workplace just described is just a figment of my imagination, while the other, hard-working, part of me wants to say 'suck it up, it's a job not a marriage, you go to work to get paid and hopefully to enjoy it in the process but not to be fulfilled and completely satisfied'.  What happened to the ideal of hard work for the value of a job well done?  It doesn't require any stroking or exceptions, it requires that you show up and do what is expected of you, sometimes more but never less than that.   This generation of entitlement may have gotten it's claws too deep into the workforce.  We ought to be grateful for the job we have, not spending time wishing it was something it is not.  

In a recent speech to the National Urban League, President Obama was defending his education initiative with the following statement:  "It's an economic issue when 8 in 10 new jobs will require workforce training or higher education by the end of this decade.  It's an economic issue when we know that countries that outeducate us today will outcompete us tomorrow."  According to the report in the New York Times, many concerns have been voiced about the Race to the Top program's ability to help struggling schools with high minority rates. 

President Obama is correct.  Education is an economic issue.  We must be constantly, proactively seeking ways to deepen and strengthen our public school systems.  Where we disagree is in the methodology.  Obama would argue that the Race to the Top competition will breed competitiveness which pushes folks to perform better.  I would argue that some schools, school systems, and even states are so far behind that they can't possibly be competing in the same race.  One is a sprint: let's propose a lot of changes and see how it turns out.  The other is a marathon: let's train and plan, and train and plan, for the changes that will ultimately see us to the finish line.  I think we need the marathon approach here. 

I would agree with Obama's statement that it is an economic issue when 8 out of every 10 jobs will require workforce training or higher education by the end of this decade.  So what allowances for that workforce training has Obama's Race made?  What would be radical is to change the mindset of Americans, especially those in government, who only see the value in a diploma from an accredited university.  Workforce training will be, and already is, vital to the success and improvement of our economy.  I'm just not sure that enough focus is being put on that essential element.  It really is ok for some folks not to go to college.  In fact, it's better that way.