Category: Inclusion

Team Teaching, A Proven Concept

Although some claim that team teaching in American public schools was a response to the Sputnik launch and the need to innovate in education, most credit William Alexander with popularizing the concept. At a 1963 conference at Cornell University, he presented a plan to establish “teams of three to five middle school teachers who would be in charge of team teaching content to large groups of pupils, ranging from 75 to 150.” He foresaw “several pedagogical and intellectual benefits, including the development of dynamic, interactive learning environments; creation of a model for facilitating the teaching of critical thinking within or across disciplines; and establishment of new research ventures and partnerships among faculty.“ Alexander acknowledged that teamed teachers would need to adapt their instructional strategies and course planning in order to collaborate successfully. (www.researchgate.net)

We now have research to support many benefits of team teaching, yet it largely disappeared in the 1970s. Larry Cuban writes, “as a buzzword, team teaching in K-12 classrooms flew like a shooting star across the educational sky in the 1960s and disappeared by the mid-1970s leaving little cosmic dust in its wake.” (larrycuban.wordpress.com)

Why did we let such a promising initiative wither? Many factors may have contributed to its decline, but I can think of four: it’s hard to do well because it requires a learning curve and professional development; other innovative initiatives may have displaced it, there are so many different approaches to teaming, and American education is a remarkably inert institution that resists change.

Why does it matter? Research proves that team teaching improves teacher retention and morale while helping teachers meet the ever-increasing diversity of needs of their students.

An Education Week article says that more than 1,100 schools across 18 states use team teaching models. For example, at a Mesa, Arizona, elementary school, two teachers led a highly interactive fifth grade lesson while maintaining order.  The article posits that team teaching may boost retention “because the team models address some of the most difficult tensions that bedevil the teaching profession: It helps students connect to more adults, protects institutional memory in school buildings, and gives teachers timely support to improve their own craft.” When teachers are asked how to boost their morale, additional staff is second only to pay raises. That’s even more true as teachers overall become younger and less experienced and the gap between highest- and lowest-performing students continues to increase. They cite Arizona State University’s Next Education Workforce, and Opportunity Culture, a model designed by the North Carolina-based nonprofit Public Impact as an effective example. That program offers core-content teachers support staff, including counselors or tutors, and gives those teams more autonomy. Another example: the Ector County district in Odessa, Texas adopted Public Impact’s Opportunity Culture team-teaching model in 2019 to cope with and reduce staff vacancies. It’s working: “vacancies dropped from 350 in 2018-19 to less than 30 in 2024-25, even accounting for pandemic disruptions.” (https://edweek.org)

Research supports these efforts. Huriya Jabbar, an associate professor of education policy at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, found that “the most effective teaching teams quickly develop collective lesson plans, procedures, and student data. Some teams had well-organized systems for tracking calendars, lesson plans, and modifications they’d made over time.” He acknowledges the barriers to this approach: “For all their purported benefits, teaching teams remain comparatively rare in schools. Logistically, they are a heavy lift: They require extensive and ongoing training for teachers, outreach to parents and community groups, and sometimes even physical changes to classroom layouts.” (Ibid.)

Another Education Week article describes the June 2025 findings of researchers at Arizona State University and the Center on Reinventing Public Education on improved retention of teachers.  “… after controlling for teacher and school characteristics, that the teamed teachers were half as likely to leave their schools as their non-teamed peers.” Teamed teachers felt more autonomy about their pedagogy and were able to be more creative. (https://edweek.org2)

Through surveys, the researchers found the New Education Workforce teachers were more likely than teachers in the district working solo to feel they had a say in education decisions at their school. Teamed teachers were also more likely than solo teachers to feel control over their schedules and able to take creative approaches to instruction. Teachers, both solo and in teams, who reported a stronger sense of autonomy in their teaching were more likely to remain in their schools. That autonomy matters. “The study showed that having clear team support and accountability, coupled with flexibility for teachers within those teams, were associated with the highest teacher retention.” (Ibid.)

A  study, conducted by the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University in collaboration with the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), found multiple benefits to team teaching, including  both improved teacher retention and greater teacher-driven decision-making. (https://www.datiak12.io)

Another initiative, The Next Education Workforce model (NEW) uses eight key elements in their team model: “1) teachers share a roster of students, (2) teachers share multiple learning spaces and move across these spaces throughout the day, (3) teachers have and use team planning time, (4) team members have different roles and responsibilities, (5) teachers adjust their schedule according to the needs of both teachers and students, (6) teachers group and regroup their students based on students’ needs and interests, (7) teachers use data to tailor learning to each student, and (8) teachers provide each student with rigorous learning opportunities.” They assert that this approach allows deeper and more student-centered learning, with improved student and teacher motivation and performance. (www.ascd.org)

NEW already works with 28 districts in a dozen states, where 241 teams of teachers use the ASU model, and in the next two years it will expand team teaching in dozens of new schools in California, Colorado, Michigan and North Dakota. (https://hechingerreport.org)

NEW also offers flexibility instead of a one-size-fits-all model. They support school communities in constructing the model that best fits their needs. (https://www.the74million.org)

I myself had two wonderful team-teaching opportunities that improved my own pedagogy and motivation. When the teacher next door and I both taught Junior Honors English, although our classes met at different times, we planned our lessons together, meeting every few Friday afternoons to do that. We also arranged for interactions among our students, like a joint student-run Medieval Festival to which the entire school was invited. Those experiences nurtured both of us as well as our students. I also had the privilege of actually sharing a classroom and team teaching with the chair of the Special Education department as we mainstreamed a number of kids into our joint American Literature class. Again, I learned so much from my partner, our lessons grew ever more creative, and we all were inspired. I so preferred these experiences to being a solo practitioner!

Why, then, if we know the benefits and believe they outweigh the obstacles and challenges, aren’t we doing this more? This investment would reap huge dividends if only we had the will to make it happen.

No More Backsliding!

I was sad but not surprised to read the results of the National Science Foundation’s meta-analysis of gender-stereotyping of children. They conclude that “at age 6, children already believe that boys and men are better at computing and engineering; girls increasingly endorse this belief in older ages. These stereotypes therefore have ample time to affect children’s motivations and behaviors as children engage with these subjects in formal schooling and select diverging pathways in later grades.” (psycnet.apa.org)

Nearly thirty years ago I first encountered articles and studies about why girls were avoiding math and science classes at ever earlier ages. Although I’m an English teacher and writer, the rest of my family is in STEM fields, and I see how important they are and the opportunities they offer. Even though I ran three other extracurricular activities, I started a group called WIMS [Women in Math and Science]. We met after school every month to look at the research and plan activities. I connected them with women scientists at Fermilab, and they reached out to girls at the middle school and grade schools. I was hopeful.

I wasn’t entirely wrong. We did make progress.

But we’re slipping again. According to Northwest Evaluation Association research, although the disparity between middle school math and science scores disappeared in 2019, the gap has returned. One author posited that teachers may be reinforcing old stereotypes and/or the renewed focus on boys’ learning after they fell behind may affect girls. Whatever the reason, we’re losing ground here. (www.the74million.org)

Indianapolis schools have tackled this issue by creating Girls IN STEM Academy. Its mission: “Helping elementary-age girls’ science hopes take flight.” They’ve enrolled 65 girls but plan to grow to 300. The Girl Scouts are a partner. Purdue Polytechnic High School students will mentor the girls, seeking to create a pipeline that eventually boosts the female attendance there, as well as at colleges.

“With women making up just a third of the STEM workforce and about the same majoring in STEM fields in college, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and American Association of University Women, experts see a need to start encouraging girls early in a STEM focus.” The article claims that  there are only three other girls elementary schools with a dedicated STEM focus — Innova Girls Academy in New York, Rise STEM Academy for Girls in Kentucky and Solar Preparatory School for Girls in Texas. (indianacapitalchronicle.com)

 

Girls make up nearly half the population of school-age children, and our country cannot afford to discard their talents. STEM careers are highly desirable, and girls should be encouraged to seek them along with boys. Early support of STEM makes a difference. “Researchers have found that high-quality academic preparation and exposure to STEM is a key influence in high schoolers’ chances of landing a STEM career.” (www.the74million.org2)

It’s time for change.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

My heart lies with Project Head Start. As a senior in high school, already committed to teaching, I was lucky enough to volunteer in one of the first Head Start programs in New York. I saw firsthand fine teaching and coaching. I met children who grew up without books and reading in their homes, who became a rapt audience. I valued the relationship-building the paid teachers facilitated and felt hopeful for the future of the kids enrolled. That hopefulness was confirmed when I researched the impact of the program for one of my education classes in college.

Knowing that research might now be updated, I just did another search. Overall, the program remains effective: children have significantly better social-emotional, language, and cognitive development and are better prepared for kindergarten.  (Love et al., 2002) These children are less likely to end up in foster care (sciencedirect.com), more likely to have better health outcomes (Lee et al., 2013; Ludwig and Miller, 2007), more likely to graduate high school (Bauer and Schanzenbach, 2016) and go to at least one year of college and less likely to be unemployed (Deming, 2009). The children of Head Start graduates are significantly more likely to finish high school and enroll in college and they are significantly less likely to become teen parents or to be involved in the criminal justice system. (Barr and Gibbs, 2017)

A systematic meta-study shows that “studies have found persistent favorable effects of Head Start on academic achievement scores at older ages; on educational attainment, including high school graduation and college enrollment; on other lifecourse outcomes such as criminal behavior, teen pregnancy, and aspects of health, albeit with some differences in the magnitude of the impacts across subgroups defined by gender or race-ethnicity.” (www.rand.org)

I find the plans of the current administration to defund this valuable program not only appalling but also bewildering. Head Start, which serves more than half a million of the country’s neediest children, is run by public and private schools but dependent on the federal government for its funding. Current programs have received $1 billion less already, “slow-walking” money approved by Congress.  That’s almost a third of their funding, and its absence caused some programs to close. (apnews.com) RFK Jr. claims he wants to preserve funding for this fiscal year (chicagotribune.com), but last month the news leaked that the Trump administration would propose eliminating Project Head Start in 2026. (usatoday.com) Indeed, in early April the federal government closed five regional Head Start offices, including the Chicago regional office. (chicagotribune.com) The ACLU has filed a lawsuit asking the federal court to stop the administration from stripping funding for Head Start and closing program offices. (chicagotribune.com 2)

While the ultimate outcome is unclear, programs suffer from the uncertainty. I believe in Project Head Start because it serves children who need support. I am convinced that Project Head Start’s investment in our neediest children offers a good return on investment. For those who don’t value its work as a moral issue, the economics should convince them. Cutting this program might save money initially but will cost far more in the long run. The human cost is incalculable. I am heartbroken that the current administration continues to weaponize funding instead of making wise decisions about what’s worth doing. Too many of our children and—ultimately—their ability to be self-sufficient adults with agency are at stake.

Yet Another Assault on Freedom of Speech and Thought

My absolute opposition to book banning and censorship is not new, but the latest news from the Naval Academy’s library has me back on my bandwagon. Nearly 400 books were removed last week after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office ordered the school to get rid of works that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

I’ve written before about my experiences and core beliefs:

  • Growing up in a home where I could read anything I wanted as long as we talked about it showed me the breadth and depth of books and made me a better thinker.
  • Reading controversial work is nowhere near as dangerous as ignorance.
  • Parents who want some say in what their children read need to accord other parents the same grace instead of forcing their decisions on all parents.
  • Adults should have the freedom to make their own choices.
  • Reading books that offer different worldviews and beliefs does not threaten us. Instead, that should cause us to clarify our own worldview and beliefs.
  • Public libraries should remain free and accessible.
  • Standards of appropriateness should be even-handed and not driven by ideology.

That’s why Hegseth’s recent move is so appalling to me. His order “resulted in a purge of books critical of racism but preserved volumes defending white power.” (nytimes.com)

Culled books include I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, “How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi, Bodies in Doubt by Elizabeth Reis, and White Rage by Carol Anderson, Half American, about African Americans in World War II; A Respectable Woman, about the public roles of African American women in 19th century New York; and Pursuing Trayvon Martin, about the 2012 shooting of the Black 17-year-old in Florida that raised questions about racial profiling. Other books that deal with gender identity, sexuality and transgender issues were removed, including books about topics such as African American women poets, entertainers who wore blackface and the treatment of women in Islamic countries. (www.cbsnews.com)

“None was banned outright — just rendered ‘not immediately available,’ a Naval Academy spokesman, Cmdr. Tim Hawkins, said. The books, he said, had been placed in a room where patrons could no longer access them.” Katherine Kuzminski, director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security, complained to ABC News about the lack of criteria. Other officials added their voices. Richard Kohn, a military historian and former chief historian for the Air Force, said, “You can’t make ideas safe for people, but you can make people safe for ideas. If you don’t mentor students in the academies to understand what’s going on in American society, you don’t really educate them.” Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Thomas Keaney, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced international Studies, added, “I don’t think anyone is going to be hurt by reading anything—however nutty or outside their own culture it is. You’re not harming people by exposing them to ideas. On the contrary, you’re training them to be discerning leaders. Give them a chance. Don’t leave them to deal from ignorance.” (abcnews.com)

Although Trump’s January executive orders banned DEI content in K–12 schools receiving federal funds, military service academies were exempt since they are not classified as K–12 institutions. (foxnews.com) Yet the Pentagon has said the academies are “fully committed to executing and implementing President Trump’s Executive Orders.” In January, federal government websites were scrubbed to remove diversity-related content. (www.cbsnews.com)

I find the double standard especially. Why are these books removed while Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and The Camp of the Saints, a book that envisions immigrants taking over the Western world, a book embraced by white supremacists and promoted by Stephen Miller, remain? Why are frightening ideas from the right not indoctrinating the students whom they insist they want to protect?  If reading materials are so dangerous that we must purge books, how do these hostile volumes get a pass?

Adm. James G. Stavridis, an author, academy alumnus and former commander of all U.S. forces in Europe, pointed out that no students are forced to read these books and questioned what we fear. He had specifically cited Maya Angelou’s book as a “valuable resource for helping military leaders understand the diversity of viewpoints that make up the armed forces. Book banning can be a canary in a coal mine and could predict a stifling of free speech and thought,” he added. “Books that challenge us make us stronger. We need officers who are educated, not indoctrinated.” (nytimes.com)

Representatives Adam Smith of Washington and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, both Democrats, wrote a letter on April 4 to John Phelan, the Navy secretary, denouncing the move as “a blatant attack on the First Amendment and a clear effort to suppress academic freedom and rigor” at the school and “an alarming return to McCarthy-era censorship.” (nytimes.com)

Other assaults on free speech, due process, and constitutional protections have already flooded our capacity to respond. I don’t know how to stop these assaults, but they do matter. Aren’t they important enough to prompt us to call our congress people and write letters to the editor? The time is now. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

A Step Beyond Book Bans

I know I’ve written more than enough about book bans, but there’s a frightening new step happening in Florida that cannot be ignored. Last week New College of Florida, the tiny liberal arts college where Governor DeSantis appointed a new governing board, threw out books. “‘We abolished the gender studies program. Now we’re throwing out the trash,’ Christopher Rufo, a DeSantis appointee to the Sarasota college’s governing board, posted Friday on X, formerly Twitter.” (apnews.com)

Although the administration claimed that the books were put out to be donated since the college’s gender studies program has been eliminated, student Natalia Benavides and others said the boxes were moved to near the dumpsters to be discarded before they rescued them. “‘Primarily what was in the dumpster were library books —- they were stamped with `discard’ and they were bound so that you knew they were from the library,’ said Benavides, a fourth-year student. ‘They seemed to be of every topic under the sun: art history books, books on aesthetics, psychology books.’” The discards included LGBTQ books, books on slavery, a collection of Jewish stories and three copies of the Bible. (Ibid.)

A report in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune was more damning, claiming a dumpster in the library parking lot overflowed with books and collections, and a video captured in the afternoon showed a vehicle driving away with the books before students were notified. In the past, students were given an opportunity to purchase books that were leaving the college’s library collection. New College spokesperson Nathan March referenced Florida Statute 273 as the reason books could not be donated or sold. However, FS 273 states that New College could dispose of state-funded personal property by “selling or transferring property to any other governmental entity… private nonprofit agency… (and) through a sale open to the public.”(herald-tribune.com)

In an interview, Natalia Benavides, said, “Unfortunately they took the whole bin to the landfill in front of our eyes, and we couldn’t do anything about it”(youtube.com)

One of the discarded books was co-authored by U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Patty Murray (D-WA), Nine and Counting: the Women of the Senate. They issued this joint statement: “We were stunned to discover that the state of Florida chose to discard Nine and Counting from its collection of books at New College—this is a book we penned together with our Senate colleagues to tell our stories as women senators, at a time when there were far fewer of us, to help inspire the next generation of women to pursue public service. We stand against the senseless banning of books. Such actions go against our constitutional values and the idea that our universities should be places where the freedom of speech is allowed to flourish and perspectives of all kinds are heard.” (collins.senate.gov)

Have we come this much closer to Ray Bradbury’s nightmare vision in Fahrenheit 451? Authoritarian regimes may start with banning books but destroying them to remove them from circulation completely is yet another step. “In Nazi Germany, many books were considered so dangerous that they were publicly burnt. Liesl Meminger, the Book Thief of Marcus Zusak’s bestselling novel, steals a half-burned book from the edge of one of these bonfires.” (theguardian.com) Brazil, Hungary, the Phillipines, Turkey, and Russia have all removed books that challenge their values, often replacing independent history texts with those produced by the state. In 2019, Turkey’s education minister “revealed — proudly — that 301,878 books had been taken out of schools and libraries and destroyed. All these books were purportedly connected to Fethullah Gulen, the cleric blamed for the failed coup attempt against Erdogan’s government in 2016.” (nytimes.com)

My heart aches when I read these articles. Destruction and removal of books limits the perspectives learners can develop. Be they children or even college students, readers can learn about other worldviews from books. “Books from a variety of viewpoints can be incredible tools to help children learn, independently or in a classroom, and limiting these discussions only hinders the nuanced discussions that inspire growth. Banning Shakespeare and other classic literature based on a few excerpts doesn’t protect children, it limits their learning. Banning books about LGBTQ+ and racial-equity topics doesn’t stop children from being curious about different topics, it merely blocks an important medium through which they can learn.” (firstfocus.org) Shame on New College!

The Impact of ACES for Education

Ten days ago I had the privilege of attending a conference about resilience and ACES [Adverse Childhood Experiences]. A pivotal part of my training as a CASA/GAL [Court Appointed Special Advocate/Guardian Ad Litem], learning about ACES had already clarified why some of my charges struggle. They have endured traumas that most of us can only imagine when we see them on television or in the movies, but the research proves that trauma actually causes toxic stress, prolonged or excessive activation of the stress response system. “Toxic stress interferes with developing healthy neural, immune, and hormonal systems and can alter our DNA expression. Over time, multiple ACEs—especially without adequate adult support—can affect the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems and have lasting effects on attention, behavior, decision-making, and response to stress throughout a lifetime” (preventchildabuse.org).

The 10 ACEs originally included:

  • Physical abuse
  • Emotional abuse
  • Sexual abuse
  • Physical neglect
  • Emotional neglect
  • Alcohol or drug abuse by a parent
  • Mentally ill parent
  • Divorce
  • Incarceration of parent
  • Childhood Domestic Violence

The consequences of higher ACES scores can be devastating:

  • People with an ACE score of 4 are twice as likely to be smokers and seven times more likely to be alcoholic.
  • Having an ACE score of 4 increases the risk of emphysema or chronic bronchitis by nearly 400 percent, and attempted suicide by 1200 percent.
  • People with high ACE scores are more likely to be violent, to have more marriages, more broken bones, more drug prescriptions, more depression, and more autoimmune diseases.
  • People with an ACE score of 6 or higher are at risk of their lifespan being shortened by 20 years (safe-sound.org).

Additional research expanded the list of ACES to include “experiencing poverty, discrimination, bullying, community violence, migration-related stressors, and foster care involvement” (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

All is not lost, however. We can counteract the impact of ACES through the buffering, consistent presence of a caring adult. We can counteract them through trauma-informed care and education. We need to shift the focus from “What’s wrong with you?” to “What happened to you?” and respond accordingly.

Although I’ve been studying ACES, the recent presentation on resilience and ACES sparked a thought I should have had long ago. Perhaps because the research began near the end of my public-school teaching career, I knew nothing about it as an educator.

Now I believe that every educator should know about ACES, their implications, and how to respond to student behavior and needs more effectively. It can be done. If you want to see brilliant trauma-informed education, watch the film, Paper Tigers. It “asks the following questions: What does it mean to be a trauma-informed school? And how do you educate teens whose childhood experiences have left them with a brain and body ill-suited to learn?” (kpjrfilms.co).  At Lincoln Alternative High School in the rural community of Walla Walla, Washington,  teachers and a brilliant principal provide students with that critical stable, caring adult to help them change their lives. Their work demonstrates the principles of a trauma-informed organization:

  • “Safety
    • Throughout the organization, patients and staff feel physically and psychologically safe
  • Trustworthiness + Transparency
    • Decisions are made with transparency, and with the goal of building and maintaining trust
  • Peer Support
    • Individuals with shared experiences are integrated into the organization and viewed as integral to service delivery
  • Collaboration
    • Power differences — between staff and clients and among organizational staff — are leveled to support shared decision-making
  • Empowerment
    • Patient and staff strengths are recognized, built on, and validated — this includes a belief in resilience and the ability to heal from trauma
  • Humility + Responsiveness
    • Biases and stereotypes (e.g., based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, geography) and historical trauma are recognized and addressed” (traumainformedcare.chcs.org)

It might be easy to assume that ACES are a problem of certain communities, but the truth is that they are prevalent everywhere.  The original ACE study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente in California from 1995 to 1997. “What’s particularly startling is that the 17,000 ACE Study participants were mostly white, middle- and upper-middle class, college-educated, and all had jobs and great health care (they were all members of Kaiser Permanente)” (acestoohigh.com).

The presentation hit me like a ton of bricks… why weren’t educators everywhere learning about ACES and adjusting their pedagogical approach accordingly. I vowed to reach out to local school districts to connect them with professional resources. Students today are struggling more than they were pre-pandemic, and they need a trauma-informed approach. I wish I’d known about this when I was still in the classroom. I vow to bring this information to classrooms near me now. Won’t you?

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Works Both Ways

Note: This is an op-ed with no cited research!

We recently saw a spectacular production of Purpose, an epic family drama by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, at Steppenwolf theater in Chicago. The parents in this family both project their expectations onto their two sons and label them unfairly, leading both sons to live up to those labels.

The play was a provocative exploration of family relationships that led to an hour-long discussion on the way home. To my surprise, that dialogue brought me to my frustration with the high school where I taught in Connecticut. That school offered five sections of freshman English, and they were labeled Honors, High Average, Average, Low Average, and X. Impotent as a brand-new teacher there, already planning a move to Illinois, I was powerless to convince the administration that such labels are harmful. Being called “average” may not encourage students to reach for greater success, but its impact pales in comparison to the damage done by a label like “low average,” not to mention “X.” I taught five sections that included two “average,” two “low average,” and one “X.” It must not come as a surprise that my classes lived up to [down to?] their labels, that my low average class made limited effort, and that my X class behaved terribly and did little work. I like to think that I made some progress in dispelling those labels, and I did eke some achievement out of all my students. But this experience offered the most blatant example of how important the way we label and describe people can be.

When I landed at Glenbard West, we had three levels of English for the first three years: Honors, Regular, and Basic. While those labels seem less hurtful, getting my “Basic” students to see themselves as achievers remained an uphill battle. I loved the smaller class size and less rigid curriculum that I could tailor to each class, but too many of my students accepted the premise that they were remedial students and could not expect to be successful.

I struggled to change their minds. I addressed these students formally, Ms. Smith and Mr. Jones, to show my respect. I seized on their best moments for genuine praise, like when one of my girls prompted a great discussion about why Curley’s wife doesn’t have a name like all the male characters. Together they were able to guess that Steinbeck wanted readers to see her merely as Curley’s property. When another student, responding to events in another book, said aloud, “When you choose not to choose, you have chosen,” I turned it into a poster for the class to see daily. And when one of those classes complained about being bored, I responded [as I always did] that “boredom is in the eye of the beholder.” They remained unconvinced, so I urged them to write about it. They produced this collaborative poem:

Boredom,

                  you walk around with nothing to do

you are the dull grey of an old movie

                  without the crispness of black

or the freshness of white

you stalk schoolrooms,

invading English and Biology classes –

even social studies and driver’s ed

are not immune to your attack.

You are invisible and sneak up on us,

                  Shutting down our brains

while our yawns gape, making teachers angry.

By English II-B

February, 1991

I was so pleased with their sensory details, impassioned emotions, and thoughtful word choice that I convinced them to submit their poem to the jury process for Page to Stage, our annual performance of student writing.  When it was chosen, they insisted they would not read it aloud on stage, that I should ask theater and speech students to read it for them. Knowing a bit about reverse psychology, I assured them I would do that if they weren’t up to the task. After some rehearsal during class time, they chose to participate, and watching them stand taller and taller during their choral recitation to an enthused audience is one of my favorite teaching memories. In my early years at West, I saw some of my “Basic” students go on to college, including one who went to a four-year school, something none of them would have predicted.

During the years of folded computer printer paper, when you’d just tear between pages as needed, I printed a multi-page version of a favorite quote that decorated my classroom wall: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?” My belief that my students could achieve seemed to help them do just that. But when we label learners, we give them the wrong message. When we call students “Basic” or – heaven forbid! – “X,” we tell them we don’t think they can succeed. Too often they will live up to those negative expectations. We know better. We should do better by our students. We should avoid labels where we can and choose encouraging labels when we must use them. All of us fall prey to self-fulfilling prophecies, and we must stop setting students up for low expectations and failure. They deserve better.

Becoming a “Lighthouse”

This week I had the privilege of attending a Special Education Eligibility Hearing for a student for whom I’m a Guardian ad Litem. I drove a fair distance to an unfamiliar school; there I was welcomed and made to feel included.
 
Eleven of us gathered around a conference table to explore how best to support this student. An innocent victim of a tragic accident, this student has very specific needs for services to support vision and hearing. I have attended hearings like these as a teacher, but my perspective at this hearing felt so different. As a teacher, I might have worried about how to manage the required accommodations, but as a guardian I worked to be sure those accommodations would be made available.
 
My first teaching job in 1970 preceded any kind of special education for students like this. Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, wasn’t signed into law until late 1975.The EHA guaranteed a free, appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country.  It has been renamed and amended since then, but the purpose remains: to guarantee an appropriate education for every student, at no cost to parents, in the least restrictive environment, with an “Individualized Education Program” that identifies each student’s individual needs and how they will be met.
 
Our group included the DCFS Caseworker, the foster mother, and eight staff members, including teachers, the school psychologist, the vision support specialist, the speech therapist, the social worker, and the chair of Special Education. As I listened to these committed, compassionate adults develop an action plan, I thought about what would have happened to this student in the early days of my teaching, before 94-142. My student would have faced untold struggles and been unlikely to achieve a fulfilled and independent adult life, yet this is a resilient youth whose struggles were caused by others and who deserves assistance to achieve success in school and build a full life.
 
When I was still teaching, I enjoyed collaborating with our Special Education Department. I worked with special ed English classes on creative writing, I helped them produce a newsletter as well as a performance where they read their work to family members, and I co-taught an American Literature inclusion class for juniors with six to eight special education joining other students to be team-taught by the special ed department chair and me. I thought I was a supportive enough advocate, but this week’s hearing strengthened my resolve. Providing special resources and accommodations like extra time on tests or different kinds of printed materials certainly is a burden on already overloaded schools and teachers. But it’s necessary and right, and I remain in awe of a team like this that is not only making it happen, but that also works on how to make it acceptable for a student like mine who desperately wants not to be seen as different.
 
That would have been epiphany enough for this week – smile – but yesterday reinforced it when I got to hear Steve Pemberton speak. Pemberton wrote A Chance in the World, his personal memoir of being raised in a series of abusive foster homes and what helped him find his way to a fulfilling adult life. His follow-up book, The Lighthouse Effect: How Ordinary People Can Have an Extraordinary Impact in the World, shows how ordinary people can become “human lighthouses” for those in situations like those of his childhood. Yesterday Pemberton spoke about the three lighthouses who changed the trajectory of his life; then he encouraged us to continue to be lighthouses for others. His talk, delivered with humor and without a trace of self-pity, inspired me to recommit to my guardian work. It made me want to share his perspective with the people who sat around that table, each and every one of whom is a lighthouse. Last night I had a wonderful call with the foster mother of my student, and I explained to her why she is a lighthouse. When I finish the book, I’ll pass it on to her – she’s earned it! And I will continue to push myself to be a lighthouse for the youths in my cases. Every child deserves a fair chance, and we all can make a difference.

Best Buddies at Graduation

Last week we had the pleasure and privilege of attending our middle granddaughter’s graduation from a Chicago public magnet high school. The ceremony was held at the Arie Crown Theater at McCormick Place in Chicago because the school auditorium was too small for the class of over 450 and all of their supporters. The event was lovely if long, and we especially enjoyed seeing a certain young woman prance across the stage with grace and confidence to receive her diploma. The class stats were mind-boggling: every student was headed to a four-year college, and they’d logged countless volunteer hours in the community, won numerous academic and athletic championships, and earned $56 million in scholarships! Memorable and impressive, to be sure. That’s part of the package of a top-notch magnet school.

The part we didn’t anticipate happened when the Special Education students walked across the stage to pick up their diplomas and certificates. Part of the mission of Whitney M. Young Magnet School is “To give students with disabilities the same high school opportunities as their non-disabled peers.” In addition to a sizable faculty and staff, the school has a Best Buddies program that pairs regular and special ed students. Some of these students could not make it across the stage without physical support; a couple had trouble following the directions. But each and every one of them received the same response from the audience of parents, friends, and peers: loud cheering and applause with great gusto. This is a truly inclusive community where high-achieving students whose academic success is often a given appreciate and celebrate the success of those who have overcome obstacles to be able to march across that stage. Their genuinely joyful response was uplifting.

When I commented on it, I was assured that those who have attended multiple Whitney Young graduation ceremonies experience that every year. Being part of that kind of school culture, with genuine inclusion, prepares students to work and live with others regardless of their circumstances. It gives me hope for the future.