The Final Blog... or is it?

Well, the semester is drawing to a close. Dress code is rearing its ugly head, senioritis is more than an imagined contagion, and EDC 533 is ending. So what have I learned?

1. Curriculum is a multi-faceted, ever-evolving, complex issue.

2. There are very few definite answers, but one thing I am 99% certain of is that we don't have it right yet, and in fact, are pretty far off.

3. Other countries do it better.

4. I could design awesome curriculum, if only... (fill in the appropriate acronym here) ...didn't tie my hands

5. There is a lot of GREAT INFORMATION out there, if you only know where to look!

6. Today's students are digital natives, and to ignore that is to deny them 21st century skills.

7. Blogging is fun - it opens the door to saying too much, perhaps - but it is a great way to communicate both objective and subjective information!

8. I am more certain than ever that I want to move into one of the various modes of administration

9. I am less certain than ever that I know what an administrator's role is... especially with regards to curriculum! This is such a complex, ever-changing topic, I am not sure if administration should take the lead or be a cheerleader.

10. I learned a lot, enjoyed blogging, and will MOST likely continue posting on this blog in the coming months/years. For example, I am in the middle of 3 professional resources right now - "Fair isn't always Equal," by DuFour "Differentiating in the Classroom,", and "Focus" by Schmoker. Why shouldn't I post about these after reading? It only makes sense!

How I Would Change Curriculum in my Classroom

Well, based on the readings and discussions in this class, I would like to change my classroom in several ways. I would like to incorporate more of the Partnership for the 21st Century Skills. I would like to stop sacrificing depth for breadth, and I would like to authentically use the ample technology I have at my fingertips.

As far as P21 goes, students are going to need to be ready for the current and future realities of their lives, and so schools that force them to step back in history do not accomplish much when it comes to this preparation. I think I have always integrated some component of environmental, global, and technological literacy, but one area I have fallen a bit short is collaboration. I tend to rely on a teacher-centered classroom, which I will say is not always bad. There is quite a bit of support for interactive lecture as a method for achieving results, especially with regards to science. This said, students are moving into a world where people collaborate - all the time. They email, phone, text, skype, facebook, blog, tweet, and so forth. It is fundamentally important that these communication and collaboration tools are used to accomplish work and learn in school, and I am working on how to incorporate them more appropriately in my classroom.

I have always felt like I have had to rush through an incredible amount of material in life science. From day one, we jump right in with the definition of characteristics of life, and we go full steam ahead until final exams. This is unfair though. There are so many opportunities and places where students can question, probe, and get creative. There are so many topics that could be unwrapped and delved into. It's a disservice to keep students from engaging in these - and it's much less fun to teach this way. I am taking our unit on genetics currently and getting into the ethics and moral dilemmas behind emerging genetic technology. I am presenting small groups with case studies supported with science, and asking them to evaluate the pros and cons, and develop and team statement to persuade the class. How fun!

And the final change I want to integrate right away is utilizing the technology at my fingertips. I have a ceiling-mounted projector, an interactive whiteboard, and students who have one-to-one computing. One of the lessons of this course was to stop doing the same old thing, but now using technology. Instead, we should begin doing new things in new ways. With this in mind, I am trying to make small changes. In the aforementioned genetic-ethics case studies, I would have normally printed out the PDF file and had students highlight. Instead, now, I am asking them to use annotations in the PDF and make color-coded notations about pros, cons, and questions. Granted, this is still annotating the text, but it is a new way to do so (and will avoid the "I left my paper at home" piece!) and in a way is a beginning.

I hope that many teachers are trying to make these changes. I feel like for the first 8 years of teaching, I perfected (as much as possible) an old-fashioned style of teaching. It is only in the past couple years I have really started to open my eyes and build in some different techniques. There is a whole world of teaching pedagogy, and it would be sad to have decided on the one true technique this early in my career! I am appreciative of the development of new ideas, and hope that as I become more engaged in my teaching, so too will my students.

Vexing Issues

I read this week's assignment, and was overjoyed by its relevance to where I am right now. If you didn't read my previous blog post, my school is in the unenviable position of qualifying for SIG funds, as we are listed in the bottom 10 performing schools for the state. While we don't necessarily have the lowest SAT scores, we have declined in performance while other schools have increased. So... the question becomes, do we apply for the SIG knowing all the hoops we will have to jump through to receive the funding?

There are four models for receiving school improvement grants. Two models - closure and restart - are not options in Maine. Closure would require another in-district option with room for students (not happening!) and restart would mean shutting the school down and re-starting it as a charter school. While that may become an option with the new governance, in my district it doesn't seem like the public would support turning over the public school to an EMO. EMO is an educational management organization that would come in and oversee the charter school process.

This leaves two models available for SIG approval - transformational or turnaround. The transformational model includes replacing the current school administrator, developing teacher and school leader effectiveness through changing the evaluation system, tying student achievement to teacher evaluations, reforming instruction, increasing instruction time, and providing support through positions like instructional coaches and literacy specialists. The turnaround model on the other hand requires replacing the school administrator as well as 50% of the faculty, adopting new governance, and re-designing instruction.

This is a vexing issue to me. First of all, the measure of student success is a poor measure. While I know we shouldn't blame it on the test, one cannot deny that even CollegeBoard recommended we don't use the SAT as our state measure of student achievement. This is not what the test was designed for, and we are literally laughed at at conferences when we discuss our schools being judged based on SAT data. I was part of the state's data coach training process this past year, and the trainers hired out of Massachusetts were appalled that we use the SAT to measure all students and gauge our school's effectiveness.

Secondly, when schools decide to apply for the funds, as they invariably do, one of the components of either plan is to replace the principal. While I can see replacing a poor leader, in the few cases I have come across, quite often a great leader is removed from his or her position, and an unknown variable is introduced into a struggling school. We are going to be losing an experienced, caring, motivated and motivating individual who knows our struggles, successes, and history. Without knowing who will apply and be part of the candidate pool, I can say with confidence that we will either promote from within the system (which is not really the intended transformation intended in the grant plan) or gain a totally new leader who will need to learn us, learn our school, learn our students, and learn our challenges before they can effect change - if they can effect change. The unfortunate fact is that we often lack candidates for any administrative position - we cannot find a superintendent right now, so now we will be in the position of needing district leadership as well as building leadership!

I am sorely vexed by this issue. I understand the intent of SIG and AYP - I understand the inadequacy of some student public education opportunities, and the inequalities from school to school or student group to student group. I believe there is a way to bring all schools up to a higher level of achievement, but I truly do not believe this is the answer, for so many reasons. On the state level and the federal level, there are some major issues with how NCLB measures schools and utilizes its sticks and carrots to "motivate."

Curriculum 21 - Chapter 11 thoughts

"If our children are to grow up to make important contributions to society, it is essential that we provide them with powerful tools and experiences across the curriculum. This goal will require a new culture of teaching and learning that engages students as contributors."

I think this is a wonderful summary of this reading. The tools are out there. The students know it! If we want them to be engaged, we need to speak their language, and if we want them to be able to contribute as adults we have to teach them the mode and means for doing so.

I was struck by this today, in particular. Our school is in the unfortunate circumstance of qualifying for SIG funds. While not the "lowest performing" school in the state, we are a Title I school that took funding and didn't show an improvement. Our school board has decided to apply for the grant, and so the student body was informed of the decision today. They understand, now, that means removing our current principal from the position and hiring a new school leader. What was the response?

Quite appropriately, I believe, students were upset to not have a voice in the decision that is facing their school. They created ballots for students to vote whether they would take the grant or decline the funds, had they been asked. An enterprising student created a Facebook survey asking students for input - students can select multiple choices such as "we don't need the money," "we should have a say," and "we should keep Mr......".

While I am saddened by the position we are in, I am so pleased with the engagement of the student body in this process. They are struggling, right alongside teachers, with what this means for our school. They want to know how they can be heard, and they are really trying to get advice on how to do it in an appropriate way so that they are taken seriously. While walk-outs and other things have been mentioned, I have heard students tell each other that these aren't the ways to go about being heard - how dramatic is this peer-to-peer coaching that is going on!

I know the Facebooking has only just begun when it comes to this issue, but I am certainly pleased thus far with how students have reacted - they are really invested in the outcome, and trying to approach it as best as possible. This is one small tool (Facebook) that they have taught themselves how to use - and have harnessed as a communication tool for civic discourse. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had taught them to use these other tools too?

This Week's Reading

As I was hunting around the resources this week, I spend some time on the Learning First website, Public School Insights. I stumbled across the article on the International Summit in Education, and found it very interesting. While we are talking about the influence of various organizations on education, this article highlighted some differences between education in the United States and education in countries that perform well on tests such as PISA. I am persuaded that these factors highly influence the quality of education in as significant a way as unions, boards, and other groups! The article says:

"It’s been more than a week since the U.S. Department of Education sponsored International Summit on the Teaching Profession took place in New York City. For those of us who were observers, the conversation was valuable but the extended time spent sitting and listening challenged our ability to absorb all that was being exchanged. However, a few themes kept resurfacing:

* In countries with high performing students as measured by the PISA tests, the teaching profession is held in high esteem and attracts the strongest students to its preparation programs.
* Conversely, those same countries support a highly selective process for identifying potential teachers and accepting them into teacher preparation programs.
* Once on the job, teachers in high performing countries are given an average of 15 hours/week to confer with colleagues, observe others’ classrooms, and participate in professional learning activities.
* In countries where students score well on international tests, teachers’ salaries are on par with engineers, doctors, and other professionals.
* In all the countries that participated in the summit, teachers are unionized.

In countries where student achievement is high, teachers are given a great deal of autonomy to deliver instruction in ways that reach students with a variety of learning styles. Further, this autonomy is important to teachers and a mark of their professionalism. Even in countries with strong central education departments and national goals and standards, schools and teachers are free to craft the instructional support in ways that fit their individual teaching styles while meeting the needs of the students with whom they work.

The following countries sent representatives to participate in the conversation with US educators and policymakers:

Finland, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Slovenia, Sweden, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan

While simultaneous translation was provided for Brazil, China, and Japan, the other education ministers delivered their reports and remarks in near perfect English….humbling to those of us who aren’t multi-lingual. The real test of impact from this summit (a proposal was made by U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, that it become an annual event held around the world), will be the extent to which we act on what we heard. This will require a collaborative effort from all those present and the educators they represent and a commitment to respectful dialogue to determine the difficult but necessary changes the U.S. education system needs to make to reach the ranks of “high performing” countries."


To me this is a list not just of factors that make education effective in these countries, but also a list of all the ways we could work to make public education work better here. What if teachers were paid more? More people would teach! This also might lead to a higher caliber of teacher, as many good teachers leave the profession due to a lack of professional recognition and compensation. Imagine if teachers were held in the same esteem, and paid the same salary range, as engineers and doctors? More people would want to teach, so enter the highly selective teacher preparation programs. Additionally, I cannot imagine what teaching would be like if I had 15 hours of collaboration time each week! This is a phenomenal amount of time dedicated to continued development and improvement in instruction, whereas I often feel that if I desire to do that kind of work, it must happen on my own time, such as giving up prep periods or spending vacation time working on training and professional development.

This was an enlightening read, and highlighted some of the key differences that I've been feeling for some time now. I hope we can take some lessons from these successful countries.

Toes in the Water

After reading Bill Ferriter's "Taking the Digital Plunge" I had the opportunity to reflect on my own immersion in the digital world. I have a Facebook account. I have two blogs - this, and a half-hearted one on my half-hearted experience with being a vegetarian. I own a laptop, desktop, iPod, iPad, cell phone, XBox, and Wii. I use a digital projector, almost daily. I grade online, email students, parents, and co-workers, and search for images and ideas on a daily basis. I check the weather online, see news updates, and have replaced my stacks of books on my nightstand with a slimmer, neater, digital library. I have gone digital, but am I plunging? Or am I sitting in the shallow end of the pool dunking my toes?

While I have all the tools and use them frequently, I am not entirely sure that I have plunged into the digital world. Granted, ten years ago, much of what I do would be foreign to think about. Grading online? Instant access to my gradebook by parents and students? Downloading texts, movies, music, and shows? These are all very new, and very useful technologies. What Bill Ferriter got me thinking about is something we have been discussing since the first week - though I am using this new digital world, I am still largely doing old things in new ways.

Mr. Ferriter talked about his use of technology. He has students use VoiceThread to have conversations online about course content. He links to educators in countries all over the world, and encourages his students to link to students in other countries to get use to the idea of working with someone half a world away. He follows blogs and shares with his students and co-workers what he learns from them. Bill has indeed plunged.

I think, however, it is a learning process. Crawling comes before walking. Doggie-paddling comes before swimming the backstroke. You have to get in the pool before you can even attempt to swim. At this point, I am happy to be in the pool and thinking about taking the first strokes of a swim. Maybe I'll flounder a bit, maybe my students will flounder around with me, but I don't think we'll go under, and I am pretty confident that through floundering we will grow more comfortable in the digital depths and eventually find ourselves swimming with confidence.

Al Gore, Meet Heidi Hayes Jacobs...

This week's reading united two of my true loves - sustainability and education. As a high school science teacher, sustainability is one of my major emphases, no matter the content area I am working in. Life science, physical, earth, or chemistry - sustainability of our planet and of ecosystems is a critical, overarching idea that can be and should be incorporated as much as possible.

So, in reading this week's assignment I was thrilled to see it included in a discussion of education as well! I see many parallels between the world of education and the study of natural resources, and it is refreshing to know I am not the only one. They can be analogous to each other, and can also assist in understanding one or the other. Hopefully we can learn solutions about both soon...

So, in the spirit of David Letterman (or Johnny Carson, really) here are my top five reasons why the planet's peril is similar to education today:

1) We are relying on old technology, or using new technology to do old things. Al Gore said it in "Inconvenient Truth" - old technology + old methods = predictable consequences. New technology + old methods = unforseen consequences. We can't keep doing the same old thing in the same old way, and we also can't try to do the same old thing but just do it with new tools. To really move ahead, we need to have new methods that correlate with our new tools.

2) There are things that we KNOW will work (solar, geothermal, year-long school, changing the daily schedule to meet kids' developmental needs, the metric system) but they cost so much so switch over to, we haven't done so. Our decision needs to be less of a quick-fix situation (keep doing what we're doing, just tweak it to make it work) and more of a long-term solution (pay now for what we know will pay off later).

3) The kids know it. Students know that school doesn't work the way it should - we've all seen motivation flag, they know that old-fashioned teaching doesn't prepare them for the world they live in now, never mind tomorrow. They know that giving them the new tools but only allowing them to do old-fashioned types of work doesn't really teach them what they need to know. They also know the global sustainability piece - that we've done major damage, perhaps irreparable although I certainly hope not, and something major must be done to try to maintain a sustainable planet for the future.

4) The frog example from Al Gore is perfect for either scenario. In the frog example, he explains that if you put a frog in normal temperature water, and then slowly crank it to boil, the frog won't jump out - it will boil to death. However, if you put it in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. People are the same way - we recognize a bad situation if we are first confronted with it. However, if things start out fine and slowly degrade, we are slow to recognize the danger. We won't jump out - we'll just sit there and cook ourselves. As Al Gore states, it's "important to rescue the frog!"

5) If you've seen the movie, there is a small cartoon clip about global warming. In the clip, the government's solution is to drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every so often to cool things off temporarily. Don't we have the same sort of educational ice cubes? Whether you think NCLB, Common Core, State Assessment Systems, Title I... there are government-designed fixes for problems without true examination of solving the problem. Throwing more money at something, or holding a very large stick and a nice little carrot are temporary fixes for a situation that needs a true solution.

Analogies aside, I am a major proponent for sustainability in global resources, and feel guilt when I accidentally throw away a paperclip, or take the less gas-conserving vehicle all the way to Bangor from Ellsworth. Applying this to education, I think sustainability should also be a focus - how can we conserve resources? How can we preserve students? How can we use better technology, better methods, and better systems to re-design a sustainable educational system? After all, someone has to rescue the frog!

Dan Pink and Drive

What I really enjoyed about Drive was how it was applicable on so many levels to so much more than simply education. First off, I am a mother, and with my three-year-old, I will say I am a mother who resorts to extrinsic rewards too often to get the desired behavior. From sticker charts to cookies, I try to reinforce positive behavior with rewards. While it works sometimes, this is a short term solution. Internally I knew this, but reading Drive helped me to see some of the deeper reasons for lessening the rewards and instead focusing on how to create an intrinsic desire for behaving in my child. Now, if I ever figure that out I will write my own book and retire wealthy, but in the meantime, it is an attempt worth making.

I also enjoyed the book because of the many parallels to science. For example, the analogy of how the x behavior is like coal, and type I is like the sun. Type x, the traditional view of behavior, is old. We've gotten our use, it's no longer very effective, and it pollutes the system. Just like coal. Type I on the other hand has been around since day one. We have simple forgotten how to harness its energy and utilize it, but if we remember, it could change everything. Cleaner, more efficient, renewable. Type I behavior is to solar as type x is to coal.

Drive, in so many ways hit home with current issues in education. We talk in circles about how to motivate students. We ask ourselves how we can get them to do better. We want to meet standards, make AYP, cover more, teach better, and do it all yesterday. What I got from Drive is that these aren't new questions. We are approaching old problems in old ways and getting the same results we always have, then scrsrchg our heads and asking why. If we are truly going to have education reform, we need to think in new and creative ways, and ask new questions. How can we treat students as more than cogs, and carry this over to teachers as well? How can we make behavior and success rewards in themselves? How can we educate today for the world of tomorrow, without knowing what it holds? It's not impossible, some schools have found a way. They went scared to innovate and think outside the box, and as a result have programs and curriculum that are meaningful and rich. It takes some bold moves to try new things, but if we don't we are going to run out of fuel. Coal is a
Limited resource.

An Extra Post about a Really Cool School!

As I was watching a PBS video about green design with my AP students last week, we discovered a very interesting school in New Jersey called the Willow School. A pre-k to 8th grade day school, the building itself emphasizes so many elements of the curriculum design I wrote about for class. The building itself teaches, and so many lessons are linked to the thought process that went into the green design and thoughtful environmental development of the school itself! I decided to explore a bit further, and discovered the school website (http://www.willowschool.org/index.htm) give many more details about the philosophy and mission of the school.

While stuck embracing traditional scheduling and a typical school-year calendar, in many other ways this school struck home with me. The school looks at creativity, interdisciplinary learning, the joy of learning, academic excellence, and mastery of the English language as its primary goals. How nice that a school wants students to be desirous of knowledge! One of the focal points is an understanding of place, and the school works to foster natural curiosity as a cornerstone to learning. As a science geek, I relished that of the three emphasized curriculum focal points, ecology was one! I honestly couldn't stop reading.

As we work on looking at innovative schools and ways to make curriculum more relevant, authentic, and lasting, I really think this is one great model of how it can be done. I only wish I lived closer, both for myself and for my daughter!

Running Curriculum Questions

The question I am choosing to investigate this week is one that I have often wondered about - who has decided what information should be included in the standards or MLRs? When looking at various standards, such as my favorite science standard, that all students should be able to measure interstellar distances, I often wonder, who wrote this? Who really thinks that measuring interstellar distances, or being able to identify taxonomic levels of an organism from domain to species, is an essential science skill? If I were in charge.... (so many statements begin this way!) ...things would be more straightforward!

So... where did these MLR's come from? Here's what I discovered. In 1984, the Education Reform Act took place, and Maine decided to address the reform by defining Maine's Common Core of Learning , published in 1990. This was intended to be a vision of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that Maine students should develop. In 1993 the State Board of Ed developed a Task Force on learning results, and it was this task force that developed the 1997 Learning Results.

So, who was on the task force? After quite a bit of investigation, I have found out that the task force was quite large. It included individuals from the Great Maine Schools project, school superintendents, CEOs, university trustees, university professors, business owners, and school leaders including principals. Once the Learning Results were developed, it them went to a Critical Review Committee, that included many groups. The Maine Parent Teacher Association, MPA, Maine Children's Alliance, Maine Math and Science Alliance, MAMLE, Maine Teacher of the Year Association, Maine Association of School Health Coordinators, Maine Educators, Champion Paper, UNUM, and the UMaine Board of Trustees are some of the many groups charged with review and revision of the Learning Results.

Promising Futures

For class this week, I began with the Promising Futures report on secondary schools. It was incredibly interesting to me, as a high school teacher. I felt like I knew what was best and worst about my school, having been there for a while, participating on every known team there is, and chairing one of our accreditation teams. So, it was a bit surprising to read the report and realize that even some of the elements we are most proud of need revision, and some of the things we are dying to get rid of or have gotten away from are actually recommendations of the report. While working incredibly hard, and thinking very carefully and deeply, and trying nearly every new thing out there, we really haven't come very far at all from the reality of public high schools when Promising Futures was written.

As I began reading, I felt like we had some, but definitely not all, of the core practices recommended in the report. We respect our students (from my perspective - others might disagree, including the students!), have some collaborative teaming, and have professional development plans. However, we are missing many of the other core practices - there is little student voice in what or how they learn material. The students are very unfamiliar with the learning results and standards they are required to master, never mind how our plan for them will help them accomplish this. In fact, when I moved on to the "practices to phase out" section, I was dismayed to see that we still adhere to every single one. That's right - from a master schedule through graduation requirements based on Carnegie Units and the holding tank mentality, we have not begun to phase out any of these identified "worst" practices.

I pondered as I read, what would a school like this even look like? Tackling the first one, getting rid of a master schedule, is mind-boggling to even think about. It came down to an issue of trust for me, but perhaps this is just how I've been feeling lately professionally. The master schedule is there, it seems to me, to keep track of who is doing what when, and ensure that it's all "fair." Each teacher needs to have similar class loads, teaching time, and duty schedules, in order to maintain fairness. However, when it really is examined, the master schedule doesn't take into account what is truly done, and the "fairness" is superficial. Science teachers (a personal favorite of course) have quite a bit of set-up, take-down, and maintenance that are not built into this "fair" schedule, while English and history teachers should have their written work grading requirements taken into account. Math is a critical skills-based class, but there is no extra time devoted to allowing practice with a guide. It must be built into instructional time.

We have flexed and bent in every direction to try and think outside the box, while refusing to get rid of the darn box. If we fail to remove barriers like scheduling, traditional school day and year calendars, lack of student and parent voice, and so on, this feeling of banging our heads against the wall will only continue, because we are not removing the walls in our way. I'd like to be able to envision a Promising Futures school, because at least with an understanding and vision of how it might work, I could begin to initiate some phasing out and introduction of core practices in my own school.

There's an App for That!

In today's educational world, teachers are becoming more and more outpaced by their students. As hard as we try to keep up with the expanding online world, kids are immersed in the web and technology to a degree we cannot match. In the morning, they check for snow days on the web. They facebook (also now a verb, like Google) their status to friends, and search online for homework help. At school they text their friends (hopefully not while in class), making plans and sharing news. They often have one-to-one computing for classes, and utilize a variety of social and informational sites to complete work and virtually mingle with peers. After school, even activities that use to be individual such as playing video games are now able to be played with groups over vast distances. The world is more connected today than ever, and our students know how to navigate it - do we?

One of the major questions that came from this chapter for me was how can we, with only partial knowledge and understanding of technology, utilize it in our classrooms so that students are truly educated to be citizens of the 21st century? Too often schools today are more hesitant, if not frightened, of the digital world. I have the personal experience of various bans on Facebook as a way to connect with students, many cautionary tales used to dissuade teachers from interacting with students online, and sets of regulations about what can and cannot be accessed in schools. Students, and teachers too, are often frustrated by these imposed limitations on what could be a truly educational experience and new mode of learning.

While we are always scared of the new, as educators, I believe our job is three-fold. First, we need to learn. The catch-phrase for many teachers in interviews and so forth is that they are "lifelong learners" - well, this is one area where that truly needs to be demonstrated. As lifelong learners, it is imperative that technology and the expanding online world is an area we continue to focus on. Secondly, we need to educate students about this same world. Their experience in the online world is somewhat limited - despite their prowess, they focus on what is interesting - social networking, games, and so forth. There is a wealth of resources out there that they do not know about, and it is important that they learn the geography and culture of this world, just as they learn about the geography and culture of the physical world. Finally, in order to truly teach our students for tomorrow's success, technology needs to be integrated to our curriculum, not just added. Many teachers view technology as an addition to the already-packed curriculum. To really benefit the educational process, technology shouldn't be added on, but must be worked within.

I suppose the final message is that technology, while new and ever-expanding, is relevant, necessary, and vital for educational success.

Playing More, Learn More

In our assignment this week we were supposed to consider the role of elementary education and its curriculum. In the reading and the TED Talk from Kiran Bir Sethi, I had some thoughts, but I went off on a tangent a bit as I believe this class encourages. I watched an additional TED Talk by Stuart Brown entitled "Play is More than Fun" that I believe ties directly into my thoughts on early childhood and elementary education.

Today's elementary curriculum is quite different from what I remember about kindergarten and the early grades. My kindergarten classroom was like a wonderland - we had an indoor plastic climbing gym, that in retrospect seems big as a house, in one corner of the classroom. There was another corner where we could play house. There was a sand and water table, a rug with a tape outline for circle time, an easel where we wrote letters and journals of the day, a reading corner, a sink where we made Stone Soup and Spaghetti Squash, a dress-up box, and various other exciting play opportunities I can still dimly recall. Kindergarten was FUN - we PLAYED - and from it, developed essential skills that Stuart Brown speaks to.

Kindergarten, as well as other levels of elementary education, today have evolved to be more difficult and less playful. I recently heard of one school whose kindergarten class got one recess a day, of only a mere fifteen minutes. When did we lose sight of the fact that kindergarten students are five years old? Who ever decided that little children can play less and yet learn more? To me this is an oxymoron.

From an evolutionary point of view, play has a vital purpose in social and cognitive development. From playing, we learn to take turns, work collaboratively, problem-solve, think, reason, and make informed decisions. I am writing this while watching my daughter "clean" her play kitchen. The fake tube of cookies is too big for where she stores the play food, so she is reasoning through various other decisions. Can she put it in a cabinet? Not if the plates are in there... maybe the plates can fit in the fridge. Now she moves on to making soup for her "babies." She is learning as she does this - and practicing organization, care-taking, and countless other skills that will benefit her for life.

Granted, my daughter is only three and a half, but I hate to think that in a year-and-a-half she'll become chained to a desk with only a brief respite for play. I watch her now, and she is learning more than my high school students often do in a given day because she is experiencing through play. I know the elementary teachers will do their best to provide a rich, exciting elementary curriculum, but with the demands placed on them today, I think time for play has been largely lost.

Stuart Brown has proposed studying play and its role in cognitive development. His proposals for grant funds have largely been turned down because as a people we see play as a frivolous thing - something only for children. However, he believes and I agree that a society that provides time for play for all ages would make great strides in morale, intelligence, creativity, and social development. As Kiran Bir Sethi showed in her video, Ahmedabad now shuts down periodically to show its appreciation for children and their play. This has led to innovations and improvements city-wide, led by children, and in return the children will grow into adults who give back to their city.

Mr. Brown studied play in various animals to see its effects. He told a particularly intriguing story about play in rats. One rat group was allowed to play during development, as rats do, while the other group was play-deprived. When presented with a predator scent, both groups hid, but the play group eventually came out to explore and resume activity. The play-deprived group however continued to hide, and they hid, and they hid until they eventually died. They never regained control of their environment, and this is directly linked to the lack of exploration during development as they were play-deprived.

Stuart Brown didn't originate in the theory of play. Initially, he worked on violent crimes and murders. What spurred his interest in play was the identification that many violent criminals have limited play histories. There seemed to be a strong correlation between anti-social behavior, including violent crime, and a lack of playing in development.

The TED Talk concludes with the statement that although many people believe the opposite of play is work, in truth the opposite of play is depression. Think of a world with no play activities - no sports, no movies, no playgrounds, no games... without play, we are a depressed society.

As we continue to reform education, I hope that we maintain focus on child development and remember the importance of being a child. Elementary years should include a major emphasis on play. Although I know we do not want to get "behind" in comparison to other countries, and so we have increased expectations for younger children, I think there is an inherent danger in depriving kids of time to play. What good is academic achievement in maladjusted individuals? In the beginning I mentioned that we had this idea of playing less and learning more. I believe the solution is, in actuality, play more, learn more.

assessing assessment

From reading Zhao's article "Playing 'Catch-Up' with Developing Nations Makes No Sense for the U.S.", I was left with some important thoughts about assessing the state of assessment in our country. I have always struggled with the ideas behind NCLB and all students "college-ready", and reading this article helped crystallize some of my feelings into more coherent thoughts.

Zhao says "There is a tendency to try to reduce something complex, like education, to something simple like a test score, and then use it to rank people and institutions." We definitely see this in our public school systems. How do we assess school effectiveness? Through AYP, based on SAT or state test scores. How do we rank students? By GPA, largely based on classroom tests, and SAT scores. Are these true measures of the school and student education? I believe not.

Even at its most basic, looking at a school's mission statement shows that there is much more involved in education than is testable. At my school, we focus on academics, but also civic and social expectations. We expect our students to learn how to set and reach goals, have civic responsibility, contribute to community, and work both collaboratively and independently. Are these testable? Can we have really successful education that doesn't show up on assessments? I believe so.

What this emphasis on testing and ranking leads to, as Zhao highlighted in China, is a lack of non-core curricular focuses. Chinese schools don't have art, music, or performing arts programs. Chinese students don't do much beyond reading and rote memorization. Our schools in this country might not measure up on tests simply because we include different programs and elective studies - does this mean we should measure up by getting rid of art and music? This question is being addressed in my school beginning with getting rid of advisory to provide more class time, since we continue to not meet standards. But, in the big picture, are students benefiting from increased focus on assessment and the loss of programs and opportunities - I believe not.

Zhao speaks, as few can, about comparing education in different countries. He begins by discussing what it was like growing up in China. There was such a competition for educational advancement, it was all about the test. While education was assessment-driven, other needed aspirations were highly underrepresented. He says "China has an overproduction of college students and it needs more students with vocational-technical skills." He even says that while he is valuable here in our country, they type of knowledge he has would get him nowhere back home - he knows nothing useful, when it comes to living in China.

Is this what is happening due to NCLB? We are trying to make all students college-ready, but is that appropriate? Don't we need other types of adults in our future communities? Some students really need life skills, or basic survival as an independent adult instruction. Some students need programs that address vocational-technical skills. I feel very lucky to work in a district that has a technical school option, but what about smaller districts that do not have those opportunities for kids? We are pushing students to be college-ready but not world-ready.

I see this in my district as well. We are a multi-high school district, and one of our schools is a coastal, Downeast, struggling high school. Their population is small, and the community is very vocational, especially with the fishing industry. Students and teachers, as well as the surrounding community, struggle with the federal and state legislation imposed on them because it simply is not appropriate. As Zhao says, what we should be doing is "stimulate local innovations and identify different models hat would work in different situations." For students in this community, it would be much more appropriate to be learning material that will prepare them for what they are really going to be doing - in many cases, this is fishing. Most won't go to college - or will attend community college - is that such a bad thing? Of course, going down this road brings up many questions - college-ready doesn't necessarily mean they have to go to college, does it? What about those students who want to pursue higher education? Should they be tracked? How can a small district afford to diversify? And so forth.

Needless to say, I do have problems with the high-stakes testing for both students and schools. As an educator, I feel it ties my hands and keeps me from teaching more, and teaching better, because we are focused on the test. As a parent, I worry - what if my child is a poor test-taker? She's only three, but if she can't measure up on paper, does that mean she is doomed to remedial studies despite being very intelligent? Is that what this heavy emphasis on testing is doing to our kids? Will she begin to feel dumb if she doesn't assess well? I think Zhao makes a great argument for the United States to begin looking at what we do well, instead of trying to test how we measure up. China, a developing nation, is trying to move away from their current assessment-drive model in many cases, so why are we, a developed nation, moving towards that model? It is backward - let's start assessing the true meaning and power of assessment.

20 minute assignment - definition of curriculum

20 Minute Assignment - Google Curriculum

We were asked to spend approximately 20 minutes online looking at curriculum and definitions of it. Below, you will see the various definitions I found. After reviewing them, many began by initially focusing only on the list of courses. Others went further to specify that it was courses as well as their content. However, the ones I liked the most talked about curriculum being a learning plan, consisting of what students must know but also what they must be able to do. This mimics language I am familiar with, and is how I am used to thinking about curriculum. The learning process cannot be separated from the content, in my opinion.

- Wikipedia * In formal education, a curriculum is the set of courses, and their content, offered at a school or university. As an idea, curriculum stems from the Latin word for race course, referring to the course of deeds and experiences through which children grow to become mature adults. A curriculum is prescriptive, and is based on a more general syllabus which merely specifies what topics must be understood and to what level to achieve a particular grade or standard.
- WiseGeek * Curriculum has numerous definitions, which can be slightly confusing. In its broadest sense a curriculum may refer to all courses offered at a school. This is particularly true of schools at the university level, where the diversity of a curriculum might be an attractive point to a potential student. A curriculum may also refer to a defined and prescribed course of studies, which students must fulfill in order to pass a certain level of education. For example, an elementary school might discuss how its curriculum, or its entire sum of lessons and teachings, is designed to improve national testing scores or help students learn the basics. An individual teacher might also refer to his or her curriculum, meaning all the subjects that will be taught during a school year.
- Merriam-Webster * 1: the courses offered by an educational institution
2: a set of courses constituting an area of specialization
- Definitions of curriculum on the Web:
course of study: an integrated course of academic studies; "he was admitted to a new program at the university"
In formal education, a curriculum is the set of courses, and their content, offered at a school or university. As an idea, curriculum stems from the Latin word for race course, referring to the course of and experiences through which children grow to become mature adults.
- curricular - Of, relating to, or following a curriculum
en.
- A program of courses to be taken in pursuit of a degree or other objective.
- Structured teaching plan for a course.

- A complete program of learning which includes the following components
- The coherent set of courses that make up a degree program or departmental offerings on a subject.
- refers to both the content (the material to be learned), and process of learning (the actions and resources involved in teaching and learning).

- is the content of the components or modules which the learner will follow.
- Contents of a course or program.
- means the planned interaction of pupils with instructional content, materials, resources, and processes for evaluating the attainment of educational objectives.


Irony

Our curriculum readings this week have focused on innovation versus doing what's always been done, and in this mindset, I came across an article this week that pins it down to a point - a very small point - indeed, a period.

A colleague of mine came into my room the other day with an article she had read that she found interesting. It is called "Space Invaders" and was posted on Slate.com. In this article, the author wrote about writing conventions - is it correct to use a single space after a period or two? Historically, due to typesetting irregularities, two spaces was the convention as it indicated more fully the change in sentence. However, now that typesetting is much more regulated, and the majority of fonts (excluding courier) have accounted for the irregularities of some narrow letters like "l" and "i", the double space, the author argues, is no longer needed.

While this is a very small point, his article goes on to note that in asking people why they continue to double-space after a period, despite the change in writing conventions on a professional level (MLA and other writing guides were cited as now supporting a single-space) many people responded that it was what THEY had been taught, so it was what they continue to do. The one teacher interviewed confessed to knowing that the new convention was a single-space, but continuing to teach students to double-space because it was what she had been taught in school.

This shocked me. I was taught there were five kingdoms in Biology when I was in high school, but we now know there are not. I don't teach 5 kingdoms because that's what I was taught - I teach 3 domains and at LEAST 6 kingdoms, while also presenting students with the idea that by the time they graduate, pursue post-secondary studies, etc., there may be many more. One kingdom alone has been proposed to include over 30 discrete groups that should be separately categorized! I would be doing my students a disservice to teach only 5 kingdoms. Is the double-spacing teacher doing her students s disservice as well? Or, is there a difference between skills and conventions versus factual information?

So many of us entered teaching and drew immediately on what we had been taught in high school. To get away from that means that we need to continue to learn - we must truly be "life-long" learners in order to teach well. This means embedding today's technology in a realistic way, not simply as an additive piece, and also presenting current facts, skills, and conventions while instructing students that they too must continue to learn into their future - we live in a fast-changing world, and this necessitates life-long learning.

To conclude, I would like to point out that despite my argument, I double-spaced after each period in this article. Old habits die hard?

Link to VoiceThread introduction

https://voicethread.com/?#e1650870

Experience with Curriculum Thus Far

My experience with curriculum development thus far has been equivalent to a love-hate relationship. I love curricula, and enjoy the development and design process. When it is science-related, I truly feel that my creativity and enthusiasm are sparked by the process, and I relish the collaboration with my colleagues and the brainstorming process. Figuring out how to interest and engage students, deciding how to address difficult topics, and finding ways to tie the content to reality are always somewhat fun for me.

However, with that said, I do feel frustration when it comes to curriculum development and design. This has evolved over the years as new standards are constantly changed and updated, and so the work always has to be re-done. At first, when I held my initial teaching position at a high school in Georgia, I will admit to putting a great deal of effort and attention into aligning my teaching with the "Quality Core Curriculum" as outlined to me. All my content, activities, and assessments were linked directly to a standard, and I paid very careful attention to this. Things that I wanted to teach, I couldn't, because they were not part of the required curriculum. Things that I had no preparation to teach, however, had to be included. This was challenging for me, but I readily complied. I even made an incredibly huge matrix linking all activities in a spreadsheet to the different standards, to prove linkages existed for each lesson. This was an incredible dedication of both time and effort, and I felt that I was preparing myself for a much easier road in the future.

Then, the curriculum was re-written. Then I moved to Maine. Then the Learning Results were re-written. Then the National Standards were stressed. Then we got new textbooks. Then the Core Curriculum began to come up. SATs. Science Augmentation. The list goes on and on. It has been disheartening to say the least to constantly be re-doing the work instead of refining and perfecting. Adding in staff turnover, administrator turnover, and district focusing goals, it has been very frustrating to work on curriculum as I have gained teaching experience. While in many ways I have grown professionally (classroom management, professional development experiences, community connections, pursuance of a Master's Degree, leadership positions and committee membership) as far as curriculum development goes it always seems to feel like the first time - revision for newly developed standards.

I think in teaching, we constantly have to be on guard against the feeling that this, too, shall change. I believe it is this way with curriculum design. While it may be difficult to retain as much enthusiasm as I initially had, I need to remember that each time, it is as important to ensure that my lessons are tied to standards.

The other frustration I have is that I have no control over the writing of these curricular standards. From my point of view, some strangers have been locked in a meeting and have decided what is important for me to teach. I would love to have some control over the content that is offered, and it seems that I know what my students need more than these mystery people! For example, I know at my school there is a GREAT need for sex education. We have students each year having babies, and an incredible lack of knowledge about human anatomy and reproductive physiology. While it is part of the health curriculum, I cannot see why it isn't more stressed in the Biological Sciences! If I controlled the world, (ha ha) or at least my own curriculum, I would include a great deal more anatomy and physiology, and health concerns, and less of the biochemistry of photosynthesis and cellular respiration. It seems as if the people writing curriculum standards are out of touch with the general student population. From this point, I could spring-board into many directions (all students college-ready? high stakes testing? NCLB?) but I will restrain myself as I think I have already explored some tangents to the central question.

Besides writing curriculum I have been on a number of committees involved with curricular development and design. I was part of the CIA (Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment) Team that served as a liaison between the departments and the district curriculum coordinator. This was a fulfilling role as I was very much "in-the-know" but in the end I am not sure what we really accomplished. I have participated in numerous textbook selection committees, and have even designed new courses, like the AP Environmental Science program now offered at our high school.

I love designing lessons. I like investigating content and trying to find unique, insightful, creative ways to offer it. I enjoy traditional projects as well as novel approaches. I understand the need for some organization to ensure that all students get a basic level of education. However, I find the oversight and bureaucracy of the process frustrating, the high-stakes testing inappropriate for many students and an inadequate measure of teacher effectiveness, and the constant change tiresome. I am still an optimist though, and look forward to moving into administration to try to provide teachers with some clarity and focus in this regard, and perhaps even influence leadership in the community to promote positive changes in our school programming.