Best Practices

Chapter 8 of Best Practice: Today's Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools (Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 2003)offers seven structures of best teaching which include: small group activities, reading as thinking, representing-to-learn, classroom workshop, authentic experiences, reflective assessment, and integrative units. Some of these practices I have incorporated into my teaching on some level, but I was really interested in the concept of classroom workshop and how to creatively use this concept in high school within a 45 minute period. Two challenges I see in this approach for professionals new to the field include possessing a mastery of the course content prior to teaching the course if the teacher and students create the curriculum map for the semester, and classroom management issues with students who simultaneously work in groups, independently or one-on-one with the teacher. Maybe this process could be introduced to second and third year teachers who may be more familiar with the course content and more flexible in learning new styles before the traditional lecture approach takes hold on their practice. Another challenge to this concept is that unlike elementary schools where individuals remain with a certain grade level for some time, on the high school level, many teachers are frequently assigned different teaching responsibilities from year to year. It would be difficult to incorporate this process if each year the teacher is trying to become familiar with the course content prior to teaching and exposing the material to the students. This approach (which I really do like) would call for the administration of the school to strategically plan the length of time each teacher would teach a particular class. Barring attrition, this is easily accomplished if this is a goal for the administration. As we saw in the example of Delois Strickland, incorporating any new process into one's teaching practice takes several years to not only become familiar with the process, but to tweak it for greater student-centered learning, especially if the teacher is more familiar and comfortable with the traditional approach to classroom learning. I can see how all of these principles can really energize the students and the teachers for greater shared responsibility in the learning process.

Schools that Learn

"Learning is at once deeply personal and inherently social;it connects us not just to knowledge in the abstract, but to each other"(Senge,2000,p.4).

If I look back over my life as both a student and an educator, Senge's understanding of learning rings true for my life and I believe for the lives of the students with whom I was fortunate enough to connect. Why is it that we connect with some students and not with others? Why was it that I connected with material that was taught by teachers who connected with me? And did not connect with material taught by teachers who did not notice or pay any attention to me? Learning truely is personal and social. This insight is critical for educators in trying to create learning environments where teachers say to their students, "Sawu bona" and students enthusiastically respond, "Sikhona" (p.11). Moving learning from four walls of the classroom to the reality of the community surrounding the school also brings meaning and relevance to the learning at hand. Great partnerships can be built if members of the surrounding community (business, civic, and religious leaders)are encouraged and welcomed into the inner sanctum of the school property. Significant opportunities for learning that is both personal and social can enter into the life of a student and teacher when the "outside world" is brought into direct contact with the "inside world" of the classroom. Several studies have shown that when students are engaged in the outside community during their high school years, they are more likely to be both civically and socially engaged in works of service far beyond their high school years. What I enjoyed about this section of Senge was his approach to making connections to other disciplines of learning, once again, proving that what happens in one classroom should not be considered separate from "real life", but becomes authentic when connections and bridges can be made to other classrooms, disciplines, or world events. In this way, learning does become deeply personal and social at the same time.

Outcomes, outcomes, outcomes...

My apologies to everyone for posting late. I was snowbound in Newark, NJ for the past two days and while there was email access at the hotel there was a timer on each of the computers as to how long one could be on it. I finally arrived back in SF at 11pm after an 8 hour flight (I know I should have been in Hawaii by the time I left the plane!)

I am really excited and intrigued by Ozar's notion of student learning being tied to outcomes. It is actually more difficult than it appears. In her own work she cites the National Congress on Catholic Schools for the 21st Century (p.64) that violates her definition of outcomes, "stated from the student's point of view and indicating observable behavior"(p.27). If top members of the NCEA can't seem to stay away from goals, how are we to do it? With the exception of students will, "speak at least one second language" (p.66), all the other outcomes are actually goals! Stating outcomes, rather than goals, is really more difficult than it appears.

One item that Ozar talks about at the end of the chapter links student graduation outcomes to something that many of us struggle with in Catholic secondary schools- Service Learning. I know in my previous school we always had a service requirement which was linked to number of hours in a given year. Goals seem to push for quantity. Outcomes may open the door for quality. Rather than marking hours in a given year, a culminating service project which synthesizes the "doing" with the "learning" would more accurately reflect what many of us state in our school mission statements- to be caring and participatory members of society, Church and the world. One downside to this notion is that now many states require a particular number of service hours for public school graduation and other scholarships. Moving to a culminating service project may put our students at a disadvantage for funding, but I think we are smart enough in Catholic circles to "play the game" for the sake of student learning.

What Shall Students Learn?

Several years ago, my religious community gathered leaders from our 16 high schools to try to create a profile of a graduate from a Marianist school. It seemed a bit contrived because our schools reflect socio-economic, ethnic, religious and gender differences among and between the schools. Although there are certain tangibles that one can observe in all Marianist schools, each school also had a distinct culture based on the aforementioned variables. So, it was very difficult to create an all encompassing Marianist graduate profile. While this was not successful on the national level, I do believe that this is a great excercise to do with faculty/staff/parents and students on the local level. Ozar (2006) recommends graduation outcomes, and I do believe that is a great starting place to designing any curriculum.

Designing curriculum based upon an "output" model, rather than an "input" model was telling and challenging to me in my own practice of teaching. I had the experience 5 years ago to design and implement a senior honors course in theology. Designing this new course in Pastoral Ministry allowed for more "output" outcomes rather than "input" outcomes because I was not saddled with a textbook from which others teachers also needed to teach. Designing this new course allowed for a great deal of creativity and flexibility that I had not encountered before in my own teaching. I would say that the course really was student centered and focused. Fast forward five years from this initial implementation and I took on an additional course in Psychology because I had some time and we did not really have additional money to pay another teacher for the period. When I look at the course design for that class, I relied heavily upon the text and the learning environment reflected the "input" model to which Ozar referred. Even asking the question, "What shall I teach?" seems so burdensome and so dependent upon me that teaching beccomes a chore and solely my responsibility. Asking, "What shall students learn?" opens the doors of creativity, curiosity, wonder and possibilities-that's far more exciting to me!

So, what helps this old dog learn new tricks? Ozar states, "Any outcome designed around learning rather than teaching is a step in the right direction. Good outcomes can be tremendous catalysts for increasing learning and improving teaching" (Ozar, 2006, p. 20).

Ready for the Assembly Line

The current model for schools and schools systems was borrowed from the organizational world of business. The creation of schools that mirror life in the factories seemed to prepare students to move from one environment (school) to another environment (work) with very little effort. This model had its place in the history and development of education and organizations for the Industrial Age period of history but today this model is seriously lacking. The curriculum for the Industrial Age was developed with the real world in mind. Using the Farmers Almanac, classes in accounting, typing, mechanics, grammar, and the sciences prepared most of the students for their place in the working world while a small minority continued their education on the college and university level. Today, more and more students are attending college before entering the work force (and many more are extending their studies earning MA's and PhD's without ever being gainfully employed) and the curriculum changed from the practical to the ethereal in many cases. In our technological literate world and work force that encourages team work, shared information, and creativity, it seems to me that if schools are to remain relevant in meeting the current needs and future aspirations of students, then change is definitely necessary both in the design of curriculum, the pedagogy used, and the schema for organizational leadership in schools.

As a teacher and educational leader of schools, I tried to bring as many voices to the table as possible when seeking to make changes or teaching a new concept. In the classroom, I often used collaborative learning on a weekly basis and always assigned a semester project that demanded group design, particpation and presentation. The students always had a series of topics from which to choose, but a rubric was provided to them so that they would know the parameters and scope of the project. Points were actually awarded for creativity. While the students generally liked the projects, they also learned valuable lessons in time management, group dynamics, dependability, supporting the weak and taking risks-points that I know are valuable in the work force. As an educational leader of school, although we functioned in the classical model of organizations, i.e., a hierarchical model where lines of reporting and communication were explicit, as a leader I often tried to bring other constituents into the conversation both formally and informally. I found that in most cases, this allowed for a greater understanding of the issue/problem and provided for a better decision in the long run.

The readings provided great challenges for those in education to dismantle the assembly line and transform schools to meet the needs of the future.