I have finished a pile of articles regarding various approaches to teacher development. After doing this I feel like I can organize these into a few groups. Those who focus on specific teacher motivation, individual school environment, or those who focus on leadership at either the district, state, or national level. So I have alot of different policy suggestions and frames for understanding one issue. I found the articles on what created teacher development that was self-motivated to be the most interesting. However, since I am trying to look how different parts of the system interact I also want to understand what best practice at the district level looks like.
Today I met with Carol Heallis (sp?) and Tracy Stevenson who organized the new math and social studies curriculum in the Beloit school district. I was interested to see what made them choose the curriculum approach for Beloit and what implementation of the new curriculum has been effective and ineffective.
The math curriculum was radically different from the way most teachers are used to teaching and I think there are still alot who resist the new program. I was interested to hear her opinion that the majority of teachers now support the curriculum. I also thought it was interesting that from the outset, the math approach they are trying to encourage is meant to take 5 years of more before it is fully and successfully implemented. The social studies program seems to have the same ideas behind it, but unlike the math there was no packaged curriculum they could adopt to achieve their goals. Both really seem to rely on the effect ongoing staff development will have.
The other concern I had was why these two subjects have been such a huge focus as opposed to literacy, science, or just classroom management. I am not sure I was satisfied with the answer, but I do agree that this new program deserves ongoing attention, it just seems it may be at the price of other things teachers could benefit from.
I asked both of them what the one imporvement they would want to see was. They both agreed that common prep periods for teachers is key. At this point elementary teachers only have thirty minutes of prep time in the day. It is critical that teachers have scheduled time to share strategies and ideas. I have found this in my research too, apparently 90% of improvement in teaching practice is fostered by another colleague. I just don't see teachers being able to give up their meager thirty minutes for forced prep-time. It should be something that is done in addition to their prep, or after school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A little SDB history is that a new literacy program was introduced prior to the math program and is more or less implemented across the district elementary schools. I think that the optimism of central offices is an amazing phenomena, and with the social studies curriculum that doesn't come with any materials, the optimism is even more strange. It's hard for me to imagine successful "implementation" (a top-down approach to policy that much policy research now rejects) given the constraints on time, teacher investment, resources. Though the teacher development strategy you told me about today was very interesting in this regard, especially how centralization has again prevailed. Your question about when "management and motivation" become topics for development is also well-taken.
Post a Comment