Category Archives: Ward

Building Anti-Racists White Educators

Posted on by

Racism, sexism, and elitism were institutionalized long before the first English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607. The class I just finished through the UC Berkeley History Social Science Project focused on racism in the United States and what we, as educators, can do to help our students and the public understand the long standing and  insidious nature of racism and to pursue actions to  accelerate the process of ending racism.

Racism in the United States is a subject that cannot be ignored. We read in the news about  white people carrying guns while protesting coronavirus restrictions. These people are praised by our president. We read about a black man who is shot for jogging in the wrong place at the wrong time. The discrepancy is obvious. These are just two examples of endemic racism in white America.

Closer to home, when I hear my Carondelet black students telling me about how they are followed by store employees when shopping alone or with their mother, but not when they are accompanied by white friends. And when I hear about Carondelet Latina students telling me about white adults telling them they should go back to where they came from, it shows how deeply racism is ingrained in the minds of so many white Americans. This is not something happening in some southern state or in the midwest. These are Carondelet students who experience racism on an almost daily basis right here in Contra Costa County.

We also need to acknowledge that it is white people who are the problem. And that includes all of us white people. Sure, none of us are racist, but can we even pretend to know what it is like to be not seen by others as being white? Can we know what non-white students hear when we speak to them? We can have the purest hearts in the world and still be seen as racist. We need to talk about racism as teachers who want to better understand how it affects our non-white students. We need to talk to students to see our reflections in their eyes. Most important, we need to explain to our white students how ingrained racism is in our society and what can be done to eradicate racism before the next 400 years pass by. Understanding is the first step to making change. Doing nothing is not an option, not for those of us who wish to “serve the dear neighbor.” 

Hot Seat Two

Posted on by



How do you have a successful whole class discussion with 30+
students? The secret is to keep them moving and, of course, having a killer
topic to discuss. The latest format I have found that works well combines the
fishbowl, jigsaw, and Socratic discussion. I call this one Hot Seat Two. I have
already written about my hot seat discussions, thus the “two.”

For this discussion I started with the topic, “Is there a
natural law or a divine law that dictates the predominance of one group of
people over another?” In U.S. History we explore such topics while studying the
Gilded Age.

To prepare for the discussion each student must use two
sources and find at least five relevant and unique quotes from each source. My
students are in teams of five to six students. No member of a team allowed to
use sources chosen by any other team member. When all research is completed,
team resources are combined for a total of at least ten sources and fifty
quotes. The team members then share and discuss their individual work and share
their ideas about how the information might help answer the essential question.

On the day of the discussion desks are arranged in a big
circle like a fishbowl with all team members side by side, but with only one
seat in the inner circle for each team. Team members in the inner circle are
each given two opportunities in a random jigsaw manner to present two arguments
supported by evidence, or to respond to another student with more or
conflicting evidence. No one has to speak, and the discussion order is random.
Students did get points for speaking and none for silence. As soon as the round
is over, another teammate takes the hot seat and the discussion continues.
Between discussion sessions I give about a minute for team members to discuss
what the next speaker might wish to contribute. These team discussions are
short but animated.

Each round goes quickly, about five minutes. I have each new
speaker come from the right hand  seat
from the team’s outer circle and have everyone move over one seat to the right.
This, and the one minute reviews, relieves the boredom of sitting for a long
time. The standing and sitting actually encourage team discussion. Short
sessions and moving around keep the discussion fresh and lively. In a long
block everyone gets to join the discussion at least twice, and everyone stays
engaged.

Here are a few typical responses from students’ Friday
Feedback.

“The thing I liked the most is that everyone got an
opportunity to speak during the discussion and no one dominated.”

“Everyone brought up important subjects that we found on our
own and the discussion was productive.”

“I liked hearing everybody’s different perspectives and
gaining new ideas from them. I liked that I was able to have more perspectives
because of this discussion.”

“Whenever I had something to add but wasn’t in the hot seat
I couldn’t. I suggest adding an empty hot seat to the circle that anyone can
jump in.”

“I don’t like class discussions because I’m shy but I think
it worked really well.”

The only negative responses were about not having enough
time to talk more. I think the key factor for the positive responses was the
movement. Complaints in past discussions involved too much sitting and
disengagement through lack of participation. Being able to move and talk about
ideas between each round of discussion keeps the blood flowing and makes
everyone feel more involved. Try a Hot Seat Two and see if it works well for
you.

Reflection

Posted on by

Okay, I must admit, I learned something from Michael Schooler while team teaching the American Studies class. I did learn other somethings, but this was not just a normal something. This was a big something.

Social studies teachers like the facts. As Joe Friday would say, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” To ensure students know the facts we have them write summaries and outlines. We even give quizzes. I mean, how can students even begin to understand history without knowing all the facts?

Early on in American Studies my teammate, Mr. Schooler, gave the students a reflection assignment. My first reaction, I must admit, was that this was the beginning of that touchy feely English department stuff that is so not social studies. As the first set of reflections came in I could see that the students were thinking deeply about the material and were drawing some great connections between the ideas in the text and their own life experiences.

By the end of the year I was completely sold on this whole reflection thing. It is the linking mechanism that ties the curriculum to each student’s worldview, or life experience. It turns dry curriculum into exciting curriculum. It lights the way to that critical connection between the content and the student.

This year almost every assignment I give includes a reflection. Students are making the connections. They can see how everything they learn does relate to their own lives. This one little extra stretch has made a huge difference in students’ depth of understanding and appreciation. It is an essential key to student engagement. Reflections rock. Thank you, Michael, for showing me the real value of this “touchy feely” learning tool.

Social Justice

Posted on by

Social justice is a cornerstone of every class I teach. It is so wonderful that Carondelet embraces this belief in social justice. How can any student truly understand the concept of “leadership and service to the dear neighbor without distinction” without first understanding the meaning of social justice? I consider myself so lucky to be in a school where these values are not just tolerated, but truly embraced.


Jeff Bezos is the world’s lone hectobillionaire.

This brings me to the topic at hand. Amazon. I love Amazon. It is so easy, and they have everything under the sun from my weird refrigerator water filters to the latest literature about education. But this convenience comes at a price. There is the environmental impact of packaging and fuel. There is the cost to local businesses, and even other online businesses. But the really big cost, the one that gets me the most is the human cost. The more I read about what Amazon is doing to its employees, and the comparison to the obscene income of Jeff Bezos, the more I realize that Amazon is becoming a giant symbol of social injustice.


Amazon is the leader of the new robber baron companies. The more I read, the more I realize how much I need to find ways to protest Amazon. A recent Atlantic Monthly article brought to my attention just how bad Amazon is for its employees and how bad an example it is of a “successful” company. “Bezos is the world’s lone hectobillionaire. He is worth what the average American family is, nearly two million times over.” Amazon pays below the going average wages for unskilled labor. Amazon works its labor force at a grueling pace. This is not Bangladesh or some other third world country. This is the American mainstream labor force. No wonder we have so many social problems.

Bringing this back to Carondelet, Amazon is only one of real world problems we present to our students. This is the type of problem that has the power to truly engage our students. As I see how our students respond to such problems, as I witness our students’ empathy, I am given hope that these are the students that will go out into the world and make a real difference. Carondelet is preparing students to bring light to an otherwise dark future. How many schools can make that claim?

Posted on by

This is the 340th blog post. Only 16 of those are mine. Well, 17, if you count this one. Jasmine gave me the idea of recording all my posts. I did not bother to record my comments, but while I was looking through the posts I did notice that there are not many comments.  I have about 25 comments on my posts if you don’t count my comments on the comments. That’s about 1.5 comments per post. No a whole lot. It does not look like others are doing any better.

I was wondering how we might get more action on the site. The 340 posts looks pretty good, but how many people are reading them, and how many are taking the time to comment. As we know from our students’ work, if they do not get responses, their work becomes less and less inspired. The same with me. If I have something to say, it would be nice to get some responses. Even criticism is better than nothing.

So how do we make this better? I have started making myself read other people’s posts and have been adding more comments. I think of it like correcting papers, not always fun, but necessary. The students need to get the feedback or why give them the assignments? Maybe you have some ideas. Leave a comment.

Popsicle Sticks

Posted on by

Most apps are about as exciting as furnace cleaning ads. It was with little hope that I searched for an app that would instantly and randomly create student teams. That was until I stumbled across Popsicle Sticks. Before I get into it, let me provide a little historical information for those of you who are in younger generations, the ones who are still under 60. In my old elementary school teaching days I would keep a can of popsicle sticks on my desk. Each stick had a student’s name on it. Whenever I wanted to randomly call on students to answer questions or randomly create teams I would pull popsicle sticks out of the can. It was simple and completely fair. It also got the student’s attention because they never knew whose stick would be pulled next.

You get the idea. So let’s move beyond the good old days. When I saw a random selection app called Popsicle Sticks after the memories came flooding back I gave it a close look. This program is even cooler than the original popsicle sticks in a can. Class and student names can be typed in or imported via a cvs file. The second method is quick and easy. Once the names are imported the app will randomly call student names each time the teacher pushes a button. It does this with a synthesized voice connected to your classroom speaker system. Not even you know which name is coming up next. How’s that for cool! It can also setup a scored discussion. The teacher can track every time a student gives a good or bad response during a discussion. And finally, the best for last, it randomly creates teams of any size you wish. What a great way to mix students for quick activities and projects. Never a dull moment, and everyone gets to meet everyone! Below is a screenshot of a set of teams I created with one click of a button. Let me know if you would like to know more about the awesome app.

Hot Seat Discussions, Part 2

Posted on by

Remember my post on hot seat discussions? During my last round I added a new twist. It was such a big hit with my students I have decided to share the process. To recap, students are divided into teams of five. A topic is proposed. In this case we chose to discuss the place of transgender students in sports. This fit our study of 14th Amendment rights to equality.

The essential question we came up with was “Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete against cisgender athletes?” Keying on the essential question the class developed five supporting questions. The supporting questions are:

  1. Are male athletes, as a group, biologically superior to female athletes?
  2. Should there be separate competitions for male and female athletes?
  3. Should some sports be gender neutral?
  4. What defines a person as being transgender?
  5. How do we balance the concepts of competition and fairness in athletic competition?

One student in each team selected a supporting question to research. After completing the research we set up a day (or two in this case) for the discussion.

Beginning with the first supporting question, each student who researched the question took her or his place in the hot seat. Hot seat students then took turns volunteering to speak on their topic. Students were given a maximum of 30 seconds to speak in each round. Rounds continued until all hot seat students were finished adding new information. Other students were then given the an opportunity to ask questions. This process was repeated with new students for each question.

After the supporting questions were discussed the essential question was opened to the entire class for discussion. By this time many in the class were eager to discuss the essential question. Much information from the supporting questions was brought up during the discussion of the essential question.

Grading was rather simple. I gave students a check mark each time each time they spoke and crossed the check mark when they added new information. I added this to their research score for the final grade.

Student comments reflect the success of this assignment. Here are just a few.
” Listening to everyones different research and opinions opened my eyes to different outlooks and thought processes behind the topic.”
“I really enjoyed our discussion on transgender athletes and working to solve a difficult problem.”
“I thought researching and presenting an argument allowed me to be creative and stand up for what I believe in.”
“I thought the sub-questions were an effective way to tackle the question.”


Redos, Retakes, and Do-Overs

Posted on by
Rick Wormeli

Who is Rick Wormeli? Keep reading to discover why I included a photo of this forward looking educator. Hint: It is not because he has grey hair.

More and more I have been encouraging students to redo essay assignments. Essays are my high stakes proof of understanding assignments. I break down essay assignments into four parts.

Students begin by turning in a research assignment. This consists of a list of references with quotes, notes and summaries for each reference. I often let teams do the research, with each team member being responsible for finding a certain number of references. Team members then discuss the value of each reference and help each other assemble their individual list of references. Once the references are turned in I give a small grade indicating my confidence that these references and notes will lead to a successful paper.

After the research has been approved students are required to individually write an outline for their paper. What is the criteria for a good outline? I tell them that someone should be able to write a good essay using nothing but the material they find in the outline. The thesis, the claims, and the evidence should all be included in the outline. The outline also receives a small grade.

Next the students write the essay. When the essay is complete each student must have one or two other students read and critique the essay. While the critiques are happening the essay writer must ask questions from and take notes on a prepared form. The essay writer then goes back and edits her essay and submits it along with the evaluation form.

If after all of this is done, if the essay writer is not satisfied with her grade, she may rewrite the essay one time for regrading. This has been pretty successful, especially with students who received poor essay grades. They read my notes. They ask me questions. They rewrite their essays and almost always receive a higher grade. Sounds good. Maybe I have this whole thing figured out.

But then I listened to a couple of Rick Wormeli videos and started rethinking this process. He is a standards based grading guy. This is something I have been looking at more and more. With a standards based system students do and redo until they meet the standards. When they meet one set of standards, they move onto the next set. At various points these can be translated into letter grades, but the focus should always be on meeting the standards.

To be honest, my school back in the ’70’s went to standards based grading and it was pretty much a bust. There were lots of check lists and lots of writing, and little understanding by anyone. Standards based grading has come a long way since then. We have the C3 Framework. We have digital portfolios. We know much more about standards now than we did a half century ago. (Yes, I am that old.) I am eager to revisit standards based grading and will be looking for inspiration and edification from Rick Wormeli’s videos and books.

If you would like to join me in exploring standards based grading, watch these two videos. See if they make you want to do something different. Send me a reply.

Rick Wormeli: Redos, Retakes, and Do-Overs, Part One

Rick Wormeli: Redos, Retakes, and Do-Overs, Part Two

How Do You Know They Know?

Posted on by

How do you know they know? How do you know when students really understand, not just memorize, but really understand whatever it might be you are teaching? Which assessment tools might a teacher use to really find the answer to these questions?

This question really hit me last week. My students watched a wonderful video, “The Vietnam War: Part 1” by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. Better than any other resource, it describes just how the United States became involved in the war in Vietnam, beginning with Woodrow Wilson and ending with the Diem regime. While students were taking prolific notes I paused the video often, explained the history, and answered questions. Looking through the student notes I could see they took all the right notes about all the important points. They had this. They knew exactly how years of turning points inevitably sucked the United States into the war.

Just to make sure the students really knew the sequence and importance of the events I had each student team construct a timeline listing the important events with paragraphs explaining each event. This is where the reality check began. The notes, while clear to me, were not so clear to the students. “If we saved Ho Chi Minh’s life, why did we turn against him.” Why did we sides with the French?” “Why were there no free elections.”

These questions were the beginning of a treasure hunt through our reading material and search engines. Little by little I watched the teams reconstruct the meaning of their notes. It was a tedious process, two class periods, but we got there. Understanding began to emerge as students compared notes, did more research and explained to each other.

It is not enough to take notes, a multiple-choice or short answer quiz. Students must have the opportunity to reconstruct the knowledge for themselves. It can  be a timeline, an essay, a presentation, a discussion or a debate, anything that elicits deep understanding of the subject. This takes time, lots of time. There is no fast way to reach that level of understanding that truly allows students to make it their own.

Team Spiderweb Discussions

Posted on by

The assignment you have created is perfect for a spiderweb discussion, but how do you make it happen with a whole class? Team spiderweb discussions are the answer.

If your class is not already divided into teams, begin by dividing your class into teams of between five and six students. Next have the team recorder* open a shared Google Doc. Supply the essential question or topic for discussion.

Teams will then begin their discussions in their joint Google Docs. Each member will begin each entry with their name and place each entry in an appropriate position. Positioning may be determined by a timeline, a progression of thought, or responses to other comments.

Team members are responsible for their own comments and positioning and also for helping others writing and positioning comments. Discussions need to be equally balanced in terms of entries per person. They need to have good content. They need to progress in a logical order.

Once the time is up for discussion each team will then look over the discussion and edit as necessary. Finally the team speaker will read or summarize the discussion for the class. If appropriate, a short all class discussion can be used to compare the individual team discussions.

*I assign team members roles including leader, recorder, speaker, researcher, and monitor. These roles are reassigned for each project or discussion.