Effective and Responsible Teaching

Direct all inquiries to the author at: reneenew@dyscalculia.org.

For a bound hard copy of this paper send a check for $23. US$ to Renee M. Newman, 8053 N. Delaney Rd., Henderson, MI 48841-9724.

EDUC 505 EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE TEACHING

LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

Professor: Sheila Richardson

Master of Science -- Special Education

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE TEACHING?..1

PUBLIC EDUCATION: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT......................3

THE IDEAL VS. REALITY.....................................15

CONCLUSION................................................20

REFERENCES................................................24

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE TEACHING?

A judgment of whether a teacher or organization is engaged in effective and responsible teaching will naturally be colored by the judge's definition of what constitutes effective and responsible teaching. Is it determined by student performance on standardized tests, by student feedback, by social and emotional characteristics, by applied creative reasoning measures, or by demonstrations of memory and skill?

The debate over educational philosophy has remained the same throughout the educational reforms of the last eighty years. It is a debate over both the methods and aims of teaching, between those who believe that education should concern itself with intellectual discipline and the succeeding waves of innovators who offer the child's interest or the well--adjusted personality, self--expressiveness, or self--esteem as more attractive alternatives (Sykes 1995, 13).

When a school touts the belief that all students can learn, is it assuming all children are of equal intellectual capacity and can meet the same standards with uniform teaching methods; or are the standards set low enough that they can be met by even the weakest students (Sykes 1995, 13)?

Charles T. Sykes, author of Dumbing Down our Kids, asserts the essential questions are three: (1) What are the goals of public education? (2) What does society expect students to learn? (3) What do schools endeavor to teach (Sykes 1995, 13)?

But this author ventures further questions: (4) What are the most desirable means for achieving the goals defined by the first three questions? (5) What environmental variables stand between our ideals and the achievement of our goals? (6) Which of these variables will we charge the institution of public education with the responsibility of controlling? (7) Which of these variables will we charge the family with the responsibility to control? (8) When the control of the variables overwhelms the institution of public education, what resources does it have at its disposal to gain control? Examples include local taxation, public and private grants, government agencies, community and state organizations, and partnerships with businesses. 

1.

2.

(9) When families are overwhelmed with the control of the variables within their domain, what resources do they have available to assist with meeting their responsibilities? Examples include extended family, friends and local support networks, church congregations, charitable organizations, and government agencies.

(10) On what assumptions does the school system operate? (11) With what assumptions do families operate with regard to school responsibilities? (12) What is the prescribed course of action for each party when assumed prerequisite duties are not being performed?

(13) With whom lies the responsibility to enforce performance of this social contract between public education and families? (14) What document will serve to spell out and thus legitimize the expectations, goals, duties, and performance details of each party? (15) Who will write this detailed contract that thoroughly articulates the performance duties of each party as well as grievance procedures for nonperformance?

(16) Is it inevitable that this social contract will be written so vaguely that its intent will be lost through interpretation and negotiation transactions between the parties? (17) Who will be empowered with negotiating and interpreting the social contract? (18) Can the contract be written specifically enough to detail the responsibilities of each party and the linear consequences of nonperformance?

PUBLIC EDUCATION: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

These last questions deserve special consideration. This social contract between the citizens and the institution of public education exists as a loose conglomerate of history, legislation, and case law-- ever evolving, changing, influenced by changes in philosophy, technology, and culture. This author is calling for a tightly written contract between the parties that addresses, in detail, each of the questions posed above. To understand the importance of this more formal contract, let us look at an area of culture where firmly written rules and consequences have resulted in an efficient system of law, order, predictability and safety.

Consider the small body of rules detailing the duty of drivers to come to a complete stop at all stop signs and red lights. Here society has reached a consensus that no matter what, all drivers must stop when signaled. Because this is widely known and strictly enforced, citizens expect and accept the consequences of nonperformance, even when their actions had no chance of harming others. (Example: failing to stop at a deserted intersection.) A citizen agrees to abide by the laws when he accepts his driver's license. The consequences of breaking the law are predetermined, written, and progressive, and can range from warnings, stiff monetary fines, accumulation of negative points on one's driving record, and the eventual loss of driving privileges.

It is understood that no consideration will be given to the offender's ability to pay fines, afford higher insurance premiums due to points on record, or his ability to get to work or school if his license is taken away. By accepting the license to drive, the operator agrees to the laws and consequences governing the driving privilege. It is understood that the driver willingly risks paying the consequences of not complying with his part of the social contract.

In this instance, some of the assumptions that the society makes with regard to the driver are thus: vehicle breaking system will be maintained; driver will be of sound mind, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, driver's visual system will be adequately functional-- eyes, windshield, and mirrors. Society does not assume responsibility for the prerequisite duties of its drivers. It does not endeavor to provide free brake system inspections and repair, free vision 

3.

4.

correction, vehicle washing, blood testing, and so forth. It is the driver's responsibility to use the resources at his disposal to perform his part of the social contract.

Expand this notion to the contract between society and the institution of public education. It is this author's conviction that it is futile to debate the issue of effective and responsible teaching without working from a comprehensive definition that has been formalized as a written social contract, and which contains provisions for the eighteen questions posed above.

To consider the question of what is effective and responsible teaching from any other platform seems wayward. Without establishing the parameters of what is to be measured, blame for less than ideal outcomes becomes the preoccupation of both parties in the social contract. This is exactly how this author discerns the chaos infecting American education today. An uncivilized fight has ensued.

Parents are blaming the schools for too much work, not enough learning, unfair and biased tests and standards, unfair teachers and discipline measures, disrespect, low morale, curriculums too liberal and conservative, cultures of violent youth, dull and ineffective teaching methods, cultural pluralism, and offenses to individual civil, religious, and cultural rights.

Schools are blaming parents for poverty, poor nutrition, provocative dress, poor sleep habits, sexual activity, decline of family values, divorce, redefined "families," diminished respect for authority, domestic violence, dual--income couples, lack of child supervision, materialism, violence and crime, apathy, the decline of spirituality, morality, and the lack of any cultivation of virtues and etiquette.

The result has been the disinfecting of the school environment to achieve the easily washed walls of neutrality, mediocrity, objectivity, and tolerance. The family--school fight continues in the assumed sterile halls and classrooms of American public education, diluted and deluded by their efforts at "political correctness."

Increasingly, parents have sued the system and won special treatment, which through case law, becomes new entitlements for families and new responsibilities for schooling. Consider some examples: special education services, school breakfast and lunch, health and sex education classes, drug, alcohol, and violence resistance education, bilingual education, eubonics, drivers education, vocational classes, life skills classes, psychological and social work services, hearing and vision

5.

screening, and so forth.

This author is not asserting that these services are inappropriate and unhelpful, but rather, attention must be given to rewriting the social contract and predetermining which party will be responsible for which variables prerequisite to the business of teaching and learning. When we can define the performances of each party, then we are free to conclude that effective and responsible teaching is a collection of humanitarian practices that result in complete performance of school duties and the execution of educational objectives for each child within the system.

It is equally important to insure that enough time has been allotted the institution of public education to adequately perform its increasingly complex responsibilities. For instance, are schools attempting to teach the basics and enrichment courses (art, health, physical education, music) within the same time framework once devoted entirely to core academic subjects (reading, writing, math, science, history, social studies)?

A contract between a particular school and the families it serves necessarily has its foundation in the policies and laws governing the Federal Department of Education, the State Department of Education, the local school district, local school board, local parent--teacher organization and teacher's union.

To illustrate, here is statement of the priorities of the U.S. Department of Education:

(1) All students will read independently and well by the end of 3rd grade. (2) All students will master challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and geometry, by the end of 8th grade. (3) By 18 years of age, all students will be prepared for and able to afford college. (4) All states and schools will have challenging and clear standards of achievement and accountability for all children, and effective strategies for reaching those standards. (5) There will be a talented, dedicated, and well--prepared teacher in every classroom. (6) Every classroom will be connected to the Internet by the year 2000, and all students will be technologically literate. (7) Every school will be strong, safe, drug--free and disciplined. (US Department of Education 1998, 1)

The next level is the State Department of Education. Here is a statement of Michigan's vision for K--12 education. "Michigan's K--12 education will ensure that all students will develop their potential in order to lead productive and satisfying lives. All students will engage in challenging and purposeful learning that blends their experiences with content knowledge and real--world applications in preparation for their adult roles, which include becoming: literate individuals, healthy and fit people, responsible family members, productive workers, involved citizens, and self--directed, lifelong learners (Michigan Department of Education 1998, 1)."

6.

The next level involves the Michigan Curriculum Framework which serves as a resource for all public and private schools in the area of core curricula content, standards, student performance benchmarks, design, implementation, and access. The Michigan State School Board and the Michigan Department of Education develop models for local school district curriculums. The goal is statewide alignment of content, instruction, and local and state assessments so each variable correlates positively with student achievement. The Framework project is co--directed by a Joint Steering Committee comprised of representatives from stake holding groups. It includes parents, content area experts, business and labor leaders, house and senate staff, and educators (Michigan Department of Education 1998, 1--2).

The next level involves the Michigan Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services. Here are excerpts from its Right to Education Policy Statement:

All eligible students with disabilities have a right to free and appropriate public education (FAPE). This policy became effective and was mandated by statute in 1971. This right is provided to students with disabilities who are served by all public agencies in Michigan which are authorized to provide special education. . . . Eligible students include those noted in the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as amended. Michigan has eligibility standards in 12 areas: severely mentally impaired, trainable mentally impaired, educable mentally impaired, emotionally impaired, hearing impaired, visually impaired, physically and otherwise health impaired, speech and language impaired, preprimary impaired, specific learning disability, severely multiply impaired, and autism. . . . Students eligible for special education include persons from birth to age 26 who have not completed a normal course of study and have not graduated from high school (Michigan State Plan for Special Education 1998, 1).

In defining a free and appropriate public education, the law spells out the duties of the school with regard to some essential functions that may be assumed within the family domain but which are prerequisite for teaching and learning to occur.

Free Appropriate Public Education: Appropriate public education means educational programs and services designed to meet the individual needs of each student with a disability. The procedures and policies regulating the individualized educational planning committee (IEPC) and the individualized educational program (IEP) constitute the basis of determining a student's appropriate education. Free education means education provided without expense to the student or parent{s). A FAPE includes the cost of the following:

(1) Instruction provided by a LEA, intermediate school district (ISD), the Michigan School for the Blind, the Michigan School for the Deaf, the Michigan Department of Mental health (MDMH), or the Michigan Department of Social Services (MDSS), as required in Section 1751 (1) of the School Code, and the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC);

7.

(2) Related services for evaluation, supplemental instruction, or training required by students in order to benefit from the educational program, as required in section 1751 of the School Code;

(3) Transportation for students with disabilities to and from school where transportation is required for the student to get from home to school, from one school site to another, or from one program or service site to another, as required in Section 1756 of the School Code;

(4) Room and board for persons with disabilities who are sent away from home by the school district for the purpose of receiving special education or related services, as required by Section 1761 of the School Code;

(5) Supplies and equipment at least equal to those provided to other students in regular education programs and, in addition, supplies and equipment necessary to meet their defined instructional objectives, as required in R 340.1733 (h) of the Administrative Rules for Special Education . . . effective July 1, 1987;

(6) Diagnosis or reevaluation required for determination of eligibility under R 340.1721a of the Administrative Rules;

(7) Reevaluation required by the public agency at least once every three years under the provisions of 34 CFR 300.534 of the implementing regulations of the IDEA and R 340.1722d of the Administrative Rules;

(8) Additional diagnostic services recommended by the IEPC and required by the school district, including neurological, medical, and psychiatric and other professional services not provided by the school district, other public agencies, or covered by medical insurance, shall be the responsibility of the disabled person's district of residence, as required by R 340.1733(k) of the Administrative Rules;

(9) The cost of ancillary or related services, which will include when appropriate, rehabilitation counseling services as defined in federal regulation 34CFR 300.16 (10), needed for educational purposes. Resources are available also from rehabilitation agencies, Medicaid, Services to Crippled Children, the MDMH, the Michigan Department of Public health (MDPH), and the MDSS, as well as county agencies and private insurance companies; and

(10) Transition services means a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an outcome--oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post--school activities, including post secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. School districts are not required to provide or otherwise cover the costs for the following items described in the State Board of Education position statement on free textbooks, materials, and charging of fees:

(1) Extracurricular activities where students are not graded or evaluated and credit is not given, or for any other activity in which participation is not required;

(2) Voluntary extracurricular activities such as attendance at the Special Olympics or other non-required sporting events, plays, movies, or concerts where there is an admission fee or other costs;

(3) Band or orchestra when not part of the regular school day and no grade, evaluation, or credit is given for the course;

(4) Summer school programs, except when required by the IEP; and

(5) Clothes and food, unless required by the district (e.g., food for home economics class, towels for drying after swimming class) (Michigan State Plan for Special Education 1998, 2--3).

8.

Local school districts must operate within this body of rules and regulations and using local inputs, draft their own mission statements. Here is the 21st century mission statement of Michigan's Shiawassee Regional Education Service District: "To prepare tomorrow's adults to be successful, literate, informed, responsible, and productive members of a global society (SRESD 1994, 1) ."

The district then lists the following goals of its schools: Ò(1) To develop each student's self-esteem and self-discipline. (2) To recognize that diversity is a source of learning and essential to understanding a global society. (3) To understand and respect that there are significant differences in the way individuals learn. (4) To continue to envision a more effective educational process and strive to attain it (SRESD 1994, 1)."

To accomplish its goals, the district will employ the following strategies: "(1) Identify the individual learning needs of each student and develop a clear plan for successfully meeting those needs. (2) Make decisions based on the best knowledge and information available. (3) Teach learners how to cope with change and how to make responsible choices by teaching problem solving skills. (4) Empower our teachers and learners with appropriate training and access to new technology. (5) Require that a portion of each learner's education take place outside of the school environment. (6) Restructure the administration of education to utilize more effective management techniques such as Total Quality Management, site--based decision making, and so forth (SRESD 1994, 1)."

The district encompasses 5 local school districts, each governed by a local board of education. One is the Owosso School District. Its Mission Statement reads: "All students can learn, given time and opportunity. The most effective learning environment enhances student self--esteem; is aligned with a planned, taught, and tested curriculum; and is mutually endorsed by school and community (Owosso Public Schools Parent/Teacher Handbook 1998, 7)."

In a Belief Statement by Superintendent Thomas Hicks, it is asserted that acting upon knowledge and living beliefs helps to "minimize inappropriate and unaligned behaviors and practices." The beliefs listed below, are intended to represent the guiding principles, professional standards, and values that determine behavior and decisions.

9.

The Owosso Public Schools believe: (1) That our primary responsibility is teaching and promoting learning for all. (2) That we create the conditions that will enhance an individual's positive self-image. (3) That all decisions should be based on the best knowledge. (4) That by creating a positive, trusting atmosphere the performance of all individuals in the organization will be enhanced. (5) That every individual in our organization is worthwhile and deserving of respect, and should reflect through their behavior respect for themselves and others. (6) That all individuals deserve concern and recognition; to be guided, challenged, and motivated in a positive setting. (7) That a parental and community partnership is vital to positive educational experiences. (8) That all individuals can become lifelong learners. (9) That all individuals have a right to work and learn within a safe and caring environment. (10) That all students can learn given time, appropriate support, and relevant, diverse educational experiences to make things work. Off-target indicators include: rumors, information hiding, game playing, acting without information, misunderstanding, mistrust, and indifference.

(6) The organization can expect the individual to engage in the problem solving process and the individual can expect an opportunity to engage people in the problem solving process. Target indicators include: problem owner's collaborate to solve their problems, problems do not persist, and people feel a sense of power and self-esteem. Off-target behaviors include: blaming, working

11.

outside the process, avoidance, and ignoring problems.

(7) The organization can expect the individual to conduct all behavior ethically and the individual can expect an organizational commitment to operate ethically. Target indicators include: conforming to professional standards of conduct in beliefs, expectations, and practices. Off--target indicators include all behavior that is not aligned with professional standards of conduct.

(8) The organization can expect the individual to show respect for the dignity of each individual and the individual can expect organizational respect for the dignity of each individual. Target indicators include: positive attitudes, shared enthusiasm for other's success, all persons mutually respected regardless of position, job satisfaction, effectiveness and productivity, and pride in accomplishment. Undesirable indicators include negative attitudes and behaviors such as put downs, defensive posturing, and gossip.

(9) The organization can expect the individual to function through the process and the individual can expect an organizational commitment to function through process. Target indicators include: learning about and perfecting the use of processes, opportunities to participate, collaboration, and focused and intentional behavior. Undesirable indicators include total frustration, detachment, and random behavior.

(10) The organization can expect the individual to recognize the contributions and accomplishments of others and the individual can expect organizational recognition for contributions and accomplishments. Target indicators include: fulfilling experiences, pride in oneself and colleagues, positive approach in dealing with each other, an "all-win" atmosphere, and increased sharing of success. Undesirable indicators include: discouragement due to lack of recognition and caring, feelings of isolation, guarding of successes, and few winners.

(11) The organization can expect the individual to align all behaviors and activities to serve students and the individual can expect organizational processes for quality teaching and learning that are clearly articulated and supported. Target indicators include: improved attendance of all, a focus on serving students, quality defined, and modeling of appropriate behavior. Undesirable indicators include: mediocrity, student resistance and distance, unproductive behaviors, and student failure.

12.

(12) The organization can expect the individual to act on purpose and vision and the individual can expect a clearly articulated organizational purpose and vision. Target indicators include: a clear purpose, established vision, intentional aligned behavior, focused growth and activity, follow through, and ownership. Undesirable indicators include: excuses, inertia, unaligned behavior, and unfocused apathetic behavior.

(13) The organization can expect the individual to function through trust and expectations and the individual can expect an organizational commitment to function through trust and expectations. Target indicators include: peopled doing what they agreed to do, accountability, acting on best knowledge, more total group work, and a willingness to engage. Undesirable indicators include: lack of credibility, safe complacent cliques, blockers, more talk than action, and unaligned practices.

(14) The organization can expect the individual to accept personal responsibility for all decisions and behavior and the individual can expect an environment which supports personal responsibility for decisions and behavior. Target indicators include: improved attendance of all, positive influencing behavior, personal satisfaction, and conscientious employees. Undesirable indicators include excuses, blaming, and coercion (Owosso Public Schools 1995b).

With these beliefs and expectations articulated, a Parent/Student Handbook is published and distributed to each student. It outlines basic universal rights and responsibilities as follows:

"We have the right and responsibility to learn. We have the right to be respected and treated fairly and the responsibility to treat others with respect and fairness. We have the right to be safe and the responsibility to act safely. We have the right to hear and be heard and the responsibility to act so others can hear and be heard. We have the right to have our property respected and the responsibility to respect the property of others (Owosso Public Schools 1998, 1)."

The Handbook outlines the rules governing Internet access, after school activities, appointments and early dismissal, attendance, breakfast and lunch programs, transportation and bussing, communicable diseases, discrimination, parent involvement, dress code, vacations, field trips, health and safety, homework and make--up work, immunizations, lavatory procedures, lockers and desks, lost and found, medication, mission and beliefs, conferences, parties and

13.

special events, prohibited items and substances, parent teacher organizations, recess, report cards, school hours, special classes, student conduct, supplies, tornado and emergency procedures, school visits, volunteers, and the Michigan Health Education curriculum. Also detailed, are procedures and plans for various forms of discipline per type of defined offense.

The 1998 Home--School Compact for Central Elementary School divides responsibilities between home, school, and student, showing overlapping responsibilities. For instance, the school will provide a high quality curriculum, continually improve skills, and use best teaching methods and equipment, and will welcome parent and student participation in the learning process, and help parents learn about how to help students succeed. Together with the student, the school will maintain a safe environment for all, will use school resources appropriately, and will try new approaches until success is achieved. School and home both commit to respect the dignity of self and others, to communicate on a regular basis, to accept ownership for decisions and behavior, to expect success, to welcome each other as equal partners, to problem solve, and to support students. The student commits to work for quality, complete assignments on time, and ask for help when needed. The student and home both commit to good attendance; to maintain healthy sleep, nutrition and health habits; to complete homework; and to complete make--up work. The home commits to monitor free time activities, to demonstrate the importance of education, to provide a quiet place to work and study, to become involved in school activities, and to provide a safe environment.

The compact, when read, understood and consented to is then signed by teacher, principal, student and parent. Each party retains a copy for future reference.

14.

Throughout the book, Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New Synthesis, several authors reference responsible teaching as that which conveys morals (Oser, Dick, and Patry 1992, 6, 141--152, 275, 422, 445). What is the definition of moral education and whose job is it? In the introduction to his book, The Book of Virtues, William Bennett aptly defines moral education as the "training of heart and mind toward the good . . . training in good habits . . . for the sake of shaping character."

Bennett concedes that in order for children to take seriously morality or the "traits of character we most admire," they must be in the presence of adults who take morality seriously. Along with providing examples and precepts and modeling habits, adults need to share, and thus create, a moral literacy. Instruction using moral literature teaches children to recognize virtuous traits in practice within a context that exemplifies why such traits are deserving of "both admiration and allegiance (Bennett 1993, 11)."

Now we have a context in which to evaluate teaching practices for effectiveness and responsibleness. There is a clear understanding and social contract that exists between the institution of public education, students, and families. Curricular goals have been stated, the means and content of assessments are stated, the consequences of work and behavior-- ranging from excellent to poor-- are logical, published, and endorsed by all parties. We are ready for the litmus test, once we restate our definition of effective and responsible teaching as those humane beliefs and practices that completely, successfully, and efficiently meet the stated goals of education for each child within a system.

THE IDEAL VS. REALITY

Of course, the educational ship would probably reach her destination without a hitch if perfectly appointed and outfitted with a crew and passengers that were all steeped in first rate developmental activities that resulted in optimum physical, motor, visual, auditory, memory, and prerequisite preacademic skills, as well as good health, happiness, housing, clothing, transportation, emotional health, support resources, optimal nutrition, physical shape, health and moral habits, and strong in the virtues of self--discipline, responsibility, friendship, work, courage, perseverance, industriousness, compassion, honesty, loyalty, and faith.

But reality is more challenging. And management becomes the most important skill (Froyen 1993) in determining if the educational ship will get to her destination or will flounder in mid--ocean fraught with internal battles between crew and passengers.

Management by whom? A president sets educational directives for a nation. A state superintendent sets educational directives for his state which are considered by district superintendents when adopting local plans. Local districts elect school boards, district superintendents, special program coordinators, building principals, and classroom teachers. Each is responsible for managing the subjects within their domain.

Since our discussion is concerned with effective and responsible teaching, focus will be on the building level-- individual school principals, teachers, and students within classrooms. But first let us peg the location of the American educational ship.

In 1939, neurologist and dyslexia expert, Samuel T. Orton, publicized that slightly more than 10% of the school population have learning problems that are a result of an unestablished dominance of one brain hemisphere over the other. Difficulties that result include reading disability, disorders in speech, special disability in spelling, special disability in writing, failure to acquire skilled movements with normal ease and accuracy, difficulty in acquiring foreign languages after English has been mastered, and, as a secondary result, a very poor vocabulary acquisition which is to be seen in both the recognitive vocabulary as used in reading and in the recall

15.

16.

vocabulary which is used in self--expression (Orton 1966, 244--246)."

Orton goes on to stress in his 1939 Neurological Explanation of the Reading Disability, the "importance of a complete series of examinations by someone who really understands the whole problem of unilateral cerebral dominance." Orton points to 3 treatment outcomes:

(1) To eradicate "the feeling of inferiority . . . and inadequacy" when the child understands the cause or source of his difficulty, and accepts that former charges against him ("stupidity, laziness, inattention, lack of effort") we're not the cause of his past failures. "This will often give him an adequate degree of self--confidence really to tackle the job of relearning a subject in which he has encountered failure."

(2) To explain to parents the need for "the large amount of special work, with its implied need for extra charge by the school to carry on the remedial work properly." [FAPE requires schools to bear these costs today.]

(3) "Explaining the disability to teachers so that they may gain an understanding . . . in its true sense, and not misinterpret his puzzles and confusions as due to inaccuracy, to slovenliness, to carelessness, to thoughtlessness, to lack of attention, to distractibility . . . is explainable on an organic basis, it helps . . . to reach that feeling of sympathy and tolerance which are cardinally essential to the most effective remedial training (Orton 1966, 245--247)."

In spite of all the educational community has known about specific learning disabilities and successful treatments, student performance is shocking sixty years later. A 1993 study by the United States Department of Education found that 90 million (47%) of Americans are barely literate (Itzkoff n.d., 63. 

Only 2% (1 in 50) of all U.S. high school juniors can write well enough to reach national goals (Sykes 1995, 20). A 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) report showed that 83% of 9 year--olds could not read well enough to research for specific information, interrelate ideas, and make generalizations (Barton and Coley 1991)."

In 1997, the National Center for Education Statistics released its latest scorecard of American education. The statistics point to a floundering ship. Almost 93% of graduating 17 year-olds do not show proficiency in multi-step problem solving and algebra (NCES 1997, 123--124). An alarming 1 of every 4.5 American adults (22%) cannot perform simple arithmetic (NCES 1997, 416). Only 56% of exiting 17 year--olds can compute decimals, fractions, and percentages.

17.

Over 46% cannot recognize geometric figures, solve simple equations, or use moderately complex math reasoning (USDE 1991).

The U.S. Department of Education found that 93% of high school graduates cannot solve problems involving fractions and percentages. They cannot solve two--step problems involving variables, or identify equal algebraic equations, or solve linear equations and inequalities. An alarming 93% cannot synthesize and learn from varied specialized reading content. An amazing 91% cannot infer relationships and draw conclusions using detailed scientific information (USDE 1991).

In 1998, the U.S. Education Secretary, Riley, gave his State of Mathematics Education Address. "Almost 90% of new jobs require more than a high school level of literacy and math skills. An entry level automobile worker, for instance, according to an industry--wide standard, needs to be able to apply formulas from algebra and physics to properly wire the electrical circuits of a car. Indeed, almost every job today increasingly demands a combination of theoretical knowledge and skills that require learning throughout a lifetime (The State of Mathematics Education Address: Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century, January 8, 1998)."

In 1983 only 13% of high school graduates completed three years of mathematics, whereas 51% had in 1994. Math scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NEAP) tests increased significantly between 1990 and 1996. In the last 20 years, more students are taking Advanced Placement mathematics and SAT and ACT math scores are up. In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), U.S. 4th graders scored near the top in science achievement, and scored above the average in mathematics. (The State of Mathematics Education Address: Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century, January 8, 1998).

But the TIMSS also revealed . . . that the U.S. was the only country . . . whose students dropped from above average performance in 4th grade mathematics to below average math performance in the 8th grade. This international math gap is due to the fact that after 4th grade, the U.S. math curriculum continues to focus on basic arithmetic, fractions, decimals and whole number operations, whereas Japan and Germany graduate to advanced concepts that include algebra, geometry, and probability. (The State of Mathematics Education Address: Building a

18.

Strong Foundation for the 21st Century, January 8, 1998).

According to NEAP data released in August 1998, 79% of 8th graders could add, subtract, multiply__, and divide, whereas 21% could not. Advanced math is not being introduced to ready students. Could this be because the average K--8 teacher has taken 3 or fewer math courses? Because not even half of all 8th grade math teachers have even taken one course on teaching mathematics at this level, or because 28% of high school math teachers do not have a major or minor in mathematics? Recent studies show that teacher expertise can account for 40% of the variance in students' mathematics achievement (The State of Mathematics Education Address: Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century, January 8, 1998).

In other countries, students are given a clear picture of what is expected of college--bound students and what is at stake, and a significant number of students achieve the standards. In America, we are asking too little of too many of our students, and we are giving them very few incentives to work hard (The American Federation of Teachers 1994, ix--x)."

Taking challenging courses, including mathematics, is more important in determining college attendance than a student's family background or income, and can create real opportunities for disadvantaged students. But a recent Harris Poll revealed that while 90% of all parents and students desire a college education, 50% of these students quit math education as soon as allowed. This creates a gap between unrealistic expectations and the essential mathematics courses demanded by college and work. According to U. S. Education Secretary, Riley, these include arithmetic, algebra, geometry, probability, statistics, data analysis, trigonometry, and calculus (The State of Mathematics Education Address: Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century, January 8, 1998).

Between 1960 and 1980, The College Board reports that spending on elementary and secondary education increased by 200% after inflation, class size decreased by one-third, the number of teachers increased by 17%, and teacher salaries and the number of teachers with advanced degrees tripled. For all the progress, the mean SAT scores have dropped 54 points on the verbal section and 23 points in math between 1962 and 1994, and a reading report card finds that 25% of high school seniors can barely read their diplomas (Sykes 1995, 21--22).

19.

The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) of exiting 12th grade students tested abilities of 500,000 students in 41 countries during 1995. The results were released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in February 1998. U.S. students only outperformed 2 countries on the assessments of mathematics and science general knowledge, and were outperformed by 14 and 11 countries respectively. The U.S. scored the lowest of 16 countries on the assessment of physics and advanced mathematics (NCES 1998).

CONCLUSION

For one of the richest countries with one of the best standards of living in the world, we are failing publicly and miserably in the domestic and global educational arenas. Just this week, congress was forced to approve a law allowing an influx of foreign workers to fill thousands of information technology jobs. How can we explain a well financed system that consistently fails to reach its stated goals? In humiliation, the U.S. government was forced to admit that as a country, we cannot even manage to supply our own demand for an adequately educated labor force.

Within the United States, 45 States have statewide assessment programs and 36 states have content standards. Half of these believe their content standards apply to all students. Yet overall test results do not reflect the big picture or cover the entire spectrum of achievement of all students. Most states allow students with learning and other disabilities to take assessments, but do not include their scores in the final test results. Some 70% of the 23 states with reporting guidelines exclude the scores of students with disabilities (Burke 1998, 6). This means that although the reported numbers of students without mastery of basic skills is appalling, the actual figures create a more urgent problem for the nation.

Let us assume that some of these statistics are attributable to specific learning disabilities that afflict 10-20% of the general student population. What can be done with the difficult students that cannot seem to meet educational goals despite instruction that is successful for the majority of students? What happens to students with specific learning disabilities in reading, writing, spelling and math? This takes us back to discussion of effective and responsible teaching methods-- those humane beliefs and practices that completely, successfully, and efficiently meet the stated goals of education for each child within the system. 

In an age where the law stipulates that learning disabled students must be included in regular education settings to the maximum extent possible, is it effective and responsible to use teaching methods that are only successful with 80% of students? For 80% of students, typical

20.

21.

classroom instruction, dependent on visual and auditory processing, is sufficient for academic success. But 20% of students are weak in these primary learning pathways. This author proposes two proven methodologies be used in classrooms that are both diagnostic, preventative, and prescriptive for not only students with learning disabilities, but all students.

For the group of learning disabilities including dyslexia, dysgraphia, and attention deficit disorder, the Orton-Gillingham Approach has been thoroughly researched and practiced successfully for over 73 years. Because it employs all learning modalities simultaneously-- auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic-- all children are motivated and succeed regardless of weaknesses. The program is individualized, structured, sequential, systematic, and cyclical and consists of daily instruction and drills in phonemic awareness, sound--symbol relationships, blending, reading skills (decoding and comprehension), spelling (encoding), and penmanship (letter formation). Advanced students receive instruction in the writing process. Students are taught to be experts in the rules of the language and use this logic base to solve linguistic problems that an imperfect visual memory presents.

Dr. Samuel T. Orton, a professor of neurology and neuropathology, and his associates at Columbia University in New York, identified the syndrome, "developmental reading disability," in 1925. They pioneered a multi-sensory approach to teaching reading that drew on knowledge and research in the areas of education, neurology, psychology, linguistics, and social work. The instruction manual published in 1936 is in its seventh printing.

Slingerland's procedures were founded on three principles and included the prescribed use of district and state materials and adherence to the general school program (Slingerland 1962, 164). In the 40 years since Slingerland's successful large group experiments and the 73 years since

22.

Orton's first training manuals, the Orton-Gillingham method has been successfully applied in classrooms around the world. Several manuals are available to assure proper teacher training in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of specific learning disabilities. In addition to those mentioned are Nina Traub's Recipe for Reading and Rome and Osman's Language Tool Kit.

Finally we consider the poor comprehension of the language of mathematics that plagues 22% of American adults (NCES 1997, 416), and 93% of America's high school graduates (NCES 1997, 123--134), despite 12--13 years of formalized math instruction. Many of these failures can be attributed to dyscalculia, a specific learning disability in mathematics.

These students excel verbally and are proficient writers, but are poor in the areas of spatial relations, directionality, time, and sequential math memory-- auditory, visual and kinesthetic. With these students, despite high achievement in all other subjects and strong motivation, all instruction and memory of mathematical facts and ideas does not stick. These students experience a frustrating "auto erasure." This consistent memory failure is the cause of math anxiety.

Mahesh Sharma, Head Professor of Education at Cambridge and foremost researcher on dyscalculia, has developed proven methods for successfully teaching mathematics in classrooms containing both proficient and dyscalculic students. Sharma advocates the teaching of mathematics as a bona fide second language and to a sufficient degree that allows each student to think and learn math independently.

First, all students must be tested for and remediated to acquire basic pre--math skills. These include following sequential directions; understanding and applying classifications; order, organization and sequencing; spatial orientation and organization; understanding and using estimation; visual object clustering; pattern recognition and extension; visualization; and deductive and inductive reasoning (Sharma 1990, 24).

Next, the six linguistic components of math language are deliberately taught-- symbols, concepts, vocabulary, syntax, voice, and translation. Each component of a math concept (linguistic, conceptual, procedural) is deliberately and graphically introduced using concrete objects, real examples, and familiar language tied to quantitative language (Sharma 1990, 15, 23).

Sharma's methodology guides the student through the six levels of learning mastery for each math concept. (1) Ideas are connected to the student's existing knowledge and experiences.

23.

(2) The student constructs a model of the concept. (3) The student makes a graphic illustration of the concrete representation. (4) The student adds mathematical notation, employing numbers and operational symbols. (5) The student applies the concept to real life situations. (6) The student successfully communicates and teaches the concept to others (Sharma 1989).

This is in line with Dewey's idea that unconsciously, from birth, humans learn to do by doing. "Our first teachers . . . are our feet, hands, and eyes. To substitute books for them does not teach us to reason; it teaches us to use the reasons of others rather than our own; it teaches us to¹ believe much and to know little (Dewy and Dewy 1962, 2)."

Sharma's methods also employ most of Howard Gardner's 7 types of intelligence or independent ways that humans have of knowing. These are: (1) verbal/linguistic intelligence; (2) logical/mathematical intelligence; (3) visual/spatial intelligence; (4) body/kinesthetic intelligence; (5) musical/rhythmic intelligence; (6) interpersonal intelligence; and (7) intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner 1983). Sharma's methods are also supported by Crain and Crain's statements summarizing brain learning research. They report that learning is enhanced by challenge, and that the brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are embedded in natural spatial memory (Crain and Crain 1990, 66).

In conclusion, effective and responsible teaching methods are those researched and scientifically proven methods that are successful with 100% of the students in the general education classroom. These methods utilize multiple intelligences and pathways of receiving and learning information. They are diagnostic, and immediately recognize and address learner deficiencies. Most important, they require the teacher to know her students well and to help them draw associations and conclusions that are "genuine, vivid, meaningful, and ultimately woven into their experiences (Newman 1998, 4).

"Both Orton-Gillingham and Sharma's methods take students to knowledge "ownership level." In each case the students learn the information "well enough to teach it, remember it for all time, and to use it meaningfully, quickly, easily, appropriately, and profitably (Newman 1998, 4)."

REFERENCES

Barton, Paul E. and Richard J. Coley. 1991. Performance at the top: From elementary through graduate school. Policy Information Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bennett, William J. 1993. The book of virtues. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Burke, Donald. 1998. States gain national perspective on alternative assessment. Newsline. vol. 6, no. 3. (November). Charlotte, MI: Center for Educational Networking. Available at: http://www.mde.state.mi.us/off/sped/index.html. Internet.

Craine, R.N. and G. Craine. 1990. Understanding a brain--based approach to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership. (October).

Dewey, John and Evelyn Dewey. 1962. Schools of tomorrow. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co.

Froyen, Len A. 1993. Classroom management: The reflective teacher--leader. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Gillingham, Anna and Bessie Stillman. 1960. Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. 7th ed. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Itzkoff. n.d. The decline of intelligence.

Michigan Department of Education. 1998. Michigan Curriculum Framework Introduction. [on--line document] Available at: http://cdp.mde.state.mi.us/MCF/introduction.html. Internet. Last updated 12 June, 1998.

Michigan State Plan for Special Education. 1998. Chapter 1: Right to education policy statement. Michigan Department of Education. Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.mde.state.mi.us/off/sped/index.html. Internet.

NCES. 1997. Digest of educational statistics 1997. Snyder, Thomas D.; with production manager, Charlene M. Hoffman; and Program Analyst, Claire M. Geddes. NCES 98-- 015. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. [on--line document] Available at: http://nces.gov/pubs/digest97/98015.html. Internet.

NCES. 1998. Executive summary of Pursuing Excellence: A study of U.S. 12th-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context. (28 February). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.ed.gov/inits/TIMSS.

24.

25.

Newman, Renee M. 1998. Dyscalculia: Instruction design & classroom techniques-- A linguistic approach to K--4 basic number concepts. Henderson, MI: Dyslexia and Dyscalculia Support Services. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.dyscalculia.org/edu503.html. Internet.

Orton, M.D., Samuel T. 1937. Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New York: W. . Norton & Co.

Oser, Fritz K., Andreas Dick, and Jean--Luc Patry, Editors. 1992. Effective and responsible teaching: The new synthesis. San Francisco: Jossey--Bass Publishers.

Owosso Public Schools. 1995a. Belief statements. Brochure. Owosso, MI. (January). Thomas A. Hicks, Ph.D., Superintendent.

Owosso Public Schools. 1995b. Organizational expectations and indicators. Brochure. Owosso, MI. (January). Thomas A. Hicks, Ph.D., Superintendent.

Owosso Public Schools. 1998. Parent/student handbook. Owosso, MI. (June). Thomas A. Hicks, Ph.D., Superintendent.

Rawson, Margaret B. 1968. Developmental dyslexia: Adult accomplishments of dyslexic boys. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

__Rome, Paula D. and Jean S. Osman. 1985. Language tool kit. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Sharma, Mahesh. 1989. How children learn mathematics: Professor Mahesh Sharma in interview with Bill Domoney. London, England: Oxford Polytechnic, School of Education. Educational Methods Unit. 90 min. [Videocassette.]

Sharma, Mahesh. 1990. Dyslexia, dyscalculia, and some remedial perspectives for mathematics learning problems. Math Notebook 8: 7--10. Framingham, MA: The Center for Teaching/Learning of Mathematics.

Slingerland, Beth. 1962. Specific language disability is recognized by the Renton, Washington School District. Pomfret, CT: Bulletin of the Orton Society. vol.XIII. 1963.

The American Federation of Teachers. 1994. What college--bound students abroad are expected to know about biology.

The State of Mathematics Education Address. 9 January, 1998. U.S. Department of Education. Secretary Riley. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.ed.gov/inits.h__Átml#2.

26.

Traub, Nina with Frances Bloom. 1990. Recipe for reading. 3d. ed. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Turabian, Kate L. 1993. A manual for writers of term papers, theses, and dissertations. 6th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Department of Education. 1998. President's & Secretary's priorities, as issued in the State of the Union Address on 4 February, 1997. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.ed.gov/tinits.html. Last updated 5 October, 1998. Internet.

U.S. Department of Education (USDE). 1991. Trends in academic progress.

Report no. 21--T--01.National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) Trend Report (November). Washington, D.C: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. [on--line document] Available at: http://www.ed.gov. Internet.

Effective and Responsible Teaching

Author's Note: This is an academic paper converted to HTML for web viewing. Original page numbers are retained. Viewers are welcome to download, reference, print, and share this document in whole or in part, as long as author's name, copyright, and source location appear on each printed page, and all citations are properly documented. The source location of this document is: http://www.dyscalculia.org/edu505.html  

Direct all inquiries to the author at: reneenew@dyscalculia.org.