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.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
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.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
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.
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?
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)