There's a lot to be said for the professional learning communities model based upon data from schools/districts that have successfully implemented it. At the same time, there's a certain anxiety level among many staff members who are comfortable with things the way they are. Specifically, there is the issue of teacher autonomy. Many teachers enjoy the fact that, except for formal evaluations, they are largely left alone to craft, implement, and assess on their own.
With PLC's, teachers meet regularly and collaboratively to share best practices, develop common timelines for units, common formative assessments, etc. The idea, for those of you not familiar with the model, is that by establishing and maintaining this dialogue, teachers scrutinize assessment data, discover which lessons, delivery methods, etc. have had the greatest impact on student achievement, and then adopt that practice as a group. By continuously working within this "loop," they hope to continuously improve instruction and, therefore, achievement. For those students who are not meeting standards, interventions are implemented immediately with the goal of bringing the student up to standard while still working within a given unit.
Question... Are the potential gains worth the loss of autonomy for the teacher and the extra work involved?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
More on SLC's
I alluded to the problem of improper SLC implementation at my previous district in an earlier post. I offer this out as an example of what NOT to do if you want your SLC's to operate properly...
First, our superintendent (now retired) met with all middle school principals during the summer. He told them that he was "tired of kids slipping through the cracks" and that he believed SLC's were the answer. Principals were directed to either develop a working model within a year or let him know that it is time for a transfer to elementary.
With a timeline of one year, staff meets weekly to develop a plan for implementation. We were told that "nothing was sacred," but ran into friction when we wanted to change the daily schedule, design three academies instead of four, etc.
Staff that had developed strong working relationships with their instructional teammates were split up, and all of our existing intervention programs (with the exception of special education) were scrapped.
Results:
Several staff members were left out of the program entirely since we couldn't find a way to attach them to an academy through the models the district would allow.
New intervention programs were developed "on the fly" and were taught by our newest teachers (usually outside of subject-matter specialization as well).
Since kids were kept on their academies for math, there was less flexibility in scheduling, and we were able to offer fewer higher/lower math intervention choices.
It was harder to split up students with behavior issues since there were fewer alternative classes in which to place them.
There was no reduction in the number of academically "at risk" students on campus.
I say this not to dissuade those interested in the SLC model (it has many strong points), but as a warning in how NOT to implement. Take your time, do your homework, and be FLEXIBLE as you implement.
First, our superintendent (now retired) met with all middle school principals during the summer. He told them that he was "tired of kids slipping through the cracks" and that he believed SLC's were the answer. Principals were directed to either develop a working model within a year or let him know that it is time for a transfer to elementary.
With a timeline of one year, staff meets weekly to develop a plan for implementation. We were told that "nothing was sacred," but ran into friction when we wanted to change the daily schedule, design three academies instead of four, etc.
Staff that had developed strong working relationships with their instructional teammates were split up, and all of our existing intervention programs (with the exception of special education) were scrapped.
Results:
Several staff members were left out of the program entirely since we couldn't find a way to attach them to an academy through the models the district would allow.
New intervention programs were developed "on the fly" and were taught by our newest teachers (usually outside of subject-matter specialization as well).
Since kids were kept on their academies for math, there was less flexibility in scheduling, and we were able to offer fewer higher/lower math intervention choices.
It was harder to split up students with behavior issues since there were fewer alternative classes in which to place them.
There was no reduction in the number of academically "at risk" students on campus.
I say this not to dissuade those interested in the SLC model (it has many strong points), but as a warning in how NOT to implement. Take your time, do your homework, and be FLEXIBLE as you implement.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Living in the Past Instead of Embracing the Future
I woke up this morning to a TV broadcast on distance ed. that hit on many of the topics I wanted to address in this blog. The program was on "UCSD TV" and was a symposium of leading UC faculty from Berkeley, UC Irvine, and UCLA and was attended by other profit, and non-profit institutions. They discussed the growing distanced learning movement and its implications for the UC system.
It was funny (and a little sad) listening to various "higher ups" explain why d.e. doesn't work very well at "research-oriented" institutions. Funny because they really painted themselves into a corner with their arguments, and sad to me since I attended UC San Diego and could relate to the picture they painted across nine, "top tier" campuses.
They talked about how a "canned curriculum" doesn't work in higher education, and while their professors loved to share best practices, they needed to retain their academic freedom. They made it sound as if UC professors literally opened their students' brains and scooped in the knowledge. As a product of the UC system, and a former teacher, I can say with a certain level of confidence that the average professor at UCSD can't teach his/her way out of a paper bag. They primarily hire researchers (big names in the field) and these researchers typically rely on teaching assistants (who also possess no teacher training) to meet with students and keep office hours.
To me, they sounded scared... Scared that the elite system that they are perched atop could be threatened by education "for the masses." I remember thinking of a statement made by LaTour at the California Professional Learning Community summit a couple of weeks ago. He said, "There is absolutely no data proving that teachers independently developing, implementing, and assessing their individual programs leads to gains in student achievement on a broad scale." I know he said it better than that, but his point was that the tenets of professional learning communities in action (collaboratively developing common instructional programs, building ongoing, formative assessments, etc.) lead to systematic improvements in student achievement. It appears to me that UC professors are simply not willing to let go of their "sage on the stage" status yet and were trying to justify it without any real data.
The broadcast ended with one of the heads of the University of Phoenix getting up from his seat and explaining to the audience that there is a demand for, and benefits to, distance instruction. He asked them to quit feeling threatened by the emergence of d.e. and embrace the components that would improve their own instructional programs.
I was interested if anyone keeps track of the state of distance education in his or her previous universities. Do you hear of resistance to implementation as well?
It was funny (and a little sad) listening to various "higher ups" explain why d.e. doesn't work very well at "research-oriented" institutions. Funny because they really painted themselves into a corner with their arguments, and sad to me since I attended UC San Diego and could relate to the picture they painted across nine, "top tier" campuses.
They talked about how a "canned curriculum" doesn't work in higher education, and while their professors loved to share best practices, they needed to retain their academic freedom. They made it sound as if UC professors literally opened their students' brains and scooped in the knowledge. As a product of the UC system, and a former teacher, I can say with a certain level of confidence that the average professor at UCSD can't teach his/her way out of a paper bag. They primarily hire researchers (big names in the field) and these researchers typically rely on teaching assistants (who also possess no teacher training) to meet with students and keep office hours.
To me, they sounded scared... Scared that the elite system that they are perched atop could be threatened by education "for the masses." I remember thinking of a statement made by LaTour at the California Professional Learning Community summit a couple of weeks ago. He said, "There is absolutely no data proving that teachers independently developing, implementing, and assessing their individual programs leads to gains in student achievement on a broad scale." I know he said it better than that, but his point was that the tenets of professional learning communities in action (collaboratively developing common instructional programs, building ongoing, formative assessments, etc.) lead to systematic improvements in student achievement. It appears to me that UC professors are simply not willing to let go of their "sage on the stage" status yet and were trying to justify it without any real data.
The broadcast ended with one of the heads of the University of Phoenix getting up from his seat and explaining to the audience that there is a demand for, and benefits to, distance instruction. He asked them to quit feeling threatened by the emergence of d.e. and embrace the components that would improve their own instructional programs.
I was interested if anyone keeps track of the state of distance education in his or her previous universities. Do you hear of resistance to implementation as well?
Small Learning Communities
Renni's post got me thinking not just about "flavor of the month" educational programs, but about small learning communities in particular. This is another tough one for me, since my school district was one of the first in San Diego County to implement SLC's at our middle schools. Since the model has proven popular in recent years I was wondering if anyone is in a district that has either gone SLC or is thinking about it.
Of course I have my own views on the process (me with an opinion?!).
First, let me say that I find portions of the SLC model to be both intriguing and progressive. As someone who earned his credential when "Second to None" was big, I remember reading their "vision" for high schools in the 21st century and imagining schools within schools that had programs tailored to students' ultimate professional goals (bio/medicine, auto mechanics, etc.). Many of the schools that I have read about that have gone to this style of SLC appear to have captured the "essence" of what SLC's are supposed to be about.
With that said, for every district that has customized their SCL's to this degree, I have encountered 3 or 4 that have merely adopted the trappings... School within school names, their own pep rallies, shirts, etc. I guess I really don't get the difference between this and the "teaming" movement of the late 1980's and early 1990's. If a snazzy T-shirt with your academy's name on it is a small learning community's best accomplishment for the year, did they actually DO anything?
I know that the above appears pretty negative, but the way SLC's were implemented in my previous district was a disaster. More on that later.
Anyone out there who is "living the dream" of SLC's in a model that actually seems to promote achievement and safety? I would love to hear from you.
Of course I have my own views on the process (me with an opinion?!).
First, let me say that I find portions of the SLC model to be both intriguing and progressive. As someone who earned his credential when "Second to None" was big, I remember reading their "vision" for high schools in the 21st century and imagining schools within schools that had programs tailored to students' ultimate professional goals (bio/medicine, auto mechanics, etc.). Many of the schools that I have read about that have gone to this style of SLC appear to have captured the "essence" of what SLC's are supposed to be about.
With that said, for every district that has customized their SCL's to this degree, I have encountered 3 or 4 that have merely adopted the trappings... School within school names, their own pep rallies, shirts, etc. I guess I really don't get the difference between this and the "teaming" movement of the late 1980's and early 1990's. If a snazzy T-shirt with your academy's name on it is a small learning community's best accomplishment for the year, did they actually DO anything?
I know that the above appears pretty negative, but the way SLC's were implemented in my previous district was a disaster. More on that later.
Anyone out there who is "living the dream" of SLC's in a model that actually seems to promote achievement and safety? I would love to hear from you.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
What's Your Experience With PLC's?
Professional Learning Community is a "buzz-term" that seems to be everywhere these days. Just about every district in San Diego (including my former and current districts) has jumped on the PLC bandwagon and claims to have adopted the tenets of the professional learning community model.
My current district just paid several thousand dollars to send ten of us to the California PLC Summit and, I must admit, the information was top-notch (as well as the presenters including the State Superintendent and Rick DuFour, the "inventor" of the PLC). Everyone left pumped and ready to make it a reality tomorrow.
However, my previous district jumped into the PLC movement without any real plan and the result was a disaster. I can remember my principal standing up at a staff meeting and explaining to us that "every group that is currently meeting is a PLC now." To those of you who know something of how PLC's actually operate, you understand that she had no idea what she was talking about. Due to this initial experience, it's been four years, and only one of the four middle schools has actually adopted the PLC program, while the other three go through the motions.
Just curious... What is your experience with professional learning communities? Complete success, mixed results, or disaster? Was it tough to sell to your staff members? How did admin. support the process (if at all)?
My current district just paid several thousand dollars to send ten of us to the California PLC Summit and, I must admit, the information was top-notch (as well as the presenters including the State Superintendent and Rick DuFour, the "inventor" of the PLC). Everyone left pumped and ready to make it a reality tomorrow.
However, my previous district jumped into the PLC movement without any real plan and the result was a disaster. I can remember my principal standing up at a staff meeting and explaining to us that "every group that is currently meeting is a PLC now." To those of you who know something of how PLC's actually operate, you understand that she had no idea what she was talking about. Due to this initial experience, it's been four years, and only one of the four middle schools has actually adopted the PLC program, while the other three go through the motions.
Just curious... What is your experience with professional learning communities? Complete success, mixed results, or disaster? Was it tough to sell to your staff members? How did admin. support the process (if at all)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
