A striking data point from the annual Survey Monkey questionnaire: 3/4 of those who responded said they read the Memo on their computers. Go green!

This week, two publications had special features that weren't Memo material but might be of interest: Education Week had a special section on charter school principals (prominently featuring two New Leaders for New Schools principals in New Orleans), and Phi Delta Kappan published its annual PDK/Gallup poll of American attitudes on education.

All the best,

Kim

Return to headlines

Quotes of the Week

“No matter the instructional format – lecture, small-group activity, or individualized assignment – students make their own sense of what they’re taught. Ideas don’t fly directly from teachers’ minds into learners’ minds. Effective instruction requires teachers to be able to assess what students are taking from instruction and adapt their instruction to meet the differing needs of students.”
Jayne Boyd-Zaharias and Helen Pate-Bain in “Class Matters – In and Out of School” in
Phi Delta Kappan, September 2008 (p. 40-44)

“Teaching is mainly listening.”
Deborah Meier (quoted in item #2)

“Data without blame.”
Hector Calderon, Brooklyn principal (quoted in item #1)

“Many teachers who expect their students to bear up under, and even benefit from, a constant barrage of criticism are themselves often extremely sensitive to any suggestion that their craft could be improved.”
Alfie Kohn (see item #2)

“Teachers are continuing to exercise a fair amount of autonomy in their classrooms.”
Laura Hamilton in a RAND study of teachers and administrators in three states, quoted
in “Leadership Gap Seen in Post-NCLB Changes in U.S. Teachers” by Stephen
Sawchuk in Education Week, Sept. 10, 2008 (Vol. 28, #3, p. 1, 16)

“[J]ust because you know who you are doesn’t mean the students are going to accept it. They’re going to play with it. They’re going to tweak it.”
Alejandra, a new Mexican-American teacher (see item #4)
 

Return to headlines

1. Interim Assessments: Avoiding the Pitfalls and Using Best Practices

In this Kappan article, Kim Marshall argues that during-the-year assessments are among the most powerful tools for closing the achievement gap. This is true because initial teaching, no matter how skilled, won’t produce 100 percent proficiency; differences in students’ prior knowledge, attention, and motivation prevent lessons from penetrating every young mind, leaving gaping inequalities that often follow social-class lines. When teachers use during-the-year assessments well, they can spot learning problems and fix them before they snowball.
This simple yet powerful insight is echoed in the three different strands of research:
(a) Benjamin Bloom’s 1970s work on mastery learning, which showed that when teachers use unit assessment results to immediately help students who scored below 80%, year-end achievement improves dramatically; (b) The “effective schools” research, which has found that beat-the-odds schools almost always use data from ongoing assessments to fine-tune teaching; and (c) Total Quality Management, which helped factories produce higher-quality products by getting management to listen to workers’ insights and allow them to stop the assembly line and fix problems on the spot.
In schools, there are two types of during-the-year assessments, and Marshall argues that it’s important to distinguish between them:
- In-the-moment (sometimes called formative) assessments usually happen within minutes of initial teaching (for example, “clickers”, small whiteboards, and exit cards), allowing teachers to fix learning problems on the spot or the very next day. This is the kind of assessment discussed in the classic 1998 Kappan article, “Inside the Black Box”, by British researchers Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam.
- Interim (a.k.a. benchmark, periodic, or quarterly) assessments are usually given after 4-9 weeks of instruction and look more like conventional tests. They produce data that allow teachers and administrators to analyze learning problems and intervene with struggling students. These are the kinds of assessments touted by Rick DuFour, Mike Schmoker, Doug Reeves, Jeff Howard, and other American researchers and are the core of DuFour’s “Professional Learning Community” process.
Both in-the-moment and interim assessments do the same thing – catch learning problems before summative, end-of-the-year tests. But there are important differences in their logic, execution, and the type of professional development and support required for success:
• In-the-moment assessments keep students on their toes and get them more engaged in the learning process, since the teacher checks for understanding on a regular basis. Immediate feedback on learning problems helps teachers see gaps in their teaching and gives them a chance to get all students over the bar. In addition, brain research has shown that when students are quizzed on new learning within 24 hours, the information is embedded more effectively in long-term memory. The toolbox of in-the-moment assessments is very unevenly used in American classrooms, and there is a huge need for training and support.
• Interim assessments have their own powerful logic, quite distinct from that of in-the-moment assessments: (a) Interims check on whether students remember material that was presented several weeks ago; (b) They can be more wide-ranging and comprehensive and assess whether students are able to apply concepts in new settings; (c) They can track students’ progress; (d) The results can be made visible in spreadsheets and wall charts; (e) Same-subject/same-grade teacher teams can use the results to share insights on learning problems and best practices; (f) Interim assessments allow administrators to get into the act, monitoring teaching with greater insight, shifting the conversation to results, and providing support; (g) They make it possible for schools to systematically target struggling students in the areas of their greatest weakness; and (h) By simulating testing conditions, interim assessments can help build students’ confidence for high-stakes tests. Interim assessments are fraught with implementation problems; more on that below.
So which is better, in-the-moment or interim assessments? “This is not an either/or question,” says Marshall. “We need both!” But he argues that interim assessments have a ripple effect into every part of the teaching/learning process: “They can help teachers plan better, teach better, use in-the-moment assessments better, and make powerful use of interim data to close achievement gaps during the year.”
That said, successfully implementing interim assessments is challenging. In his work in a number of school districts, Marshall has found that the potential of interim assessments is reduced or totally wiped out because of the following all-too-common implementation glitches:
- Failing to explain the logic and rationale to teachers and get them invested in the process;
- Teachers fearing that interim assessments will be used as a “gotcha” to blame them for student failure;
- Using commercial tests that are poorly aligned with state standards and the school’s instructional materials;
- Using short, superficial assessments that don’t give teachers detailed information on student learning problems;
- Giving only two or three interim assessments a year that don’t provide timely data on learning problems;
- Getting tests scored externally, reducing teacher involvement and understanding;
- Slow turnaround of results, rendering interim results stale and useless;
- Presenting teachers with the wrong “grain size” of data – either too detailed or too general;
- Same-grade/same-subject teacher teams not meeting to discuss interim assessment results;
- Teacher teams succumbing to the “culture of nice” – chatting amiably about lessons and curriculum and not confronting ineffective practices and pushing each other to higher levels of performance;
- Not following up with targeted reteaching and help for struggling students;
- Focusing only on the “bubble” students – those on the cusp of proficiency – implicitly writing off low-achieving students.
“As I’ve watched well-intentioned, hard-working educators make these mistakes,” says Marshall, “I’ve realized that interim assessments are a lot harder to implement well than a lot of us thought.” With his colleagues in New Leaders for New Schools, a non-profit organization that recruits, trains, and supports principals in ten cities, Marshall has formulated the following guidelines for successful, gap-closing implementation. As you read, you might want to rate your school’s implementation on a 4-3-2-1 scale for each one.
• Build understanding and trust. “Teachers need repeated assurances that interim assessments are low-stakes and will not be used as part of performance evaluations,” says Marshall. “The outcome should be a climate in which continuous adult learning can take place.” In the words of Brooklyn principal Hector Calderon, “Data without blame.” It’s very helpful for teachers to see interim assessments weeks before they are given; this communicates trust and helps align curriculum and teaching.
• Clarify learning outcomes. Every teacher should have a crystal-clear list of what students should know and be able to do by the end of the year, accompanied by exemplars of proficient student writing and problem-solving.
• Set a multi-year target and annual SMART goals. It takes years to bring about major gains in student achievement, and setting a 4-year school target helps keep everyone’s eyes on the prize and track progress each year. Teacher teams can then set annual goals – for example, 85 percent of first graders will be reading at Fountas-Pinnell level I (instructional level) by June – and track students’ progress using interim assessments.
• Get good assessments. They don’t have to be psychometrically perfect, but interim tests should be well aligned with state standards and tests and instructional materials, provide cumulative information on students’ progress, and evaluate higher-order thinking skills and writing.
• Schedule assessments and time for immediate follow-up. Everyone’s calendar should have the dates when interim assessments will be given, when they will be scored and analyzed, when teacher teams will meet to discuss insights and strategies (ideally within 24-48 hours of the time students take the tests), and when reteaching will take place.
• Involve teachers in making sense of assessments. “The heart of the process of interim assessment is teachers making new instructional decisions based on timely information,” says Marshall. Scanners should be used to correct multiple-choice items, but teachers should score writing prompts and open-ended questions and have their hands on the analysis process to gain maximum insight into their students’ thinking.
• Display data effectively. Spreadsheets and wall charts are powerful tools in answering the key questions: How did students do on each item? On each standard? Compared to their previous work?
• Hold candid data meetings and plan for action. “To be effective,” says Marshall, “these meetings need to be hard-hitting, honest, test-in-hand, and low-stakes. They should celebrate successes and then examine what students got wrong and figure out why they got it wrong.” It’s helpful to have an instructional coach or administrator to guide these data meetings, at least at first.
• Involve students in the process. Ideally, students know what their learning goals are, what proficient work looks like, what their current status is, and how they can best close the gap. “Student involvement in the improvement process is one of the great untapped resources in American schools,” says Marshall.
• Follow up relentlessly. “Interim assessments are a waste of time if teachers don’t implement their action plans and check to see if students improve… Principals need to monitor the teachers’ follow-up efforts and provide as much support as needed.”

“Interim Assessments: A User’s Guide” by Kim Marshall in Phi Delta Kappan, September 2008 (Vol. 90, #1, p. 64-68) http://www.marshallmemo.com/articles/Marshall9-08.pdf
 

Return to headlines

2. Alfie Kohn on Teaching and Learning

In this Education Week article, author/consultant Alfie Kohn reflects on a teacher’s statement, I taught it but the kids didn’t learn it. The belief system here is that teaching consists of presenting information and learning consists of absorbing it. Kohn says this approach is most common in college and high school lectures, and quotes George Leonard on lecturing being the “best way to get information from teacher’s notebook to student’s notebook without touching the student’s mind.” Surely, says Kohn, teaching is more than a performance and the main focus should be on whether students learn what’s been taught. “It’s the message that’s received,” he says, “not the one that the adults think they are sending, that counts.” Kohn goes on to describe three school contexts where this tension plays out:
• Classroom grading – When a teacher gives low grades because students haven’t met a standard, students may interpret that as saying that if they don’t understand, it’s their own fault (and they aren’t very smart). When this happens, students are very unlikely to become excited about what’s being taught, and meaningful learning isn’t going to happen.
• Disciplinary interactions – A teacher may believe that giving a punishment for an infraction is fair and justified, but what if the student thinks: “That’s not fair!” or “Next time I won’t get caught” or “I guess when you have more power you can make other people suffer if they don’t do what you want”? The teacher may be right, but if the student doesn’t hear the message, things won’t get better.
• Giving tests – “It’s tempting, when students are given some kind of assessment, to assume the results primarily reveal how much progress each kid is, or isn’t, making,” writes Kohn, “rather than noticing that the quality of the teaching is also being assessed.”
Kohn believes we should focus on deeper learning, not just discrete bits of information and test scores, and worries that the current focus on “data” trivializes learning. “Ideally,” he says, “attention to learning signifies an effort to capture how each student makes sense of the world, so we can meet them where they are… the willingness to imagine the student’s point of view.” He then quotes Deborah Meier: “Teaching is mostly listening.”
Kohn feels the pain of a student trying to write an essay or solve a problem and being subjected to continuous evaluation. “Many teachers who expect their students to bear up under, and even benefit from, a constant barrage of criticism are themselves often extremely sensitive to any suggestion that their craft could be improved,” he says. “[E]ducators ought to make a point of trying something new in their own lives, something they must struggle to master, in order to appreciate what their students put up with every day.”
School leaders should also heed these lessons, concludes Kohn: “Successful school leadership doesn’t depend on what principals and superintendents do, but on how their actions are regarded by their audience – notably, classroom teachers… It’s best to see what we do through the eyes of those to whom it’s done.”

“It’s Not What We Teach, It’s What They Learn” by Alfie Kohn in Education Week, Sept. 10, 2008 (Vol. 28, #3, p. 32, 26)
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/10/03kohn_ep.h28.html
 

Return to headlines

3. Making the Best Use of School Time

This thoughtful Center for Public Education report by Ellen O’Brien summarizes the research on the use of time in schools. First, O’Brien addresses the key question: Does more school time result in more learning? Not necessarily, she says. The most recent study (Aronson et al., 2005) defined three ways of looking at school time and the impact of each:
- Allocated time (the number of days and hours students are required to attend school, including lunch, recess, transitions, assemblies, and non-instructional activities) – There is little or no relationship between allocated time and student achievement (see page 3 of the report, linked below, for a graphic showing a complete lack of correlation between reading achievement and the number of instructional hours a year in 21 countries).
- Engaged time or time on task (the hours during which students are actually involved in learning activities) – There is some relationship between engaged time and achievement.
- Academic learning time (the hours when students are actively engaged in learning activities synched to their level and readiness) – The amount of academic learning time has the largest relationship to student achievement.
Aronson and his colleagues concluded that when school leaders consider expanding school hours, they should pay close attention to academic learning time: “Only when time is used more effectively will adding more of it begin to result in improved learning outcomes for all students,” they say. “In cases where time is not already well used, increasing allocated time is not likely to produce substantial gains in student achievement. In such cases, the first step should be to improve the quality of existing time.”
O’Brien then addresses the school calendar. Despite strongly worded reform proposals dating back to A Nation At Risk in 1983 and a major study in 1994 (Prisoners of Time by the National Education Commission on Time and Learning), most schools still operate under the same agrarian 180-day, 6-hour-a-day schedule that has existed in American schools for generations. The Prisoners of Time report noted that the 6-hour day is often reduced to about three hours of core instruction at the secondary level due to encroachments from activities such as gym, counseling, study halls, lunch, pep rallies, etc. Some states and school districts have tried to break the mold, but few have succeeded (see a chart in the full report on the number of days and hours in all 50 states). The average number of hours per day has increased only a little, from 6.3 hours a day in 1988 to 6.5 hours a day in 2000. (There are variations by level and region, with middle schools and the Midwest having the longest school days.) The overwhelming reason for the lack of progress is the cost of increasing time.
O’Brien says there is a further problem within the agrarian calendar: most schools are still tied to the factory model, “with subjects broken into small, specialized units and expectations that students will move through these units at an even rate… leading to problems for students who need more or less time to grasp concepts.” The Prisoners of Time report said that “students are caught in a time trap – processed on an assembly line scheduled to the minute.”
Some schools have managed to extend learning time, and when increased hours are linked to other improvements, the learning gains can be significant. For example, at Roxbury Preparatory Charter School in Boston, students attend school for eight hours a day; the school has very impressive achievement. But most schools have to work within the allocated time for each day and year. What’s being done to get more value from these hours? O’Brien lists a number of initiatives – and the research on the effectiveness of each one.
• Year-round schools – Some schools (about 7 percent nationally, half of them in California) are experimenting with a school calendar that doesn’t have a long summer vacation, either to reduce summer learning loss or to deal with overcrowding by staggering the schedule of different schools. Most year-round calendars don’t have more days, but arrange vacations a little differently. There are three models:
- Three 60-day sessions with three 20-day vacations (a variation is 15-day vacations, with an additional 3-4-week common vacation).
- 45 days of instruction followed by 15 days of vacation (a variation is 10-day vacations, with an additional 4-week common vacation for staff and students).
- Six terms of about 43 days each, with students and teachers divided into three groups that attend two consecutive sessions and then have one off.
Studies have shown that year-round schedules do produce significant improvements in student achievement and are popular with teachers. There is more research at the elementary level, and it does not zero in on which kind of year-round schedule works best.
• Block scheduling – About 1/3 of schools are experimenting with longer blocks of learning time (more at the high-school level, charter schools, and inner-city schools). Here are the most commonly-used plans:
- The trimester plan: The school year is broken into three 60-day trimesters with students taking two core classes per trimester coupled with up to three other year-long electives. Advantages: students concentrate on only two core courses each trimester; students and teachers prepare for fewer courses each trimester; teachers work with fewer students each trimester. Disadvantage: Students may not retain what they learned in the fall trimester when they take standardized tests in the spring.
- The 4x4 block: The school day is divided into four blocks, with classes of 85-100 minutes and additional time for lunch and transitions. Students complete in one semester what would have taken them a full year under the traditional schedule. Advantages: Students and teachers have increased instructional time; students concentrate on only four courses each semester; teachers teach fewer classes and work with fewer students each semester; and students and teachers prepare for fewer courses each semester. Disadvantage: Students may not retain what they learn in fall courses when taking spring standardized tests.
- Alternating plan or 8-block or A/B: Students attend eight blocks of classes, typically 90 minutes long. Advantages: Students and teachers receive increased instructional time; students have fewer classes, quizzes, and homework assignments each day. Disadvantages: Teachers still have a large number of students, just spread over two days; teachers and students still have to prepare for just as many classes.
- 75-75-30 plan: Students take three classes each for two 75-day terms, followed by a 30-day intensive course or enrichment program. Variations include placing the 30 days between the two 75-day terms, having three long classes and one short class, or changing the configuration to 75-15-75-15. Advantages: Students who need more time and instruction can get it during the short term; students are able to engage in a short-term enrichment program of interest to them; time is available to make up incomplete work. Disadvantage: Students may not retain what they learn in fall courses when they take standardized tests in the spring.
Proponents of block scheduling tout the following advantages:
- More time on task, with classes feeling less rushed and less time wasted on transitions, taking attendance, and focusing each class;
- Depth and breadth, giving teachers more time to delve more deeply into their subject matter in a single period and using more teaching methods and media and lab experiences;
- Common planning time, with greater opportunities for in-depth professional development for teacher teams;
- Stronger adult-child relationships because teachers have fewer students and spend more time with them. There are also fewer discipline problems.
Critics of block scheduling have two major concerns:
- Under most block plans, students have less allocated instructional time for core subjects. Under a traditional schedule, students would have 165 hours per subject (180 days times 55 minutes a period), while in block scheduling they would have only 135 hours (90 days times 90 minutes a period). This could be compensated for by the efficiencies of fewer transitions and attendance-taking.
- Serious professional development is often needed to help teachers make the transition from lecturing to making effective use of longer blocks of time.
Does block scheduling work? Research has shown mixed results, with the 4x4 block showing the least gains (in one study there were learning losses with 4x4). Nevertheless, some schools had success with block scheduling.
• Four-day school week – A number of districts in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have eliminated one day a week and lengthened the time in the other four. This has resulted in 20 percent savings in food services and transportation costs and been overwhelmingly popular with students and families. Studies have shown that student achievement is about the same as with a traditional five-day week.
• Accommodating teenagers’ sleep cycle – Some districts, heeding research on adolescent sleep schedules, shifted their high-school start times an hour or more later. Research in Minneapolis indicates better attendance, less sleeping in class, and less student-reported depression.
• Full-day kindergarten – Half-day kindergarten is still the norm across the nation. Studies show a clear advantage for students attending kindergarten, with the greatest gains coming from full-day programs.
O’Brien closes with advice for schools and districts considering changes in their schedules and calendars:
- Make sure you can answer these questions about a scheduling change: How does it fit into your overall plan for school improvement? How does it integrate with other teaching and learning strategies? Has your school laid the groundwork for its successful implementation? Is there a plan for measuring progress?
- Visit schools and districts that have tried various options and learn from them.
- Get input from teachers, administrators, students, and parents.
- Make a long-term commitment, recognizing that benefits and problems might not show up for a year or two.
- Provide professional development so that teachers will make the best use of reconfigured time.
- Seek feedback from teachers, students, and parents at every stage, evaluating changes through surveys, focus groups, and forums.
- Collect and analyze data on student and teacher performance.

“Making Time: What Research Says About Reorganizing School Schedules” by Ellen O’Brien, Center for Public Education, August 2008 (spotted in PEN Weekly NewsBlast, Aug. 22, 2008)
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.2086551/k.9967/Making_time_What_research_says_about_reorganizing_school_schedules.htm
 

Return to headlines

4. Teachers of Color Respond to Racial Challenges

In this intriguing Teachers College Record article, researchers Betty Achinstein and Julia Aguirre report on how fifteen minority-group teachers, novices in urban schools, dealt with students’ reactions to their race and ethnicity. The common assumption in the literature, say the authors, is that “teachers of color will experience a cultural match with their students of color and thus have better connections and be more effective.” Not so! All but one of the teachers in the study underwent “practice shock” as students challenged their racial identification and authenticity and declared them culturally suspect.
Here’s the advice that Alejandra, a teacher of Mexican descent, offers other teachers of color: “Be prepared to have your race be called into question. Be prepared to have your identity be called into question… Be prepared to be criticized for that background and admired for it… I think that’s the hardest part about being a teacher of color at [my school] because I went in, and I know who I am, and I formed my identity. But just because you know who you are doesn’t mean the students are going to accept it. They’re going to play with it. They’re going to tweak it.”
Jose, a well-educated, middle-class, multilingual Latino teacher, had similar feelings when his students challenged him for “not acting Latino.” He reflected, “They are trying to figure me out. I am a Chicano from LA who has traveled different parts of the world… didn’t speak Spanish… and that is very odd… Is the idea of a Latino like me stretching my boundaries and really pushing it, so scary and so difficult to imagine? I think it is. That is part of the reason why there is so much resistance to putting on the coat of a student, or the coat of an academic… because it doesn’t feel like it is for them. That is the thing that I fight most of the time.”
The researchers catalogued seven ways in which students challenged their teachers’ identity:
- The “Brown/Black test” – For example, asking “Are you really Latina if you don’t speak Spanish fluently? Are you really Latina if you were born in the States?”
- The origins question – To one bi-racial teacher, a student said, “You don’t act Black but you don’t look White; what are you?” Another teacher was asked, “Where are your parents from?”
- Do you speak Spanish? – Some teachers were challenged as outsiders because they didn’t speak Spanish fluently. One Chicana teacher was labeled “Gringo” because of her limited Spanish.
- Racism and discrimination – These accusations came up in disciplinary situations, sometimes twisting the facts in confusing ways. For example, a Mexican-American student said to a Chicano teacher, “Why you hatin’ on me? Because I’m Black?”
- Gendered challenges – These often sprang from cultural assumptions. A Filipina-American teacher was challenged by her Latino working-class students: “Why aren’t you married?”
- Talking White – Alejandra’s students “called her out on talking White” in class, associating it with academic discourse.
- Class clash – One teacher was challenged because “you’re not from the barrio… and you drive a rich car… and went to a [private university].”

“Practice shock” is when teachers begin their first job and experience a “collapse of the missionary ideas formed during teacher training by the harsh and rude reality of everyday classroom life” (Veenman, 1984). Most new teachers react to practice shock by abandoning their democratic ideals and the student-centered practices they hoped to implement and adopting an authoritarian stance. Achinstein and Aguirre were surprised to find that almost all of the fifteen teachers they studied didn’t follow this script. Instead, they treated students’ challenges as teachable moments, didn’t “shift to power”, and engaged students on their own terms.
Alejandra, for example, discussed her ability to code-switch and culture-shift, and discussed with her students the “culture of power” and the “power of their own culture.” Gabriel, another teacher who was challenged for not “acting Mexican” worked to broaden students’ conceptions with questions like, “What does a Mexican act like? Where do these ideas come from?” and “Even though we both are Mexican, we still have different backgrounds and experiences… Not all Mexicans act the same. Not all White people act the same. Not all African Americans act the same.” Linh, an Asian-American teacher who was challenged for “sounding like a White girl” when she read from Shakespeare, took no offense, explaining that she does sound White when she “code-switches to a professional voice”, and that she understood why students who have experienced racism would make such a comment.

“Cultural Match or Culturally Suspect: How New Teachers of Color Negotiate Sociocultural Challenges in the Classroom” by Betty Achinstein and Julia Aguirre in Teachers College Record, August 2008 (Vol. 110, #8, p. 1505-1540), no free e-link available
 

Return to headlines

5. Instructional Uses of Cellphones

“What would happen if instead of silencing or confiscating cellphones in the classroom, teachers encouraged students to use them?’ asks Kathleen Kennedy Manzo in this Education Week article. Hall Davidson of the Discovery Educator Network says the cellphones owned by almost all students have features that schools pay thousands of dollars for as separate devices: camera, video recorder, GPS, text messaging, and music player. He suggests that teachers can get students using their cellphones for:
- Conducting first-person interviews;
- Posting audio and video links to school wikis to enhance reports and projects;
- Receiving class assignments;
- Starting research projects using cellphone Web features;
- Recording themselves practicing a foreign language or musical instruments and sending the recordings to their teachers;
- Responding to teacher polls on opinions on topics within lessons or procedures;
- Teachers passing along video instructions on lessons to substitute teachers;
- Teachers getting translations into other languages before sending messages to parents who don’t speak English.
Educators attending a recent workshop with Davidson expressed enthusiasm – with reservations. Some students don’t have cellphones, they said, and others have older models without the bells and whistles of current phones, or have limits on the number of minutes they can call or text. There’s also the challenge of preventing students from abusing their privileges by chatting in class.

“The Cellphone: Turning It Into a Teaching Tool” by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo in Education Week, Sept. 10, 2008 (Vol. 28, #3, p. 10-11), no e-link available
 

Return to headlines