The Birchwood Project

Posted by burkholder515 at 12:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by burkholder515 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Since nearly two thirds of our elementary and middle school are students who could be defined as “able learners” (defined broadly as above average, IQ 115-130, gifted, IQ 130-145, and highly gifted, IQ 145+) we have been challenged to develop school wide policies that enable us to provide a level of education that will challenge each student. We have come to realize that this is a dynamic process since each child brings a new set of abilities and interests which need particular attention. Nevertheless, drawing upon research we are currently working with six components that help us inform our decisions about how to provide academic challenge for our most able students.

Our first step was to identify appropriate levels of challenge for able students. While recognizing that the relationship between academic expectations and achievement is well established (Johnson, Livingston, Schwartz and Slate 2000; Marzano 2003) we also knew this would be a dynamic process, identifying meaningful challenge for able students would be an ongoing process. We had to ask the question, “What are high, meaningful standards for our able students this year, at this grade level, and in this subject area?” Conceptually, in order to get our arms around this task, as mentioned above, we categorized “able students” into three groups: bright students (I.Q. 110-130), gifted students (IQ 130-145) and profoundly gifted (IQ 145 +). It was self evident that if we hoped to provide appropriate challenge for each of these groups, that is to provide them with academic work that could maximize their intellectual potential, we needed to identify meaningful criteria. Our job was not unlike the athletic coach or the music instructor who would need to ask, “Compared to whom or to what is this boy a good soccer player or a good violinist?” Challenging academic work for able students needed meaningful measurements. We decided upon three criteria that could help establish our context for developing challenging academic programs.

As a foundation for this search, we followed subject specific criteria, identifying the essential structure of subjects (Bruner, 1960). That is, we would measure writing achievement levels within the context of what defines a good writer. Achievement criteria levels in history would describe the research and analysis process of historians. Then we would break down these subject criteria into grade level specifics. With this focus, we began to formulate a definition for meaningful contextual standards for able students.

First, we looked at achievements levels in mathematics, science, composition, history, literature and technology on local, state, national and international (when pertinent) levels. It was important for us to discover what levels of academic work able students were capable of. If we found schools that were teaching high school algebra to sixth, seventh, or eighth grade students we wanted to know why and how. If we found programs that taught students to write complete five paragraph essays by the fifth or sixth grade levels then we let their achievements inform our decisions on establishing meaningful criteria for challenging content.

Next, we decided to benchmark our curriculum for able students with that of these superior performing schools. We looked at the scope and sequence of content taught by subject and grade level. Following their lead, we let others’ success inform and direct our efforts.

Finally, at every opportunity, we tried to compare our able students’ work with that of students from superior academic programs. We entered our students’ work in a broad array of academic competitions that matched the work of able students with able students. These comparisons gave us concrete data letting us know whether our expectations for these students were appropriate and meaningful. Sometimes we found our children were far behind their intellectual peers. We would go back to the drawing board and reconsider our programming. Other times our students excelled and this confirmed that our programming was on the right track.

Identifying appropriate academic challenge for able learners, forced us to take a comprehensive look at our curriculum and how we taught our curriculum. High levels of achievement do not occur overnight. They are the result of building blocks of instruction: year-after-year, grade-by-grade, and subject-by-subject. The way we carried out our curriculum had to permit children to attain their highest levels of achievement.

To this end, we established that academic ceilings had to be removed. We did not want a fifth grade teacher saying to a student, “I cannot let you study integers, because that is taught in the sixth grade curriculum.” High-level challenges in fourth grade could not be stymied by a generic fourth or fifth grade curriculum. Course content had to be determined by a child’s capacity and we had to make whatever adjustments were possible to make sure children were working at levels that they found challenging, and that opportunities for continued challenge in subsequent grade levels would continue.

In this effort we found it effective to departmentalize the teaching staff starting in the third grade, a strategy used by public schools in China. Teachers who had greater expertise in math or writing, for example, were much more able to make academic adjustments within the regular classroom. They could provide options for acceleration or the application of higher order thinking skills as they related to subject matter.

Also, we helped train our teachers to continually apply an assessment and proscription model for instruction that kept them abreast of children’s instructional levels. Teachers had to learn how to identify when work was too easy and children would become bored, or when content was too difficult and levels of expectation had to be lowered. Although it would be impossible to individual instruction for each and every child, we could at least closely approximate instructional levels that maintained a challenging, and inspiring, pace.

This assessment-proscription model also required teachers to understand the value and appropriate application of ability grouping. Teachers had to understand how able students learn and subsequently how to adjust their teaching methods to maximize learning. Teacher training programs at school focused on methodology that ranged from direct instruction to constructivism.

As we forged procedures to maintain a challenging academic curriculum, our second concern was to help students understand the connection between good work habits and attitudes with academic achievement. We had enough teaching experience to know that high academic standards had to be matched by students willing and able to assume the challenge. The research is extensive that supports the place of “nonintellective factors” (Tannenbaum, 1997) in the development of able learners. We wanted our students to understand and experience the need for “task commitment” (Renzulli, 1978), delayed gratification (Rosen, 1956), and the need to assume personal owner ship for their achievement, that is, cultivating an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966). We wanted our children to know that these personal attributes had as much, if not more, impact upon their success as their intellectual ability.

To this end we began crafting a curriculum that interwove affective factors with intellectual factors. We promoted the language of personal success. Each morning we took fifteen to twenty minutes to read stories from history and from the front pages of our newspapers, that detailed the lives of great men and women who modeled the virtues of dedication, hard work, self-discipline, social consciousness and responsibility. Our grading system – related to both achievement and effort – helped build what we called a “culture of achievement,” that not only emphasized challenging academics but also the personal characteristics that were needed to reach and achieve high level academic goals.

We applied Herbert Walberg’s (1997) interpretation of the Matthew Effect (from Matthew’s gospel story illustrating how the rich get richer, or what sociologists call “cumulative advantage) to elementary and middle school education. That is, early educational advantages multiply. If children, at an early age, develop the habits of facing academic challenges, accepting those challenges, and applying attributes of industry, self-discipline and dedication to master these challenges, they will have started the momentum of personal productivity and that could carry them into their adolescence and young adult life. Damon (1995) points out that waiting to instill these habits until the teen years can create a whole new set of new problems in which parents and teachers must first undo bad habits before new habits can be cultivated.

Which brings us to the most critical component of providing challenging academics for able students. This is the parent involvement factor. It is difficult to find any research that attempts to identify factors for academic achievement that does not highlight the role of parents. Hence we made parent communication and parent involvement a centerpiece in our work with able students. We began an ongoing education program for parents that explained their role in their children’s education. Our parent workshops had two components. We helped them understand why and how they could help their children reach their academic potential. In addition, we informed parents about standards of excellence from a state, national and international perspective. We knew that if the school were to be successful in adequately challenging able students, the parents themselves had to play an integral part of this effort. Furthermore, we establish on-going communication channels to help us fix appropriate instructional levels for children. We let parents know that we have a ready ear for parental “concerns” when it came to appropriate academic placing for their children. It was understood that if we were going to identify appropriate challenge for each child there needed to be a parent-teacher collaborative.

By Charles Debelak

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Damon, W. (1995). Greater expectations: Overcoming the culture of indulgence in America’s homes and schools. New York: Free Press.

Johnson, J.P., Livingston, M., Schwartz, R.A., & Slate, J.R. (2000). What makes a good elementary school? A critical examination. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (6), 339-345.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Renzulli, J.S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Rosen, B.C. (1956). The achievement syndrome. American Sociological Review, 21, 203-211.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs, 80, 1, Whole number 609).

Tannenbaum, A.J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27-42). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Walberg, Herbert J., and Susie Zeiser. 1997. Productivity, Accomplishment, and Eminence. In: Handbook of Gifted Education, (2nd ed.), edited by Nicholas Colangelo and Gary A. Davis, 328–334. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Posted by burkholder515 at 06:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By nature, children are attracted to and choose tasks that allow them to improve their performance and skills (McClellan, 1987). They want to learn, grow and develop. They want to get better at things; it is a part of their genetic makeup. Furthermore, it informs their sense of competency and self-worth. If tasks are too easy, children become bored and seek other domains in which they can become competent. If tasks are too difficult, children avoid engagement and once again seek other tasks at which they can be successful.

For those parents and educators who recognize the importance of academic development, the implications for schooling are quite obvious: school curriculum must provide appropriate academic challenge, that which gives children the sense of development and accomplishment. We hope our children will see the world of learning and academic achievement as their world. But even if the implications are obvious, the task is daunting. The hardest job for the school is keeping children on an instructional level –academic work is neither too easy nor too hard, but always providing sufficient challenge. This requires three efforts.

First, the school cannot be limited by grade-level standards. All academic ceilings must be removed. The question for teachers is not merely what should fifth grade students learn, but rather what levels of achievement is this fifth grader capable of.

Second, assessment must be continuous. The learning slope is not linear. It occurs in spurts, at which times children are capable of considerable learning in a short time. Afterwards the learning capacity levels off until the next spurt. This means that teachers (and parents) should be on the lookout for such times and provide curriculum accordingly.

Finally, parents and teachers need to work together. One the one hand, it is physically and mentally impossible for teachers to individualize the curriculum for every single student. However, if parents are willing partners with teachers, together they can develop academic plans that extend regular classroom work at meet individual needs. Also, parents and teachers need to work together to assess student achievement. Accurate placement requires the observations of both parents and teachers.

By Charles Debelak

Posted by burkholder515 at 04:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Amidst concerns about the future of education in the United States, it appears any serious and comprehensive solution to the challenges will not occur this September when millions of children head back to school. In fact, very little will have changed from last year.

Nevertheless, there is one big change your family can make this year that will significantly influence your children’s academic progress. It is a change in outlook and attitude, not a change of environment. I would suggest that if you want your children to have a successful academic school year, don’t expect anything from anybody outside of your family! That’s right. Don’t look for someone to do something for you. Academic success does not need to hinge upon what others are doing for you and your children. Instead, teach your children something about self-determination, that academic success is within their own power and control.

I know this flies in the face of every argument we have heard about why “Johnny” can’t read, write or do arithmetic. It’s become a part of our culture to find a scapegoat for poor academic performance. We blame schools, administrators, finances, teachers, curricula, peer groups, facilities, even the Republicans or Democrats. This is not to say there isn’t a great deal of blame to be had. It wouldn’t hurt to see marked improvement in each area. But in the meantime, I would suggest that a culture of blame makes our children helpless victims, waiting for an educational messiah or panacea to save us.

Attitudes of self-determination on the other hand find avenues of possibility and success regardless of environmental circumstances. In a nutshell, self-determination describes an attitude that empowers children to be the major player in how their educational experience turns out. The outcome of their education is in their own hands. Theories surrounding the principles of self-determination are well grounded by scholars and researchers like Albert Bandura, Carol Dweck and Bernard Weiner. Their studies draw upon clinical research and the history of productive lives. They emphasize the power that individuals can possess over their personal lives when they believe the outcome of their efforts is in their own hands.

Children are not born with attitudes of self-determination. They need to be taught and nurtured by parents and teachers. Schultheiss & Brunstein (University of Erlangen, Germany) write “… parents who emphasize early self-reliance … and who teach their children to ‘reach higher’ and set challenging goals for themselves, have children who are characterized by high levels of achievement motivation.”

So what can parents do? From my thirty years of experience teaching and motivating children, I would like to offer a few suggestions:

First, help your children set goals, and then be their constant support, supplying them the energy and will power to be successful. Use “we” talk. Make sure your children understand that you are going to do everything in your power to make this a great school year. Inspire success and confidence. Reward effort and improvement. By your careful oversight, insure their progress.

Drop any notion that your children are, or are not, smart; furthermore don’t let them hide behind these labels. Effort will determine success more than innate abilities. Albert Costa (Institute for Intelligence Behavior) writes “ability is a repertoire of skills and habits that continuously and incrementally expand through one’s efforts.” Carol Dweck (Stanford University) suggests, “…intellectual ability can be increased through one’s efforts.” Don’t allow your children to say they are not smart and therefore give up before they begin, nor allow your children to say they are smart, and then put very little effort into the quality of their schooling.

Reinforce the importance of good education. Make it a family value. Don’t forget, your children often face a youth culture that does not make education a top priority. Before you realize it they may minimize the value of education and the possibilities it affords. Therefore your support for the value of education must be relentless. Talk to your children about the doors education opens. Use examples, good and bad, from history, the newspapers, and even your extended family that reinforce the importance of education.

Make the obtaining of a good education their personal responsibility not dependent upon their emotional or psychological condition. Help your children understand it does not matter if they do not like this class or that class, this teacher or that teacher. It does not matter whether they like to study or not. I recall with some amusement the response a parent offered to their fourth grade child who did not want to do their reading homework because he did not like reading: “Honey, I don’t care whether you like reading or you don’t like reading. In this family, it is your job to study, work hard and do well in school.”

Teach your children the language and behaviors associated with achievement. Talk about the meaning of self-discipline, self-control, delayed gratification and dedication. Point out evidence of these personal characteristics in the people around you who are successful. Almost daily your children will hear persuasive voices that encourage them to take the easy path. Therefore someone needs to be whispering in their ear, reminding them of achievement behaviors “don’t quit, push yourself, work first - play later, put in extra time, sacrifice...” Daphna Oyserman (Univ. of Michigan) has written about the power and positive affect of internal family values against conflicting environmental pressures.

Teach your children to refuse the blaming game. Show them how every disadvantage, disappointment or obstacle is but a challenge requiring personal reflection and discussion that leads to solutions. You won’t be able to stop them from griping about teachers or course work, but do not let their observations be an excuse for an inferior performance. Children should know that no one can stop them from getting a good education in any class in any school.

Finally, it is important to know that your child WANTS this kind of help. Researcher Edward Deci (University of Rochester) argues that children are wired for competency and growth. They thrive on success, and parents must help them navigate the pathway to success. This means that while lecturing them about achievement feel free to ignore their sour facial expressions, obstinate grunts and groans, whining, and endless pleas, “... but I’m the only one ...” Because deep inside their hearts they long for a sense of worth and a sturdy self-concept that achievement affords. They aspire to competency.

Let’s hope that our politicians and educational leaders continue to make meaningful progress addressing all the needs of our educational system. But in the meantime why don’t we do the most that we can with what we have. Through our ceaseless efforts to cultivate self-determined young men and women, let’s help our children receive a superior education this year.

By Charles Debelak

Posted by burkholder515 at 04:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Academic success should not be left to chance. We can plan for it. According to the work of Albert Bandura (Stanford University scholar and author of Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control) academic success is directly related to what children believe about themselves and their abilities (self-efficacy). In fact, self-efficacy is a greater predictor of academic success than intelligence and talent. Bandura cites four components that help shape self-efficacy.

First, children need a consistent history of academic success beginning at a young age. A positive history of academic success informs the child’s self-concept and self-worth. It is the work of parents and teachers to provide children meaningful academic challenges and then to help them with the work habits and attitudes that lead to success. Collaboration between home and school plays an important role in establishing levels of challenge and nurturing productive work habits.

Second, children learn habits of success from “vicarious experience,” that is, from role models in history, society and family. When we point out excellent role models, we are, in effect, inscribing visual images in the children’s minds that can speak to them long into the future.

Third, positive self-efficacy is nurtured in an environment that respects, encourages and rewards success. Parents and teachers should readily acknowledge and verbally award children’s efforts that lead to academic achievement. In effect, we should “catch” them working hard and then support their efforts with strengthening words. Furthermore, children should be among peers who value learning and support one another’s efforts to become successful.

Finally, Bandura notes, “people live in a psychical environment that is primarily of their own making.” Due to our emotional, psychological and even physical state, reality is often what we believe it to be rather than what it actually is. Productive people learn to engineer their internal conversations. Even at a young age children can learn how to manage their moods, attitudes and even physical condition (it is a physical challenge to sit at a desk and complete homework) so that they can focus their efforts toward academic achievement.

Teachers and parents should take academic success out of the hands of chance and place it on a path of design.

By Charles Debelak

Posted by burkholder515 at 03:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)