In This Issue:

  1. Choosing words thoughtfully when communicating with students

  2. A neurological argument for makerspaces and hands-on learning

  3. Straightening out misconceptions on multiple intelligences

  4. A study of teacher-evaluation reform in six urban districts

  5. Personalized professional development

  6. Science teacher leaders making a difference

  7. Getting elementary scheduling right

  8. A blended elementary mathematics lesson

  9. Award-winning children’s books

10. Short items: (a) Virtually exploring ten great museums

 

Quotes of the Week

“Teachers sometimes describe students as nice and lovely, or as having a bright smile or a cheerful disposition. But using an adjective that could just as easily describe room décor (a lovely rug, cheerful wallpaper) makes it sound like the students are there to please the teacher instead of to learn.” 

            Lauren Porosoff (see item #1)

 

“School districts expend massive amounts of financial resources and human capital on teacher professional learning, yet most of these activities have been found to have minimal impact.”

Allison Rodman (see item #5)

 

“Every new fact, idea, experience, and skill is a physical rewiring of the brain.”

            Conn McQuinn (see item #2)

 

“If we over-structure children’s lives (and school experiences), we shouldn’t be surprised that when we finally give them the opportunity to self-direct, they don’t know how.”

            Conn McQuinn (ibid.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Choosing Words Thoughtfully When Communicating with Students

            In this Kappanarticle, teacher/writer/consultant Lauren Porosoff says that what teachers write to and about their students “has enormous potential to affect their lives” – from college recommendations to parent e-mails to comments on everyday classroom work. “Our words can empower our students to discover where they are as learners,” says Porosoff, “what seems important to them, how well their learning strategies serve them, and what else they could try.” Because their words are so important, she suggests that teachers discuss samples of various communications in grade-level and department teams, reflecting on how educators’ words come across to students and parents. Each part of speech has interesting issues:

            • Adjectives– These tend to convey subjective judgments of what students are – conscientious, earnest, excellent, inventive, insightful, provocative– versus what they objectively do. And there are other issues. “Teachers sometimes describe students as nice and lovely, or as having a bright smile or a cheerful disposition,” says Porosoff. “But using an adjective that could just as easily describe room décor (a lovely rug, cheerful wallpaper) makes it sound like the students are there to please the teacher instead of to learn.” And adjectives can unconsciously convey gender or race biases: “How often do we describe boys as compassionateor helpful? How many girls’ contributions get called powerfulor persuasive?” she asks. “Do we call students of color insightfuland creative, or do we use those words more often to describe white students?” 

            • Verbs– Porosoff believes verbs are more helpful in naming positive behaviors without the subjectivity embedded in adjectives. “To replace your adjectives with verbs,” she suggests, “try asking yourself what students doto make you describe them in a particular way.” For example, why do you describe Patrick as responsible? It’s because he bringshis materials to every class, writeshis questions about the homework, and makesa study guide for every test. More words, but more effective. Another example: “In class, Udi tests outhis ideas during discussions, asksquestions, and listenswith interest and compassion to his peers.” 

            • Nouns– These help vividly convey to students, parents, and other teachers what’s happening and what could be happening in class. Nouns can convey a student’s work products (poem, skit), materials used (writer’s notebook, graduated cylinder), or topics studied (lizards, Mount Fuji, opioids).

            • Conjunctions– These often connect information about what the student has learned or done well with information about what still needs to be done – and, but, while, although, unless. “The conjunctions we choose,” says Porosoff, “can reveal our attitudes toward students and shape their attitudes toward themselves, their learning, and or classes.” Consider these:

-  Tariq has gotten better at using imagery and needs to work on sticking to his thesis.

-  Tariq has gotten better at using imagery but needs to work on sticking to his thesis.

In the second, using butsubordinates Tariq’s strength to his weakness, conveying that his effort to use more-specific imagery doesn’t matter very much. The first is more helpful.

            • Adverbs– These describe qualities of action – howstudents work, learn, relate to each other and the teacher, ask questions, seek help. A teacher might say a student pursued a topic curiously, used materials resourcefully, shared courageously. Adverbs show the qualities of action that matter to us; as such, they’re less subjective than adjectives, which judge a state of being. Adverbs value an ongoing process – for example, writing effectively– which the student can engage in at any time, for any assignment, in any class, including outside school. “It may sound a little grandiose to say this about everybody’s least favorite part of speech,” says Porosoff, “but adverbs tell us how we want to live our lives.” 

            • Pronouns– When a teacher uses the pronoun “I” in communications to students, it changes the tone. Compare these two:

-  I would like to see Jaime proofreading more carefully to improve his writing.

-  Jaime can improve his writing by proofreading more carefully.

Making the teacher the subject of the first sentence makes it more about the teacher and less about the student, says Porosoff. This is even more true in these examples:

-  I love how Tayo acknowledges his peers.

-  I was impressed by how much information Jana put into her video.

-  I’m proud of August’s efforts.

“Sentences like these,” says Porosoff, “make it sound as if the purpose of student work is to please me, rather than to give students opportunities to practice important skills and create meaningful products.” Better to objectively describe what’s effective. But there are times when it’s appropriate for the teacher to be out front:

-  I can’t wait to read more of Micah’s work.

-  I encourage Chandra to e-mail me any questions she doesn’t get a chance to ask in class.

It’s also important to be sensitive using pronouns with students who do not fit into traditional gender categories. 

 

“How Our Word Choices Can Empower Our Students” by Lauren Porosoff in Phi Delta Kappan, November 2018 (Vol. 100, #2, p. 51-54), https://bit.ly/2OUFqyy; Porosoff can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

2. A Neurological Argument for Makerspaces and Hands-On Learning

            In this article in School Library Journal, consultant Conn McQuinn presents six “brain facts” that educators might use to support makerspaces in libraries and classrooms, or any type of engaging hands-on activity:

            •The brain thinks hands are the most important part of the body. The amount of cerebral real estate devoted to the sensory and motor functions of the hands is enormous (see this diagram https://bit.ly/2PAbVXS), which is why students find working with their hands so engaging.

            •Learning causes physical changes in the brain. Billions of neurons communicate through chemical and electrical signals, and when students learn something new, new connections are added to the networks, says McQuinn: “Every new fact, idea, experience, and skill is a physical rewiring of the brain.” The more new networks are used, the stronger and faster the signals become and the easier they are to trigger; the less they are used, the weaker they become, and eventually they’re pruned. In other words, use them or lose them. 

            •Unstructured play, experimentation, and tinkering develop executive function skills. When children engage in these activities, they grow their brains’ ability to make decisions, experiment, and evaluate results. “If we over-structure children’s lives (and school experiences),” says McQuinn, “we shouldn’t be surprised that when we finally give them the opportunity to self-direct, they don’t know how.” 

            •When students focus on an activity for a while, attention skills develop. “In this distracted world,” says McQuinn, “we invest attention in short, tiny snippets on a variety of surface messages such as tweets, texts, and Facebook posts. That is what we are wiring our brains to do, and we may be degrading our ability to pay attention over an extended period of time.” 

            •It’s neurologically impossible to learn well when we don’t care. Learning and memory are wired through the limbic system – the emotional part of the brain – which is why students learn best when they are doing something they enjoy, as is often the case with hands-on activities. “Giving students the chance to explore provides the chance to practice and strengthen curiosity,” says McQuinn, “which can lead to better, deeper learning.” 

            •Stress and fear impede learning. Subjected to these emotions, the brain literally acts without thinking, and the loss of executive function impedes higher-order thinking and memory formation. Students who have a fixed mindset about a particular subject get stressed when they make mistakes or encounter new challenges, which impedes learning. Students with a growth mindset have a different reaction: curiosity, mild concern, asking themselves, “How can I make this better?” That’s why it’s good to put students in situations where they must use their hands and executive skills to figure out new challenges.

 

“The Neuroscience of Making” by Conn McQuinn in School Library Journal, November 2018 (Vol. 64, #11, p. 10-11), no e-link available

Back to page one

 

3. Straightening Out Misconceptions on Multiple Intelligences

            “One of the most popular ideas in education is applied in ways that its creator never intended,” says Youki Terada in this article in Edutopia. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences changed conventional thinking about I.Q. and encouraged teachers and parents to think more broadly about intelligence: it’s not how smart you are, but how you are smart. But, as Gardner ruefully acknowledges, his theory is often misunderstood and wrongly applied, most notably by conflating intelligences with learning styles. If people want to talk about different learning styles, “that’s their prerogative,” says Gardner. “But they should recognize that these labels may be unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst.” 

Researchers have shown that when students process or retain information, there isn’t a dominant style. Therefore, it’s not productive for teachers to try to match instruction to perceived learning styles. But the idea persists; over 90 percent of U.S. teachers believe students learn better when instruction is tailored to their preferred style, and many students believe this as well, adapting study strategies in ways they think are helpful. Here are some evidence-based do’s and don’ts:

• Don’t confuse intelligences with learning styles. “Drop the term styles,” advises Gardner. “It will confuse others, and it won’t help either you or your students.” Students read and process information through their eyes, but understanding what we see enlists multiple intelligences. 

• Don’t label students with a particular learning style or type of intelligence. “By pigeonholing students, we deny them opportunities to learn at a deeper, richer level,” says Terada. Labels can prevent students from exploring material in different modalities and developing their weaker skills. 

            • Don’t try to match a lesson to a student’s perceived learning style. Students may prefer that material be presented in a particular way, but trying to cater to their preferences won’t improve learning. The time and energy teachers spend doing that is time and energy not spent finding the best modality to present content and/or using several modalities to maximize learning. 

            • Do give students multiple ways to access information, which improves engagement and retention – for example, accompanying a verbal explanation with pictures and diagrams. “When students use more than one medium to process a lesson,” says Terada, “learning is more deeply encoded.”

            • Do take into account students’ interests and needs and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction – especially lecturing.

            • Do incorporate the arts, giving students different ways of expressing themselves. “When one has a thorough understanding of a topic,” says Gardner, “one can typically think of it in several ways.” 

 

“Multiple Intelligences Theory: Widely Used, Yet Misunderstood” by Youki Terada in Edutopia, October 15, 2018, https://edut.to/2NKbXqk

Back to page one

 

4. A Study of Teacher Evaluation Reform in Six Urban Districts

            In this article in Elementary School Journal, Christine Neumerski (University of Michigan) and six colleagues from Vanderbilt and North Carolina State University describe the murky definition that has existed for instructional leadership: “In practice,” they say, “principals are largely left on their own to determine what it means to be an instructional leader, with wide variation in how they enact that role. Actions associated with principal instructional leadership are often broad or vague, such as having a visible presence, setting goals for the school, visiting classrooms, supervising instruction, providing feedback to teachers, and coordinating the curriculum. More-detailed guidance around these behaviors, such as exactly what principals should do as they visit classrooms, how they should supervise instruction, or how to establish the most effective visible presence, is largely nonexistent.” Principals have been mostly free to observe as much or as little instruction as they wanted, with no real accountability.

            Studies show that principals used to spend less than 13 percent of their time on instruction-related activities, with half of that time on brief classroom walkthroughs and minimal time on coaching, evaluation, and teacher professional development. Why so little time on instruction?

-  The press of other responsibilities;

-  Inadequate training to assess teaching and coach teachers on instructional improvement;

-  Not having a detailed definition of high-quality instruction, forcing principals to rely on their own knowledge, experience, or intuition;

-  Little appetite for these activities, given a culture of not “interfering” in classrooms.

The result was that, with rare exceptions, evaluations were treated as a formality, virtually all teachers were rated “Satisfactory,” and there was little substantive coaching for improvement. 

Then along came new teacher-evaluation policies, spurred by Race to the Top and reform advocates. The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 60 principals in six urban districts that adopted new policies over the past decade: Baltimore City, Denver, Hillsborough County, Houston, Memphis, and Nashville. New requirements for principals included:

-  More-frequent classroom visits using a detailed rubric that defined effective teaching, with detailed note-taking, often “scripting” everything that happened;

-  The requirement that teachers get detailed evaluative feedback and rubric-scoring on each visit in post-observation meetings, with follow-up over the school year;

-  The expectation that data from classroom visits and student-achievement would be used to make decisions on teachers, to shape professional development, and to guide the work of instructional coaches.

How did these shifts affect principals’ instructional leadership? School leaders reported that they were spending more time in classrooms, were observing instruction in a much more detailed way, and were giving more-detailed feedback to teachers, guided by the rubrics. Principals liked the way the rubrics provided a shared language about teaching. A number of principals said the process contributed to teacher growth, supported decisions to put some teachers on improvement plans, and made possible the dismissal of a few who did not improve. 

            But there were several downsides to the new policies. Researchers found a distinctly negative impact in three areas:

            • Time– Virtually all principals said that the new teacher-evaluation demands made it very difficult to do other parts of their jobs as school leaders – management, interaction with parents, visibility around their buildings, and engaging with students. What took the most time was the scripting, scoring, and analysis of classroom observations and follow-up conferences with teachers. “Some principals seemed completely overwhelmed by the time demands of the new role,” say the researchers. “Given the demands the new instructional leadership role placed on their time, many principals expressed a serious level of burnout and frustration. Several admitted they were skeptical that they could sustain their new role…” 

            • Decreased visibility – Several principals said that, paradoxically, the data collection requirements of the new system made them lessknowledgeable about what was happening in their schools. They visited fewer classrooms, were out and about their schools less, and felt cut off from daily interactions with students and colleagues. 

            • Negative effect on relationships with colleagues– “A loss of trusting relationships with teachers was also a problem for principals across these systems,” say the researchers. “In particular, they believed that teachers perceived them as evaluating their performance constantly.” Casual conversations happened less frequently because teachers feared they would “count” against them. The focus was on compliance versus relationships, judgment versus coaching, scoring versus growth. The rubrics were a sticking point for many teachers, who resisted having their work reduced to a 4-3-2-1 score. Some teachers were upset when they were given Developing (Level 2) scores. 

            The researchers conclude with recommendations for improved principal training and selection and further research on the time demands of instructional leadership.

            [What’s most striking about this study is that it doesn’t acknowledge that some practitioners have found ways to solve the perennial problems with teacher evaluation. The bibliography of the study doesn’t include the work of Paul Bambrick-Santoyo, Justin Baeder, Pete Hall, and others who have developed much more effective systems. The solution to the burdensome time demands that threatened to burn out principals in this study is simple: eliminate the requirement to script every detail and rubric-score each classroom observation; get principals into classrooms for frequent, short, unannounced visits; focus brief post-observation chats on just one “leverage point” each time; and use the rubrics at the end of the school year, with teacher input, to sum up the year’s observations and conversations.   K.M.]

 

“Restructuring Instructional Leadership: How Multiple-Measure Teacher-Evaluation Systems Are Redefining the Role of the School Principal” by Christine Neumerski, Jason Grissom, Ellen Goldring, Mollie Rubin, Marisa Cannata, Patrick Schuermann, and Timothy Drake in Elementary School Journal, October 18, 2018, https://bit.ly/2OS7JgY; Neumerski can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

5. Personalized Professional Development

(Originally titled “Learning Together, Learning On Their Own”)

            “School districts expend massive amounts of financial resources and human capital on teacher professional learning, yet most of these activities have been found to have minimal impact,” says Allison Rodman (The Learning Loop) in this article in Educational Leadership. One study estimated that PD costs U.S. schools $18 billion a year, with a typical teacher spending 68 hours – all for little professional gain.

One-shot, sit-and-get workshops are notoriously ineffective, but teachers’ entrepreneurial responses – forming professional learning networks and using Twitter, Voxer, edcamps, MOOCs, and blogs – don’t foster a community of professional growth and inquiry within a school. “What if schools could both provide meaningful learning experiences shared by teachers within a school,” asks Rodman, “and offer teachers individualized opportunities?” Drawing on her own experience with schools and districts, Rodman suggests focusing on four areas:

• Incorporating teachers’ voice– A good needs assessment is important to identify the topics, formats, schedules, and resources that will best meet educators’ needs. And throughout the year, administrators should be jotting notes about emerging needs expressed by teachers. 

• Teachers as co-designers– “In true co-designed professional learning,” says Rodman, “teachers identify a challenge and the new skills or knowledge they need to tackle it, clarify how learning will be measured, and outline an action plan to achieve the desired results… The co-design process should include skillful, learner-centered facilitation of the initial learning event andco-constructed action steps that will follow” – always with an eye to how it will affect what happens in classrooms and what students will learn. 

• Social construction– “People build ideas through relationships with others,” says Rodman. Teachers can connect with like-minded colleagues inside and outside the school using social media, podcasts, and platforms like Pinterest and Teachers Pay Teachers. But the problem is quality control; some ideas and products look good at first but don’t pan out. School leaders need to get teachers interacting, face to face and virtually, to curate high-quality practices and products. 

• Encouraging self-discovery– School leaders should support teachers to use all available channels, within the school and with thought partners in other schools, districts, even on other continents, to grow professionally and find the best pedagogy and materials for their students. 

 

“Learning Together, Learning On Their Own” by Allison Rodman in Educational Leadership, November 2018 (Vol. 76, #3, p. 12-18), https://bit.ly/2zltLmI; Rodman can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

6. Science Teacher Leaders Making a Difference

            In this Kappanarticle, Rebecca Cheung, Elisa Stone, and Judith Warren Little (University of California/Berkeley) and consultant Thomas Reinhardt say teacher leaders’ work has run the gamut: coaching colleagues, offering professional development, getting materials, sharing lesson ideas and resources, convening meetings, communicating messages for administrators, chairing the school safety committee, even serving as emergency substitutes. The more educationally ambitious the teacher leaders’ role, the greater the likelihood of pushback. “In a profession long marked by an egalitarian ethos,” say Cheung, Stone, Little, and Reinhardt, “in which colleagues think of themselves as belonging to the same level in the organizational hierarchy, giving a special role to some teachers can easily lead to tension among peers. Why was this person chosen as the teacher leader, they might ask, and what kind of formal authority do teacher leaders have?” But district leaders want to tap into effective teachers’ “deep reservoirs of knowledge and expertise.” How can they put teacher leaders to work in ways that don’t stir up resentment among colleagues?

            The researchers worked with a district to develop and implement a teacher leader model aimed at supporting the implementation of Next Generation Science Standards. The science lead teachers served four major functions:

• Collaborating:

-  Mentoring and coaching teachers to improve their practices;

-  Facilitating science-focused professional development sessions;

-  Initiating and facilitating peer collaboration;

-  Participating in science PD for the lead teachers’ own benefit;

-  Developing productive meeting formats and processes;

-  Improving the skills of mentoring, supporting, and coaching a variety of teachers;

-  Contributing to the science teacher leader community.

• Providing resources:

-  Sharing readings, lessons, and ideas;

-  Creating and adapting lessons and units;

-  Suggesting science events, field trips, speakers, free and donated materials;

-  Supporting regular access to district-provided materials and supplies;

-  Keeping abreast of and accessing science-related news, resources, and technology.

• Modeling:

-  Being open to being observed by colleagues and jointly critiquing lessons;

-  Analyzing and discussing the effectiveness of different teaching practices;

-  Making effective science instruction visible;

-  Committing to a deep understanding of Next Generation Science Standards;

-  Reflecting on and being open to improving their own teaching practices; 

-  Balancing and integrating non-science commitments to maximize science instruction.

• Advocating:

-  Identifying and developing common pedagogies across subject areas;

-  Advocating for science in schoolwide decision-making;

-  Building alliances to further science instruction;

-  Keeping abreast of science-related policies, expectations, and decisions;

-  Regularly communicating and reminding administrators and teachers about science expectations and opportunities;

-  Identifying opportunities to integrate science into the core instructional plan;

-  Ensuring representation for science instruction in school governance;

-  Analyzing the political climate and context of the school to support science instruction.

A two-year study of 40 of the science lead teachers affirmed the value of these four roles and confirmed the success of teachers’ work on the quality of science instruction in the district. 

 

“Defining Teacher Leadership: A Framework” by Rebecca Cheung, Elisa Stone, Judith Warren Little, and Thomas Reinhardt in Phi Delta Kappan, November 2018 (Vol. 100, #2, p. 38-44), https://bit.ly/2Kmza25; the authors can be reached at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. 

Back to page one

 

7. Getting Elementary Scheduling Right

            This article in District Management Journalreports on a survey on elementary school scheduling. Some key findings:

-  90% of respondents said they’d received little or no training in scheduling.

-  70% still use paper and pencil to schedule.

-  Almost 30% don’t start scheduling until summer.

“Effective scheduling holds the key,” say the authors. The diagnostic questions below suggest the most important variables in building a schedule that effectively supports teaching and learning:

-  The scheduling process starts early enough to guide budget and staffing decisions.

-  The schedule is developed as a team, with input and feedback from teachers and support staff.

-  The district has established guidelines for instructional minutes of core subjects to help drive equity in all schedules.

-  The schedule specifies at least 90 minutes of literacy and 60 minutes of math every day.

-  District and school guidelines specify that students cannot be pulled out of core reading and math periods.

-  A daily intervention and enrichment period provides extra help for struggling students and opportunities for enrichment.

-  Each grade’s homeroom teachers have common planning time opportunities every day.

-  Special teachers’ time is optimized, with limited unscheduled time.

-  Each grade’s general-education classrooms have identical schedules to allow for regrouping by student needs during small-group/differentiated instruction and interventions.

-  Periods that allow for pullout support are staggered by grade throughout the day.

 

“Results of DMGroup’s Elementary School Scheduling Survey” in District Management Journal, Fall 2018 (Vol. 24, p. 40-43), https://www.dmgroupk12.com/research#mainbody

Back to page one

 

8. A Blended Elementary Mathematics Lesson

            In this article in Kappa Delta Pi Record, Megan Nickels (University of Central Florida) and Annettte Gartner (a fourth-grade teacher in Seminole County, Florida) suggest the following format for a 90-minute math block:

            • Setting the stage – 5-minute whole-group introduction of the day’s mathematics work, linking to prior knowledge and defining the learning objectives;

            • Three stations – In heterogeneous groups of 7-8, students rotate among these activities, spending 25 minutes at each:

-  Small-group instruction – The teacher discusses the skill of the day, addressing misconceptions and deepening students’ math reasoning and sense-making; if there’s time, students work on independent assignments with one-on-one help from the teacher.

-  Cyber station – Students choose from a playlist of skill-based online learning activities and games combining enrichment, practice, and remediation on the lesson’s skills and content, as well as on previously taught material.

-  Collaboration station – Students tackle a real-world problem, applying their understanding of the material.

            • Closure – 10-minute whole-group wrap-up, discussing what happened in the three stations and assessing what was learned. 

“The rationale behind blended learning,” conclude Nickels and Gartner, “is to provide students with more meaningful and cognitively demanding activities and collaborative projects during classroom time by relegating traditional practice problem sets and mini-lessons to computer-based instruction.” 

 

“Rethinking the Mathematics Block: A Blended STEM Approach” by Megan Nickels and Annettte Gartner in Kappa Delta Pi Record, October-December 2018 (Vol. 54, #4, p. 186-189), https://bit.ly/2DxyQfvfor members; the authors can be reached at [email protected]and [email protected]. 

Back to page one

 

9. Award-Winning Children’s Books

            This article in Language Artsshowcases the winners of the 2018 NCTE Charlotte Huck Awards for Outstanding Fiction for Children (age 5-12):

-  After the Fall: How Humpty Dumpty Got Back Up Againwritten and illustrated by Dan Santat (Roaring Brook, 2017) – Humpty’s journey to recovery.

-  The End of the Wildby Nicole Helget (Little, Brown, 2017) – Fracking threatens a family’s woods, but may bring in money to heal intergenerational divisions.

-  Forever, or a Long, Long Timeby Caela Carter (HarperCollins, 2017) – Two foster children struggle to discover their origins. 

-  Little Fox in the Forestwritten and illustrated by Stephanie Graegin (Schwartz & Wade, 2017) – In this wordless picture book, a little girl’s toy fox is snatched by a real 

fox, leading the girl and a friend into a magical, secret forest. 

-  Refugeeby Alan Gratz (Scholastic, 2017) – The stories of refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Castro’s Cuba in 1994, and Syria in 2015.

-  The Rooster Who Would Not Be Quiet!by Carmen Agra Deedy, illustrated by Eugene Yelchin (Scholastic, 2017) – A rooster keeps crowing in a town that has outlawed singing.

-  All’s Faire in Middle Schoolwritten and illustrated by Victoria Jamieson (Dial, 2017) – A homeschooled child of actors makes her way in middle school, helped by the fact that she’s a knight in training.

-  Amina’s Voiceby Hena Khan (Salaam Reads, 2017) – A 12-year-old Pakistani American contends with Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, singing “A Change Is Gonna Come” at a winter concert. 

-  Big Cat, Little Catwritten and illustrated by Elisha Cooper (Roaring Brook, 2017) – A kitten arrives to keep a bigger cat company, and they grow up together.

-  Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cutby Derrick Barnes, illustrated by Gordon James (Denene Millner, 2017) – An African-American boy gets a very special haircut.

-  Saving Martyby Paul Griffin (Dial, 2017) – Eleven-year-old Lorenzo deals with the memory of his father, who died while serving in the military, and raises a pig who thinks he’s a dog.

-  Shelterby Celine Claire, illustrated by Qin Leng (Kids Can, 2017) – Forest animals prepare for an approaching storm.

-  Stef Soto, Taco Queenby Jennifer Torres (Little, Brown 2017) – A seventh grader deals with teasing at school and has to decide whether to join with her father in fighting for fair working conditions for mobile food truck vendors. 

-  Wishtreeby Katherine Applegate (Feiwel and Friends, 2017) – Red, a tree that has lived for 216 rings, narrates its history, friends, inhabitants, and neighbors.

 

“2018 Charlotte Huck Awards for Outstanding Fiction for Children” by Erika Thulin Dawes, Maria Acevedo-Aquino, Bettie Parsons Barger, Desiree Cueto, Mary Lee Hahn, Joyce Herbeck, and Stacey Ross in Language Arts, November 2018 (Vol. 96, #2, p. 119-126)

Back to page one

 

10. Short Items:

            a. A guide to The Hate U Give – http://bazaned.com/search?q=the+hate+u+giveprovides a free curriculum, discussion, and social action guides to Angie Thomas’s popular novel. The material is supported by video clips from the film, video interviews, digital photos, and printed resources.

 

“Important Lessons Not Lost in THUG” by Kara Yorio in School Library Journal, November 2018 (Vol. 64, #11, p. 14)

 

Back to page one

 

            b. Virtually exploring ten great museums – This site from Google Arts and Culture https://artsandculture.google.com/theme/igKSKBBnEBSGKggives free tours to the following: 

-  British Museum, London

-  Guggenheim Museum, New York

-  Musée d’Orsay, Paris

-  National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Seoul

-  Pergamon Museum, Berlin

-  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

-  The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

-  Uffizi Gallery, Florence

-  MASP, São Paulo

-  National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City

 

“10 Top Museums You Can Explore Right Here, Right Now,” Google Arts and Culture, November 2018

Back to page one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© Copyright 2018 Marshall Memo LLC

 

If you have feedback or suggestions,

please e-mail[email protected]

 

 

About the Marshall Memo