Overall

1. Michele has shown a good presence in front of the classroom. She is a natural instructor who reaches out to all her students.
2. Michele has good rapport with her students. She has built many good relationships with the students in her class.
3. She is great at explaining/working one on one with students.
4. She is thoughtful and reflective in her discussions about how particular classes went and what worked and what needed improvement the next time.
5. Michele has shown a desire to work with/reach out to some of the most neediest/at-risk students in our class. She has had some real successes with some students that have not experienced much success at school.

Standard One: Supports and Engages Students in Learning

Standard Two: Supportive Learning Environment

Standard Three: Content Knowledge

Strand Four: Curriculum

Strand Five: Assessment

Strand Six: Professionalism

1. What's missing is any email notification or account of a verbal notification of any problems with my behavior prior to 11/17/2008. No formal or informal request for me to come to class on time.
2. What's missing is any contact with an instructor outside of class time, in which they told me that I was a monumental disaster as a student and all my classmates were complaining.

   It's fairly common knowledge in STEP that at least three other students had exactly that conversation (I've spoken to one of them myself), although they never got a concerns letter. When Rachel called me in on 11/17/2008 to tell me that "people were complaining" about me, that was the first I'd heard of it. I still don't know how many people, although as I've said, Rachel would have used the word "many" if more than ten were complaining. So where were the instructors? Where were the specifics? I never got any.

3. What's missing is any mention of altercations with instructors or students. That's because there weren't any of note. But I'll put that in another essay.
4. What's missing is any mention of the specific failures of my classroom management plan. The instructor rejected it for its views, which "contradict STEP philosophy, but it also [contradict] the course content and the California Standards for theTeaching Profession (CSTP')." Rachel did not satisfactorily provide reasons why my plan violated CSTP--and given that my plan was rejected for its opinions, why not put it in writing?

   As I said in my grievance, any instructor focused on quality rather than opinion would have told me that my first classroom management plan was terrible, spending more time on what I wouldn't do than what I would. Why not just give me a B- and scare me into redoing it? FIRE thinks my plan caused many of the subsequent problems. That thought hadn't occurred to me, but it could be that my plan offended Rachel so badly that she wanted me gone. Certainly, she was worried about brand management. This would also explain why my required resubmit was treated so differently (see grievance link for details).

5. What's missing is any mention of a complaint from my supervisor. I'm missing any request to turn in my reflections within 48 hours--in fact, I have very few requests for my reflections until a month after they were due.
6. What's missing is any explanation of why I was held to a different standard on observations and reflections than my classmates--and why I was never given a written or verbal notification of that different standard.
7. What's missing is a clear explanation of what specific information teachers are not allowed to reveal. Again, the best I got was "potential violations of ethics codes". Why not an explicit description of what can and can't be said? If they want to treat violations like Potter Stewart knows pornography, that's fine--but then why a reprimand for a "violation" that they can't even define?

1. Supervisor Fall Quarterly Assessment--this is the assessment that flunked me on professionalism because my reflections were late. Note the comments about my actual teaching. And this guy is the lowest rater in the program.
2. Cooperating Teacher Fall Quarterly Assessment
3. Supervisor Winter Quarter Assessment--with my new supervisor
4. Supervisor Spring Quarter Assessment
5. Letter of Recommendation: Supervisor
6. Letter of Recommendation: Cooperating Teacher
7. Letter of Recommendation: Outside Teaching Reference.

Overall

1. Michele has established good rapport with her students.
2. Michele does a good job of tutoring and assisting her students.
3. While presenting a lesson, Michele does a good job of asking students about their understanding of what she is presenting.
4. Michele prepared a creative, excellent test/quiz on exponential rules.

Standard One: Supports and Engages Students in Learning

Standard Two: Supportive Learning Environment

Standard Three: Content Knowledge

Strand Four: Curriculum

Strand Five: Assessment

Strand Six: Professionalism

Next Steps

STANDARD ONE: Engaging and supporting all students in learning

STANDARD TWO: Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning

STANDARD THREE: Understanding and organizing subject matter for student learning

STANDARD FOUR: Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for all students

STANDARD FIVE: Assessing student learning

STANDARD SIX: Developing as a professional educator

1. Michele connects with students on many levels. She works hard to learn about students as people and as learners, and crafts ways to support students in ways that work best for them as individuals.
2. Michele is an amazing curriculum writer. Though she often admits she “hates” creating curriculum, the unit she wrote (and taught), as well as other activities and assessments she has adapted or created over the past six months, have been models of access and have required students to construct their own meanings about difficult mathematics.
3. Michele is willing to try new things. The plethora of activity structures, activity types, access points and uses of technology she has incorporated into her lessons is outstanding.

Strand One: Engage and Support Students in Learning

1. Michele continues to work hard to support individual students. This is clearly a primary commitment for her, and she has expanded the ways in which she supports students in the past quarter. For example, Michele used an exploratory activity in groups of eight to provide students safe, collaborative space to determine the relationship between a circle’s radius and circumference.
2. Michele consistently works to re-frame problems and concept in ways that make sense to students. Her opening to a unit on probability focused on an adventure-based game that clearly appealed to students and that she used throughout the unit to provide students with a conceptual base.
3. Michele’s class had the lowest number of failing grades currently than any other Algebra II class at Sequoia.

Strand Two: Supportive Learning Environment

1. Classroom management is still one of Michele’s clear strengths. In the past quarter, however, she has worked to refine some of her practices to create an even safer and more collaborative environment for her students. For example, she implemented “stuck strategies” for students working in groups such that they would use each other for help and support before using her.
2. Michele has also expanded her work with parents in the spring quarter, and has focused on reaching out to the families of a few students in particular who need extra support focusing in class and completing work.
3. Michele has made strides in her use of instructional time, as well, by working harder to prepare technology, manipulatives and other resources ahead of time. She often has directions for students and handouts for the first activity ready as students walk in the door so they know what to expect as soon as the bell rings.

Strand Three: Content Knowledge

Strand Four: Curriculum

1. Michele has done some amazing work this quarter with designing and implementing curricula that blend her understanding of content with providing access to that content to students. Two examples from one observed period are the following:
   • Michele re-organized an activity from the textbook in which students worked in randomized groups to come to an important mathematical discovery. In lieu of having students do the tracing and cutting of paper circles to use in the activity, as suggested by the text, she provided circles to groups and challenged them with a question that got to the meat of the mathematics. This choice not only saved time but focused students’ attention on the important part of the activity related to goals.
   • Throughout the same lesson, Michele spiraled the primary discovery made by students in four other ways into the lesson. The result was that over the 90 minutes students were exposed to the same important geometric idea in multiple ways, and it was clear that students who had not quite gotten it in the beginning had a better handle of it by the end of the period. This facilitated the quick development of students’ procedural and conceptual understanding of an important and ubiquitous mathematical idea.
2. Additionally, Michele is adept at using materials and problems from other sources to supplement the textbook. Though Michele has reported “not liking” the [omitted] textbook her CT and placement department use, she has made every effort to understand it and use it most effectively for her students. This is exceptional considering it is easy to dismiss a curriculum in one fell swoop instead of working to see the possibilities it has the potential to provide. (Note: I got more used to the textbook as I went along.)
3. Michele does the majority of her formal lesson planning “in her head.” Though she often creates supplements to her textbook in the form of worksheets, quizzes, handouts, etc., I will continue to encourage her to more formally connect the things she uses with students to larger goals and over longer periods of time.

Strand Five: Assessment

1. Michele has expanded her definition and use of assessment in her class quite a bit. As one example, Michele gave a warm-up worksheet recently on topics that had been covered the previous few class periods. Michele used this as a formative, un-graded assessment to learn more about students’ understandings by walking around and noting student work. I have encouraged her to take the next step and collect this work in order to have time outside of class to review the work in more detail in order to make changes to the next day’s lesson accordingly.
2. Michele has implemented a policy that she will not accept a test or quiz with any blanks. This means students must attempt every problem in order to be able to submit it. During tests and quizzes students have learned to approach her when they are truly stuck and ask for help instead of turning in the test incomplete.
3. However, observing that students had begun getting used to being able to approach her with blank problems and get a jumpstart without having necessarily thought through what to do on their own, Michele created a group test that students completed in groups of four and were not allowed to seek her help with.
4. I am not sure how Michele involves students in assessing their own learning, nor have I seen her ask students to self-assess their work. The primary mode in which Michele gives feedback is orally, and I will encourage her to expand not only how she gives feedback to students and helps them understand where their learning trajectories are, but also the types of feedback she gives. For example, Michele uses test score data comprehensively in assessing students’ progress, but I am not sure how she uses more qualitative data.

Strand Six: Professionalism

1. Michele has come a long way in terms of being able to talk about her practice openly and reflectively. She often comes up with possible answers to teaching dilemmas or questions I have asked in creative and student-focused ways that lead to innovations in her classroom.
2. Though Michele is still as busy as ever with extracurricular activities, her students are always her top priority, and they clearly know this.
3. Michele has overall enjoyed working with her CT and his department this year, and they with her. Last time I visited her classroom her CT mentioned to me how proud of me he was of the many ways he had seen Michele grow over the course of the year, particularly in how she addressed specific student needs and uses curricula flexibly.

Overall

1. Michele has a wonderful rapport with students that allows her to focus less on classroom management and more on supporting students learn math content. There is a clear mutual respect in her classroom between her and her students, and her relationships with individual students are particularly strong.
2. Michele cares deeply about student learning, and has put in place many structures to support students above and beyond her “8-3” teaching duties. For example, Michele offers consistent lunch-time work sessions where she makes herself available to students. Beyond just that, Michele has convinced particular students to actually come see her during this time, and because of this has been able to offer a few, struggling students some added, individualized support.
3. Michele (with her CT) has established many norms around how students speak to her and to each other, and because of this students offer ideas and suggestions readily in front of the class and are willing and accustomed to learning from and with the people around them.
4. Recently, Michele has become more open about her practice, and has actively pushed herself to critically analyze her planning and teaching to make it better. This is especially admirable, I think, at a time in the year where student teaching can feel more limiting than exploratory.

Strand One: Engage and Support Students in Learning

1. Michele works very hard to support individual students. She meets with students during lunch and after school, and during class checks in with students personally throughout each period.
2. Michele promotes student autonomy in part by using the groupwork-focused curriculum she was given flexibly. Michele scaffolded one activity designed to be done in groups of 4 so that more students had access to it on their own. However, students were still encouraged to use each other for help, to ask questions, etc., and thus students could “choose” what kind of support they might need.
3. Michele’s approach to teaching mathematics centers around making the content accessible for students. Michele uses “kid-friendly” language consistently, allowing students to first make sense of difficult content in their own way before introducing difficult semantic pieces. Michele often explains things in two or more ways and has relayed to me she does this because it will hook more students in.

Strand Two: Supportive Learning Environment

1. Classroom management is one of Michele’s clear strengths. Students come into her classroom on time, know what to start doing, and engagement is high throughout the period.
2. Michele and her CT have created a safe enough environment where students feel comfortable offering answers and ideas in front of the class. The variety of participants in her class is exceptional, and on top of this students get quiet and listen when another student is talking.
3. Michele clearly values students’ opinions and ideas. In one period I observed a student offered a strategy for writing a polynomial equation that was incorrect. Michele worked through it, with help from other students, to see how “close” the equation got them to the actual graph. When it didn’t work, another student offered a change to the equation, which Michele then tried. The discussion went on for a few minutes until the class finally found an equation they were satisfied with. It was a beautiful example of an alternative teacher choice to “no that’s wrong…here’s the way to do it.”

Strand Three: Content Knowledge

1. Michele knows the content well. This is in part because of her experience tutoring and mentoring so many different students on the same material over the years. Though Michele will acknowledge that tutoring a student one-on-one is a different ball game that teaching the same topic to an entire class, the things she has learned about student thinking, misconceptions and stumbling blocks clearly serves her well when introducing new topics in her placement.
2. Michele consistently works to explain something in another way, or using different language, when she assesses confusion.
3. Michele is using an Elmo, Projector, and overhead daily in her lessons and is gaining fluency with technology.

Strand Four: Curriculum Planning

1. Tracking Michele’s organization and use of learning goals, especially in the context of a complete unit of instruction, will be a focus for me in the spring quarter.

Strand Five: Assessment

1. Michele consistently asks students (both the class and individuals) if they are “getting it.” This is a simple move that does provide her with some information about some students, and that sends a clear message to her class that she wants to know what they are thinking and how they are feeling about the content.
2. Michele carves time into each lesson for students to work on their own or informally with others, and during this time sits with particular students to assess what they know and/or help them move forward.
3. Michele has convinced a handful of students to come see her at lunch and after school on a regular basis so she can keep track of their learning and support them more individually.
4. Michele is working on expanding her daily assessment repertoire, specifically in terms of more formal, formative assessments. One strong piece of her assessment strategy in general is that she uses data intensively, and looks for patterns in missed problems and mis-steps in every quiz and test she gives.
5. Most importantly, Michele views assessment not as a “test” of what you know but as a way to show what they know and provide her with information. She has put structures in place to support this message, such as not accepting a test with a blank problem. She supports students starting problems that they don’t know how to begin, as well.

Strand Six: Professionalism

1. Michele has more and more been able to identify pieces of her practice that she needs to improve and would like to work on this year. One of these in particular is how she introduces a new topic, including the instructions given, how it is scaffolded, how discovery plays a role and how she learns about students’ prior knowledge.
2. Michele has been very open to constructive criticism about her practice in the past two months. In particular, Michele and I talked after one lesson about the dependency of some of her students on her instead of each other (as in, sitting waiting for her to come help doing nothing vs. asking each other). In the next lesson, Michele instituted norms for seatwork in the form of choices for when you’re “Stuck.” She listed a few encouraged strategies (ex: asking someone else, writing your question down and moving on) and a few forbidden strategies (ex: stopping doing any work until she comes over). She emphasized and supported these norms throughout the same period, and within minutes there was a clear change in how many students remained stuck and not engaged in the task.
3. Michele is an incredibly busy person, balancing tutoring, teaching, student teaching and STEP among many other parts of her life. She does this, in general, with great (apparent) ease, and her students are always made her first priority.
4. Overall, this is another part of Michele’s development as a professional educator that I intend to learn more about in the spring quarter. As Michele’s C&I instructor, I can say that Michele sometimes struggled with directions, guidelines and deadlines. (emphasis mine. Truer words were never spoken> As her supervisor, I can say Michele has turned in every reflection on time and met with me consistently every Wednesday.
5. Michele has completed three CSETS and has substituted for the chair of her department [in Algebra II/Trig] on two occasions.
6. Michele is the sole communicator with her students’ parents. She is in consistent communication with five parents currently.
7. Michele’s teaching in [outside organization] has assisted her reaching the students in her class and in other classes. For example, students from the program will approach her because of their established relationship with her from outside her placement to check in about what they are getting not getting, if they’ll be absent, etc.

Next Steps:

1. Std 4: Michele does not currently lesson plan, and she is in a placement that uses common curriculum, assessments and homework. Michele acknowledges that she needs to improve how, when and what she plans before teaching.
2. Std 4: Michele will teach her unit plan in the next month, which will be a wonderful opportunity for us to reflect together on lesson planning and unit planning.
3. Std 1: Michele also wants to figure out what to do with chronically-absent students. ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.572 2009-07-25T18:56:08Z 2009-07-25T18:57:19Z
   I am writing to recommend Michele Kerr for a position teaching secondary mathematics. I have been Michele’s math methods instructor in the Stanford Teacher Education Program since the fall of 2008 and am currently her clinical placement supervisor. In knowing...
   Cal Lanier I am writing to recommend Michele Kerr for a position teaching secondary mathematics. I have been Michele’s math methods instructor in the Stanford Teacher Education Program since the fall of 2008 and am currently her clinical placement supervisor. In knowing Michele in these two very different contexts, I have learned a great deal about how passionate she is about facilitating students’ learning of mathematics. Specifically, from classroom observations Michele manages a classroom with ease and grace and her rapport with kids is immediately apparent. Michele cares deeply about students. A constant in her discourse about her work as a tutor, academic advisor and teacher is that she wants to help students be successful in mathematics. To this end, Michele makes considerable effort in and out of class to make herself available to students, including consistently drawing in students to work with her at lunch and after school. In one conversation I had with Michele recently she described her belief that teachers should not let kids fail, a belief that clearly drives how she teaches and supports her students. Michele’s classroom reflects strong classroom management skills. Her authority is clear and unquestioned, and students know what is expected of them at all times. Students are not late to her class, and bring materials and notebooks consistently. Students work well with each other and it is clear norms are in place that when one person is talking, everyone else should listen to what they have to say. In my last observation of Michele’s class, as one student began talking during an introductory activity, all other students became immediately silent and listened thoughtfully to her. This is in part to the norms of behavior Michele has instated and reinforced since day 1. It is important to add to this description of Michele’s strong classroom management skills that students are not afraid of her or her class. In fact, the way Michele has set up her class facilitates her rapport with individual students and with the group as a whole. Students ask questions and offer suggestions comfortably, and the atmosphere in the class is welcoming and focused. Michele and her students engage in the mathematics together, and talk to each other as colleagues. I highly recommend Michele for a teaching position at because of her experience and skill working intimately with students, her ability managing a public high school classroom and her incredible commitment to student learning. I am happy to elaborate on any of the above. tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.571 2009-07-25T18:47:44Z 2009-07-25T18:52:44Z
   My name is [name withheld] and I am the Academic Affairs Director at [name withheld]. I am writing this letter to give my highest recommendation to Michele Kerr for a teaching position in the academic year 2009-2010. Michele has taught...
   Cal Lanier 20092008, 2007]), to demonstrate to students how far they have come and how far they are capable of going. During practice tests, she urges kids not to distract others, emphasizing that they are here to support each other. She is committed to the social justice nature of her work. The students connect to Michele and feel that she gives them unique support that no other teacher has. They come to see her as their coach, and the students know she will be hard on them when she sees them being lazy or unmotivated. The students appreciate Michele's candor, as she takes no excuses and can be tough with them. Michele has worked collaboratively with me and the other academic staff, ensuring that a student hears a consistent message of high expectations, and receives all the support he or she needs to "make it" on test day. She has also given a parent important advice about a student's learning disabilities, how it will influence the student's testing, and how to petition for accommodations. I am constantly amazed at Michele's versatility and tireless energy. This year, she has taught our classes at [name withheld] while completing the rigorous fall and winter quarter at Stanford and taught her PACT material as part of her student teaching. Michele has also frequently volunteered to teach for free when the course ended. In short, Michele is an experienced teacher, and while she is only now receiving her credential, her ability and skills surpass teachers who have taught for many years. I have recommended her to [name withheld], a charter school that is starting its own ACT class with their first graduating class. I recommend her without reservation for a full-time teaching position in public schools serving minority and low-income students. ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.570 2009-07-25T18:46:03Z 2009-07-25T18:46:54Z
   I am writing this letter in support of Michele Kerr. I have come to know Michele over the past year as her cooperating teacher in her induction program at Stanford. We have worked closely together in the classroom at Sequoia...
   Cal Lanier I am writing this letter in support of Michele Kerr. I have come to know Michele over the past year as her cooperating teacher in her induction program at Stanford. We have worked closely together in the classroom at Sequoia High School, and I feel I have a unique perspective of her qualifications for a job in the teaching profession. I find her to be empathetic to her students and fully dedicated to making sure they understand the math, all the while maintaining high expectations for each and every one of them. Michele is a very capable teacher, who has good classroom presence. She is a natural in front of a group of students and had no problem in taking over all the teaching duties for her primary assignment, our 4th Period Algebra II/Trigonometry class at the semester. She has shown mastery of the material, and a real skill at curriculum development. We have also had a good collaborative relationship, and I think she will make a fine colleague in the future. She is not afraid to express her ideas, and thinks reflectively about her teaching and student learning. She also has a desire to help the students that struggle the most in math, an exceptional trait in teacher candidates seeking positions in schools with a large at-risk population. She often spends her lunch time working with struggling students on concepts they do not understand. Michele brings with her a diverse background of experiences, from working in the technology industry to working with high school students in a tutoring capacity. These experiences help her make connections with students and for them. Michele often draws from her experience of working in the computer industry to connect the math students are working on in class. The tutoring aspect gives her a perspective that the student appreciate in terms of her knowing what they are facing as they prepare for college. She will often stop to give her students a heads up on material that they might encounter on college entrance exams such as the ACT and SAT. Her advice on the application process is also invaluable to her students. In conclusion, I highly recommend Michele Kerr for a teaching position at your school. She will be an asset wherever she ends up. tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.569 2009-07-25T15:48:18Z 2009-07-26T01:43:03Z
   I confess, I was hoping that STEP, being elite and all, would be a little more circumspect about its Dewey worship. Admit Day crushed my hopes. I was, as the above link shows, traumatized by reality. No matter how much...
   Cal Lanier Admit Day crushed my hopes. I was, as the above link shows, traumatized by reality. No matter how much I thought I'd prepared for the progressive approach, I ran away screaming when faced with the truth. (Oh, the humanity. The melodrama of it all. In fact, the staff just thought they had a room of true believers and acted accordingly. They actually became much less squishy over the year, and I've wondered if part of that change was their consideration towards me. If so, thanks. By the end of the year I was much more comfortable, and not only because I'd grown calluses.) I didn't go to Admit Day to cause trouble. I didn't show up at Stanford's Admit day with my little anti-Dewey button: pinned onto my "SAGE ON STAGE" tee-shirt, howling "PROGRESSIVISM SUCKS" at every lull in the conversation. After my brief conversations with the math C&I instructor exacerbated my fears, I was planning to leave. Ironically, the real problem didn't occur with the C&I instructor, but at lunch--after I'd been convinced to stay--during a conversation with a post-doc, the practicum second-in-command. Unlike other conversations, I never documented this conversation at the time, but here's my recollection:

   Postdoc: So, are you planning on accepting [the offer of admission]? Me: I don't know. I didn't realize we'd be at placement all summer, which means I can't work. That chops a good 7-10K off my income for the year, which means I need to borrow more money. PD, sympathetically: Oh, yes. I understand. You're attending the session on loan forgiveness, aren't you? Me: Yes. But you know, I'm incredibly old to be taking on all this debt. And the fact is, I'm not totally on board with the ideology taught in ed schools. There's nothing wrong with it, I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm just really worried that I'm taking on a ton of debt for an educational program that I don't always agree with. Maybe it's better to take on less debt to go to UC Santa Cruz and take on less debt for an educational program I don't always agree with. PD: That's a perfectly valid financial decision. I think it's important that students don't take on too much debt. Me: Yep. On the other hand, I would dearly love to go to Stanford. I've lived here most of my life and to finish up (god willing) my education at such a great school would make going back to school worthwhile. Plus, teaching has good benefits and retirement so even if all my loans didn't pay off, I would have a pension to keep writing off the debt. PD (laughs): There's that, too! But do you think you'd have trouble with the beliefs we have here? Me (suddenly aware that I was talking to a staffer): Trouble? No. It's just hard to swallow the costs, you know? I'll be honest, I'd be happier if I could teach without going back to school. It's frustrating how tough it is to be a teacher and any way I do it, it's a lot of money. But please don't think I'm planning on causing trouble. PD: Will you keep an open mind as we try to convince you? Me: Oh, absolutely. Please don't be concerned about that.

   Here's what I'm certain of, and what Rachel Lotan confirmed when she brought this discussion up in the meeting: I was very clear that it wasn't STEP I disagreed with, but the entire guiding philosophy behind ed schools, and I said without question that I would keep an open mind. So if I understood the reality of ed school, the mandate for certain beliefs, and I did, why on earth would I answer frankly about my skepticism? First and most obviously, I'm a total moron. Or, as softened for Jay Mathew's article, "fatally truthful". Second, though, context is all. In my head, I wasn't talking about my disagreements with the program. I was talking about money. So I wasn't thinking about the details. But that was the extent of the conversation, and I didn't pick up any signals from the PD that I'd screwed up. Of course, I was busy worrying about money, so maybe I missed them. I left Admit Day and spent the next three weeks seriously considering UC Santa Cruz. I asked questions, scheduled a visit, and wondered if I would regret turning down Stanford. Maybe I was exaggerating the problems with student teaching, and maybe in the long run, I would miss the opportunity of attending Stanford more than I'd miss the money. So in early April, I emailed Rachel asking a few questions about the student teaching schedule. I expected her to email answers, but instead she asked me in for a meeting. I've described the meeting many times. I often wonder what would have happened if I hadn't gone to Admit Day. I would probably have accepted Stanford. Without that incident, Rachel wouldn't have tried to rescind my admission. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the OMG letter, gold standard proof of animus. I'm not sure if I would have contacted FIRE based solely on the blog issue, and I am reasonably sure that FIRE's letters told Stanford that at some point, this would all go public. Dean Stipek never "found" one way or another on any of my complaints, but would any administrator want to deny me a credential or expel me based on Rachel's assessment given that letter and what it revealed? That's why I filed the grievance. I was desperately hoping that someone outside the STEP cocoon would see the import of that letter and do damage control. But without that letter, I really wonder: would I have been sent back to Rachel and my supervisor to last out the year? And would I have made it? ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.568 2009-07-25T13:49:00Z 2009-07-25T14:47:11Z
   I wrote this post in my online forum immediately after attending Stanford's Admit Day. A few comments that I'm going to put first:My biggest concern at this time was the student teaching schedule, which turned out to be utterly unimportant....
   Cal Lanier
4. My biggest concern at this time was the student teaching schedule, which turned out to be utterly unimportant. I didn't teach "up front", but I worked all my classes from the beginning.
5. The director of clinical practice, she of the OMG letter, chose my cooperating teacher very carefully and he was an outstanding match. STEP does not, in fact, demand ideological purity from its cooperating teachers.
6. At this time, I was far more worried about student teaching than my interactions at Stanford, which was exactly backwards.
7. The C&I instructor who comes in for a bit of mockery here became one of my most trusted advisers and within a few months asked me to evaluate some textbooks for him. Staff is required to report back on teacher candidates; he apparently had to be interrogated to express concerns about me when Rachel was trying to get rid of me. (My description of his speech mannerisms, though, is dead on.)
8. The postdoc who I liked and chatted with was the person who reported immediately back to Rachel about my "ed school" comment, kicking off the entire rescinding mess. Once at Stanford, I avoided her for months out of fear that she'd report everything back to the Head Office, but she, too, treated me well and had excellent advice.
9. While I'm never going to be a fan of whole-sale manipulative instruction in high school, I found uses for them that probably aren't in the canon but did help some students recall difficult concepts.I was, in short, wrong about many specific concerns in this post. I'm also shown at my most obsessive and overreactive--I rarely (thank god) do when I'm in this mode, but I talk (or more accurately, write) myself in and out of panics. The talking is what sees me through, but like sausage-making, the process is often best left unseen. However, I include this account because I should always be humble about my errors. Furthermore, it shows what my state of mind was, and why I gave serious thought to Santa Cruz. For the next month, I visited Santa Cruz, talked to the staff, and thought about attending. This account also demonstrates that I was fussed about cost above all. Finally, while my specific concerns were all wrong, the tone of Admit Day and my interpretation of it were dead on. Any hope I had that Stanford's program would be less doctrinaire went out the window and rightly so.

   So I went to Stanford's open house and very nearly left after an hour, having decided that this was NOT for me. I really did think I was prepared for the idiocy, and I managed to sit through all the ludicrous presentations on "How Does STEP Ensure Social Justice?" without barfing into my purse. The fundamental problem was the "practicum". I got the first bad news at the opening meeting: the "teaching" was from 8-11, and the "classwork" was from 2-5, which are exactly the hours of my two favorite summer courses (St. Francis SAT and Elite's book clubs). But that's okay, because I'd get to teach in schools, right? Well, no. It turns out that Stanford practicum goes very, very, VERY slowly into teaching. They used to just throw the students in, but while the students became effective, they abandoned it for some reason. We spend the whole five weeks observing and slowly getting around to helping students. We work with the teachers on lesson plans and talking about individual students and fuck me if it doesn't sound like we're "helpers". It's not just the summer, either. They're going to dip us into the great font of teaching wisdom, molecule by molecule. We work at middle schools during the summer (coincidentally, mine would be Spawn's old middle school--the good one, thank god). Then in the fall, we are placed into a high school or middle school (we do get to choose, they promise, although I'm skeptical). Over time, we start teaching WHOLE CLASS SESSIONS--for some people, that will happen "as early as late winter". By spring, our big project--we plan an entire segment and even teach some of it ourselves. Whoohoo! The head of the secondary program said that of course, it would take us most of the year--until spring, easily--until we figured out that we couldn't be the students' friends, that we were actually teachers! (A thrill ran through the group--oh, that day would soon be here!) That's why classroom management was in the fall, so they could do their best to help us get to that realization as early in the spring as possible. Even though this meant that the whole vitally important class on special ed would sadly have to wait until spring, it was vitally important that students learn as quickly as possible to identify themselves as teachers and that took a while. By this time, I was hyperventilating at the surfeit of touchy feely, nobility of teaching, woowoo of it all. Earlier, I had asked the math C&I instructor how many of the class had teaching experience. He said "a third of the math unit" (which sounded like a lot until you realized there were only 12 people in the program). I asked if allowances were made for previous teaching experience, saying (I swear, as delicately as possible) that the teaching practicums sounded as if they were designed for the novice. He said, and I quote, "No, not really. After all, we all bring our own life experiences to teaching, and previous experience is just one of the many knowledge bases that students have and draw on to become teachers. We've had other students with teaching experience, and they've been so enthusiastic about their ability to learn how to properly engage a classroom. Would you like to talk to them? I'm sure they could reassure you." I was already looking straight down, glancing back up just enough to smile and say that I was sure that wouldn't be necessary. Later, he was describing his course and the ways in which the class "discussed" methods of teaching to students of "different learning levels". He described the "challenges" of trying to teach algebra to students who didn't know fractions, and how you had to teach fractions all over again--but this time, properly. He cheerily described the value of manipulatives in helping sixteen year olds understand... I had said "Manipulatives?" before I could stop myself. "Why, yes." "At 16, kids have been taught fractions five times--probably with manipulatives." "Not properly, which will be your job." "But....never mind." Right then, the aforementioned presentation about the value of learning that we weren't the students' friends began, and so that ended the conversation. He came up to me at the lunchbreak to ask me why I objected to manipulatives. I sighed. "It just seems to me that a freshman or sophomore who doesn't know fractions does not need manipulatives. He's not going to be a mathematician..." "You can't write people off like that. When you're a teacher, you..." "I'm not writing him off. I'm saying that a kid that age needs a method, a rule to help him past fractions so he can continue on." "Look, the goal of a math teacher is to teach students how to think like mathematicians. It's not to help them pass a test, or 'get past' fractions, but to help them understand and grasp mathematics." "I guess I disagree." "You disagree?" "Yes. The goal of a high school student who hasn't yet mastered fractions is to pass a test, starting with the CAHSEE, and to move on to other subjects. I guess I don't see the purpose of enforcing a vision on a poor kid who just wants to get through school and needs immediate help with fractions, not round 3 or 4 through manipulatives." (the whole time I am frantically searching for the door. Must.get.out.of.here.) "The best way to help a student is to get him to think like a mathematician." "Right. Good. Thanks for your time!" And I was flying to the door ripping off my nametag to get the hell out of dodge and be satisfied with my Stanford acceptance, to hell with the certification and the Master's. Just 20 feet from freedom, I ran into another admit who I happened to know. That sounds quite casual, but for anti-social me, it was a coincidence of near-Kismet dimensions. To understand the odds, realize that I only know 4 teachers. Even more amazing (to me), I'd only met [name omitted], the assistant director at the Fremont Elite, last week--very briefly. I didn't know that she'd been accepted, but Walter, the director, had told her at some point after we'd met and she'd been keeping an eye out for me. Just laughing grimly with someone else about the program and our status as The Enemy had the immediate effect of talking me down. Regardless of my decision, I am extremely glad I bumped into her because my flight mechanism is (ahem) somewhat exaggerated at times, and instead of running away I went with her to our free Stanford-subsidized lunch. (As I had already ripped off my name tag with my subject specialization, I created some confusion during lunchtime chats. The CSETS were the next day and people were expressing concern about their various tests. There were English, Math, and Social Science admits at my table, and I did the usual bucking up that all the other passees were doing--except I did it in three subjects. Inevitably, one of my fellow admits said "Oh, you're talking about Multiple Subjects! [the elementary school test that covers a simpler version of english, math, science, and social science]" and I said no, I was talking about Single Subject tests. [Acquaintance] kindly said "Michele is doing a fantastic job teaching our US History course" and Stanford postdoc said "Oh, so you took Multiple Subjects but you're in Social Science?" and I said no, I was in Math. Okay, I explained it to her then, but I was feeling ornery.) So then I went and sat through the financial aid presentation, reminding myself continuously that perhaps--just possibly perhaps--I was being a tad dichotomous in my analysis of the situation. I'm still mumbling that mantra, waiting for insight. I was worried I wouldn't be able to work in the summer, but was holding out hope we'd have choices as to our schedule and I could work around school at least somewhat. Not. I have always been terrified about the student teaching component, and that was under apparently idealized circumstances in which I'd be teaching right awy. If I'm not able to instantly demonstrate that yeah, I'm a pain in the ass but I'm a kickass teacher, then I do not see how I will make it through the months and months until that point. If I'm going to have to sit and be teacher's aide, it is a certain bet I will do something, somewhere, somehow, to piss that teacher off. Stanford will have chosen ideologically correct teacher-mentors, and odds are excellent that mine will at worst hate me--maybe even if he think I'm kickass, but certainly if I'm just observing and writing journals or whatever the hell the assignment is. I'll get demoted for improper assistance to students or seomthing. That was really the combination of data points that had me freaked out and is still giving me the willies. I can't work and the student teaching is fifty times worse than my worst nightmare fears. If I can't work during the summer, that's a good bit of additional money I'll have to borrow. I'd been emotionally prepared for this possibility, but was not anticipating the poleax, the combined whammy of that knowledge coupled with a student teaching program that never made it out of diapers, much less potty training, piled on with the complete elimination of all hope that perhaps the best ed school in the country would offer something more than a smiling pitcher of Cherry Koolaid. But the thing is, I knew this. I knew this. I already knew this. I KNEW THIS. People in this thread joked about it with me. I said, I knew this. Didn't I? I did. I swear. And yet. I am spending (spending? Nay, borrowing) $50K or thereabouts to spend a year in a program whose goals I don't just question, but fundamentally and profoundly disagree with. I think constructivism is naive. I am deeply skeptical of student-directed learning. I am a classic "sage on stage"; "guide on the side" is for working through problems, not instruction. Will I last? Will they pass me? Will I be able to keep my mouth shut....oh, please. Never mind the last one. Of course not. So anyway, I'm seriously wondering if I should go check out Santa Cruz. At least I'll have less debt if I don't succeed. Don't mind me, I'm just having a panic attack. Oh, by the way: as a good Californian, I did a diversity headcount and if there was a black candidate in the room, he or she has very light skin. There were very few Hispanics. Lots--I mean, lots-of Asians, both Far and South.

   ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.567 2009-07-25T06:09:29Z 2009-07-26T01:39:30Z
   This question always makes me laugh. Yeah, that's it! I should just go to a different ed school! Which school would that be, exactly? Check out David Labaree's book, The Trouble With Ed Schools, paying particular attention to Chapter 7,...
   Cal Lanier The Trouble With Ed Schools, paying particular attention to Chapter 7, The Ed School's Romance With Progressivism:

   "[Education professors] do have a vision. Most of us are convinced that we know what is wrong with education and how to fix it, and we are eager to make our case to all of the parties who shape the schools: teachers, administrators, parents, policymakers, lawmakers, curriculum developers, textbook writers, test designers, and the media. The vision of education we propose has been around for the last hundred years; it's usually called "progressive education."
   ....
   From the late nineteenth century to the present, two strikingly different visions of teaching and learning have been competing for primacy in American schools. They have gone by a variety of names, some familiar and some more obscure....The most common labels, however, which capture most of the sense of these various category systems, are teacher-centered vs. child-centered (or student-centered), traditional vs. progressive, and, in what is the most popular terminology in education schools, traditional vs. constructivist teaching. For reasons of simplicity, common usage, and historical resonance, I refer to these visions by the names traditional and progressive.
   ...
   For American education schools during the twentieth century and continuing into the present, the progressive vision has become canonical, serving as the definition of good teaching. In these institutions, the purpose of teacher education programs (for prospective practitioners) and teacher professional-development programs (for existing practitioners) is framed as an effort to dissuade teachers from adopting the traditional appropach and to enlist them firmly within the progressive cause. There are people in ed schools, like Chall, who choose not to employ the rhetoric of progressivism and even speak against it, but they are a small minority and they know their position is heterodox. This is not a point about which there is any serious disagreement....*

   You're thinking hmm, David Labaree, I've heard that name before. Well, he's got a mention or two right here on this website. David Labaree had Eamonn Callan's job as dean of student affairs at the school of before he went on sabbatical. I emailed him once or twice asking for help, because I'd read his book. He declined. I don't carry a grudge. Labaree's excellent book does not blame ed schools for educational failures; rather, he astutely points out that ed schools have little influence over educational policy because they are held in such low esteem. I agree with him, but would also observe that researchers are not allowed to explore other methods because they'd never get into a doctoral program without buying into progressive ideology. But I digress. The operative issue here is that David Labaree is a Stanford professor, and he's pointing out as a given that ed schools are dominated by progressivism. So where was I going to go? I wasn't choosing between Stanford and a school more tailored to my own educational philosophy. I was choosing between $50K or $20K in loans for a dunk in the progressive Koolaid tank. The Koolaid tank itself was a given. I knew what I was getting into. I had explored all the alternatives to ed school--alternative credential, emergency credential, no credential at all, moving to another state to get a credential more quickly then move back. All of them required nearly as much time as ed school, fortuitous contacts, or a hell of a lot of luck. Even after I decided on the traditional route, it took me a while to apply to ed school. I assumed I would go to San Jose State, until I discovered that CSU campuses require 45 hours of public school work before the program started. That annoyed me so much I dropped the entire notion for several months and then, on the next to the last day of 2007, I realized that my son's school, UC Santa Cruz, had to have a credential program. Hey, Berkeley probably does, too. And from there it was a teeny step to well, as long as I'm frantically putting together applications with a week to deadline, why not give Stanford a shot? I didn't compare their programs. I knew they'd all be identical on the big issues, and as a tutor/teacher who lives an active life in online discussion forums, I was totally up to speed on ed school cant. The only issue I considered was cost. Berkeley made it easy by rejecting me. (They'd had me once already for my Master's in Information Systems. I'm sure that the ed school contacted the School of Information and said "Hey, what about her?" and SIM said "Are you suicidal?") So the highly-ranked inexpensive school was out, leaving UC Santa Cruz, an excellent but not top-tier school on the other side of the hill, and Stanford, which has the first or second rated school in the country. I gave serious thought to UC Santa Cruz. I liked the staff, who didn't call me and imply that my decision to work through the year cast doubt on my fitness for candidacy. (in fairness, I like the STEP staffer who did this. But at the time, I was freaked.) For half the Stanford price tag, I could rent a second apartment in Santa Cruz to crash in if I didn't feel like making the drive home. But Stanford. I'm the only college graduate in my immediate family (my little sister will be second, my son the third). My undergrad degree was from San Jose State. My first Master's was from Berkeley. With Stanford, I'd have diplomas from all the Bay Area Division I schools, which had to be good for a set of steak knives or something. Plus. Stanford. Koolaid or not. Price tag aside. If I had to go back to school at my age one more time, wouldn't it just feel better to be going to one of the best schools in the country? Again, note that all my dithering was about the cost. I knew about ed schools. I knew I disagreed with the ideology. I knew it would be a frustrating year. The only question was how much I was going to pay for the experience. The last straw in favor of Stanford tipped when (I am not making this up) I got a ticket the day after my first meeting with Rachel, right after breakfast with my son at Zacharys, a classic Santa Cruz joint. I was just about to make my call to David Rasch when I got pulled over by a cop for going 30 in a 25 zone. Wham. Like Dory in Finding Nemo, the memories all flooded in. Two years at Berkeley had resulted in a Master's, yes, but also four additional speeding tickets and easily 50 parking tickets which, of course, I always forget to pay, so went something like $200 a pop. My insurance had only just returned to something approaching reasonable. If I went to UC Santa Cruz, I'd be driving over the mountains every day. I'd always be late. There'd always be a cop looking for an easy ticket. UCSC's parking is even worse than Cal's. My loans might only be $20K, but I could count on close to $5K more in ticket and insurance costs alone. To say nothing of the aggravation. Stanford wasn't only elite. It was close by. In a suburb. With a suburb's attitude towards parking. And speeding. Then, just minutes after the ticket, David Rasch tells me not to worry about retaliation; if I want to go to Stanford, I should go. So don't ask why I went to STEP when I disagreed with its philosophy. Ask, rather, why anyone should have to drink so much Koolaid just to be a teacher. And while you're at it, ask how come speeding tickets without accidents still hike up your rates. *I stopped quoting there because Google books limited my page views and I loaned out my copy to someone at STEP. I can't remember who. Fellow STEPpies, if you have it, could you look up page 133 and send me the text? Or tell me that you returned it already and I'm blaming you when it's really my disastrous disorganization? And everyone else: look! I am a nice person who loans out books to colleagues. ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.566 2009-07-25T02:54:19Z 2009-07-25T03:09:38Z
   03/01/2008: Receive acceptance letter 03/14/2008: Attend Admit Day 03/20/2008: Have conversation with STEP staffer about working outside school 04/05/2008: Email Rachel about student teaching question 04/06/2008: Rachel responds, asks me to come in for meeting. 04/09/2008: Meeting. I interpret it...
   Cal Lanier
10. 03/01/2008: Receive acceptance letter
11. 03/14/2008: Attend Admit Day
12. 03/20/2008: Have conversation with STEP staffer about working outside school
13. 04/05/2008: Email Rachel about student teaching question
14. 04/06/2008: Rachel responds, asks me to come in for meeting.
15. 04/09/2008: Meeting. I interpret it as Rachel's attempt to convince me to go elsewhere. My accounts, written the same day: Forum account, Letter to Ombudsman
16. 04/10/2008: I speak to Dr. Rasch, ombudsman.
17. 04/15/2008: I accept Stanford's offer (last day possible)
18. 04/16/2008: Rachel sends "potential participation" letter with false description of my behavior.
19. I email my concerns and repudiation to Dr. Rasch.
20. 04/15/2008: I contact a legal blogger and ask for advice. He sends me to FIRE.
21. 04/22/2008: I email that I'm too busy to meet. Rachel emails insistence. Head of Clinical Practice accidentally mails me note that reveals they are strategizing to undo my acceptance.
22. 04/24/2008: I email the misdirected letter to Dr. Rasch.
23. 04/25/2008: I talk to Dr. Rasch the next day. (Account of conversation emailed to Dr. Rasch.)
24. 05/01/2008: I meet with Dr. Rasch and Rachel Lotan. (Account of meeting.)
25. 05/23/2008: FIRE mails letter to Stanford President.
26. 06/05/2008: Stanford responds, confirming for the first time that I will be attending.
27. 06/23/2008: Orientation Begins
28. 06/30/2008: Summer School Student Teaching and Stanford Classes Begin
29. 07/30/2008: Summer School Teaching ends. My assessment is very strong. (no copy)
30. 08/04/2008: Stanford Summer Session Ends. Grades: A, A, A-, Credit.
31. 08/2008: Classroom Management course runs and I turn in plan.
32. 09/03/2008: Sequoia Principal meets with me about my blog. That same day, I meet with Rachel Lotan and Eamonn Callan about my blog. I am reprimanded formally (I never scanned the letter) for having a blog. (Account here, in my email to FIRE.)
33. 09/12/2008: I pull down the blog. Over the next week, I remove all references to Stanford, create a different moniker, and password protect the blog, bring it back up.
34. 10/08/2008: I receive a note from my Classroom Management Instructor saying she was having trouble scoring my CMP. See link for remainder of correspondence.
35. 10/20/2008 (or thereabouts): Rachel is hospitalized for kidney stone problem.
36. 11/17/2008: Rachel and head of clinical practice meet with me about classroom management plan, which turns into much bigger meeting.( Account here)
37. 11/18/2008: As a result of the meeting, I email Dr. Rasch and ask to meet with him. I also notify FIRE.
38. 11/19/2008: My supervisor shocks me by making it clear he hasn't been a big fan. (Account)
39. 11/24/2008: I met with Dr. Rasch, who told me not to worry, but when I got home, I found a letter stating that Rachel Lotan was concerned about my suitability for the practice of teaching.
40. 12/03/2008: I get my assessment from supervisor (account in same link as 11/19 meeting).
41. 12/10/2008: I meet with Eamonn Callan and Rachel Lotan. In addition to discussion of their "concerns", Eamonn Callan brings up my blog, which is now password protected. He demands the password; I tell him I'll check with my advisers and see.
42. 12/11/2008: I write a letter to the secondary STEP cohort, letting them know what has been happening.
43. 12/12/2008: I refuse Dean Callan access to my blog. His response is in the link.
44. 12/16/2008: Rachel Lotan and Eamonn Callan warn me via snail mail that I must meet a laundry list of vague goals and tell me my letter could have had a chilling effect on the students. I don't get the letter until 12/28 (I check email far more frequently than my mailbox.)
45. Fall Session ends. My grades: B, B+, A, A
46. 01/08/2009: Dean Callan emails me a "compromise" in which he accuses me of "serious breaches of confidentiality, copying the principal of my placement school. He demands again on the 18th.
47. 01/16-23/2009: I submit academic and non-academic grievances to Deborah Stipek, dean of the education school.
48. FIRE sends out second letter, protesting treatment over blog and criticism of my letter to cohort.
49. 02/03/2009: I meet with Dean Stipek and agree without reservations to her offered resolution. She emails the agreement the next day.
50. 03/04/2009: I meet with Dean Stipek to learn that my academic grievance has been rejected.
51. 03/27/2009: Winter session ends. Grades: A, A-, B- (the last is Language Policy. Don't get me started.)
52. 06/09/2009: Spring session ends. Grades: A, A-.

1. [Name omitted] will be the primary faculty member following your progress through the program and will, with others’ input, give the final grade for the spring practicum. [Name omitted] is the person who will bring to your and my attention any concerns about your performance or progress.
2. [Name omitted] will be your new supervisor. You will contact her soon to set up observations, meetings, etc.
3. You are not requesting an informal hearing on the professional suitability issue at this time, understanding that if you request one at a later date you will have an opportunity to refute any claims that you disagree with in the December 16th letter.
4. With regard to the blogging, I appreciated very much your understanding of the complexity of the issues and your understanding that one of your blogs may have inadvertently violated FERPA. I certainly want you to be able to express yourself as a student teacher. Thank you for ensuring that your blog is password protected and only you have access to it while we clarify best practices around blogging and specifically while we work with lawyers to get more clarity around what is permissible and what is not under permissible under FERPA. Please let me know if you have any questions or any other concerns Michele. I am really looking forward to shaking your hand at graduation! ]]> tag:WWW.thosewhocan.us,2009:/surviving//3.564 2009-07-24T23:11:41Z 2009-07-24T23:14:35Z
   Adam, Hi, remember me? Believe it or not, I had my letter finally printed out and ready to go (and it will still go out with a tiny check which is all I can afford), when I learned that Stanford...
   Cal Lanier
5. Program director "became aware" of my blog. I put it in quotes because I've mentioned my blog frequently in class, so it wasn't a secret. I have no idea how they "learned" about it short of my telling them, which I did.
6. They emailed the principal of the school where I'm student teaching. The first letter said that they were seeking legal advice. I'm not sure what else it said.
7. They emailed the principal a week later, asking for a "second chance" for me. The principal tells me she had done nothing between the first and second email, so is unclear what they are asking about.