"Gee I want to learn Spanish so I can take math tests in another language, " said no kid ever.

Yet that's precisely the policy of NYSED, whose official rationale for stand alone ESL classes is, and I'm not kidding.  “Students receive English language development instruction in order to acquire the English language needed for core content areas."

As teachers, it’s our job to somehow persuade students to love our subjects. My job is to teach English to speakers of other languages. It’s pretty easy to make kids love English. I don’t even have to trick them. They can take what I teach them and use it not only that very day, but also for the rest of their lives.

If you’re the child of immigrants, your parents might depend on you for more than just taking out the garbage and doing homework. Since you’ll learn English faster than your parents, you might become a part-time translator. Dental appointment? ER visit?  Let the kid help. Trip to the supermarket? Bring the kid in case you have questions. Over the last thirty years I’ve heard countless examples.

Not only that, but you might have personal needs. The very best language learners are social. That’s intrinsic motivation. When the teacher shows you how to introduce yourself, you hang on every word. After all, you want to make friends. When the crazy teacher sits you at a table with three people who don’t speak your first language, it may be the only time in your young life when you’re forced to use English.

One of my students wrote a very funny story about his struggle to order a hamburger in a restaurant. He described the gesticulation and pointing, the misunderstandings that occurred, and the eventual communication between he and the server. After taking my class, he was able not only to order hamburgers easily, but also to write about his struggles to learn how. (That may sound like a minor achievement, but if you’re with teenagers all day you know perpetual hunger is a an ongoing issue.)

I could certainly re-orient my classes to conform to NYSED’s concept. What would happen if I revolved my classes around geometry or earth science? Do you think my students would respond better with test-prep over communication and survival skills? I don’t.

Not only that, but everything I’ve read about language acquisition suggests NYSED is horribly wrong. Language is different from other subjects in that how well you grasp it may not be as linked to intelligence as it is to affect. For example, my student, I’ll call her Maria, loves being here. At first, she was angry when I placed her at a table with no one who spoke her language. Within weeks, however, she was chatting with the boy next to her. He and Maria shared sharp senses of humor. They unwittingly helped one another to learn English all year long. That’s what I call a win-win.

On the other hand, my student John didn’t love the US and was dragged here kicking and screaming. He never spoke to anyone. He didn’t care who he sat with, and his sole interest was figuring out how to use his phone in class without having me confiscate it. I can smell illicit phone use, John didn’t like that, and eventually he stopped coming altogether.

Do you think English lessons revolving around geometry would have won him over? I don’t. Had I done what NYSED wanted, I’d have lost not only John, but also Maria and her friend.

Newcomers need a place they feel understood. They need a place they feel safe. I can give them that, and I can ease them into using our language. I can show them the joy of communicating in a new language. Were I to do what NYSED wanted, all of my students would not only fail my class, but also lose their very best path to understanding the others.

NYSED’s notion that English is not in itself a subject is nothing short of idiotic. I’m a teacher, and idiotic is not remotely what I want to model for my students.

I hear a lot of talk about that, particularly from people who are trying to rationalize Part 154. In case I haven't explained it 500 times, CR Part 154 says that we no longer need to teach English to English Language Learners. So we take away 33-100% of their direct English instruction, and they just pick it up in the other classes, the ones they were taking anyway.

You see, they will train the subject teacher in the techniques and strategies for dealing with ELLs. Either that, or at least two days a week a certified ESL teacher will appear, and use the techniques and strategies. So if it takes a native English speaker 45 minutes to study Chapter Four of To Kill a Mockingbird, we can teach ELLs that same chapter in those same 45 minutes. We will do that by incorporating techniques and strategies.

Will it waste the time of the native English speakers if we use those techniques and strategies? After all, we hadn't used them before. Will they lose valuable Chapter Four time? The answer is no, they absolutely will not. I've been teaching ESL for about thirty years, and I'm going to let you in on the top techniques and strategies for teaching ELLs before you finish this blog.

You don't need to go to school and take the credits. I mean, it would be great if you'd learn about language acquisition. Clearly neither MaryEllen Elia nor any of the Regents have bothered to study that. If they had, they'd know that older learners pick up language more slowly than younger learners, and they'd know that a one-size-fits-all approach they use is baseless and without merit. In fact, they'd know that their revision of Part 154 actively precludes the most effective techniques and strategies for teaching ELLs.

What are they, you ask? Thank you for that question. They are:

1. Be kind, and
2. Give them time.

People from other countries can feel pretty lost here. We have customs with which they're unfamiliar, and we speak this funny language they don't understand. Our food is different from theirs. Our homes look different from theirs. A lot of my students have left family behind, grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, sometimes brothers, sisters, even parents. They're in shock. Lots of us lack patience.

They need a safe place. They need to feel more comfortable. Language learning is a lot about affect. A person who's angry about being here will not learn quickly, and perhaps will refuse to learn at all. It's on you, potential teacher of ELLs, to make that student feel welcomed. A good way to do that is to smile and be patient. One way to build on that is by offering them comprehensible input. Distinguished researcher Stephan Krashen says it's key to offer materials at or slightly above the learner's level. It's pretty gratifying for students to learn they can understand English at some level.

I'd think it was common sense that it takes time to learn a language. I'm horrified when I read this and that about ELLs not graduating in four years, and what's wrong with them and their teachers. You go to China, today, and graduate from their high school in four years. Students learn, and they learn at their own rate. Some learn much faster than others. That too is about affect. Students who love it here learn rapidly. There's no stopping them.

The thing is the geniuses in Albany took time away from them. They took their English classes away and replaced them with, well, nothing. Is there anyone who believes that an ESL teacher who sits in the room twice a week is going to pull the ELLs right up to the level of native English speakers in the same time it takes said native English speakers to do whatever the class is doing? Is there anyone who thinks giving a subject teacher the magical 12 credits in ESL will allow her to make up for a student who doesn't speak English?

There are a lot of classroom tricks I use. There are a lot of little things I say and do. But they won't make one bit of difference if I'm not kind to these kids. They would never listen to me. And if I don't have time to reach them, I will not reach them.

Finally, if you think that English teacher doing Chapter Four of To Kill a Mockingbird is gonna make ELLs understand it in the same time native English speakers do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it.

Not newcomers to the United States, evidently. Here are a couple of ads for teachers in NYC:

Benjamin Franklin High School for Finance Information Technology is seeking teachers in the following license areas:

- ESL (dual certified with any other subject)

- Special Education (to co-teach in a Social Studies class)

Please send resumes to Dr. Carla Theodorou,  ctheodorou@schools.nyc.gov

Midwood High School is seeking teachers in the following license areas:

- ESL (dual certified with any other subject)

- Special Education (

dual certified with any other subject)

Please send resumes to Michael MDonnell at mmcdonn2@schools.nyc.gov

ESL teachers need not apply unless they have some other niche they can fill. This is the inevitable result of the latest iteration of CR Part 154. NY State has determined that direct English instruction only exists to prepare students for core subjects. Evidently, it's not their problem if newcomers can't communicate.

The Regents in NY State have so decreed, and that's the way it goes. It used to be important that we gave English language learners (ELLs) a whole lot of help so they could, you know, live. Now, living takes second place to testing. It used to be that ELLs who arrived with no English background would get three full periods of English instruction. Now, they can get as little as one.

Imagine going to China and getting 40 minutes a day to learn Chinese. The rest of the day you'll attend classes with native Chinese speakers. But don't worry. In two of those classes, you'll have a Chinese as a second language teacher to help you out. Or maybe you'll have a dual certified CSL/ science teacher. That should make all the difference, right?

If you're an administrator, especially in a small school, you have limited funds. Why would you bother to hire an ESL teacher simply because your ELLs are in desperate need of one? Instead, you could hire some 12-credit wonder who took a few courses and therefore places you in compliance. You could pretend that, during science class, the ELLs were magically learning English. Never mind that you gave native English speakers exactly the same time to learn. The state says ELLs can learn English and science in that same time, and since you're following the rules, that's good enough for the New York State Regents.

Now here's the thing. Both UFT and NYSUT say that newcomers need more instruction, not less. I've studied language acquisition and of course I agree. But you don't need to study language acquisition to know that it takes more time to learn a new language than to not learn one, do you?

If you went to China tomorrow, wouldn't you want a little extra help and guidance with the language? I know I would. I know, your grandfather came here and got no special treatment, no extra help, and he went on to do this and that. So did mine. My grandfather came over on a boat from Russia when he was 13. He became an electrician, opened a shop, bought a house in Brooklyn and raised a family.

Times are just a little tougher now. That house my grandfather bought will cost you a million dollars today. Pay is not what it once was, and most households now need two breadwinners. It's not impossible, of course, to come here, receive little or no help with English, and make it. Language learning is kind of an individual thing. Extroverts will acquire verbal language, for example, more quickly than introverts.

Language acquisition is also very much about affect. If you're happy here, you'll acquire language more rapidly. If your parents dragged you here kicking and screaming, you'll actively resist learning English. It's my job to help students get what they need no matter how they feel. For those who acquire verbal language quickly, I can help with their writing and reading. For those who resist, I can try to trick them into having fun somehow. Last year I taught a very small class and managed to reach kids who would not have done well in a standard ESL class, let alone an academic class pretending to offer English support.

In school, there is nothing more important for newcomers than learning English. My class provides the building blocks for absolutely everything else my students do. I tell them my class is the most important one they're taking. The things I teach are things they will use every day of their lives, things I use every day of my life, and things.

It's nothing short of a disgrace that the Regents continue to push this unproductive and short-sighted nonsense. They know little or nothing about language acquisition, they care little or nothing about the children I serve, and how they sleep at night is a complete mystery to me.

Things are tough all over, but few things are tougher than being an ESL teacher with a crazy principal in the new world of Part 154. I have a friend, who I'll call Tom, who works in a school with just such a principal. You see, many schools are not as gigantic as mine, and often they hire one ESL teacher for the entire building. This is because there are laws that say they have to have them. The fact that there are new students who need English instruction is neither here nor there.

So my friend got his program for the fall, and he has two classes of one thing, two classes of another, and one class of another. To the principal, that's three preps. However, in the instances he has two classes, he's co-teaching with two different teachers. Tom has filed a grievance. The principal, being a self-serving bureaucrat with no interest in the problems of teachers, let alone students, says Tom is overreacting.

For Tom to be overreacting, each teacher of the same class would need to do the same thing every day. There would be no variation whatsoever, and no possibility of one teacher going slower than the other. No students would ask different questions that required different answers. No teacher would stress one topic more than another. All differentiation of instruction would be done in exactly the same way.

Also, Tom would not need to consult with all five of his co-teachers. That's a good thing because consulting with all five co-teachers is not possible. First of all, there's no time for it. Second of all, even if there were enough time, the likelihood of six schedules permitting such a thing is zero at best.

Will Tom prevail in his grievance? It's tough to say. Principals are required by contract, for example, to give complete programs the day before school ends, including periods and room numbers. One year I grieved when admin failed to do that, and won at Step One. The following year, the principal simply handed every teacher in the building copies of their current programs. When I grieved again, he said that was the best way to predict the following year.

A $1400-a day arbitrator agreed with the principal and said that was fine. Just do no work, no planning, hand out old programs, and screw the teachers who want to, you know, plan because they have children, or lives, or any unusual situation whatsoever. I took it in stride and wrote specific language into our SBO that teachers would get real programs the day before school ended. We did, but that doesn't negate the fact that the arbitrator understood neither the letter nor the spirit of the contract clause.

Let's be clear--it's demanding to work with one co-teacher, it's very difficult to handle two, and it's simply impossible to handle more. Giving Tom five shows callous disregard for not only him, but also for all the children he's supposed to serve. He'll walk into classrooms with no idea of the vocabulary or structures that will challenge the children, and rely on hoping for the best.

This may not have been the intent of the Albany geniuses who wrote Part 154, but it's certainly the widespread result. I wrote to the chancellor, applying for the job of deputy for ELLs earlier this week.  To his credit, he responded with the job of Deputy Chief Academic Officer. Evidently, in his reorganization, there is no Deputy Chancellor for ELLs. The new person reports to the Chief Academic Officer rather than directly to the chancellor. That's too bad, because ELLs are more important than that, to me at least. Here's what I wrote back to the chancellor's secretary:

Thank you for your speedy response. I will not be applying for several reasons.

1. The first requirement is a credential I neither possess nor have any interest in pursuing, and
2.  My primary interest is correcting the situation I described in my letter, not changing my job.

I have been on Telemundo discussing this situation, and I have written about it in Gotham Gazette and El Diario. Please thank the chancellor for referring the letter to you, and please tell him Part 154 is doing great harm to the students I serve. If he ever wishes to discuss it further, I'm always available. 

I'll let you know if I hear back. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm always hopeful. Of course if I do, I'll speak up for Tom and the hundreds of ESL teachers in his situation. I'll speak up for the ELLs who are so poorly served by this terrible program and even worse execution.

Mark Twain wrote "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."

That's just one reason you can't make this stuff up.

Some days there's just nothing you can do. I mean, they are there. You can see them. But where are their minds?

I understand, of course. I can't remember how many days I spent, in high school, surreptitiously staring at the girl next to me and wondering whether she liked me. I wasn't really sure what to do beyond that.

The thing is, though, that my teachers weren't required to elicit participation. I had a bio teacher who had one of those things, an opaque projector I think, and every day he'd project notes on the board. He would stand there in his white lab coat, stroke his beard, and ask, "Is everyone finished copying?" When he determined we were done, he'd place a new page up and begin again. (If I had the notes, I could've taught that class, knowing nothing about the subject.)

I was sitting next to Donna Coe. She was gorgeous. She had long brown hair and seemed to dislike the class as much as I did. But she paid better attention than I did and passed all the tests. I did not. I remember the last two weeks of school I walked around with a red Barrron's review book, learning all I would ever know about biology. I retained it long enough to get a 68 on the Regents. At that time, in that high school, if you passed the Regents, you passed for the year. Donna Coe found a boyfriend who went to college and shattered all my dreams. But at least (and I don't generally go around boasting about this)  I graduated high school. Otherwise I'd probably have to teach in a charter school.

When you teach language, it isn't enough to place notes on the board and have students copy. In fact, I'd argue it's never enough to have students copy. As I heard a college student once say to another who questioned the value of an in-class assignment, "It's a class. You have to do something." I subscribe to that philosophy.

As a teacher of English as a second language, I do get students who are reluctant to learn. There are a lot of reasons that could happen. One is being dragged here against your will. It's nothing short of traumatic to leave your friends and extended family behind. It's pretty hard to be in a place with a strange language you don't understand. One way to deal could be to cling to people who speak your first language, make no friends who don't, and hope your parents will come to their senses and move back, like now.

Another issue is that, in some places, going to school is optional, or at least somehow difficult. Thus we have some Students with Interrupted Formal Education, or SIFE students. Sometimes the school system has labeled them thus, and sometimes not. I notice that more of them are boys than girls, and wonder whether their parents put them to work rather than sent them to school. I had one student whose father told me that, in his country, if you didn't sign the kid up by a certain date, he couldn't go to school. I understood that, but I thought if it happened to me it would happen once. It happened to this parent at least five times in a row.

Usually I will have one or two such students in a classroom. This year I have a class with a more significant number. If I aim toward them, I will lose half the class. Of course if I don't, the other half will almost certainly fail. So it's kind of a tough spot. I was thinking about splitting the class and offering two distinct curriculums, with different tests for students in each group. I've never done that before and I don't know whether it will work. Yesterday a few of them surprised me and did better on a test, so I think I'll hold off on that for a while.

In any case, for me, the Sitting Dead is never a good option. Doubtless Charlotte Danielson would have them dancing in the aisles, even the kids who haven't been educated in their first languages. Alas I, a mere mortal, cannot pull that off every day.

There's an NPR piece about how Spanish speakers take longer to learn English than their Chinese counterparts. It's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I've been working as a New York City teacher for over thirty years, and I've read more memos from more administrators than I can count, so that's saying something.

For one thing, it's based completely on test scores. To believe this, you'd have to assume that the scores are valid. That's a big ask. Here in NY, we have a test called the NYSESLAT. I was teaching an advanced class, determined by test scores, and the first thing I did was give a diagnostic essay. I did not make the students read a non-fiction passage about different types of cement and have them respond via multiple choice answers. I gave them something much simpler. I told them to write about what they did during summer break, or indeed anything else they wanted to write about.

Half of my students failed to use past tense even once. This is a distinct drawback when recounting a story. Yet somehow the very expensive NYSESLAT did not detect it. A whole lot of them neglected subject-verb agreement, a common thing among ELLs. After all, why bother with that little s marker when you only need it with third person? These things are pretty noticeable in writing, though, and if you did these things in a college entrance essay, I could easily imagine your getting bounced to remedial classes.

Several of my students could not produce more than two sentences. Yet they were on the cusp of proficiency, according to these tests, presumably created by experts. My improvised diagnostic says they were wrong. I also spoke with the students, and was not persuaded they'd hit any level resembling advanced. Of course, NY State doesn't say advanced. They say, "transitioning," or "expanding," for reasons that elude me utterly. But when you place these "transitioning" students in advanced classes, they're likely to lose opportunities to practice the basic English conventions they'll need to write successfully in college.

It's too bad, because we ESL teachers could certainly teach that stuff if students were placed properly, and if CR Part 154 hadn't reduced us to assistant teachers. Hey, it's not my fault if those kids are reading To Kill a Mockingbird and I'm just standing around helping with the impossible vocabulary.

Now the study does mention poverty, and that's certainly a factor in academic achievement or lack thereof. But to attribute lack of academic achievement to a particular language is nothing but bigotry and ignorance. If I've learned one thing from decades of teaching ESL, it's that no stereotype is valid. I've seen members of every group excel, and I've seen members of every group fail. I've seen ambition and laziness, excellence and failure in every group I've served.

It's offensive and idiotic to equate achievement with language. It not only assumes validity in tests that are likely total crap, but also falsely attributes its scores, low, high, or whatever, to language spoken. This is the kind of crap I expect to see on Fox and Friends. It's sorely disappointing to find it on NPR.

When the geniuses in Albany put their heads together they can really come up with some inventive notions. Of course one of my faves is the new form of Part 154. This one suggests that newcomers can learn English simply by sitting in a subject class taught by anyone who's taken the magical 12 ESL credits. Once the chemistry teacher has those credits, she can teach not only chemistry, but also English. And she can do it in the same time it takes one of her non-magical colleagues to teach chemistry to American-born students.

I met a Spanish teacher who was also certified in ESL. Her supervisor asked her if she would mind, since she had the dual certification, if they recorded her Spanish students as being served in ESL. How cool is that? You're in a class, studying Spanish, and officially learning English too. After all, a whole lot of Spanish words look just like English words. Can anyone say desperation? Just change some letters, add an accent mark, and you're there.

You know what's odd? In that school, Spanish language is a subject, but English language isn't. I mean, why do you even need a Spanish class? Why not just have the social studies teacher get certified in Spanish, and then say the students learned Spanish by being in his class? You see, that's not allowed in New York State. Evidently, the only language that can be learned by means of magic is English. 

So here's the thing--imagine I'm a principal. I get a science teacher, a math teacher, a social studies teacher, and an English teacher to get the magical twelve credits. Then I just place every newcomer in one of their classes. Voila! They are served. That's good enough for New York State. All I have to do is get them one period of English while they're beginners. And guess what? Students who can't write more than two sentences in English can test advanced in the NYSESLAT.

So let's say I have a thousand ELLs in my school. If each of them passes through one magic teacher a day, I probably don't need any ESL teachers at all. Well, maybe one. But since they're magically learning English in their math classes, who cares what actually happens?

With so-called Fair Student Funding, principals have to make a lot of decisions about who they hire, and who they don't. Why bother hiring anyone to teach newcomers English when the geniuses in Albany have declared that will happen via magic? After all, don't they receive salaries higher than lowly teachers? Don't they have comfortable air-conditioned offices from which they issue their fiats? Don't they have impressive titles? What more are you gonna want?

I have been siting on the UFT Executive Board now for a year. I've heard tales of incredible behavior by principals. I don't doubt there are some so cynical they'll do whatever just to save a few bucks. Look at the one I wrote about before who wanted the kids to get English credit for attending a Spanish class. I sincerely doubt that's the worst of it.

It's 2017. We know how to help newcomers. It's really important that we fix Part 154. The notion that we ought not to give direct instruction in English is simply one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. We can do better, and it's hard to imagine any way we could do worse.

Yesterday I taught an advanced ESL class for the first time in a few years. Because words liked "advanced" are too easily understood, the outstanding thinkers in Albany now call them "transitioning." Naturally, I'm quite impressed. I had the students write a diagnostic essay. These are students who, according to the geniuses in Albany, ought to be performing around the same level as native English speakers.

I read all of the essays. Two of them were only two sentences, basically explaining to me that they either couldn't or didn't write. Fully half of them did not use past tense at all, and definitely should have. A few of them were pretty good. None were near native and all need remediation to get there.

In our school, we pair ESL with English. I'm certified in both, so I don't need a co-teacher. My inclination for these kids before I met them was to cover a few novels. However, having read their work, I'm thinking more about short stories and intermediate ESL instruction. That is, except for those who couldn't produce more than two sentences. They are beginners, despite what the very expensive corporate-produced NYSESLAT exam says.

And by the way, the NYSESLAT test is not only total crap; it's also the test by which ESL teachers are rated. To my way of thinking, it's a crap shoot. While it's true that near-beginners are testing advanced this year, it doesn't mean that will happen next year. So even though a few of my beginners from last year ended up in this class, I'm not patting myself on the back just yet.

Here's another interesting thing about my two advanced classes--because of Part 154, the students cannot be more than one grade apart. Therefore my period one class has three students, and my period two class has 34. I wasn't aware of that at first, and I was going to ask that some of the period 2 kids be moved to period one. That way I could have two reasonably sized classes and give decent attention to all students.

There's another factor here. Any English teacher could take the twelve magical ESL credits and teach this class, the same as me. I am not persuaded that these English teachers would see what I do. I am not persuaded they will have the resources I do. They most certainly won't have the experience I do. Most of them have never taught ESL. Sadly, direct instruction in ESL is precisely what these students need.

We've heard plenty about differentiating education. Some crazy supervisors have even requested multiple lesson plans within the same class. But the big move in Part 154 is away from differentiation where it is most needed. The idea is, let's forget, to the largest extent possible, that newcomers have different language needs than native speakers. Let's just give them the same stuff we give to the American kids and hope for the best.

Make no mistake, this is moving backwards. It's close to the same level of ignorance we showed when we gave IQ tests in English to newcomers and labeled them stupid, or worse. The newcomers weren't stupid, and they aren't stupid now. The only stupid around here is coming from Albany, and also us if we believe in their policies.

It's time to take a giant step away from the overpriced nonsense that passes for testing in NY State. And it's time to rewrite, reform, and remake Part 154 from the ground up.

I hear a lot about how students don't need English instruction."My grandfather came here and he didn't need no stinking ESL. He built a company and made a million dollars. He had 14 children and loved my grandmother until her dying day. She stayed home and cooked and cleaned for Grandpa and the 14 children. Too bad their meth lab blew up."

Okay, they don't say that last bit. But here's the thing--back when Grandpa had his 14 children, things were different. There are reasons why so few people have 14 children nowadays, and they have little to do with how easy things are. Back when Grandpa was having those 14 kids, there was no Walmart. People didn't work 20 hours a week there on some ever-shifting schedule so Walmart didn't need to offer them crappy benefits. People didn't work 20 hours somewhere else in some equally crappy second or third job to make ends meet.

Let's drop poor Grandpa for just a moment. When I was a kid, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, things were different. My friend's father lived across the street and worked at a nearby Taystee Bread factory. We used to love to go to his house for Halloween because they always had cupcakes from Hostess, or Drake's, or whatever company worked with Taystee Bread. He had five kids and a wife who did not work.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that was probably a union job. Nowadays it wouldn't be. For all I know, they make that bread in China these days. But here's what I know for sure--a typical factory worker these days cannot afford to support a wife and five kids on his salary alone. I'd have to suppose that if this guy were around now, he'd probably opt not to have five kids. I'd also have to speculate that he would not own a house. He'd probably have to live in a tree, and not in a good neighborhood either.

I don't see how anyone really makes it without a college education nowadays. Of course there are exceptions. You know, there's Bill Gates, but not everyone is Bill Gates. Some people argue over how responsible Gates was for Windows but I'll say this--If Bill Gates' ideas about computers resembled his ideas about education, he wouldn't be Bill Gates either. He'd likely be hanging out with the factory worker in that tree in the bad neighborhood.

And listen, it's true you can start your own business. Lots of immigrants started businesses around food, because the language demands of a food business are always a little lower. But back then McDonald's hadn't spread like cancer, and there weren't chain restaurants littering every Main Street of every town. Every dollar an American spends in one of those places is a dollar they don't spend for a local business.

I'd argue that the better someone is in English, the better chance that person has to make it. I'd argue that if we can help students acquire English more efficiently and more completely we'd be doing them a great service. I'd also argue that just about anyone wanting a future ought to get a college education, and that English instruction would help an awful lot with that.

And hey, if you think I'm wrong, you're free to hop on a plane to China, not study Chinese, start a new life, and hope for the best.

 I don't know how many times I've heard complaints about PD. For most of my career, at least, PD has consisted of some supervisor or other lecturing us, precisely what they tell us not to do when we teach. The kids shouldn't be late, because lateness is bad. If they're late, fail them and tell them you failed them because they were late. Now let's move on to the next topic of business--how can we pass absolutely everyone no matter what?

Another one of my favorite PD topics is The New Thing. This is the Thing. It is the only Thing. You must do this Thing and no other Thing. Yes I know we told you to do some different Thing last year, and at the time it was the only Thing, but forget about that Thing because it's garbage. This Thing is the Thing, and it's the only way to teach, so promise me you will do this Thing forever. Until next year when there is some new Thing.

This notwithstanding, I'm going on day five of being trained by AFT to give PD. You probably think I'm crazy (and I'm not maintaining otherwise). But a new state Thing is that teachers have to have CTLE hours in order to keep their licenses. After this training I will be able to offer people CTLE hours courtesy of the UF of T.  I actually signed up so I'd be able to offer hours to members in my school, but it appears they may be sending us to other schools as well. There are around 40 of us taking this course, so hopefully one of us will show up at a school near you.

I'm a breathing antiquity, walking around with three permanent certifications, so I don't personally need the hours. If you have a newer license, however, you will need to rack up 100 CTLE hours within the next four years. If you teach ESL, you need 50 ESL-related hours. If you don't, you still need 15 ESL-related hours, and those are the hours we will offer. This is the brainchild of UFT VP Evelyn de Jesus, and here in Right to Work Trumpmerica, it's a good idea. While I may have an issue or two with leadership here and there, actively helping people keep their licenses may underline the value of union. Every little bit helps.

I hate to admit it, but this PD is a little better than what I'm used to. I'm actually very focused on ESL (which someone decided is now ENL), what with it being my job and all. A whole lot of our students are with a whole lot of teachers who may or may not know who they are or what they need. I'm happy to help clear that up, I'm happy to help teachers get credit, and I'm happy to maybe get ELLs better services one way or another.

One thing I notice, continually, as we examine research about English Language Learners, is NY State's Part 154 goes completely contrary to everything we know. Research, as well as common sense, suggests that giving direct English instruction is better than not giving it. It suggests we should continue it until they attain advanced English language ability, rather than offering it year one and then saying, "The hell with it." It also suggests that when schools make English learning a priority, rather than treating it as a mandated nuisance, programs will be more effective.

The most fundamental thing I know about acquiring a language is that it takes time. Part 154 not only takes time away from English instruction, but also has the expectation that newcomers will magically acquire English while studying other subjects. So in the same time an American-born student studies the Magna Carta, the ELL is supposed to absorb not only that, but also basic English.

So I hope the all-knowing, all-seeing NY State Regents are reading this. Dumping kids into classes for which they are unprepared is counter-productive. It's not just that we're setting them up for failure--it's also that we're setting them up to hate our country and language as well. Unbeknownst to the geniuses in Albany, affect is a huge factor in how well humans learn language. We can either set them up to grasp it enthusiastically, or dump them in places they don't belong. NY State seems to favor the latter.

My job, as I see it, is to seduce children into loving English. No, really, I want them to look forward to my class as a place they can use our language and have fun with it. I don't always succeed, but that's always my goal. I'm fortunate enough to be certified in English as well as ESL, so I don't need to negotiate my lesson plan with a subject teacher who may be more focused on American-born students. The notion that learning English is somehow secondary to the goal of studying ELA, social studies, or indeed any academic subject, is preposterous beyond belief. 

We can do a whole lot better in NY State. I don't sit through 7-day PD 8 hours a day strictly for laughs. Maybe we can send this workshop to Albany and get the Regents to start doing things that are, you know, not insane.

A few days ago I attended a meeting at UFT central regarding Part 154. This is the relatively newly revised regulation for ESL students that governs their learning conditions. Honestly, other than a little extra instruction for kids who test out of ESL, I see nothing good about it at all. I'm going to share here what I told a committee looking at it, and what most ESL teachers I know would like to see addressed.

Part 154 demands that we teach ELLs academic subjects plus English in the same time it takes native English speakers to master academic subjects alone. This is absurd beyond belief. If someone is teaching about the Battle of Gettysburg, and it takes 40 minutes to address it, how on earth are newcomers supposed to learn not only that, but also the vocabulary and nuances required by a new language?

It also reduces and diminishes direct English instruction, vital to the kids I serve. After puberty, language acquisition ability declines precipitously. My kids, like all high school ELLs in the state, are losing 33-100% of direct English instruction. The notion that this lost time will be blended in with magical academic classes is misguided, and that's being generous.

Part 154 makes changes that may be well-intentioned, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Intentions notwithstanding, it place learners in classrooms studying inappropriate materials. Newcomers could easily be expected to read To Kill a Mockingbird, or Hamlet, for example, and this could easily be in lieu of learning how to introduce themselves. Nonsensical situations like these will certainly discourage students. These learners could easily become altogether alienated with both our language and culture.

Were it up to me, I'd place newcomers, particularly older ones, in an intense English immersion program. Ambitious though it is to hand them three-inch thick biology textbooks, such practices deprive children of the instruction they need to more quickly manage not only their everyday lives, but also to aid in those of their parents and other family members. ELLs sometimes miss school because they have to accompany their parents or grandparents to the doctor, or to immigration, or just about anywhere else, to act as translators.

Widely accepted theories of language acquisition and encouraging reading suggest our practices are misguided, and becoming even moreso. The use of high interest materials, at or just a little above student levels, is the sort of thing that might seduce kids into loving reading, or even English. You can frown on comic books, but if kids love them they can learn from them.

The notion of combining our subject with others degrades our discipline, suggesting the English language is somehow secondary to academic subjects. Actually it’s more fundamental, more important, and indispensable to anyone who wishes to master any academic subject. You don't run before you can walk, but the NY State Board of Regents seems not to know this.

Part 154 reduces devoted ESL teachers to secondary figures in classrooms. In many cases it makes them redundant. As principals seek out dual-licensed teachers to save money, dedicated ESL teachers will be out of work. Much as I deplore that situation, it's actually far from the worst part of it. It’s ridiculous and offensive to imagine that someone who takes the magical 12 credits to become dually-certified could do even what we do, let alone teach the Magna Carta and basic English at the same time.

There's an absurd rule that says students in ESL classes may not be more than one grade apart. This makes scheduling impossible even in an extremely large school like mine. If we were to follow the regs that say students may not be more than one grade apart, I’d have one class of 3 and one of 65. Schools with smaller populations have even more difficulty.

In fact, in small schools with one ESL teacher, said teacher is expected to do and teach everything. Go help everyone teach everything. No more frittering your time away teaching these kids English. Go to the science class, the math class, the social studies class, and the English class, and make sure every kid who doesn't understand English gets an A on every test. Also, make sure they get excellent scores on 4-8 math and English. And make sure they get 90 or higher on all the Regents exams.

This is discouraging, to say the least, to potential ESL teachers. A great young teacher in my building, one who first joined my classes as a student observer, is contemplating a career change. I see a lot of discussion as to whether or not young people to be teachers. I love being a teacher, and I particularly love being an ESL teacher. I have often told student teachers it's the very best thing to teach.

But if our role is to stand around with teachers of tested academic subjects and explain what they're trying to do to people who don't understand English, I can't recommend it. It takes a lot to discourage someone like me, but Part 154 does a pretty good job.

NY City's brilliant and infallible Engage system has mandated that I be rated on a test the overwhelming majority of my students will not be taking. As far as I can determine, this is a side effect of the rather awful regulation called CR Part 154. You see, I'm an ESL teacher, but teaching ESL isn't real teaching. That's because under Part 154 anything not regarded as "core content" is utterly without value. After all, if it can't be measured with a standardized test, what proof is there that it even exists?

And yet, in fact, there is a standardized test to measure ESL progress. Sure it's a stinking piece of garbage, but it exists. This test is called the NYSESLAT. It used to test language acquisition, albeit poorly, but it's been redesigned to measure just how Common Corey our students are. For the last few years I've lost weeks of instruction so I could sit in the auditorium and ask newcomers endless questions about Hammurabi's Code. I'm not sure what effect this had on non-English speaking students, but I know more about Hammurabi's code than I ever have.

You may have read me lamenting the fact that I'd be measured on such a poor test once or twice. Last year, in fact, I must have done OK with it since I got an effective rating. I have no idea how exactly I did this. I don't teach to that test nor do I go out of my way to learn what's on it. With the oral part is so outlandish and invalid it doesn't seem worth my while to study the written part. So why the hell aren't I rated on this test?

It's complicated, and I can only guess. But Part 154 largely couples ESL with another subject area. In my school, that area is English. It's kind of a natural pairing, until you realize the high likelihood of ELL newcomers sitting around trying to read To Kill a Mockingbird when they can't yet tell you what their names are. After all, when English teachers take the magical 12 credits that render them dual-licensed, how can we be sure part of that training entails instruction to NOT give ELLs materials they CANNOT READ? Maybe the focus is on making stuff more Common Corey. Who knows?

My case is a little unusual. I majored in English as an undergrad, and started out as an English teacher. I only fell into ESL by accident. I recall some administrator walking up to me and asking, "How would you like to teach ESL?" My response was, "What's ESL?" The administrator said, "Try it." I did and I loved it. I turned down my very first appointment, got a job in the world's worst Irish wedding band, and took my Master's. Every day I'm grateful to have stumbled into this.

Decades later, I find myself one of a growing number of dual-licensed ESL/ English teachers in my department. This was convenient for me and my school. I am a certified English teacher and a real ESL teacher. With all due respect, I didn't just take 12 credits and claim certification. The down side, of course, is I am the official English teacher of my students. (Actually, I used to think that was an up side, but now if I'm gonna be rated by the English Regents I'm not sure.)

As a teacher of beginners, my students are sorted by English level rather than grade. The overwhelming majority of my students are in 9th and 10th grade. But there are six 11th graders too. The geniuses over at Advance have determined that I will be rated on their English Regents scores. Who am I to question the great and powerful minds over at Advance? Don't they have air-conditioned offices and make a whole lot more money than I do?

Of course ELLs take history courses that terminate in Regents exams, and their teachers will be judged by them. They take science and math courses and those teachers are stuck with the state scores too. I suppose they can factor in somehow that these students are ELLs. Maybe that makes the junk science a little fairer. On the other hand, if you teach five classes that's 150 students. While that's likely not a valid sample, it beats the hell out of six.

Like everyone I know, including Diane Ravitch, I have no idea how the hell these scores are calculated. It's some complex algorithm incomprehensible to all living humans I know, and that ought to be good enough for me. This notwithstanding, it's a bit worrying to be judged by a sample score of half a dozen students. It's particularly nerve-racking since I know for a fact that all of my students are beginners or near-beginners. That's why they're in my class.

But hey, when you have a teacher rating system based on junk science, stuff happens. So why shouldn't it happen to me?

Please write full sentence answers to the teacher's questions, unless the teacher asks otherwise.

1. Where does your friend live?

2. What does your teacher do every day?

3. What are you doing right now?

4. What is your friend doing right now?

5. What are you going to do after school?

6. What were you doing at midnight?

7. What did you eat today?

8. What did you bring to school today?

9. How did you come to school today?

10. You don't have to answer this in a full sentence. 

For many years people have had conflicts. Sometimes there are conflicts with our neighbors. Sometimes we have conflicts within our families. We always try and find ways to resolve our conflicts. Sometimes we talk them out. Sometimes we shout at one another. Sometimes we end friendships.

When countries have conflicts, they have various ways of dealing with them. We have diplomats who meet and try to find solutions. Sometimes we make deals or trades. Sometimes, however, countries cannot come to agreements, and then we have wars. There have been many wars through the years, and of course while we try our best to avoid them, they seem to happen. Of course no one wants war.

Here is your question---When was the War of 1812?

Our school is administering the SAT and PSAT on April 5th. With approval, students with IEPs can get time and a half. However, if you DON'T KNOW ENGLISH, too bad for you. You are expected to use a word for word translating glossary and hope for the best.

On a very basic level, this is absurd. If this test is designed to measure college readiness, it doesn't begin to do so. In fact, you have no idea how much knowledge or readiness a given student has when you give them a test in a language they don't understand. Such absurd and misleading use of testing is more or less and American tradition. I've read of speakers of other languages being classified as mentally deficient due to their lack of knowledge of English.

I'm just a little bit put out by this, as ALL of my students are beginners in English. In fact, most of them are taking these tests. What on earth their performance is supposed to prove? I have no idea. It's been a while since I've examined an SAT exam, but I'm pretty sure not knowing English is a fundamental disadvantage. In fact, I deem it cruel when they make newcomers sit for the NYSESLAT, the preposterous piece of nonsense that NY State purports to be a measurement of language acquisition. This is even worse.

I don't know how much College Board is getting for this citywide administration, but whatever it is it's too much. They're raking it in hand over fist for AP classes, and lots of schools let pretty much anyone take them, whether or not they sit for tests. I have an issue with a profit-motivated entity having this much sway over college admission, and maybe Harvard University, which just dropped its SAT requirement, does as well.

I've got some serious issues with stupid, and I can think of no other way to characterize this decision. If we're being reasonable, imagine that you and I are taking a test. You understand the language way better than I do, but I'm permitted to use a translating dictionary. Doesn't it stand to reason that every moment I spend using the dictionary is a moment lost to me? Is that so hard for the geniuses at College Board to comprehend?

I hear they are sticklers about fairness. If the test gives you 45 minutes, you damn well better not take 46 minutes. That would give your group an edge on every other. Given that, how can they allow ELLs to spend valuable test time looking up words? In fact, why the hell not give the test in other languages? Since they've so carefully estimated the precise measurements for how college-ready people are, why can't they find a translator?

Would that give an edge to my students? If it did, there are issues with the test. Actually I can understand how vocabulary might not be precisely translated, but they could make up for that with good translation. If I can read 100 Years of Solitude in English, College Board can translate its tests.

If they don't, they ought to give up any and all pretense of this test being fair. If they think it's fair, they can go to China with a dictionary and take college placement tests over there, with no extra time. I'll bet we'd discover a whole lot of the geniuses over at College Board are not college or career-ready after all.

Photo notwithstanding, this isn't about the Eagles. I'm just sitting here pretty much in shock that anyone from UFT would recruit me to do anything whatsoever. But it just happened nonetheless.

It's been a very interesting but bumpy ride for me on this blog. I started in 2005, with a view toward defending the UFT against the slings and arrows of the press, which seemed to hate us and everything we ever did. I had written a few times for New York Teacher, and they were the first people who ever paid me to write.  That said, I had personally taken exception to the 2002 Contract for adding time. Given that we had recently taken zero percent increases, I saw further such increases as a way to wipe out any gains and effectively leave us working extra time for free.

Shortly thereafter the 2005 Contract showed up. I had been in negotiations to write for Edwize, the gone but not-much-lamented UFT blog. I found the 2005 Contract to be a virtual abomination, and stating that publicly marked the end of my Edwize career before it even began. So I stayed here, and developed a voice that may have criticized union leadership once or twice, here and there.

I've run for office a few times, and last year, with the support of the MORE Caucus and the high school voters, managed to win a seat on the UFT Executive Board. We go there twice a month and support almost everything Unity brings up. Unity, which outnumbers us by over ten to one, opposes almost everything we bring up. It's a pretty funny position to be in, but you never know when they'll come to their senses.

I've been on an up and down quest to help reform the awful ELL policy called Part 154, and have not had a whole lot of success getting the kind of attention it deserves. I had a journalist all set to write about it, but for whatever reason, we had a lot of back and forth and it never happened. My friend Aixa and I made it all the way to being on TV, but haven't been able to get sustained attention thus far. I was able to help initiate and push a resolution with UFT to reform it, but nothing much has happened since then.

While I was pretty happy about it, I also almost fell off my chair when UFT VP of Education Evelyn de Jesus invited me to the NY State Association for Bilingual Education Conference in White Plains last weekend. I had signed up to do work with a UFT ESL committee, but didn't expect anything to come of it. I spent three days with people who were passionate about the kids I see every day. It was pretty amazing. Evelyn also spoke to me about presenting on future occasions, which surprised me even more. In fact, Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa, who I've been trying in vain to reach out to, actually walked up to me after she spoke and said told me was working on Part 154.

I'm more than happy to work with my union to promote our shared values and help the kids we serve. Fun though it may be fight all the time, this might be a better way to go. It's something I've been urging on this space for some time. We are fighting the worst dangers I've ever seen. Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump would be happy to close every public school in the country, make a few bucks on privatization, and maybe bring back child labor It appears inevitable that the United States will move backward to become a so-called right to work country. And if that isn't enough, my students, from every corner of the globe, are facing fears and dangers worse than I ever thought they'd have to encounter.

So I want to thank Evelyn de Jesus for thinking of me for this. I'm ready to work with UFT to preserve and protect the rights of my students. I'll do whatever I can. If we can give them a better and/ or safer education, I'm up for it. UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, at the conference, that if they came to our schools we're ready to be arrested. I know I am. These kids are like my own children and they've been one of the best parts of my life.

I'm ready to stand for them, to defend them, and to fight for them. I'm thrilled to see UFT leadership feeling the same way, and they have my unqualified support in this.

My students like to test me. Often I fail. But not always.

The other day, I said, "See you tomorrow." One of my students, from El Salvador, said, "No, I'll see you mañana."

I said, "No, TOMORROW."

This back and forth went on for some time. Once more, my student said, "Mañana."

A Chinese girl in the back of the classroom said, "Banana."

A bunch of students picked up on it.

The next day, I was giving an exercise, and very pretentiously began to say, "You may begin..."

And a whole bunch of students, from all parts of the globe, replied, "Banana."

"We can do it banana."

"Good idea."

"Let's not do it now. Let's do it banana."

In my classroom, you see, we don't just learn English. We invent entirely new languages. We only have one word so far, but I see a big future for our new language. Once we work on it a little, I'm gonna send it to Pearson so they can make it compliant with the Common Core State Standards.

I really struggled with the results of Tuesday's election. I'm in shock, actually. Robert de Niro says he feels as he did after 9/11, and so do I.

On Wednesday, I didn't know what to do. I simply gave the class I planned to give. I couldn't think about it. In fact, I didn't even think about the DA I'd planned to go to. I understand even Mulgrew was unable to go through with his usual filibuster and actually allowed people to express themselves.

In my car, going home, I cried. How can my country make a choice like this one? How can we spit in the faces of the children I serve? How can we tell working people they can just go to hell? How can we elect a repulsive purveyor of snake oil to the highest office in the land?

And yet we did.

Shaun King posted the graphic at left on Twitter. He said it came from a Chicago school somewhere. I fell in love with it. Some time on Wednesday, I asked that my school reproduce it so I could hang it my classroom. That request was denied on the basis that it was too direct a repudiation of President-elect Donald Trump.

On Thursday, I put it on a flash drive and displayed it on the LED screen in front of my room. I read it to my students. I told them no one in my classroom was a threat to them. I told them they were in a safe place. I read each of the little notes and told them no one would contradict anything they said. I never mentioned Donald Trump, but my students did, repeatedly, and they knew exactly why I was saying this.

Chancellor Fariña declared there would be no overt political talk in class. To a degree, I understand that. It's not my place to tell kids who I voted for. It's not my place to tell them who to vote for either. I would never do such a thing. But I knew they would ask me anyway.

Nonetheless, on Monday, I wore a tie a little bit like the one on the right. You wouldn't notice what was on it unless you looked closely. When the kids asked me who I was voting for, I showed them the tie. I told them that a donkey represented Democrats, and an elephant represented Republicans. They didn't know that. They looked at my tie and said, "Oh, you're voting for Hillary." I was glad they asked, because I needed them to know I would not vote for someone who hated them and everything they stood for, to wit, the American dream.

I also needed them to know that I stood against all the bigoted and xenophobic statements our President-elect made. I'm sorry, Chancellor Fariña, but I'm a teacher, and unlike Donald Trump, I stand for basic decency. My classroom rule, really my only one, is, "We will treat one another with respect."

Donald Trump failed to treat a wide swath of people with respect. He's a hateful, vicious bully. There are all sorts of anti-bullying campaigns that go in in city schools, and I fail to see why Donald Trump should get a pass simply for having lied his way to the Presidency. So I specifically repudiated a whole group of his insidious statements. I also added LGBT to my group, and told my kids that we would not tolerate slurs to gay people in my classroom. Even my kids seem to expect a pass on that. They won't get one.

For tonight, I've asked that the UFT Executive Board either make a poster like the one above left, or give me the means to project it from my flash drive. I'm going to ask that UFT do a campaign of tolerance that specifically rejects the vicious and disgusting statements of our President-elect. I'm going to ask that UFT campaign for respect for all, specifically in response to Trump's bigoted and hateful appeals otherwise.

And Chancellor, Fariña, if you don't like what I did in my classroom, I invite you to place a letter in my file. It will be a virtual badge of honor. I'll frame it and treasure it always.

Last Saturday I spoke with Regents Commissioner Betty Rosa, who told me that the new revision of Part 154, which makes draconian cuts to English instruction for ELLs, was working very well in Buffalo. I've reached out to teachers I know in Buffalo, and they have not yet heard about what a success it is.

They tell me stories of teachers pushing into classes instead of teaching. They tell me that no one is happy, not the students or the teachers. In fact, they tell me that Betty Rosa visited one school and that a bunch of troublesome kids were shuttled all over the building to be kept away from the VIPs. Of course, Betty Rosa may have visited other schools. And Part 154 may indeed be working somewhere or other. But what I see is absolutely no evidence.

Dr. Rosa also told me that research supports this move, but failed to cite any. I've read a lot of research by Dr. Stephan Krashen, and it suggests to me something I've suspected and lived most of my life--that teaching kids to love language is what makes them successful. Dragging them to a new country and making them immediately do the same work as those who've lived here all their lives is counter-intuitive and counterproductive. It's like taking your baby, who hasn't yet learned to walk, to tango lessons.

Things like these might make someone feel good, or proud, or accomplished, but they cause a lot of needless suffering. In fact Dr. Rosa publicly and accurately criticizes other state officials for doing similar things. I saw her speak at George Washington Campus and she spoke of how those who wish to test newcomers ought to go to foreign countries and take tests in foreign languages. I've been saying that for decades and I couldn't agree more.

I have no idea why the chancellor or anyone would wish to hang on to a program that has no basis in logic, research, or practice. Nor have I got the remotest idea why it was instituted it in the first place. If anyone wishes to ignore the fact that these ideas have no basis in anything I've ever heard of, you can simply look at the other regulation--that ELLs cannot be in the same class with anyone more than one contiguous grade from them. For high schools, at least, that's a ridiculous and impossible mandate.

If my very large school, with 500 ELLs (10% of the entire Buffalo population), if we were to do that I'd have opened the school year with one class of 40 and one of 6. It's ridiculous. For small schools, it's absolutely impossible. That's probably a large reason they've done away with stand-alone English instruction as much as they possibly could. In Betty Rosa's new and improved vision, high school English instruction need only be given one period a day for one year. That's it.

The following year, based on the results of the NYSESLAT, a test originally designed to test language acquisition that no longer tests language acquisition (no, really), the kid could be in an English class reading Macbeth. And that's OK according to Part 154, because there will be an ESL teacher in the room with the English teacher explaining the vocabulary to the ESL students.

That makes sense, doesn't it? Well, not to me, and not to you.

But the geniuses in Albany have deemed it OK, and that's all that matters. It kind of makes me nostalgic for Merryl Tisch. I mean sure, she was a fanatical ideologue who didn't know jack squat about education. But she also never messed with ESL, because she didn't give a fiddler's fart about it.

Ironically, newcomers stood a much better chance of learning English under that regime. 

As UFT chapter leader, I get a period off, so I teach four classes rather than five. In fact, I teach two double-period classes, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. I am quite fortunate this year in that, after years of begging and pleading, I managed to get my kids into the TDF Stage Doors program. This means that on November 16th all my students will be seeing Wicked on Broadway at no charge.

It's pretty cool because the overwhelming majority of my students have never seen a Broadway show, or likely any live theater at all. But it's also a lot of work because my students know very little English, and very little American culture. So in fact, before they see Wicked we needed to make sure they saw The Wizard of Oz, and that they understood it. We've moved past that, and yesterday was the first day we started discussing the characters in Wicked.

Wicked is an interesting choice for my kids, because it's mostly about a woman who is, well, green. Kermit the Frog can sing It's Not Easy Being Green and it's cute. On the other hand, that's pretty much par for the course when you're a frog. Being a green person is really kind of tough. My morning class was all over it, and a discussion of Elphaba (the witch's name, created from the initials of L. Frank Baum) moved into a discussion about prejudice, discrimination, and even stereotypes. Someone hates each and every one of us, I told them, just because of who we are.

The kids were receptive. They discussed a bunch of questions I'd written, and my co-teacher pushed me to Danielson everything. They read the questions and discussed them in small groups before sharing them aloud. Even a painfully shy young woman who was reluctant to come on the trip with us smiled for the first time in my memory. My morning class was fully engaged and I'm sure if we'd been observed by someone not crazy we'd have come out highly effective.

So we were pretty encouraged to give the same lesson again in the PM. Sadly, we saw a lot of different attitudes. The kid who's always spacing out spaced out as usual. The boys who sit in the back and tend not to mix with anyone tended not to do so yesterday either. Some students didn't answer my questions because they weren't listening. A boy asked me what the question was, after I'd repeated it more than once, and got my stock answer:

A question is an interrogative statement designed to elicit a response.

Of course, that's just obnoxious. On the other hand, tuning out and asking for extra attention after having done so is not my favorite thing either. I wandered to the back and noticed that this boy, in fact, had written an answer to that question. It wasn't bad either.

Our afternoon class was not a disaster, but it was not great either. The morning class went perfectly. I wonder what the difference was. Is it the class size? The morning class has 26 while the evening class has 34. It's certainly easier to observe and keep tabs on the smaller class. Or is it the time? Our morning class meets at 8:46. The students have been through, at most, one class by that time.

Our PM class begins at about 12:30. By then, our students have sat through 6 classes. Are they pretty much washed out by then? Are they bored out of their minds? Are we further boring them out of their minds? I'd say up to eight students are not fully engaged in that class. I'm always walking around and lulling them out of their stupor one way or another. I give them the look, or if they're bent over sideways I bend over the same way and catch their sleepy eyes.

Sometimes I sneak over and try to get a photo of them sleeping. This is very tricky, because I'm actually am not aiming for the photo. I'm aiming to make them pick their heads up before I can get it. Usually, I don't get the photo and the students think they pulled one over on me. Alas, I actually have one photo of a sleeping student I took last week.

How can Danielson be fair when you can give the exact same lesson to two different classes and have two completely different results?