I apologize that I have been away for awhile. The 4th quarter of the school year got away from me. However, now that summer is officially here, I am going to try and get back to regular posting. The push I needed to get back to my blog was a recent article I read in the latest edition of Scholastic Administrator called "Reboot Education". The article summarized the ten innovations that will change the future of education, and I found it fascinating. Instead of summarizing the entire article, I have hyperlinked the article for you so I can focus on the innovations that I found to be most interesting.
I've heard it said that teachers are a group of independent contractors connected by a common parking lot. This reference emphasizes the isolationism in which the vast majority of our teachers work. Not only do we do a poor job of collaborating with our colleagues within the same school district, but the opportunities to collaborate with peers in other school districts is virtually nonexistent. As a result, our professional misses out on the impressive collective knowledge that exists within it. We have always lacked the means to engage in meaningful and productive collaboration on teaching and learning. Fortunately, technology is providing the avenue to change this long-standing impediment to the continuous improvement of our classrooms. Websites are springing up which allow teachers to share online curricula and lesson plans. A great example is Curriki, which is becoming known as the Wikipedia of online curricula. Furthermore, teachers across the world are setting up their own professional communities through social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The article quotes a teacher as saying "When we find something worthwhile, we share it, because there's no point in wasting time working in isolation." The potential power of harnessing and sharing the collective knowledge of educators across the United States, and the world, is exciting to think about, and for those teachers who choose to take advantage...the possibilities are endless.
The article also highlights how teachers are getting incredible results by moving towards the development of individualized education plans for each student. In this type of system, instruction is differentiated to meet the individual learning needs of each child in the classroom. The result is a dynamic classroom in which students are receiving very different instruction, which is aligned with the way each individual student learns best. In this type of system, teachers work in teams to continually acquire and analyze assessment data and then adapt their lessons accordingly. Each student's individual learning needs are considered when designing learning opportunities. The key to successful implementation is providing teachers with the time to analyze their data and to work collaboratively in creating these individual learning opportunities for students. If properly implemented, the potential results of this effort could be astounding.
The article contained many innovations that have the potential to significantly impact student learning. However, the one that really hit home with me was the idea that "emotional learning has to come first." Schools across the country are seeing an increase in reports of school violence and aggressive behavior, and to combat this, many schools are focusing on the social-emotional learning of their students. In the article, Maurice Elias, is quoted as saying, "There is now a growing realization that student learning depends on the climate and culture of the school and the extent to which schools promote students' social-emotional and character development." In other words, all educators are starting to understand what early childhood teachers have known and practiced for years, which is that learning cannot take place if a student's social-emotional needs have not been met. If the student does not feel safe, cared about and nurtured by those adults in his/her school, then the student will not perform academically to his/her potential. Robert Marzano has always maintained that meaningful school improvement cannot occur without the presence of a guaranteed and viable curriculum. However, we also now are beginning to understand that the absence of meaningful relationships between students and those responsible for educating them significantly inhibit the chances of successful school improvement.
This is a challenging time in education, but those challenges are opening the door to opportunities for innovation like never before. I recently read Dan Brown's latest book, The Lost Symbol, and towards the end of the book, one of the protagonists stated "There are those who create, and those who tear down." Although it seems en vogue to tear down the institution of public education, I believe that current challenges have provided unprecedented opportunity for those who are willing to create. The future of education is full of opportunities for those educators willing to challenge the long standing status quo and harness this unique opportunity for substantive change.
As always, I would be interested in your comments on this information. I would also encourage you to read the full article referenced above.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Rigor, Relevance & Relationships
I have recently become intrigued by the work of the International Center for Leadership in Education on the importance of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" in our public schools. Their basic premise is that a focus on these new "Three R's" is the key to lasting and substantive school improvement. The more I read and ponder this model for school improvement, the more I believe in their simple, yet powerful, premise.
As an administrator, I have been in the classrooms of teachers who had a complete grasp of their subject matter, and took great pride in the fact that their classes were quite rigorous. I have also been in classrooms where the teacher had a tremendously positive relationship with the students, and the kids seemed to enjoy being in the class, but very little learning was going on. However, neither of these classrooms were optimal learning environments.
The optimal learning environment is when "Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships" are all accounted for and appreciated within the classroom. Let's take a moment to examine each of these variables and how they might look in the classroom.
Too often, rigor is viewed through the lens of how much homework the teacher requires and how many hours the student has to study to prepare for a test. However, it doesn't take a master teacher to have a "hard class" (anyone can do that), but it does take a master teacher to have a truly rigorous class. Rigor should be thought of in terms how often we require our students to solve complex problems, apply what they have learned, and critically analyze the results. The focus of rigor should be on helping the students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter that goes beyond memorizing, reciting and restating. The development of critical thinking skills is paramount to "rigor". Teachers shouldn't take pride in the fact that a student has to do two hours of homework per night and study three days for tests in order to pass their class. In fact, absent the true "rigor" of higher-order thinking skills, this could be considered poor teaching practice.
All educators have heard the phrase, "Why do I have to learn this? I'll never use it again." If students have to ask this question, then "relevance" is missing in the classroom. Relevance refers to how the subject matter relates to the student's interests and needs. Real relevance cannot be developed unless students are allowed to utilize their learning in real-life situations and contexts. When this is considered, it is easy to see how "rigor" and "relevance" begin to overlap. When students are allowed to apply their learning to real-world situations (relevance), they are required to use higher-order thinking skills (rigor). Therefore, true rigor is very difficult to attain in the absence of relevance, and vice versa.
Although "rigor" and "relevance" are keys to meaningful student learning, this learning cannot occur in the absence of "relationships" in the school. Kids cannot learn if their social and emotional needs have not been satisfied. We can have the most rigorous and relevant classrooms in the country, but if our kids' affective needs are not being met, we will not be successful. In a school focused on relationships, there is a caring, student-centered environment where students feel a sense of connection to their school. Many schools have realized the importance of this variable, and have tried to account for it through the development of the "school within a school" concept. In this structure, interdisciplinary teams are developed and groups of students are assigned to each team. Others have adopted an "advisory" structure, where each teacher is assigned a small group of students. Other schools have not adopted a new structure, but instead have simply determined that the development of meaningful relationships with students would be their focus. In response, their teachers have tried to attend more student events, eat lunch with the students, open their rooms before and after school, start new clubs/organization, etc. These schools understood that all the "rigor" and "relevance" in the world would not make a difference in the absence of meaningful "relationships."
If the model of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" was applied to District #1, how do you think we would measure up? In what areas are we strong? In what areas is there room for improvement? What needs to be done to improve? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
As an administrator, I have been in the classrooms of teachers who had a complete grasp of their subject matter, and took great pride in the fact that their classes were quite rigorous. I have also been in classrooms where the teacher had a tremendously positive relationship with the students, and the kids seemed to enjoy being in the class, but very little learning was going on. However, neither of these classrooms were optimal learning environments.
The optimal learning environment is when "Rigor, Relevance, and Relationships" are all accounted for and appreciated within the classroom. Let's take a moment to examine each of these variables and how they might look in the classroom.
Too often, rigor is viewed through the lens of how much homework the teacher requires and how many hours the student has to study to prepare for a test. However, it doesn't take a master teacher to have a "hard class" (anyone can do that), but it does take a master teacher to have a truly rigorous class. Rigor should be thought of in terms how often we require our students to solve complex problems, apply what they have learned, and critically analyze the results. The focus of rigor should be on helping the students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter that goes beyond memorizing, reciting and restating. The development of critical thinking skills is paramount to "rigor". Teachers shouldn't take pride in the fact that a student has to do two hours of homework per night and study three days for tests in order to pass their class. In fact, absent the true "rigor" of higher-order thinking skills, this could be considered poor teaching practice.
All educators have heard the phrase, "Why do I have to learn this? I'll never use it again." If students have to ask this question, then "relevance" is missing in the classroom. Relevance refers to how the subject matter relates to the student's interests and needs. Real relevance cannot be developed unless students are allowed to utilize their learning in real-life situations and contexts. When this is considered, it is easy to see how "rigor" and "relevance" begin to overlap. When students are allowed to apply their learning to real-world situations (relevance), they are required to use higher-order thinking skills (rigor). Therefore, true rigor is very difficult to attain in the absence of relevance, and vice versa.
Although "rigor" and "relevance" are keys to meaningful student learning, this learning cannot occur in the absence of "relationships" in the school. Kids cannot learn if their social and emotional needs have not been satisfied. We can have the most rigorous and relevant classrooms in the country, but if our kids' affective needs are not being met, we will not be successful. In a school focused on relationships, there is a caring, student-centered environment where students feel a sense of connection to their school. Many schools have realized the importance of this variable, and have tried to account for it through the development of the "school within a school" concept. In this structure, interdisciplinary teams are developed and groups of students are assigned to each team. Others have adopted an "advisory" structure, where each teacher is assigned a small group of students. Other schools have not adopted a new structure, but instead have simply determined that the development of meaningful relationships with students would be their focus. In response, their teachers have tried to attend more student events, eat lunch with the students, open their rooms before and after school, start new clubs/organization, etc. These schools understood that all the "rigor" and "relevance" in the world would not make a difference in the absence of meaningful "relationships."
If the model of "Rigor, Relevance and Relationships" was applied to District #1, how do you think we would measure up? In what areas are we strong? In what areas is there room for improvement? What needs to be done to improve? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
