I think that the first step to creating an effective school that follows the principles that we have been learning is to teach others these skills. In other words, to take on a leadership role in educating teachers in the ideas that we've been learning. If we don't have that "new" view, then, even with consultation with all parties, we will still end up with the same schools we have now because people will still be thinking the same way. TTWWADI I think that it will be an evolution, of sorts, that will probably start small and grow as time goes. Starting with individual progams in schools and evolving into full schools. All of the thinking, whatever it is, must start with the learning and instructional methods and the school needs to be built from there.
It's funny that we assume after so many years of collective experience as teachers that it will have to be us who effects change if it is to happen (ie, where are our leaders? It's like the realization that comes when Simon, in Lord of the Flies, says "the beast is us"). I agree with Cam that we (the converted) will have to ensure that the other stakeholders are given access to modern research and "best practices" in order to make the best decisions. In June, our superintendent told me that in the fall SD46 is going to ask a group of stakeholders from each school to meet to discuss the future directions we should take; it sounded like she accepts the notion that we (the individual schools) will have to create a vision for ourselves that wll keep the clients happy and continuing to walk through our doors. Is this a timely opportunity? We'll have to try not to be cynical and avoid seeing this as another District opportunity to pay lip service to a big issue. Personally, I think that our leaders genuinely want to be progressive and in my view, the push this year for changes in assessment supports that. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what we can do to help - I think small conversations will help. My principal is keen to have me return in September to talk with my colleagues about some of the things I've learned (and since discussed with her) that I am so obviously very keen about. Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge the assertion that change will probably have to start on a program-by-program or teacher-by-teacher basis because whole-school change is just too cumbersome. A related problem, then, is what to do about bumping and the disruption it will have on the implementation of any change since personalities will be so central to any shift.
I am somewhat overwhelmed with the responsibility of taking a leadership role in my school to start this shift in thinking. It took me two years to get teachers to read their e-mails. We are, at this very moment, designing our new school with a two year plan to be in our new building. This IS a timely opportunity. We also have a new administration, young and eager. I have been thinking hard where to start with all of this. The biggest barrier I face all the time is the lack of drops and ethernet connections in the classrooms. WiFi seldom works well with the SET BC laptops and I can't set up Kurzweil computers in the intermediate classrooms. I think I will be the squeaky wheel about multiple computer access in all classrooms. I will also organize a dialogue time after school, once a week or so, to get my collegues talking about some of these issues and their vision for our new school.
I think the first step to creating better schools is to be better teachers. There isn't much value in instructional ideas that do not make a significant positive difference in our own practice. If they do, then the next step is to see if we are able to transfer those ideas and practices to someone else and so on.
I also think that there is a need for some caution before we announce that we have found the holy grail. For one thing, the focus of UDL on “deep understanding” is, as far as I can see, deeply academic. Is academic knowledge of paramount importance to the next generation? I teach an academic subject and would prefer a deep understanding to a shallow one, but in the big picture, is the emphasis on academic knowing part of the problem with school?
Yes, Bruce, I think we need to be better teachers because if we build a better program "they will come." The clients know what they want and I don't think we need a full revolution to make meaningful change. I'm already thinking of ways I can implement some of the big shifts in approach that I've been exposed to so far in the program, and I know you folks have too. Before I left for the summer i was talking with one of my colleagues about what we were doing in class and after a short while, he said that he wished he had signed up and that the ideas appeared sound and most importantly, exciting. Now, i know I'm a good salesperson, but the product seems to be selling itself - we bought it didn't we. Let's just be keen and passionate and start our own little SD46 revolt.
Revolt away...I see Pender as a good starting point for the revolution...small school. Fewer people to convince. Less risk..etc. Let me know how I can help start the fires of change.
I agree with Cam. I am in a similar situation - small school, single grade at the moment in fact, so my approach is to try and get as many colleagues, starting with my science/math team partner, on board as possible. I think it will be easier to convince in a smaller setting. I think somebody articulated this point earlier in the week, but I am also wondering why the issues we have been dealing with this week are not part of initial teacher training. I know when I started teaching my HOD and new colleagues were looking to me as the 'new boy' for all the latest and greatest in the world of teaching my subject. It was one of the reasons I was appointed over more experienced applicants. I know things work a bit differently in Canada but I wonder if change might be more rapid if there were more being done at the grass-roots level of new recruits to the profession.
In my previous post I am, of course, assuming that the sorts of issues we have been discussing this week, particularly the future of schools, are not dealt with very extensively in new teacher training. Maybe I am wrong. Things may have changed. Can anyone enlighten me?
I too worry about how we can help Grief Point teachers begin to dialogue about how our new school offers an amazing chance to enter the 21st century. I would love to work with Sandi and our new principal on how we might address some of these big issues. We would really have to make it to their advantage to come to 'yet another meeting after school'. It would be interesting if we could get the principal to set aside some planning time to just talk about some of these things - so the teachers would not see it is yet just another meeting. Maybe it should be part of our educational goals for the new year.
I think that the first step to creating an effective school that follows the principles that we have been learning is to teach others these skills. In other words, to take on a leadership role in educating teachers in the ideas that we've been learning. If we don't have that "new" view, then, even with consultation with all parties, we will still end up with the same schools we have now because people will still be thinking the same way. TTWWADI
ReplyDeleteI think that it will be an evolution, of sorts, that will probably start small and grow as time goes. Starting with individual progams in schools and evolving into full schools.
All of the thinking, whatever it is, must start with the learning and instructional methods and the school needs to be built from there.
It's funny that we assume after so many years of collective experience as teachers that it will have to be us who effects change if it is to happen (ie, where are our leaders? It's like the realization that comes when Simon, in Lord of the Flies, says "the beast is us"). I agree with Cam that we (the converted) will have to ensure that the other stakeholders are given access to modern research and "best practices" in order to make the best decisions. In June, our superintendent told me that in the fall SD46 is going to ask a group of stakeholders from each school to meet to discuss the future directions we should take; it sounded like she accepts the notion that we (the individual schools) will have to create a vision for ourselves that wll keep the clients happy and continuing to walk through our doors. Is this a timely opportunity? We'll have to try not to be cynical and avoid seeing this as another District opportunity to pay lip service to a big issue. Personally, I think that our leaders genuinely want to be progressive and in my view, the push this year for changes in assessment supports that. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves what we can do to help - I think small conversations will help. My principal is keen to have me return in September to talk with my colleagues about some of the things I've learned (and since discussed with her) that I am so obviously very keen about. Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge the assertion that change will probably have to start on a program-by-program or teacher-by-teacher basis because whole-school change is just too cumbersome. A related problem, then, is what to do about bumping and the disruption it will have on the implementation of any change since personalities will be so central to any shift.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat overwhelmed with the responsibility of taking a leadership role in my school to start this shift in thinking. It took me two years to get teachers to read their e-mails. We are, at this very moment, designing our new school with a two year plan to be in our new building. This IS a timely opportunity. We also have a new administration, young and eager. I have been thinking hard where to start with all of this. The biggest barrier I face all the time is the lack of drops and ethernet connections in the classrooms. WiFi seldom works well with the SET BC laptops and I can't set up Kurzweil computers in the intermediate classrooms. I think I will be the squeaky wheel about multiple computer access in all classrooms. I will also organize a dialogue time after school, once a week or so, to get my collegues talking about some of these issues and their vision for our new school.
ReplyDeleteI think the first step to creating better schools is to be better teachers. There isn't much value in instructional ideas that do not make a significant positive difference in our own practice. If they do, then the next step is to see if we are able to transfer those ideas and practices to someone else and so on.
ReplyDeleteI also think that there is a need for some caution before we announce that we have found the holy grail. For one thing, the focus of UDL on “deep understanding” is, as far as I can see, deeply academic. Is academic knowledge of paramount importance to the next generation? I teach an academic subject and would prefer a deep understanding to a shallow one, but in the big picture, is the emphasis on academic knowing part of the problem with school?
Yes, Bruce, I think we need to be better teachers because if we build a better program "they will come." The clients know what they want and I don't think we need a full revolution to make meaningful change. I'm already thinking of ways I can implement some of the big shifts in approach that I've been exposed to so far in the program, and I know you folks have too. Before I left for the summer i was talking with one of my colleagues about what we were doing in class and after a short while, he said that he wished he had signed up and that the ideas appeared sound and most importantly, exciting. Now, i know I'm a good salesperson, but the product seems to be selling itself - we bought it didn't we. Let's just be keen and passionate and start our own little SD46 revolt.
ReplyDeleteRevolt away...I see Pender as a good starting point for the revolution...small school. Fewer people to convince. Less risk..etc. Let me know how I can help start the fires of change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cam. I am in a similar situation - small school, single grade at the moment in fact, so my approach is to try and get as many colleagues, starting with my science/math team partner, on board as possible. I think it will be easier to convince in a smaller setting. I think somebody articulated this point earlier in the week, but I am also wondering why the issues we have been dealing with this week are not part of initial teacher training. I know when I started teaching my HOD and new colleagues were looking to me as the 'new boy' for all the latest and greatest in the world of teaching my subject. It was one of the reasons I was appointed over more experienced applicants. I know things work a bit differently in Canada but I wonder if change might be more rapid if there were more being done at the grass-roots level of new recruits to the profession.
ReplyDeleteIn my previous post I am, of course, assuming that the sorts of issues we have been discussing this week, particularly the future of schools, are not dealt with very extensively in new teacher training. Maybe I am wrong. Things may have changed. Can anyone enlighten me?
ReplyDeleteI too worry about how we can help Grief Point teachers begin to dialogue about how our new school offers an amazing chance to enter the 21st century. I would love to work with Sandi and our new principal on how we might address some of these big issues. We would really have to make it to their advantage to come to 'yet another meeting after school'. It would be interesting if we could get the principal to set aside some planning time to just talk about some of these things - so the teachers would not see it is yet just another meeting. Maybe it should be part of our educational goals for the new year.
ReplyDelete