Category Archives: .O2 Offer appropriate challenge in the content area.

So close . . . and yet so far.

One of my science students, PK, recommended a game to me called Doodle God, from JoyBits Ltd.  My student said, “since we are studying chemistry, which is about combining things, check out this game, where you try to combine things.”

I was excited to give it a try and have now been playing it off-and-on for about a month.

Here’s what I like

  • Easy to learn to play.
  • Very rewarding to see two things swirl and create something new.
  • Some combinations are very creative, not immediately obvious, but logical.

Here’s what I don’t like

  • From the start, the portrayal of a monotheistic, creative deity as a grandfatherly, tinkering, bumbling, bug-eyed, wild-haired, white-bearded, tongue-protruding simpleton, seems borderline blasphemous for at least three major religious traditions of the world.  But, hey, whatever sells…
  • When I let my 8-year-old play—ignoring the 13+ rating of the game—I should not have been too surprised when certain risqué themes emerged.  Alcohol, drugs, sex, [censored], rock-n-roll are all there, and were they all necessary?  But, hey, whatever sells…
  • From the beginning I was a little peeved when I tried to combine certain things—that made logical sense to me—but they didn’t combine.  Similarly, when I saw hints which led to things that did wondrously(?) and improbably combine, I almost put the game down.  (And how was I supposed to guess that?)

Seeing that the dislikes for me seem to outweigh the likes, why am I writing this blog post?  I feel this game is *so close* to being something of real and amazing educational value.  Imagine something like “Chemistry Zeus” [any similarities between deities living or dead is purely coincidental], where students start with a few elements and either bombard them to make new elements (nuclear physics) or combine them with other elements or molecules to make compounds, or whole families of substances.  I think I would play that game, and if it taught a little science or history of science along the way, cool!

JoyBits, if you need a scientific consultant, you can contact me.  Smile

Some math fooling around

You start with 4 elements and are asked to deduce pairings that create successively more complex elements.  Since the deduction part is flawed in my opinion, I believe most successful game-players resort to trial and error.  Let me explain.

If I give you N items and tell you some of them might pair, by trial and error you would take the 1st item and try to pair it with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. up to N.  When you are done with the 1st item you then take up the 2nd item, and try some pairings, but you don’t have to test it with the 1st item, since you already did that, so you test 2nd+3rd, and 2nd+4th, and 2nd+5th, etc.  one way to visualize this is with a grid.

  1 2 3
1 1+1 1+2 1+3
2 X 2+2 2+3
3 X X 3+3
Doodle God game with 3 elements (1-3)
Table shows all the combinations you need to check.
You do not need to check combinations marked “X”

The square with 1+1 means you are taking the 1st element in the game and trying to pair it with itself.  The 1+2 means that you are trying to pair the 1st element with the 2nd element.  Notice that the square that would be 2+1 in this example is marked with “X”.  That means you don’t need to test that combination because in the game 1+2 is the same as 2+1, the order you click on elements to pair them in the game doesn’t matter.  (If someday it did, the following analysis would be invalid.)

The formula for how many pairings you have to check for N total elements is

Total Pairs You Need to Check = N2-(1/2)(N-1)(N)
(thanks to Wolfram Alpha for helping me evaluate a sum)

We can verify that this formula is correct, by checking for N=3, plugging that into the formula and then counting in the table above to see if the results agree.  For N=3, from the table I would need to check 6 pairings to exhaust all possible combinations in the game.  The formula predicts

Total Pairs You Need to Check = N2-(1/2)(N-1)(N)

Total Pairs You Need to Check = 3*3-(1/2)(3-1)(3)=9-(1/2)(2)(3)=9-(1/2)(6)=9-3=6.

Now, the object of the game is to find successful pairings so let’s say 1+1 is successful.  But that would produce a 4th element.  That means we have to check more potential pairs.  (Note that some pairings produce two elements, that happens pretty rarely so the analysis so far and following is not invalidated.)

If successful, then you create a 4th element, and the table would now look like this:

  1 2 3 4
1 1+1      
2 N      
3 N N    
4 N N N  
Doodle God game with 3 elements
But the 1st element paired with 1st element produced a new 4th element.
The table of combinations thus adds a row and a column
 
Notice that although the 1st element paired with the 1st element made a 4th element, you haven’t tested any combinations of that 4th element yet.  You will have to test those, so we add a column to the table.
 
The number of total combinations we needed to check when we only had 3 elements was 6.  We tried one pairing of elements and we were successful so now we only need to check 5 plus the new pairings we potentially created.  It turns out that when you add 1 new element to an N-element game, you add N+1 more pairs to check.  In this case, i.e. N=3, we get 6-1+4=9.
 
Can we write a formula for how many pairs we still need to check on the 12th turn of the game?  Sure!  First let’s define a few things.
 
N = total number of elements in the game that you start with.
t = the turn of the game that you are on, in other words how many pairs you have tried already
s = successful matches already
u = unsuccessful matches already
Note that one relationship we can spot right away is
t = s + u
Which just says that the number of unsuccessful + successful matches you have made is equal to the number of turns you have been playing.  But the relationship we are after is “How many more matches do I need to test after t turns in the game?”  I believe this works, let’s try it out.
Potential Matches Left = (N+s)2-(1/2)(N+s-1)(N+s)-t
In the example above, N=3, t=1, s=1, u=0, the number of matches left to test, i.e. the number of blank squares in that grid is:
(3+1)2-(1/2)(3+1-1)(3+1)-1=16-(1/2)(3)(4)-1=16-(1/2)(12)-1=16-6-1=9.
Notice that the function goes like a quadratic in the total number of elements, which means the game gets progressively harder as it goes along.  Even if you don’t blindly try all combinations, you still have to remember which combinations you have made and the combinations you haven’t or review all those elements you have not yet combined for “reasonable suspicion” of being able to combine to form new element.  We say the order of that comparison is O(N2), O() means “order of”.
 
The tradeoff that becomes important in the game is that if every turn in the game produces a new element (s=t), then the number of new combinations increases quadratically.  But that is the reward of the game, producing a new element.  The frequency of reward needs to be traded-off with the rate of increase in complexity of the game.  You can make the game less complex (s << t) by not letting any elements combine, but then who would play it?
 

Back to the game Doodle Farm (Free)

 
Meanwhile…a game that would allow players to combine things in ways that are accurate given physical laws, e.g. chemistry, would be an amazing pedagogical tool.  None of the flavors of Doodle God to date seem to represent any even remotely accurate view of the physical world.
 
I played Doodle Farm (Free) and used a Google Sheet to keep track of my pairings, much like the table above.  I was able to solve the game fairly systematically that way.  But what was annoying (and a deal-breaker for me, sadly) is that two of the first 4 pairings were completely illogical.  Not that the game makes any pretense of teaching accurate animal husbandry, but the whole point of this post is that the game would be used by Teachers if it were more accurate.
 
image
Doodle Farm Free initial elements and successful pairings.
How does Mouse+Mouse=Rat+Cat?
How does Worm+Mouse=Ant?
 

Reviewing the Atomic Model Using ImageQuiz

ImageQuiz is a beta which lets you use pictures to review content.  Check out a sample I made here:

image

An Excel Spreadsheet That Generates Randomized Chemistry Questions

Last year I fell in love with the “Infinite Algebra/Geometry/etc.” series of programs from KUTA Software.  If you haven’t seen them, they basically delineate a topic of study into regimes of problems that can be randomized.  Once you have randomized questions you can generate multiple versions of quizzes and stymie those in your classroom that are doing “unsanctioned collaboration” during assessments.

The basics behind my spreadsheet is a Periodic Table of the Elements Excel Spreadsheet designed by Vertex42.com and copyrighted by the same.  It has a database sheet of all the elements and it is from that database sheet that I can generate random worksheets / quizzes.

Here’s the latest version of the spreadsheet and here’s a sample of the output, a multi-version quiz that I generated to test students knowledge of the Nuclide Symbol.

It has been very interesting using Excel as a quiz markup/generator tool.  I have sent this idea to KUTA and haven’t heard back.  I have sent this idea to Microsoft (dailyedventures@microsoft.com), we shall see!

SnapChat Leak: An Educational Opportunity?

If you’re following this story, then you know that SnapChat, a super-popular App that a large number of my high school freshmen have on their phones, had a security problem that allowed a hacker to get the usernames and phone numbers of 4.6 million SnapChat users.

[Was your data leaked?  You can check using this look-up tool.]

I was eager to see if any of my students were in the set of leaked accounts.  I wanted to create conversation around why data leakers do this, and what appropriate responses would have been for the users and creators of such technology.

So I did some poking around.  I downloaded the data (46MB ZIP).  I to open it as a CSV in Excel 2013, but it couldn’t.  I opened it in Notepad+ and searched for my number.  Not found.  I searched for anything in 425 area code (Bellevue-Redmond).  Nothing.  I searched for anything in 509 area code (eastern WA).  Nothing.  So none of my students were in the leaked data.

It turns out only a select few numbers in 76 area codes were shared.

https://i2.wp.com/www.snapchatdb.info/img/count.jpg

http://mashable.com/2014/01/01/tool-snapchat-compromised/

And it’s interesting that only 10,623 numbers in 206 area code (Seattle) were shared.  That’s only 1 part-per-thousand of the total numbers in 206.  Which is either a comment on the importance of SnapChat in Seattle or the underestimation of area codes to include from the hacker.

Or take a look at 815 area code in the picture above, if 215,953 numbers in 815 use SnapChat, that is 21 out of every thousand phones (or 2%)!  Not bad for a small App that doesn’t care about security.

So, can someone get me all the 509 numbers at SnapChat please?  It would help me in lessons at school next week.  Smile

Voice and Choice in Physics

This past week I asked my students what they wanted to study next in our Advanced Physics class.  (Note:  this is not an AP class, since I’m just a physics teacher padawan.)

I listed the remaining chapters in the book (12-31) with their titles and sections.  I asked the students to rank each chapter in interest from 1-5.  Sample size is N=11, 3 females and 8 males.

I took all the ratings for each chapter and averaged.  I also averaged across the ratings for each section, so I could see if there was a pattern of interest across the sections.

Here are the results.

image

When you group the Chapter Ratings by Section, you see a trend that you might have suspected, namely that students want to study Modern Physics.  However, if you note the Standard Deviation for Modern Physics, it is definitely wider, in other words, some students do *not* want to study Modern Physics.

image

Either way, next week we are off to Chapter 20, Electricity.  I can’t wait to talk about analogs to F=ma that exist in electronics , i.e. V=IR.

I should also note here that some of my inspiration for this move was some reading I was doing in the “Physics First” community.  Let me put some references here that speak with particular persuasion in favor of teaching Physics to 9th graders.

Sources

High School Committee of the American Association of Physics Teachers [AAPT]. (2006). Physics First: An Informational Guide for Teachers, School Administrators, Parents, Scientists and the Public.  AAPT. Retrieved November 9, 2013 from http://www.aapt.org/upload/phys_first.pdf

How I Got Some Freshman Science Students To Read “The Economist”

Last week I was grappling with a way to teach the Washington State Science Standards, in particular the INQUIRY A piece.

As is often the case, inspiration came in the nick-of-time.  I would have my students

  1. gain an appreciation for the breadth of science
  2. practice some literacy skills
  3. generate some “scientific questions”
  4. work in groups
  5. practice some creativity

Here’s how it went.  The room is arranged in groups.  At the beginning of class, we review science as a pervasive quest for knowledge, which often looks like questions.  Define/Review scientific questions, and propose a form that students can use “How does ____ affect ____.”  (Is this Act 1 for Science, a la Dan Meyer?)

Tell students that there are pages from a magazine (suitably shuffled) on their group tables and that they are to get with partners and create a poster of 5 scientific questions which will be generated the following way.  Your partner takes a page and finds a noun on that page.  You take a different page and find a noun on that page.  You then come together and form a question “How does noun #1 affect noun #2.”  (Act 2, you have a tool/method, now apply it.)

Where this spins off into greatness is when students:

  • find themselves reading snippets of articles from the Economist for context, since they have been “struck in the curiousity bone
  • find themselves posing questions like “do bees affect cancer?” which might lead to a long and fruitful career in science for this 9th grader
  • realize that sometimes science questions look superficially quite silly but hide an incredible profundity, like “will dry ice slide down a sand dune?

Finally for Act 3, we have a wall full of questions, from 4 periods of science students, which we can now take to the next level of refinement of the question, and posing more questions.  Take a look:

IMG_1367

WAS Day 5

Washington Aerospace Scholars, Day 5, Thursday, July 18, 2013

Thursday was the last full day of activities for Week 4 of the 2013 Washington State Aerospace Scholars program. Since Friday is the banquet, which concludes the program, students were busy today preparing presentations and poster boards for that presentation. There were also Impact Statements to write, wherein students describe how the program has affected them and their career plans. Those of us on staff also have our student evaluations due the next day.

Red Team is pretty well prepared for Friday, but I notice a little bit of complacency (hubris?) developing in some of the more influential members of the team. I’m going to have to think more about this, since I don’t want to gloss over it. What I am trying to put my finger on is a certain resentment that develops in highly performing students that they have worked so hard, when they see others around them perhaps not working so hard, but apparently having more “fun”. The perfect storm happens when high-achievers realize they have met all the requirements, worked really hard, and then see others perhaps doing better than them (on some arbitrary scale) but enjoying better morale or team esprit d ’corps.

One high point (literally and figuratively) of our week was the launching of rockets. After a quick briefing from our rocket expert each team got to press the button igniting the engine and sending our creations skyward. Red Team rocket launched, cruised and deployed parachute successfully for a safe return of the rock “sample” to earth. Way to go team! In fact, all teams had successful launch and recovery of their rockets.

After the launch activity, we traveled to Aerojet where we got a tour of their facility. I’m intrigued by the thought of standing in a place that has put together high reliability rocket motors that have traveled (or will soon travel) to *all* of the planets. Aerojet is an incredible story of business started near Boeing’s plants, then moved to Redmond, and today supplies rockets that have *never* been the cause of a NASA mission failure. Great job Aerojet!

After returning to MoF, teams worked on final preparations for our presentations on Friday. We also took part in our last Engineering Challenge of the week, getting a Lego Mindstorms Rover to visit as many rock samples as possible on a simulated Martian terrain and return to base. Red Team perfected a route to the first two samples but run out of time to perfect a path to a third sample. Folks on the team were disappointed. Our post-mortem analysis of our task raised a couple of questions. Why were our paths to the first two samples unnecessarily complex? Why was our rover design less than optimal for the terrain and mission requirements? It is a good question why sometimes bright people miss elegant, simpler solutions, while opting for more complex or complicated solutions that inherently have more failure modes.

Our final activities of the evening involved signing some pictures for distribution to WAS Program supporters. (Thank You Washington Aerospace Scholar Program Supporters!) We also completed some final housekeeping tasks for Red Team.

I was impressed by a presentation at the end of our day from the Team America Rocket Challenge which offers cash prizes for student competitions in the field of rocketry. It has been a constant theme this week that students need more hands-on experience in their lives and in their educational environments, and today was no exception. Can imagine what would happen if we had not only soccer-moms, but rocket-dads? What if participation maker-related activities such as rockets, robotics, and remote-controlled hobbies rivaled things such as sports and video games?

My takeaway from this day was the challenge it is to motivate those otherwise highly motivated students to go beyond the checklists (grades) that they have gotten so good at mastering. The real adventure lies beyond expending just enough effort to do just a little better than your current peers or “competition”. Push beyond a higher level of common mediocrity, go for it!

WAS Day 3

Washington Aerospace Scholars, Summer Residency, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

After typing this report on Tuesday morning for Monday, I went and found our System Manager and gave her some feedback over breakfast. I think that was an effective move, but it was made possible or necessary due to reflections on the prior day and where we needed to go for the day ahead. I am reminded that daily or regular reflection on my teaching can have the same effect, namely taking stock in what has gone well or what could go better, helps make future outcomes better.

We started the day at the MoF in our Mission Briefing. Each team got up and gave a status of where their team was in the performing of various tasks. I think our session went well except for one of our team members who contradicted or sought to clarify our status. I will talk to that team member offline about how unprofessional that looks, since they should have clarified their status internally before going before the other teams and showing that our team had some internal disconnect. I’m proud of my team having concise status, being mostly on the same page, and being able to communicate what they might need from other teams, e.g. red flags or warnings about where they might be blocked or need further clarification. Status meetings are valuable things despite the general revulsion (anecdotal? See Dilbert cartoon.) that people have for meetings in general. I found some of my memories from my former life at Microsoft flowing back about how teams posture and sometimes put up smoke screens about progress that is communicated more glowingly than it actually is. How could status meetings be used in an educational context? The answer is fairly straightforward if students are working on a clearly defined project with dated deliverables and interdependencies with other teams that they need to resolve. However, how could they be used in a classroom that isn’t doing projects? Is there a way to couch a quarter or semester of learning goals as a project that students need to make progress on, and give them tools for measuring their progress, reporting on that progress and taking corrective action for lackluster results? I think the answer might be standards-based grading, and I think it is something to try which will serve students well in a variety of future careers. I don’t think students are naturally project-oriented, or team-status aware, but I think all can improve on those basic job skills.

Over lunch we spoke with a Geologist on MSL, the Mars Science Laboratory mission that is supporting the Curiosity Rover on Mars. We did so over a Google hangout with video and audio. The video and audio quality were good, but it very hard to see what was on the screen, and I sat closer than any scholar. From a tech standpoint, there must be a way to share desktop or documents in higher fidelity, or there might have been a way to get scholars closer to the screen so they could engage better. (I think I will ask some of my students today for some feedback on that session, to see if they noticed this same thing that I did.) As a footnote to my comment yesterday about the usefulness of bringing experts into the classroom, today was proof that you can bring those experts in virtual ways (video, audio) and still get good engagement or deliver good content to students.

Red Team had a phone conference call with a researcher working on fusion drive at the University of Washington today which went very well. I’m told that students even pointed out some ideas that researchers had not considered, which is always exhilarating. I didn’t attend the conference call as a way to support other scholars who weren’t involved in that topic (Propulsion). Here again I was reminded of some management learnings that I have gained from my prior experience. Namely, as a manager/leader it is not leadership to spend time with those workers that are highly motivated and have the same learning style as you. It is more effective leadership to speak with your whole team, i.e. apportion your time more equitably so that all your team knows that you are supportive and eager for them to succeed. For example, in our preparation for our second Peer Presentation, I realized that I didn’t really have a good grasp on the Reflectance Spectrometers that we were supposed to be presenting. Furthermore, I realized that the scholar on our team also didn’t have a good idea of what they wanted students to take away from her part of the presentation on those devices either. I realized that this was a coaching opportunity and a teachable moment. Both teachers and presenters need to know what the main goal of their presentation as information transfer needs to be. When I was able to coach my scholar on some presentation tips, they were more confident, the material was relayed better, and the overall presentation went much better. A comment from HQ was “I have not seen Reflectance Spectrometers presented as clearly as Red Team just did.” Nice work! Overall, we got $40 million bonus for a 9.3 score (out of 10) on our presentation. That goes a little way towards reducing the pain we feel from getting -$20 million on our first presentation.

We took a grand tour of Boeing’s assembly facility at Paine Field in Everett. I realized that what we were seeing on the tour were mostly skilled (highly skilled!) labor jobs, and not really day-to-day STEM jobs at Boeing when we tour that facility. I’m not so sure that students connected these massive machines with the pile of STEM work that goes into producing each one. Do I want to buy stock in Boeing based on their production estimates? Yes. Do I want to ride in a 787 Dreamliner? Most definitely! Do I know what the engineers do tucked away around those assembly lines all day? Not so much… Oh and one more question that is teasing me: does the production of airplanes with a high proportion of carbon fiber do a net sequester of carbon and thus help reduce greenhouse gases? I know the plane is green, but how green?

After the Boeing tour we spent some time at the MoF Restoration Center where aircraft are refurbished or stored when they are not at the Museum of Flight gallery. After seeing the massive amount of spare parts and tools and high-tech tools used on modern planes it was a little depressing to see the mostly volunteer, somewhat duck tape and baling wire operation that restoration is. However, I can appreciate the value of working on historical airplanes both as mechanical and engineering history, and as a “maker” type activity for students. I just didn’t find a lot of interpretive information at the Restoration Center. Not to belittle the volunteers who are contributing mightily to the preservation of our aeronautical heritage in any way!

As mentioned above, upon our return to MoF we had a successful Peer Presentation on Spectrometers. The team was very supportive of each other and wanted them to succeed. I should mention here that we timed our presentation and had scenarios we would do if we were over or under time. When we were under time, our presenter had a few questions prepared to ask the audience, and he did so, but somewhat humorously cut off the reply from the student answering the question to stay on our time, which he did, and our final time was 7:07.

I should note that Scholars are starting to show signs of being tired. Quite a few took a nap on the traffic-slowed return from Everett to Boeing Field. We ended our work on Tuesday with a Lego Mindstorm Rover development project. I was interested to see that almost every student was engaged in that project in task, with the usual type-A’s driving key tasks and the other other scholars taking supporting roles. The hands-on power of these projects cannot be underestimated. Students had to reason about gear reductions, and power limitations of small motors, of the flex and unexpected behaviors of lego structures, and how to program and test robot code. I can’t help but think that this type of work can only hone student’s intuition and experience which can enlighten their classroom learning. We need to more robotics, more maker-faires, more hands on if we expect future STEM professionals to be able to innovate and create. The time-pressure frustrated some, and invigorated others, the team still lacked some integration of efforts, but I think even that aspect of team work is best learned and honed through more of these activities. I am eager to do more hands-on, project-based, and team-oriented activities in my class room, because like the students, I will only get better with practice.

[Book Review] Where the Rubber Meets the Road

I’m reading a book by Richard N. Steinberg entitled An Inquiry Into Science Education, Where the Rubber Meets the Road.

Professor Steinberg took a sabbatical (2007-2008) from the City College of New York to teach high school physics in Harlem.  This book is a reflection on his experiences.

His themes are predictable if you’ve been following current topics in education.

  • teacher preparation
  • student apathy
  • classroom management
  • abysmal math fluency
  • standardized testing
  • teaching is a lot of work!

His more hopeful and helpful themes are around how he has stood for true inquiry in his science classrooms, and some lessons that he taught.  That plus some other references he cites as resources are worth the price of the book.

Steinberg spoke at a conference in Washington DC in May for the Robert Noyce Scholarship folks at PhysTEC, since he is also involved at that program at CCNY.  He doesn’t talk about PhysTEC in his book, but I suppose it would be out of context somewhat.

Internship Reflection Week of 2012-04-16 [34] (Week After Spring Break)

Although you might have thought teachers and staff would have been relaxed and recharged after the time away, many commented to the contrary.  Although students usually have fun during a break, for many school provides structure and an escape from the situation at home.  This is the classic dilemma of the American Worker, we have such little vacation time (relative to, say, Western Europeans) that we never get beyond the vacation-is-a-lot-of-work threshold, and really start to enjoy ourselves before we have to start getting back to work.

You may say, “but teachers get the whole summer off, why are they always complaining about the few hours society makes them work.”  To which I would utter the heretical, I would rather work all summer teaching, if I knew I was making progress with a student that would otherwise be making bad decisions, in a bad environment.

Investment Game Starts (Ends on May 31, 2012)

Last week the three students for which I am a mentor, started a game on http://www.investopedia.com.  The rules are that the student who experiences the most appreciation of their $100,000 portfolio by May 31, 2012 will win a prize.  One student has taken a substantial lead, and the rest of us are struggling to catch/keep up.

image

I believe this activity has potential to demonstrate H1 and H5, if I can show that new learning has occurred.  I also feel as though this activity could demonstrate O1 and O2, if I do some work to connect this game to curriculum standards and content areas.  Other staff at school have said this type of learning activity does go in bursts at the school, the trick is keeping sustained effort.

The End of the Year is Coming

Like all schools, we are coming close to the end of the year, there are some standardized tests yet, both mandatory (MSP, EOC) and non-mandatory (SAT).  Since all students at our school are on individualized learning plans, there are also end-of-year exhibitions which are the culmination of the year.  Some students will have a lot to show, some will not.  For some this lack of effort or results will mean that they don’t move up to the next grade, and that lack-of-progress message, may be something new to them.  For some that have natural ability who have not applied themselves or have coasted through school, they were being carried along on the steady tide of our age-graded system, and regular clockwork of yearly promotion.  At our school, what you learned is about your interests (no boredom escape clause) and how far you took that is related to your own goals/motivation/drive (it’s all on the student).  There may be some students that are unaware of these consequences.  There may be some students that are incapable of dealing effectively with these consequences.

As staff, entrusted with these students for a few short hours each day by the state and by the parents/guardians, we feel acutely the shortness of the time.  These next few days are crucial, and will in some cases will result in messages that are painful, but they need to be honest, straightforward, and compassionate.

For me, I ask myself if I have exerted my influence as adult and parent in a significant way for my students this year.  Have I taken chances and risks, which could have caused me to look foolish, but for the sake of the kids, might have meant a real breakthrough?

There may be summer work ahead for some students, to help catch up.  But I worry there too, that for some, our chance at a more significant, life-changing summer activity is also slipping through our fingers.  Students should have summer learning plans that provide some continuation of learning during those months.

But, the end of the year is coming, and to confess, I have *never* liked that.

%d bloggers like this: