Tag: nwp

@EdPressSec I would love to talk to you

Dear @EdPressSec,
I’ve left numerous messages via voicemail to see if anyone has had a chance to look up the information I requested regarding the Proposed FY2011 budget and funding of the National Writing Project.
The last I heard, someone would be getting back to me by the end of the day. That was Friday, March 11.
I don’t mean to be difficult, truly.
I have three starting questions:
As I said in my last two messages, I’m heading to D.C. this afternoon. The nice folks at the NWP have invited me to join them for their Spring Meeting. I’m happy to attend and hear how they are dealing with the potential elimination of direct funding of a national organization that has shown a positive impact on the teaching and learning of writing in America’s schools.
Thursday, I’ll be sitting down in the offices of Senators Specter and Casey to discuss the NWP.
Aside from those meetings, my schedule is free. If you have a few minutes, I’d thoroughly enjoy the chance to sit down and discuss my questions. I’ll even bring the coffee.
Again, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
@MrChase

Waiting to understand

The Gist:

  • A little over a week ago, I started trying to contact @EdPressSec on twitter to ask some questions about the elimination of direct federal funding for the National Writing Project.
  • When I didn’t get any answers, I moved from twitter to phone.
  • Though I’ve had a few promises that I’d be gotten back to (often by the end of the day), I’m still waiting.

The Whole Story:

This all stems from a few simple questions:

I’m attempting to understand, to gather more information from a variety of sources in order to be better informed.
Friday, I received a three calls from the DOE’s press office. Each person told me they would pass my request on to the appropriate person. Thus far, I’ve not heard back.
I understand the frenetic and demanding nature of the job of working within the press office. It’s why I wasn’t surprised when my initial calls took a few days to return.
But, this is a conversation worth having and one that deserves transparency.
I fully support the use of tools like twitter to offer a more fluid connection between citizens and their government. At this point, though, I’m getting the feeling the tools are being used to push out prepared statements, but not really communicate.
I’m feeling rather frustrated.

One of the moments we talk about

The Gist:

  • The federal budget has eliminated direct funding for the National Writing Project.
  • Without the funding, it’s unlikely this national model of a successful networked collective of professional development can survive.
  • This is one of those moments when the network we talk about so frequently can make the difference we’re always claiming it can make.

The Whole Story:

If you haven’t written your congresspeople to support the National Writing Project, you need to.

My last post focused on the letter I’ve used to contact my congressmen. Thanks to Karl and Ben for reposting. Also, if you haven’t read Bud’s letter, you should.

I need to make clear, that, aside from being able to speak at NWP’s Digital is… conference in the fall, I’m not directly associated with the Project.

I simply realize it to be a good idea. A really good idea with a proven record, a tendency toward self-evaluation and networking hundreds of thousands of teachers together with a simple purpose.

It’s one of those few black and white moments in policy. The NWP works. It works better than any other national education program that comes to mind.

So, here’s the thing, this is one of those moments we talk about when we talk about the power of network, when we stand and tell rooms full of teachers about how being connected means our students have greater voice and greater power as citizens. It strikes me this is one of those moments we’re talking about.

Only, it’s not our students, it’s us. Yes, it’s about our students, as they are the ones the NWP is impacting. But the voices that should be raised first and loudest in this moment are the voices of teachers.

My voice right now is one of questions. Specifically, I’m with Bud in asking to see the reasoning behind cutting the funding and how that reasoning stands up to the substantial evidence that the NWP is doing exactly what it is meant to do and what no singular state-based program could accomplish. I hope to receive response soon.

Honestly, though, the likelihood of response is increased with each additional voice.

Speak up.

Ask your representative to sign Rep. George Miller’s Dear Colleague letter. Call your local NWP affiliate to see what you can do to help. Most importantly, make this a conversation where you live, in your virtual and real spaces.

Again, this isn’t national standards or RTTT or any of the myriad issues with equally numerous and complex perspectives.

NWP works.

Tell people.

Make sure one of them is your Representative.

Open letter on behalf of the NWP

The Gist:

  • The current draft of the federal budget cuts direct funding for the National Writing Project.
  • The NWP has been one of the few extremely successful examples of a nationally-networked effort to improve K-12 writing for 36 years.
  • We must communicate with Congress to change the budget.

The Whole Story:

Dear Rep. Fattah, Sen. Casey and Sen. Specter:

I write to you on behalf of the National Writing Project. More precisely, I write to you on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of students and teachers the program has transformed over its 36 years.

Under the budget proposed by President Obama, national funding for the NWP would be cut. In a Feb. 1 press release from the U.S. Department of Education, the NWP was lumped in with 5 other projects losing funding because the DOE claims they “duplicate local or state programs or have not had a significant measurable impact.”

As the NWP is unique as a networked writing instruction program with 200+ local sites serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, I am left to believe Sec. Duncan is claiming the NWP falls under the category of not having a “significant measurable impact.”

This too is untrue.

A 1987 longitudinal study on the effects of the NWP by Kathy Krendl and Julie Dodd found participating third through twelfth graders showed an increase “in interest in learning about writing, in their level of confidence, and in their association of self-esteen with good writing.

Not only that, the study also found a decrease “in students’ feelings of discomfort about completing writing assignments and in their feelings that they do not write well and that writing is difficult.”

In a 2007 study of the NWP’s Local Site Research Initiative, across nine localities students showed significant or non-significant favorable results in all seven categories.

This should not have been surprising considering the DOE’s own data listed the NWP as exceeding its performance targets in 2001. Indeed participants’ ratings across all categories ranged from 95-88 percent reporting positive impact at their follow-up assessment of the program. This went well above the program’s target of 75 percent in each category.

Were this simply an impassioned plea, I would have hesitated to write. The data speaks for itself, the National Writing Project has offered a significant return on investment in its 36 year history. Federal funding for the NWP must be maintained if we are to continue striving to meet the Project’s goal of “a future where every person is an accomplished writer, engaged learner, and active participant in a digital, interconnected world.”

I thank your for your time and attention to this matter. Please, let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Zachary Chase

English Teacher

Science Leadership Academy

Philadelphia, PA

(Note: See also Bud Hunt’s post on this topic.)

DAY: Commenting on Student Writing

Article HL

Patrick Higgins tweeted this article from the National Writing Project on commenting on student writing.

This section stuck to my ribs:

When I was younger and more naïve, that would be the juncture where I would say, “Comments?” and look at a circle of staring faces. No hands would shoot skyward; instead, everyone would carry the look of a prisoner about to be shot.

As my students embark on the 09-10 Change the World project and begin researching and blogging about the causes of the issues they’ve chosen, I needed something that would help avoid the online manifestation of comment impotence.

Mostly, I appreciate the article for its ease of access. Surely, there’s someone out there who’s written or tempted to write a tome on the online writers’ workshop. Slusher’s piece gives me the three pages I would need from such a book and lets me work out the rest. Nice teaching.

We’re reading excerpts of the article tomorrow.

Really? We’re Still on This?

The Gist:

  • It’s not about the tools.
  • We have to stop talking as though it’s about the tools.
  • We need to start talking about what we want to do.

The Whole Story:

I dig the NCTE Inbox. It has lead to some pretty heated debates and it’s one of the most relevant voices I know from a professional organization. That said, yesterday’s post about the need for transformative rather than addative teaching missed the mark for me on one key point:

That’s the question we need to ask in the classroom: How can we use social networking tools, or Web 2.0, to bring out new voices and ideas, rather than repeat the same old power struggles and pedagogy? What steps can we take to bring the social media revolution to the classroom (and not simply digitize the sage-on-stage tradition)?

Bud and Bill and I were talking about this at the NWP Digital Is… Conference. Bud summed it up nicely, “Instead of digital storytelling, let’s just call it storytelling.”

Try the paragraph this way:

That’s the question we need to ask in the classroom: How can we bring out new voices and ideas, rather than repeat the same old power struggles and pedagogy? What steps can we take to bring the revolution to the classroom?

One of those is something I’d like to be a part of.

I’m going back to school

The Gist:

  • I got a scholarship to get my master’s degree.
  • It has me thinking about the kind of entitled, empowered learner I’ve become.
  • I wonder if the kind of learner I’ve become will mesh with this online program.

The Whole Deal:

I had something extra to be thankful for this year – I hope.

Tuesday, I received an e-mail from the Liberty Mutual Teachers Program. Through their Learn Return program, I’ve received a scholarship to pursue my master’s degree.

I’m psyched.

I’ve made a few starts at going to grad school. The furthest I’ve come was a program through Walden University just before I moved up to Philly. Turned out moving expenses and tuition expenses aren’t always compatible.

I resigned myself to the idea that I would be getting my master’s as soon as someone offered to pay for it. Who knew that would actually happen.

The folks at Learn Return have told me I’d be getting info. in the next couple of weeks about how to redeem my “scholarship through Pearson Education and its master’s degree partner.”

In a few weeks, the experiment begins.

Last week, while presenting with SLA colleagues and students at Digital is… the National Writing Project’s first annual conference, a participant from a college that will not be named commented, “I worry that we’re not ready for your students.”

I told her they should be worried.

I am a little bit too. SLA students are empowered and entitled. It’s a direct result of Chris empowering and entitling his teachers.

Thusly, I’m an entitled and empowered teacher / learner. I wonder if Pearson Education and its master’s degree partner are ready for me.

It will be a grand experiment.