It's true that I haven't updated my blog as often as I should. In a way, it's nice to have time to review the experience of the last school year (concerning curriculum work) and actually have time to reflect on the "whole" versus just discrete pieces.
In March of 2009, I was asked to work part-time in the curriculum office and still work the remaining hours as an assistant principal in the high school. The curriculum work was way behind schedule in keeping up with the new graduation requirements. There was no formal curriculum documents for World History (being taught for the first time to incoming juniors in the fall), Government, Economics, or any of the math options (Algebra, Advanced Algebra, Geometry, Pre-Calculus, etc.), chemistry and physics One wonders, just how did this happen? Why was so little emphasis given to secondary?
I have a lot of theories about this. To begin with, the curriculum director is from an elementary background and, honestly, prefers that level. Secondly, the curriculum department consists of a curriculum director and an assistant superintendent for instruction. There are some auxillary folks that deal with testing, technology, and professional development. However, there are not enough worker ants to actually get the nitty-gritty documents prepared and focused. One would think in a district of over 10,000 students, the curriculum department would certainly be larger. Why our students do so well academically is purely based on luck. We are lucky to have involved parents that value education. We're lucky, for the most part, that our teachers teach fairly well and believe in professional learning communities that focus on instruction. We're lucky that our students are disciplined and focused. What happens when our luck runs low and our students/teachers/parents become less focused? We've not prepared or enforced a strict curriculum that all teachers abide by. And, it is a complete disaster for a new teacher to understand what is expected of them. It is difficult, at best, to track and remediate weaknesses when common assessments are not based on specific instruction aligned to the benchmarks.
There was a hitch to the new responsibilities that I accepted. In the end of March I was given all the secondary work (with only 3 months to work on it). The superintendent promised me and my principal that the assignment would only last through that school year (no summer work either). Well, as you might expect, jockeying between the two assignments was difficult at best. The only work that got completed was the World History, the Algebra, and the Advanced Algebra. The curriculum director handled chemistry and physics. The physics did get completed and chemistry was well on it's way. I did feel that jockeying myself between the two positions did not provide justice to either.
There simply wasn't enough of me to go around. The staff at school was disappointed that I wasn't in the building when they wanted something from me. My counterparts in administration, had to pick up some extra duties and weren't happy with that aspect. I felt left out of many of the administrative conversations that happened when I wasn't there and not filled in on. The disconnect was tangible. From the curriculum side, the process was so new to me and provided no training. When I asked for a template, I was told to do whatever I thought was best. If you've never done the work before, how do you know what is "best"? Anyway, it took me about two weeks just to figure out how to best approach a single topic, let alone work on the others. Step number one... prioritize. Since the new advanced algebra and the new world history had to be in place by fall, I decided to start there.
Step number two... collaborate and delegate. Since the district had already agreed to pay a math teacher to write math curriculum, I decided to begin there. I thought this was a poor move for the district. When you pay one teacher to write curriculum, others do not want to work for free. Unfortunately, this was something I couldn't change and had to tactfully work around. Obviously, if I took over the work she would make less money which would not endear me to her or utilize her expertise. So, we met and I tried to convince her that the work was so encompassing that if she continued to do it alone, she wouldn't have a life outside school at all and there would be little, if any, buy in from the other teachers and other high schools. She agreed, although hesitantly at first. Department heads from all three high schools met to hash out the Advanced Algebra course with the new requirements. She had a template set with the Algebra work she completed and the department heads agreed to follow suit. In one day, they completed the same work it would have taken her weeks (and family time) to complete since she had been doing the curriculum work outside her full-time assignment. Hence, everyone left the room weary but together on the curriculum with complete buy-in to spread in their respective schools. Having the "right" people at the table makes all the difference in world.
Step number three.... Have the right people do the work. This truly is a key point. Knowing who the right people are can be tricky. I decided to take on the World History course. Now, keep in mind that I'm a math and science major. This topic was completely out of my realm of expertise. What I learned is that if you have the right folks involved in the work, I don't need to be the expert - just a facilitator. So, I had some preparation work to do ahead of time. I needed to have a guide of benchmarks and clarifications to work with. I needed a template to keep the work focused. And, we needed a text (or several texts) to use as reference that closely paralleled the benchmarks and provided teachers with tools. Lucky for me, the teachers had already selected the text of choice. I'm not sure which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Selecting the text first makes the work easier, but not always better as the alignment to the benchmarks gets glossed over. If you do the alignment first, the process may take forever with the number of texts available. Be that as it may, since the text was already selected, we worked from that starting point.
I struggled with a format that was teacher friendly and that teachers would actually "use". The worst case scenario is writing a document that no one uses. Things we considered were pacing, utilizing the benchmarks and clarifications (more user friendly than the actual benchmarks), essential questions, which ones were state assessed and which were class assessed, and what we wanted the learner to be able to know at the end of each chapter/section (learner outcomes) that we would base the common assessments on in the classroom to assess the validity of the curriculum document. I knew the person from my school who had a desire to do the work and the professional expertise. I did not know the staff from the other buildings as well. I got recommendations from the principals of the other buildings and then began the begging. Two were onboard immediately. I let them convince the third individual we had to have her join the process. She has many obligations both at school and at home as was fearful of taking on any more commitments - totally understandable. Those that "do" get hit upon most of the time until they completely burn out. Sad, but true.
With the team in place, the materials in place, the format agreed upon, we needed to be focused in our work. I agreed to type the document in the proper format. They focused their attention on learner outcomes and essential questions and the pacing. We met as a group three times for three full days away from the individual high schools. They collaborated wonderfully. We met twice in April (each time leaving with assignments to get back to me) and once in May to finalize. We had to work around spring break, AP exams, end of the marking period grading, etc. but finished the document before school ended. Professional development is scheduled when teachers resume in August.
The one shortcoming I can see now that the work is mostly completed is... as you might expect.... time. The document ended up about 130 pages in total. That's a lot of typing that I did myself. In hindsight, I should have farmed that out to a secretary. However, I wanted responsibility to follow this first attempt all the way through including the format. In the beginning, I changed the format three times before I had it fine-tuned and user friendly. It was more a process for me as I struggled with what necessary points needed to be included. The clarification document I hunted down from the state (which wasn't even published at the time) was a godsend! The benchmarks are confusing and very difficult to understand. Why the state writes them this way is certainly a mystery. Even the teachers of the content can't understand what is being asked of them. It's no wonder why the learner outcomes differ so much. The state asks college professors to write them, then they themselves must determine the clarifications. The process is redundant and ridiculous.
Anyway, now I'm in the process of planning the professional development for all teachers planning on teaching the World History course this school year and explaining the document. I haven't a specific plan yet and have the month of August to plan it. I know I want them to get used to the technology involved and planned for in the curriculum. I know I want them to have experience in writing (and sharing) lesson plans using that technology. I know that they must experience the same learning that students are expected - it must be experiential. I know I do not plan on much, if any, lecture time from me. Lastly, those that worked on the curriculum must be involved in leading the PD. Teachers learn best from other teachers. The participants MUST leave with something they can immediately use in the classroom.
So, as you can see, there is still lots of work to be done. We have, hopefully, good PD to prepare, we have common assessments to write, we have data to collect from the assessments to adjust the pacing and content, and we will have to constantly tweak to get better results. I'll keep the blog posted. As for me, it's been a growing process. I didn't have the best experience caught between two different positions, but I did learn and evolve.
I definitely had some time management issues getting all the teacher evaluations completely (new process this year) for 19 teachers, creating a master schedule for teaching assignments, creating rubrics for a counselor evaluation tool, working on an administrator's evaluation tool, and all the other responsibilities that generally fall at the end of the school year. I wish I could have done more on the curriculum, but I simply ran out of time. It will be interesting to see what Central Office decides about next year. Will I still be split or will the superintendent hold on to the promise he made even though so much of the work needs to be completed asap? Obviously, the district (like so many across the state) will not be hiring into the curriculum department without eliminating somewhere else. Money is tight. My principal wants me in the building (he's been vocal about that). Curriculum director wants me in Central Office. As for me, I like the work in both but the division is difficult. Time will tell.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Relevant PD
Does changing one's practice, change their beliefs or does changing the beliefs change one's practice? Today we brought staff together to explain the rollout of the professional development for our Realizing the Vision III in November. The rollout consisted of a powerpoint put together by the district and sent out to all schools to give staff an introduction to the topic of formative assessment.
Now keep in mind this is a high school staff with all the preconceived notions about having difficulty adapting to change. One teacher asked, "Is there documented research to prove that formative assessment works?" I cited several authors they could research on formative assessment and why it is important to classroom instruction. Basically, if any teacher changes instruction to meet the learning needs of students because of formative assessment, could only benefit students. Another teacher challenged me by asking "If we consistently change instruction to meet the needs of students, when do they (the students) take responsibility for their independent learning?" The quip that exited my lips, definitely wasn't well thought out. I said "Not all adults are independent learners. Both students and adults come to educational settings to learn new things. If all of our students were independent learners, we probably wouldn't need schools, teachers, universities, etc." Ok, it was an off-handed slam, but I'm not remorseful about my comment.
The last comment was followed up by the teacher with "Students will be expected to be independent learners in college and we should be preparing them for that." I followed up with "Students will definitely need post-secondary education, but not all of it will be independent learning." Part of me thinks the teacher just wanted to verbally challenge me in front of staff. No doubt that most of the staff saw through the antics. However, this type of resistance is not out of the norm. Generally, I'm not good at comebacks. I'm more of a reflective person that must take time to align my thoughts. Yet, I know in curriculum work resistance is definitely part of the playing field and full agreement is usually not possible. Consensus is nice. Sometimes even that isn't possible. Sometimes, change needs a definite PUSH.
The question, then, is how do you sway opinion and improve practice? Research? Great idea, if they read it and intrepret it properly. Present data? Another good choice if you can keep the excuses out of the discussion and again intrepret it properly. The only thing that has a strong correlation to change practice is with observation, collaboration, cooperation and discussion. The trouble is, it takes so long! It does provide, however, buy in. Without it, the change is dead in the water. You know what they say, "If a leader looks behind him and no one is following then he/she isn't really leading."
It is discouraging, though, that the teachers today (and, yes, it was just a few) were rejecting the idea of formative assessment without knowing much about it. Sometimes the quest for power by these individuals just gets in the way of progress. I wish they knew how silly they look to their peers.
Now keep in mind this is a high school staff with all the preconceived notions about having difficulty adapting to change. One teacher asked, "Is there documented research to prove that formative assessment works?" I cited several authors they could research on formative assessment and why it is important to classroom instruction. Basically, if any teacher changes instruction to meet the learning needs of students because of formative assessment, could only benefit students. Another teacher challenged me by asking "If we consistently change instruction to meet the needs of students, when do they (the students) take responsibility for their independent learning?" The quip that exited my lips, definitely wasn't well thought out. I said "Not all adults are independent learners. Both students and adults come to educational settings to learn new things. If all of our students were independent learners, we probably wouldn't need schools, teachers, universities, etc." Ok, it was an off-handed slam, but I'm not remorseful about my comment.
The last comment was followed up by the teacher with "Students will be expected to be independent learners in college and we should be preparing them for that." I followed up with "Students will definitely need post-secondary education, but not all of it will be independent learning." Part of me thinks the teacher just wanted to verbally challenge me in front of staff. No doubt that most of the staff saw through the antics. However, this type of resistance is not out of the norm. Generally, I'm not good at comebacks. I'm more of a reflective person that must take time to align my thoughts. Yet, I know in curriculum work resistance is definitely part of the playing field and full agreement is usually not possible. Consensus is nice. Sometimes even that isn't possible. Sometimes, change needs a definite PUSH.
The question, then, is how do you sway opinion and improve practice? Research? Great idea, if they read it and intrepret it properly. Present data? Another good choice if you can keep the excuses out of the discussion and again intrepret it properly. The only thing that has a strong correlation to change practice is with observation, collaboration, cooperation and discussion. The trouble is, it takes so long! It does provide, however, buy in. Without it, the change is dead in the water. You know what they say, "If a leader looks behind him and no one is following then he/she isn't really leading."
It is discouraging, though, that the teachers today (and, yes, it was just a few) were rejecting the idea of formative assessment without knowing much about it. Sometimes the quest for power by these individuals just gets in the way of progress. I wish they knew how silly they look to their peers.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Preparing for RV
RV stands for "Realizing the Vision". It is an annual district professional development opportunity that all staff is mandated to attend on the Monday and Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving break (Wednesday is usually a compensation day for conferences). Students have, subsequently, the entire Thanksgiving week off which pleases both parents and students as many of them travel anyway. This is the 3rd year for our RV conference.
The first year, we worked on differentiation in the classroom. The entire faculty of the district selected breakout sessions that appealled to them throughout the course of the day. Each session lasted about an hour with a 35 minute lunch scheduled at the same time for faculty to be social and dialogue about their sessions. Feedback from the first session was positive but faculty did complain that their specific content was not addressed (such as industrial arts, music, PE, and so on). They also told us that they needed time to work in their department together to put the pieces together to facilitate how differentiation might be utilized. There was excitement at first, but, unfortunately, it waned to almost no one using differentiation in the classroom
Year two had a technology focus. Again, there were breakout sessions for faculty to choose. Sessions included photoshop, skype, online productivity tools, differentiation using technology, wikis, podcasts, blogs, etc. Staff became fired up, and some use those tools today. Last year, we tried to keep the technology development on the forefront with in-building, voluntary technology classes after school in order to keep the momentum. At first many faculty attended, but slowly the numbers dipped to a steadfast few at the end. Some use wikis and blogs for educational purposes, but not the vast majority. We scheduled in time at the end of the conference (approximately 1.5 hours) for staff to work together on how to use technology effectively in the classroom. There was so much saturation at that point, staff wasn't as productive as we hoped. Again, staff commented they needed more time to work with material learned.
Year three has an assessment focus with an emphasis on formative assessment. Staff will attend two full days of content specific inservice with elementary and secondary separated to unpack the standards, work with power standards, and develop common formative assessments or engaging assessments for the electives (art, music, PE, industrial arts, foreign language, health, etc.). This year the RV conference is built around time for staff to full implement what they have learned. It is not only deemed professional development time but is fully advertised as a "work session" with a whole day for implement the knowledge gained.
Having had, and done, professional development in a variety of ways from specific conferences to faculty meetings, I truly believe that development like this along with professional learning communities is the only way to keep professional knowledge current. This is a huge problem with faculty development. Faculty will often opt not to leave their classroom to go to conferences as it presents too many barriers such as lesson planning, subs, discipline, etc.
All three years, we have had nationally known experts in the field present opening remarks. All three have had good reviews by faculty. And all three have been put together by district personnel with excellent coordination from everybody including food service providing lunch and building principals building momentum as well as the coordination and use of district technology coordinated from 11 elementaries, 3 middle schools and 3 high schools. Speakers are delivered to their hotels, picked up for the conference, wined and dined afterward and paid the going fee. This year we contacted Lead and Learn (Doug Reeves & group) to help us coordinate and facilitate the inservice. I have been to similar conferences that were not handled or coordinated as well.
I must admit, even from the planners there was hesitation. Assessment can be an emotional topic for some staff. Staff truly believes they deliver the content to the best of their ability. When students don't achieve on the assessment, faculty wants to put the blame on the students and not on themselves. To do anything other than that, admits the teacher is to blame for faulty delivery or some other inadequacy. That knowledge can be difficult to digest and recover from. The developers of RV3 were worried about the impact. We certainly want the development to continue but don't want faculty to be intimidated or negative about the impact. Although the developers consider it a growing experience, we know some might consider it a personal slam.
Assessment can be a tricky topic. It is part of the three-legged stool of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The stool can't stand on two legs, all three must be in alignment for students to be successful. Each part is important, but not without the others. Do we have our stool level? Balanced? I'll have to let you know in November.
The first year, we worked on differentiation in the classroom. The entire faculty of the district selected breakout sessions that appealled to them throughout the course of the day. Each session lasted about an hour with a 35 minute lunch scheduled at the same time for faculty to be social and dialogue about their sessions. Feedback from the first session was positive but faculty did complain that their specific content was not addressed (such as industrial arts, music, PE, and so on). They also told us that they needed time to work in their department together to put the pieces together to facilitate how differentiation might be utilized. There was excitement at first, but, unfortunately, it waned to almost no one using differentiation in the classroom
Year two had a technology focus. Again, there were breakout sessions for faculty to choose. Sessions included photoshop, skype, online productivity tools, differentiation using technology, wikis, podcasts, blogs, etc. Staff became fired up, and some use those tools today. Last year, we tried to keep the technology development on the forefront with in-building, voluntary technology classes after school in order to keep the momentum. At first many faculty attended, but slowly the numbers dipped to a steadfast few at the end. Some use wikis and blogs for educational purposes, but not the vast majority. We scheduled in time at the end of the conference (approximately 1.5 hours) for staff to work together on how to use technology effectively in the classroom. There was so much saturation at that point, staff wasn't as productive as we hoped. Again, staff commented they needed more time to work with material learned.
Year three has an assessment focus with an emphasis on formative assessment. Staff will attend two full days of content specific inservice with elementary and secondary separated to unpack the standards, work with power standards, and develop common formative assessments or engaging assessments for the electives (art, music, PE, industrial arts, foreign language, health, etc.). This year the RV conference is built around time for staff to full implement what they have learned. It is not only deemed professional development time but is fully advertised as a "work session" with a whole day for implement the knowledge gained.
Having had, and done, professional development in a variety of ways from specific conferences to faculty meetings, I truly believe that development like this along with professional learning communities is the only way to keep professional knowledge current. This is a huge problem with faculty development. Faculty will often opt not to leave their classroom to go to conferences as it presents too many barriers such as lesson planning, subs, discipline, etc.
All three years, we have had nationally known experts in the field present opening remarks. All three have had good reviews by faculty. And all three have been put together by district personnel with excellent coordination from everybody including food service providing lunch and building principals building momentum as well as the coordination and use of district technology coordinated from 11 elementaries, 3 middle schools and 3 high schools. Speakers are delivered to their hotels, picked up for the conference, wined and dined afterward and paid the going fee. This year we contacted Lead and Learn (Doug Reeves & group) to help us coordinate and facilitate the inservice. I have been to similar conferences that were not handled or coordinated as well.
I must admit, even from the planners there was hesitation. Assessment can be an emotional topic for some staff. Staff truly believes they deliver the content to the best of their ability. When students don't achieve on the assessment, faculty wants to put the blame on the students and not on themselves. To do anything other than that, admits the teacher is to blame for faulty delivery or some other inadequacy. That knowledge can be difficult to digest and recover from. The developers of RV3 were worried about the impact. We certainly want the development to continue but don't want faculty to be intimidated or negative about the impact. Although the developers consider it a growing experience, we know some might consider it a personal slam.
Assessment can be a tricky topic. It is part of the three-legged stool of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The stool can't stand on two legs, all three must be in alignment for students to be successful. Each part is important, but not without the others. Do we have our stool level? Balanced? I'll have to let you know in November.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
CLI 1 -10/2/08
I'm beginning a new path and a new purpose for the blog.... curriculum leaders institute (cohort 2). It's 1:30 in the morning and I can't sleep - the brain is full. This is probably not the best time to get started on this, but it beats just lying in bed trying to organize my thoughts in my head.
School has been in session for about 5 weeks now. It always begins with organized chaos - teachers and students transitioning to scheduled work and leaving behind unstructured play. It's not that the curriculum work has stopped altogether. However, the pace slows as the players get rested and re-energized. These are definitely needed components if the work is going to be lasting. Which leads me to my first question, thought, phase, and so on. How do you avoid burning the players out? How does one manage all the tasks at once?
Presently I am Assistant Principal at Central High. I have all the responsibilities that go along with that position - personnel evaluations and specific time lines, student and parent issues, discipline scenarios that pop up unexpectantly, special projects, etc. I'm taking two online courses (Michigan Leadership Institute Framework Endorsement - MiLife, and now the Curriculum Leaders Institute) and am involved in the Kent County Change Network (a county consortium of "change" leaders facilitated through Harvard University). I'm involved in several committees and wear several hats. But, I'm no different than any teacher who also has too much on his/her plate. When you add "family" to the plate, boundaries begin to blur.
When I ask a teacher to "play" and they tell me they can't because of the time commitment, I honestly do understand. When I try to coerce teachers during the work day to commit to a project, write curriculum, complete test out exams, etc., teachers again worry that they are out of their classroom, student learning becomes disjointed, sub plans must be written, students must be regrouped and retaught lessons upon their return, and there is not enough time to even complete the project that took them out of the classroom in the first place (more work). It all seems like a vicious cycle. Those that are willing to "play" initially get used and abused too frequently and are more likely to burn out.
I had a situation this week concerning an Economics test out scenario. The district got themselves in a pickle this summer. The High School Economics HSCES came out from the state late. They were out in draft form for a while and were promised in July of 2007. They actually weren't finalized until late October. We didn't have appropriate texts to meet the requirements. We began to look at text adoptions to meet our needs. That process took over a year. At the same time we also were trying to meet the MMC needs in several other content areas. In social studies, the district decided to go with Government Alive, US History Alive, and Economics Alive. Although I do appreciate the cohesiveness of the series, Economics Alive isn't expected to be published until May 2009. We are promised draft materials before then, but with no confirmed dates attached. So, presently teachers have no materials at their disposal and students have no texts for a course to be taught second semester. Last year we limped through with some teacher provided resources they made up. The State made more changes to the HSCES last year. So this year, we readjusted.
The trouble comes in with providing students with the ability to test out of a course. Teachers did make a test out exam that does match the HSCES. Basically, they utilized a demo copy of a test generator from a text they previewed but did not select. This is where the adage "be careful what you ask for comes in". We told teachers we needed the test out exam for the summer 2008. We supplied students with the old, out-of-date text as study materials. You guess it.... since the study materials did not match the test, we had no successful students. Students were discouraged, and parents were angry. Although a district problem, almost all of the students who tried to test out came from one high school - Central High. All the angry phone calls got transferred to me as I tried to smooth the ruffled feathers. It took a whole month to even figure out how the debauckle happened, as the teachers constructed the test with Central Office for the entire district. I only just heard about the test generator and the unselected text just last week.
Almost from day one that teachers returned we discussed that the situation needed to be remedied. The department chair and the teacher who initially led the charge agreed to find appropriate study materials for the already created test to give students another opportunity in early November to attempt to test out of Civics and Economics. The situation is very similar for the Civics component. October 1st was the selected target date.
With the end of September fast approaching, I reminded the department chair and the lead teacher of our agreement. On September 29th, I got a visit from the lead teacher after school. He asked if I "had a minute" which was a bad sign. Our "minute" lasted two hours. He explained that his department refused to come up with study materials and insisted that was the responsibility of the student to find resources on the internet. Or, another option they provided, was that the student buy their own textbook. To say I was blown away, was an understatement. I reminded the teacher of "free and appropriate education" so buying a text was not a viable option. As far as searching the internet for resources, students would not be able to discern what information they needed to know even given the content expectations. Although the teacher was sympathetic with the present plight, he didn't figure he could complete the task without assistance. None of our sister high schools (we have three) would step up to the plate since the problem was not relevant to them. The meeting ended with the problem not resolved.
Trying not to be overloaded myself, I began search the web for relevant online sources given the specific topics included in the HSCES. I did find three very relevant government sites for US Economics. I sent the sites to the lead teacher that night with the table of contents matching the content expectations and asked him if he thought they were in depth enough to match the classroom content. Since I'm a math and science teacher, economics is not my area of expertise. He quickly replied the next day which made me think he spent little time reading through the comprehensive sites. Each site had dozens of links. The problem was still not resolved.
I took the problem to our District instruction office and curriculum folks. My plan was to provide students with these online sources and write another test that matched the information given by revising the questions of the first test out exam or writing new questions that equally matched the content expectations. In truth, I thought this would be a function of the curriculum and instruction department. Instead, I was told that I needed mentor hours so I should proceed with the plan proposed. Case closed... next topic. The problem now laid squarely in my lap and the anxiety set in. Could I physically write an economic test knowing nothing about the subject and, secondly, should I?
The next day I, again, meet with the lead teacher. He felt guilty and wanted to lift the burden from me. I denied him as I felt he had been used and abused too frequently and was already meeting with teachers to put together a curriculum for the new civics being taught as well as planning for Economics where no resources were in sight. Personally, he was barely staying afloat as it was. Add in the coaching component and class advisor responsibilities, homecoming week, .... well you get the picture. We actually stood there arguing... "no you can't take this on". End result, testing is scheduled for November 8th and we must be ready. I'm going to issue the old text with the additional online resources on October 3rd (Friday). We have a month to construct the test. I'll try to give it a shot, and run the results through him to critique. Yes, it isn't the right way to get the work done.
The ELA and chemistry curriculum also lies on the table as well as the two day professional development retreat for all staff in November. There are lots of topics to blog about - fortunately or unfortunately?
School has been in session for about 5 weeks now. It always begins with organized chaos - teachers and students transitioning to scheduled work and leaving behind unstructured play. It's not that the curriculum work has stopped altogether. However, the pace slows as the players get rested and re-energized. These are definitely needed components if the work is going to be lasting. Which leads me to my first question, thought, phase, and so on. How do you avoid burning the players out? How does one manage all the tasks at once?
Presently I am Assistant Principal at Central High. I have all the responsibilities that go along with that position - personnel evaluations and specific time lines, student and parent issues, discipline scenarios that pop up unexpectantly, special projects, etc. I'm taking two online courses (Michigan Leadership Institute Framework Endorsement - MiLife, and now the Curriculum Leaders Institute) and am involved in the Kent County Change Network (a county consortium of "change" leaders facilitated through Harvard University). I'm involved in several committees and wear several hats. But, I'm no different than any teacher who also has too much on his/her plate. When you add "family" to the plate, boundaries begin to blur.
When I ask a teacher to "play" and they tell me they can't because of the time commitment, I honestly do understand. When I try to coerce teachers during the work day to commit to a project, write curriculum, complete test out exams, etc., teachers again worry that they are out of their classroom, student learning becomes disjointed, sub plans must be written, students must be regrouped and retaught lessons upon their return, and there is not enough time to even complete the project that took them out of the classroom in the first place (more work). It all seems like a vicious cycle. Those that are willing to "play" initially get used and abused too frequently and are more likely to burn out.
I had a situation this week concerning an Economics test out scenario. The district got themselves in a pickle this summer. The High School Economics HSCES came out from the state late. They were out in draft form for a while and were promised in July of 2007. They actually weren't finalized until late October. We didn't have appropriate texts to meet the requirements. We began to look at text adoptions to meet our needs. That process took over a year. At the same time we also were trying to meet the MMC needs in several other content areas. In social studies, the district decided to go with Government Alive, US History Alive, and Economics Alive. Although I do appreciate the cohesiveness of the series, Economics Alive isn't expected to be published until May 2009. We are promised draft materials before then, but with no confirmed dates attached. So, presently teachers have no materials at their disposal and students have no texts for a course to be taught second semester. Last year we limped through with some teacher provided resources they made up. The State made more changes to the HSCES last year. So this year, we readjusted.
The trouble comes in with providing students with the ability to test out of a course. Teachers did make a test out exam that does match the HSCES. Basically, they utilized a demo copy of a test generator from a text they previewed but did not select. This is where the adage "be careful what you ask for comes in". We told teachers we needed the test out exam for the summer 2008. We supplied students with the old, out-of-date text as study materials. You guess it.... since the study materials did not match the test, we had no successful students. Students were discouraged, and parents were angry. Although a district problem, almost all of the students who tried to test out came from one high school - Central High. All the angry phone calls got transferred to me as I tried to smooth the ruffled feathers. It took a whole month to even figure out how the debauckle happened, as the teachers constructed the test with Central Office for the entire district. I only just heard about the test generator and the unselected text just last week.
Almost from day one that teachers returned we discussed that the situation needed to be remedied. The department chair and the teacher who initially led the charge agreed to find appropriate study materials for the already created test to give students another opportunity in early November to attempt to test out of Civics and Economics. The situation is very similar for the Civics component. October 1st was the selected target date.
With the end of September fast approaching, I reminded the department chair and the lead teacher of our agreement. On September 29th, I got a visit from the lead teacher after school. He asked if I "had a minute" which was a bad sign. Our "minute" lasted two hours. He explained that his department refused to come up with study materials and insisted that was the responsibility of the student to find resources on the internet. Or, another option they provided, was that the student buy their own textbook. To say I was blown away, was an understatement. I reminded the teacher of "free and appropriate education" so buying a text was not a viable option. As far as searching the internet for resources, students would not be able to discern what information they needed to know even given the content expectations. Although the teacher was sympathetic with the present plight, he didn't figure he could complete the task without assistance. None of our sister high schools (we have three) would step up to the plate since the problem was not relevant to them. The meeting ended with the problem not resolved.
Trying not to be overloaded myself, I began search the web for relevant online sources given the specific topics included in the HSCES. I did find three very relevant government sites for US Economics. I sent the sites to the lead teacher that night with the table of contents matching the content expectations and asked him if he thought they were in depth enough to match the classroom content. Since I'm a math and science teacher, economics is not my area of expertise. He quickly replied the next day which made me think he spent little time reading through the comprehensive sites. Each site had dozens of links. The problem was still not resolved.
I took the problem to our District instruction office and curriculum folks. My plan was to provide students with these online sources and write another test that matched the information given by revising the questions of the first test out exam or writing new questions that equally matched the content expectations. In truth, I thought this would be a function of the curriculum and instruction department. Instead, I was told that I needed mentor hours so I should proceed with the plan proposed. Case closed... next topic. The problem now laid squarely in my lap and the anxiety set in. Could I physically write an economic test knowing nothing about the subject and, secondly, should I?
The next day I, again, meet with the lead teacher. He felt guilty and wanted to lift the burden from me. I denied him as I felt he had been used and abused too frequently and was already meeting with teachers to put together a curriculum for the new civics being taught as well as planning for Economics where no resources were in sight. Personally, he was barely staying afloat as it was. Add in the coaching component and class advisor responsibilities, homecoming week, .... well you get the picture. We actually stood there arguing... "no you can't take this on". End result, testing is scheduled for November 8th and we must be ready. I'm going to issue the old text with the additional online resources on October 3rd (Friday). We have a month to construct the test. I'll try to give it a shot, and run the results through him to critique. Yes, it isn't the right way to get the work done.
The ELA and chemistry curriculum also lies on the table as well as the two day professional development retreat for all staff in November. There are lots of topics to blog about - fortunately or unfortunately?
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Thing #23
Wow, what a journey! Again I reference the youtube video Pay Attention. If you haven't seen it already, take a peek.
I do wish someone would develop a course for "Phase II" of the 23 Things. It has been the best professional development I've had in some time. Since I've begun this course, I've shared everything I've learned with others in a weekly "Teacher Geekers" get together. We now have a handful of teachers using blogs and wikis that wouldn't have done so on their own. They are amazed how well students are responding to their style of learning!
So, what has taken the educational professional so long? Fear of the unknown.... They don't know what's out there, they aren't sure how to use it, they are worried it will take a long time to learn, they aren't sure if the learning curve is worth it to progress student knowledge, etc. Fear enables resistency. I've heard over and over again, "I don't have the time." True. Teachers don't have the time to waste on simple lecture and outdated lessons. Students need to know much more than in the 50's, 60's, etc. They will definitely need to know more than their teachers do now to be productive citizens in the next century. Boy, does that sound scary! The only way to build that type of capacity is to let go, encourage creativity and collaboration with the tools we have available - learning with and by technical means.
Since I've taken the leap, I've talked with others about developing a course similar to this for students as well. Maybe if more teachers see students applying these skills, they will be more motivated to change their delivery methods. Students will definitely need these skills as they leap into the post-secondary or employment scene. We definitely need to make rigorous course work relevant by applying the technology component that allows for intrinsic learning, collaboration, and creativity - all in the skill set for the next century.
Congratulations on a job very well done! I have taken the plunge and am forever "changed".
I do wish someone would develop a course for "Phase II" of the 23 Things. It has been the best professional development I've had in some time. Since I've begun this course, I've shared everything I've learned with others in a weekly "Teacher Geekers" get together. We now have a handful of teachers using blogs and wikis that wouldn't have done so on their own. They are amazed how well students are responding to their style of learning!
So, what has taken the educational professional so long? Fear of the unknown.... They don't know what's out there, they aren't sure how to use it, they are worried it will take a long time to learn, they aren't sure if the learning curve is worth it to progress student knowledge, etc. Fear enables resistency. I've heard over and over again, "I don't have the time." True. Teachers don't have the time to waste on simple lecture and outdated lessons. Students need to know much more than in the 50's, 60's, etc. They will definitely need to know more than their teachers do now to be productive citizens in the next century. Boy, does that sound scary! The only way to build that type of capacity is to let go, encourage creativity and collaboration with the tools we have available - learning with and by technical means.
Since I've taken the leap, I've talked with others about developing a course similar to this for students as well. Maybe if more teachers see students applying these skills, they will be more motivated to change their delivery methods. Students will definitely need these skills as they leap into the post-secondary or employment scene. We definitely need to make rigorous course work relevant by applying the technology component that allows for intrinsic learning, collaboration, and creativity - all in the skill set for the next century.
Congratulations on a job very well done! I have taken the plunge and am forever "changed".
Thing #22
Here is a great video on global warming by the Blue Man Group.
I liked it so much that I used it in my wiki as well. I first saw this video on a class project page called Flat Planet. I know students would love it and it would spark great discussions on global warming. Again, it's that relevancy piece that students respond to. They'll like the music, the content, and the Blue Man Group! I can't wait to see what videos others have posted :-)
I liked it so much that I used it in my wiki as well. I first saw this video on a class project page called Flat Planet. I know students would love it and it would spark great discussions on global warming. Again, it's that relevancy piece that students respond to. They'll like the music, the content, and the Blue Man Group! I can't wait to see what videos others have posted :-)
Thing #21
I love youtube, teachertube, and schooltube. I like the video entitled Pay Attention (which was where I left my comment). It talks about the need to include technology in classroom. What I found interesting in reading the other comments was the negativity. The resistant attitude is classic of folks who want to justify why they don't use technology to enhance learning. However, one comment from a high school student who recently graduated remarked how boring school was and how it added little to what he/she needed to know unless it was relevant. Technology is RELEVANT to students which is why they enjoy it so much. Again, the 3R's hit us smack where it hurts. We will never get to the rigor component unless we teach for relevancy! Teachers must stop trying to be the sage on the stage and teach for learning!
Unfortunately, our school does not allow us to download youtube videos. We can use teachertube or schooltube. Yes, there is a fear that some videos may not be appropriate. All the instructional videos we've viewed have been great as most people are visual learners. There is a lot of research out there that comments that long-term learning is based on several modes, not just the auditory model that many teachers rely on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)