Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Scott Hays
Oregon City, OR
Recent Activity
-
Scott signed the petition | -
Scott signed the petition | -
Scott signed the petition | -
Scott commented on the article |Hi, Claudette ... one need not travel afar to see such models in practice here in the U.S. I worked for an NSF-funded Systemic Change Initiative program in the Monterey Bay Area known as Language Acquisition in Science Education for Rural Schools (LASERS) ... this was an ambitious program with many layers of professional development and support, but one of its most innovative elements was the annual summer science academy. Lesson Study was but one element of what we accomplished. Here's an overview:
Five teachers were hired for each grade level (there were four classrooms at each grade-level; the fifth teacher was hired to serve a "rover", to substitute and/or act as a peer coach), and a pre-service student hired as a collaborative instructional aide for each classroom. A single science concept was selected as the focus for each year's academy, and teachers in each grade level taught a pre-selected unit of study that taught an age-appropriate element of that concept. This meant that all teachers in the school were essentially teaching the same science concepts, just at different levels. All teachers in the same grade-level taught the same unit, and all teachers were provided all the materials necessary to teach their.
The Academy began a week before summer school began. Teachers received adult-level content training in the science concept(s) featured, taught by a team of instructors made up of three members -- an elementary and a high school teacher, and a college or university professor. This instruction included both lecture and inquiry-based pedagogy. Teachers also received training in ELL-methodologies, a variety of science pedagogical strategies, peer-coaching, and in lesson-modification strategies. The rest of the time in the Academy was spent in deconstructing the lessons of the selected unit they were to teach (identifying the actual science content taught by the provided unit ... surprisingly, not always what it advertised itself to be, and identifying areas where language strategies could be added or modified), then reconstructing the individual lessons to teach clearly identified objectives.
The actual summer school was half-day. In the mornings, teachers taught the lessons in the classroom as collaboratively planned by their teams. A Lesson Study model was incorporated, so many of the lessons were filmed (either by the staff developer, or by the fifth teacher on the team). Regularly scheduled peer-coaching sessions were also provided, and coach/teacher meetings took place during the "school-hours" with the fifth teacher scheduled as a substitute. After the students went home, the teams met to assess what happened in the classroom (using student work and/or the Lesson Study sessions), and to make modifications to the lessons still to be taught. Also included in the schedule were regular meetings with the science team, to continue the content training and to model inquiry approaches to instruction.
Such an elaborate model is difficult to replicate in the regular school year. Still, at the middle school where I worked, we were able to adopt a scaled back version of it. By carefully cultivating parental support and clearly defining our plan, we convinced the Governing Board to extend the school day, and then reclaimed the extra minutes taught each day every two weeks for what we called a "Restructuring Day". On "Restructuring Days", we sent the kids home at 1:00, then used the rest of the time for team-meetings (grade-level and subject-matter) for collaborative lesson-planning, examination of student work in relation to district and state objectives for unit and curriculum planning and/or modification, and for modified forms of peer coaching.
It can work ... you are correct; given funding and structural/organizational difficulties, it is hard to do Lesson Study or any other form of collaborative work within regular business hours. This is why we need to press really hard to free districts up to make such structural changes. Until teachers become an integral part of the planning, assessment, and goal-setting process ... and until they are provided the time to do it ... we will continue to stagger back-and-forth between the latest top-down strategies for improving our schools. -
Scott commented on the article |
Hi, Linda ... another Hays here (no e, though)
Promotion ... This is why arbitrary grouping by age (i.e., "third grade"), acceptable for an industrial and assembly-line model of learning, should be eliminated. Or, at least eliminated in some schools so that parents could opt for that choice if they felt it better served their children. I taught for 20+ years in a multi-graded, self-contained classroom: it was one of those old-fashioned two-room rural schools; I taught students in 4th to 8th grade. There were times when age grouping worked best. Most of the time, ability grouping was preferential. And still other times, things worked best with no grouping at all, but instead just let those who grasped a concept or a skill turn to someone who didn't (older or younger) and become the teacher. -
Scott commented on the article |As a retired middle school teacher who finished his career in an affluent (but small) community, let me say that your observations are spot on and just as apropos in suburbia as they are for inner-city schools. Parents of high achieving students have high expectations for their kids, and don't hesitate to drop a bundle of money and/or support in the school (so that is not an issue) ... but everything else you say is.
The AMA polices itself and pretty much runs the health care business (with increasing competition from Big Pharma and Big Insurance, both empowered through deregulation), so why shouldn't Educators do the same for public education? -
Scott commented on the article |
I know I focused quite a bit on the creation of my own lesson plans, units of study, and curriculum (which I was authorized to create in that small school environment) ... but it was merely to make the larger point that ALL teachers modify the lesson plans from which they work; to wit: I even modified and changed the curriculum I myself created.
I am also fully aware that new and inexperienced teachers rely on pre-fabricated lesson plans, and benefit from observing (or even reading about) the practice of other teachers. Therefore, finding the best of those instructional materials (and methods for delivering them) and identifying best practices is an essential function of the federal government. But it is NOT enough to just turn them over to teachers -- new OR experienced -- with the expectation that they will take them and replicate them.
In the first place, they cannot replicate them ... especially if they are new and inexperienced. As a teacher, you know to alway expect the unexpected, and in every class there is at least one kid -- purposefully or otherwise -- who will force the teacher to make some decision that the "best practices" or the "model lesson" did not take into consideration or account for. Always. Most times, these disruptions to the orderly flow of a pre-fabricated lesson are minor irritants; but many times they are not, and when added altogether, the best laid plans of mice and men (well, you know where they go).
In short, the inability of constructed models (lesson plans, best practices) to account for every conceivable reaction from students is a primary cause for teacher burn-out, particularly at the beginning levels. "Hey" (I have even heard myself say), "that wasn't supposed to happen! What do I do now?" Feelings of inadequacy creep in. Teachers become frustrated.
The best solution for this conundrum (i.e., the best practices and the model lessons don't work with my kids) is obvious ... at least to me. And it is a role I think that is fitting for the federal government to support. Teachers cannot work in a vacuum. They need to collaborate with other teachers -- preferably teachers using the same materials with the same group of kids as they are. They need to know best practices, but they also need to examine their own practice, discuss it with other teachers, look at student work as a means to asses practice, and receive a lot of training and support from mentor teachers in how to do all the above.
Local districts (and to some extent, state governments) have been loathe and/or reluctant to build this type of support and provide the time and resources necessary to make it happen. The Systemic Change Initiatives supported by the NSF are a case in point. Many were wonderful ... but in the day-to-day implementation at sites, administrative (local or district wide) just did not manifest itself.
Site-based management is critical. But it has to be paired with intensive collaboration with universities and other external resources for content and pedagogical training. Universities can also provide intensive apprenticeship programs in the public schools ... reducing teacher-student ratios, providing youthful and energetic input to the collaborative planning process, and generally strengthening legitimate connections between K-12 and higher education. The federal government can play a huge role in establishing and/or supporting these partnerships. -
Scott commented on the article |
I have tried adding a comment to this discussion many times, but always throw away my effort because it seemed too self-serving or too narrow. Maybe instead of composing my thoughts off-line, I just need to do it rough and in the moment. We'll see how it works.
While I think it is essential for the federal government to sponsor and support research identifying best practices, to develop model programs and projects to implement the findings from research, to support the development of model curriculum, and (perhaps most important) to guarantee equal opportunities for all students, I think many of the suggestions made so far miss the point. They do so for one particular reason. No two classroom environments, and no two students, are ever the same. No matter how good the best practice, no matter how exemplary the program or curriculum, it cannot ever be replicated at another site.
I am a retired classroom teacher. I taught for 20 years in a self-contained 4th-8th grade classroom (in a small K-8 school with an enrollment of 24-40 kids), spent about five years working as a staff developer in an NSF-funded Systemic Change Initiative Project, and finished my career in a small middle school teaching 7th grade Medieval History and English/Language Arts. I developed most of my own curriculum, either creating activities or entire units of instruction or adapting materials for the needs of my students that were commercially available. Throughout my career, I wrote curriculum for various projects in which I was involved, provided large-scale training for those units and one-on-one follow-up support for many participants. Additionally, I acted as a presenter and a support person for projects, programs and curriculum developed by others (Project WILD, SAVI-SELPH, OBIS, Adopt-A-Watershed, Project Storyline, and the like).
From my own experience and from my experience in working with hundreds of other teachers of varying experience, I know that almost no teacher takes curriculum material and implements it exactly as it is designed. Heck, I really looked forward to teaching in a "normal" middle school, where I could plan a writing unit (for example) and use it for two or three classes each day, and then recycle it the next year.
Never happened. And I think it is a good thing it never happened. Each class was different. Students in each class changed from day-to-day. I constantly modified my lesson plans for the different sections I had on the same day. I went home at night and based on the formative assessments I conducted practically non-stop, modified the next day's instruction. How can a good teacher not do so?
Which leads me to suggest the following. Model lessons and units and instructional materials must be provided for teachers to use. But the federal government also needs to provide the structures and the time for teachers to talk to one another about the instruction that they are providing. If they know their content, are well-versed in varying methodologies or pedagogical approaches available, and clearly understand the learning/teaching objectives, then teachers must be prepared and supported to be able to modify their lesson planning based upon individual student needs.
There is much more to be said about systemic change and learning environments, but I am going to stop here. If anything I said does not make sense, please feel free to ask.
Impact
3 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
2 Actions
|
Organizations
-
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network1 Action 0 Recruits -
CREDO Action1 Action 0 Recruits
