Oh how extravagant my promises
are! "I will post a minimum of 20 times between May 1 and May
31, and each post will be a minimum of 50 words," I said back on
April 28. I did
acknowledge that it would be a difficult month to do that in, given the
fact that my annual month of full time work was about to begin. But I
was confident.
Over-confident, it turns out. My experience with the scoring the PSSA
reading assessment this year was frustrating and, in some aspects,
unpleasant. The work itself sucked up all my energy and focus, the
atmosphere in the building compromised my health, and the leadership,
by turns capricious, patronizing, and confusing, disheartened me.
Pennsylvania has changed its approach. In the past the reading
comprehension task for fifth graders called for some critical thinking
on the part of the youngsters: "Describe two changes you think will
take place between [two characters they've read about] and give
evidence from the passage to support your choices." This year all they
had to do was identify a chain of emotional states experienced by a
character and give evidence for the statement: "She was angry because
she stamped her foot and said no." This change is probably an effort to
meet the demands of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("
No Child Left Behind"),
ensuring that more of our schools will be classified as making adequate
yearly progress. (The problems engendered by NCLB is a rant better left
for another time. Suffice it to say that because of it I am happy that
both Lynn and I are both out of the secondary school classroom.)
The change made the papers easy to read and judge but the process
boring and repetitious. At one point I was reading more than 800 papers
a day (last year under the old question and grading rubric a good
average was 500), but I found I had to slow my pace.
The physical workplace contributed its own difficulties. The company,
based in Minnesota, has a long-term lease on the space it uses in a
suburban office complex. The place is closed up 11 months of the year
and opened only for the few weeks the scoring project occupies. Molds
build up in the ventilation system, and this year heavy rains in the
fall found a weak spot in the roof, making conditions even worse. I
found that by the end of the day I was irritable and exhausted, unable
to speak without wheezing nor move without my joints popping and
grinding. By the time I got home, however, I was significantly
brightened (although mentally exhausted). It had to be the air I was
breathing all day.
The project director was the same one as last year, sent from the home
office in Minnesota. I had found him difficult to follow since he gave
ambiguous directions and used confusing terminology in thr training
sessions. This year's
assistant project director, a local man, was a reader last year and had
spent a good deal of time cultivating a particular friendship with the
project director. This year he had direct supervision of the
group I was in, and I found him almost unbearable. He treated us like
fifth graders, by turns unctuous, patronizing, and controlling. His
directions were even more unclear than the other guy's and I kept
asking clarifying questions, a strategy I know irritated him.
I did find delightful lunch companions, so at least a half hour of the
day was something to look forward to. I netted only around $1000 (some
of us were so productive that the project ended three days early), less
than Bread Loaf's tuition (yes, I've been admitted again!) but a
welcome augmentation of my summer gallivanting fund.
I kept a small notebook open at my work station, and during
breaks and the brief periods when the computer reloaded with more
papers to read, I made notes on ideas for pieces for this space. I have
a plan for getting them all done before I leave for Wyoming. There
isn't one for every day, and I'll produce only half of what I'd planned
for
May. I'll miss the time frame, too, but, that's okay by me.
Watch for new pieces, and thanks for reading.
May 30, 2005