I've read this article or other work by Phillip Schlechty and, like anyone who has been on a committee that represents change in a school district, can identify with the roles he outlines in this article.
I'm wondering, however, what Schkechty would identify as true school reform or what he would think of the trend of the past 5-10 years of schools clamoring for Reading First grants that mandate the use of one of three (two?) "scientifically proven" reading programs or for the adoption of rigid, lock-step math programs such as Everyday Math that leave little room for creative thinking and design on the part of the person who knows the students best - the educator. I've been discouraged lately when I see and have been part of districts that consider reform to be an adoption of a specific program to fix a problem, the "problem" usually manifested in low test scores, rather than make the investment of time, effort and resources to examine classroom practices and student work. I can not see the role of trailblazer being attached to an individual or committee who pushes for an adoption of a program when it is not paired with thoughtful staff development designed to examine teacher practice and pedagogy. I believe teacher and especially administrative participation in staff development opportunities such as TMT will lead to true reform and hopefully return us to the practice of examining student learning and not test scores as we look at ways to improve our classroom practices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You state very eloquently what I was thinking but unable to put into words without sounding like a "saboteur." I especially liked the following quote. "Even the choicest words lose their power when they are used to overpower. Attitudes are the real figures of speech.” — Edwin H. Friedman I often feel overpowered by others trying to sell me on their way of thinking or method as THE way. It is not that I am opposed to change, but like Judi, appreciate thoughtful change. As I read the article, I was trying to categorize myself. Am I a trailblazer? a pioneer? a settler? a stay at home? a saboteur? I'm not sure. After this week with Maggie I would like to think of myself as willing to be a trailblazer but perhaps am only ready for the role of settler. I am willing to put myself on a trailblazing path because the change is in my mind right, but I don't want to be an overpowerer and expect others to follow. Maybe I will start with blazing a small path, or just a trail and see where it takes me and my students.
Both Judi and Tammy have put my thoughts in to words far better than I can! I, like Judi, have been disheartened by the push that moving to a "scientifically proven" or "research based" pre-packaged curriculum is considered good practice. Yes, having proven materials is important, but more important is having proven teachers and the art of teaching seems to be forgotten as these programs are being implemented. So often I feel like a prisoner to the program that I've been directed to use. Then, like the other Tammy, as I read the article I found myself trying to place myself in a category. I KNOW I am not quite ready for that trailblazer category, so, I, too, am choosing the settler path for now. However, within my own classroom I intend to blaze some new trails and bend away from being a prisoner to the programs. I had an "aha moment" today when Maggie pointed out that the Maine Learning Results are our curriculum. These programs are only different ways of getting there. We, as teachers, whether we be trailblazers, settlers or stay-at-homes (I'm hoping none of us are saboteurs!) need to examine not only programs, but our own teaching. How can WE, not programs, best serve kids? That is when true change will come.
I guess I view a program, reading/math/spelling/etc., as a way of organizing the pieces, not the teaching of it. It is the developmental and conceptual knowledge base of the students that determines which parts and in which manner these should be incorporated into a lesson. I think the earlier you are in the school experience the easier this is because even non-educators are quick to see the need for manipulatives/real life models when introducing concepts at the primary level. I agree that it is the quality of educator who is key to the success of the students regardless of the program.
A comment to my own post!
I want to clarify that I'm not against programs...just how they are used. If programs are used in place of quality staff dev. or the administration is so vested in the program that the teachers are directed to follow the program in a rigid and lock step manner, then I think they can be a detriment to good teaching.
Post a Comment