Building professional learning communities

Ed tech blogger Will Richardson worries that too many teachers don’t have an understanding of the way technology can facilitate learning communities for teachers:

But I would still venture to guess that 75% (maybe more) of educators in this country still don’t know that they can have a network. While most of our kids are hacking away at building their own connections outside of their physical space, most of their teachers still don’t have a firm grasp of what any of it means or what he potentials are. And even for many that do know it, there are still legitimate fears and obstacles to creating professional connections online, time and technology at the forefront.

TEN user nickchatterton has started a TEN discussion on this very issue.  How do teachers begin to build a grassroots professional learning community?

Teacher Magazine is talking about it, too.

Labels:

Mandatory schooling?

Debbie Meier explores the risks and responsibilities inherent in mandatory schooling:

I am arguing for a recognition that whenever one removes such freedoms one has a stronger obligation to “do no harm.” Without recognizing the “peculiarity” of the institution of schooling one misses something critical. Ruling over an involuntary “workforce”—in school or out—is not ideal. The side effects are important to recognize. Unlike school people, military men acknowledge the special qualities of a draft army versus a volunteer one. We civilians forget this too often when it comes to schooling.

We’re preparing kids to be grown-ups-- members of a democratic community, and a voluntary workforce—under circumstances that are neither democratic nor voluntary. It creates contradictions…

It’s perhaps why I favor erring on the side of graduating kids we aren’t sure meet our standards rather than not graduating them if we aren’t sure whether they meet our standards. The opposite policy is the one we actually employ. After at least 12 years of involuntary schooling we better be very sure before we deprive them of an entry ticket into the workforce—and even then at not very decent paying jobs. That means looking each kid in the eye and defending our decisions as in his or her best interests.

Meanwhile at the Faculty Room, the bloggers are discussing whether grades 11 and 12 should be made non-compulsory. 

Labels:

Potholes on the road to college

This month’s Catalyst reports on a new Consortium on Chicago School Research study, building on their 2006 report that few CPS graduates are earning college degrees.  The new report explains that the reason they’re not getting degrees is because they’re not applying to college.

In this new report, researchers asked seniors in surveys and interviews about their college plans. In the spring, 90 percent said they wanted to go to college. By fall, only 61 percent had enrolled.

The report says there are many “potholes” that stymie students—from lack of family support to lack of follow-through.

The most fundamental problem is that 40 percent of seniors who say they want to complete a four-year college never apply to one.

One interesting thing, since we’re always hearing about how unprepared high school graduates are for college, the study showed the students were having the opposite problem: they were often choosing colleges for which they were overqualified, rather than stretching for more selective or competitive schools. (And the older study already pointed out, many of the colleges of choice for CPS grads have notoriously low graduation rates).

Labels:

Carnival of Education

Every week, an education blogger takes a turn collecting interesting online writing on education.  This week’s Carnival of Education is hosted by Bellringers.  This week I particularly enjoyed the link to Bill Ferriter’s explanation of how test prep is like illegal whaling:

And like long-lining and bottom trawling, we’ve had enough success with our approach to schooling that we’re willing to overlook the unintended costs of our actions.

Labels:

Throwing money at education

The New York Times Money Magazine assembled a roundtable a few weeks ago to discuss the role of philanthropy in education. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute brought up a common pitfall foundations find when they try to “fix” education:

[G]enerally speaking, [the Annenberg grant] was a substantial disappointment. There was very little change in an ongoing, meaningful way...Organizations bake in the assumptions and the processes that made them successful. The way you hire your people, the way you reward your people, the internal practices you devise — they are all built around a certain set of assumptions and operations. When that larger world changes, it’s tough to retool. So when these reform-minded superintendents come in...they face enormous challenges. A school system is not an agile, nimble organization where if you can just hire the right people and start the right programs, you can turn things around quickly. You’ve got to work your way around outdated staffing processes, inadequate and bulky information-technology systems, abysmal and poorly conceived data-management systems.

Sound familiar?  This reminds me of the post I wrote a few weeks back about technology integration and the battle between grassroots change (lots of buy-in, but slow) and top-down change (fast, but lots of resistance).

Vanessa Kirsch, a “venture philanthropist” pointed out that the slow speed of real change is a challenge foundations and corporations must live up to:

But now that philanthropists are focused on outcomes, things are more complicated for both the givers and the recipients. A lot of programs actually take a few years to have an effect, and sometimes you need to tweak the methods along the way. And so as a philanthropist, you need to look deeper into the operations of an organization. It’s a much more complex process to be a good philanthropist if you’re investing in long-term, system-changing outcomes. But it’s also far more rewarding.

No easy answers, but the full article is an interesting read.  Check it out.

Labels:

Race in America

Barack Obama’s speech yesterday was the first time in recent memory that I’ve heard a politician attempt to address head-on the sticky, complicated realities about race relations in America. These issues impact classroom teachers every day, whether you’re teaching in a school of need or a highly resourced school, a diverse school or a segregated school. As educators, I don’t think we can talk about reducing the achievement gap, diversity in the classroom, parental involvement, or a hundred other incredibly important topics until we’re willing to talk candidly about race.

I have seen a few discussions on TEN that have tentatively started to delve into these issues, but I think you have more to say!  I hope that if you were affected by this speech as I was you’ll consider commenting or starting a discussion.  As a community of teachers dedicated to excellence, I think our voices deserve to be part of the public discourse on this issue.

Here is the full transcript, and here is a link to video of the speech (37 minutes). 

Labels:

Carnival of Education

Every week an education blogger takes a spin at collecting the most interesting recent writing on teaching and education floating around the blogosphere.  The result is the Carnival of Education.  Take a look!  I will try to link to it every week from now on.

Labels:

National math panel report reveals what we don’t know

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel recently announced its recommendations for improving mathematics instruction in America’s schools.  The full report is here [pdf] and a shorter factsheet is here [pdf].  Find links to everything at the NMAP page on the US Department of Ed website.

Among the panel’s 45 recommendations were several dealing specifically with teachers and teaching, which revealed a massive lack of data on teacher effectiveness. 

• Further research is needed to identify and more carefully define the skills and practices underlying...differences in teachers’ effectiveness, and how to develop them in teacher preparation programs. (16)
• [B]ecause most studies have relied on proxies for teachers’ mathematical knowledge (such as teacher certification or courses taken), existing research does not reveal the specific mathematical knowledge and instructional skill needed for effective teaching, especially at the elementary and middle school level. (17)
• [E]xisting research on aspects of teacher education, including standard teacher preparation programs, alternative pathways into teaching, support programs for new teachers (e.g., mentoring), and professional development, is not of sufficient rigor or quality to permit the Panel to draw conclusions about the features of professional training that have effects on teachers’ knowledge, their instructional practice, or their students’ achievement. (18)

Labels:

Guest blogger: Unions and the election

Guest blogger Jennifer Adams wonders where the union’s priorities are in this election:

When I received my copy of March’s American Teacher magazine, the publication of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I read the article “Hillary Clinton: On the Economy and Union Rights” [pdf] to find out why the union endorsed Senator Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.  I was shocked to see no discussion of education in their list of issues.  The issues that the article discussed were economic fairness (tax cuts and minimum wage), union and workplace rights and prosperity for all (economic stimulus package, healthcare, and domestic energy policy).

I understand the AFT’s connection and alliance with unions in other fields, but it is also one of the two largest groups of teachers in the country.  To completely leave out education as an issue further shows the importance that the education of children has on the union’s agenda.

My local union, the Chicago Teacher’s Union, often cites a lack of interest in the union from young teachers as one of its concerns, but as a fifth year teacher who does believe in the strength and power of unions, I can understand why some teachers would not want to stand strong with an organization that does not even bring education up as an issue when endorsing a presidential candidate.

It is my opinion that the union should be bringing education to the forefront of the presidential campaign.  In particular, they should be asking how NCLB will be properly funded.

Would you like to write a guest blog post? Email Sarah [weisz@goldenapple.org] for more details.

Labels:

Nuance in evaluation

A few days ago, I attended a training at the Chicago New Teacher Center on the Danielson Rubric, which you may remember is being adopted as the teacher evaluation rubric in Chicago Public Schools over the course of the next year or two.

The rubric describes teaching behaviors in levels ranging from unsatisfactory to basic to proficient to distinguished, in four areas: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professionalism.

The session leader asked, “when might you expect a distinguished teacher to score in the basic range in some area?” Answers came quickly to people: new grade level, new subject area, new curriculum, returning to teaching after a long absence.

It was a great reminder that excellence in teaching is not an all or nothing game.  That the point of using a rubric rather than an overall rating is to allow for nuance and depth of analysis.

When I was in the classroom, I was really proficient in a few categories on the rubric, including directions and procedures, management of transitions, activities and assignments.  But I was clearly at the basic level in others, especially communicating with families and maintaining accurate records.

Was I an overall distinguished teacher?  Nope.  But could I have been helpful to teachers who struggled with pacing and transitions?  Absolutely.

Obviously, one of the main purposes of the rubric is to find areas of weakness and help teachers correct them.  But it will be an even stronger tool for professional community if it encourages school leaders to identify teachers with particular skills and create ways for them to share their knowledge.

Labels:

Single-sex education, and a new internet tool for you

Last week’s New York Times magazine featured a cover story on single-sex public education. Certain that the piece would provoke a great deal of online conversation, I thought it would be a great excuse to introduce you to an interesting internet search tool. 

Technorati is a specialized internet search engine that focuses primarily on blogs and other frequently updated online sites.  It’s the perfect way to find out what other people are saying about an article that interests you.  I visited the site and clicked “advanced” next to the search box to get more search options.  Then I did a URL search, entering the website address of the NYT story. (You can also simply search by topic).

The results can be sorted by “freshness” (how new the post is) or by “authority” (how many other sites link to that site). Take a look at my search results.

Labels:

On second thought…

Remember that whole mandatory moment of silence controversy from a few months back?  (See here and here). The IL House is calling for a do-over:

Most legislators thought it was a terrific idea last fall when they required students in Illinois schools to have a moment of silence to pray or reflect, but House lawmakers now think they could have used a few more moments for reflection themselves before they put the law in place.

The House voted Tuesday to reverse the requirement after getting an earful of complaints from school administrators and teacher unions who found the requirement poorly thought out and unenforceable.

I imagine the federal lawsuit also had just a little something to do with this, but it’s a good reminder that sometimes calling your congresspeople and union reps can have real impact.

Labels:

It’s that time again

I hope everyone (at least everyone in Illinois) had a lovely, restful Casimir Pulaski day.

And now, it’s ISAT time. Here’s what a few teachers interviewed by EdWeek had to say about it:

Coleen Broy, a 5th-grade teacher at Harriet Gifford Elementary School in Elgin, lets her pupils take the test in their slippers to quell test anxiety.

Teachers and administrators say they have mixed feelings about the exam, questioning its fairness, while worrying it takes up valuable class time.

“We don’t know if these kids will have the life skills to function in society because our focus is on a test,” Broy said.

Data from the test is helpful, said Pekin Grade School District 108 Superintendent Bill Link, but he said “teachers certainly would rather be teaching” than administering ISATs.

“This is the way the state grades our district and our schools,” he added. “The issue for us is it places a lot of emphasis on one test at one time.”

Best wishes for a week in which you get at least a little teaching done, and in which you are able to be supportive and encouraging to your students because your administrators are supportive and encouraging of you.

Labels:

Read more in the archives»