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!
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
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."
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)