For this week's class, we began a further investigation into items such as Data Retreats, and the goal would be to look for areas in which you would want to bring eventual change to the school in order to improve its performance and standing. I find this interesting, due to the waves that my district has made (again) in the news.
It's no secret; MPS is in need of improvement. I've been on both sides of the argument, both as a teacher of a successful school and as a failing school. From those experiences, I see a large amount of inconsistency. This is where I see it.
From the failing school aspect, it seemed as though we jumped at the "magic bean" theory, the idea that there was one set thing to put in the curriculum that would make everything better. Unfortunately, I saw lots of those "magic beans" for 10 years, and I still see my district doing that today. It's almost like our district HAS to get that brand new, hot, popular toy that everyone else wants, only to discard it for the next big thing. I remember the waves of Whole Language, Direct Instruction, Target Teach, and many other ideas meant to shape up the curriculum. There was no consistency, though. By the time you got used to a new idea, WHAM! Guess what? We're dropping it and going to a new plan. Teachers wouldn't buy into the programs, knowing that they would likely be changed 3-4 years down the road. The same pathetic cycle happened again and again and again...
Now, I'm at the successful school. And guess what? The SAME changes and requests are being made. Whatever data that our school has generated is pretty much dumped when looking at the curriculum. Right now, all schools are getting the same reading curriculum and the same request for the amount of time teaching. However, there are a large number of schools, successful schools, mind you, that are being told that THIS is the way that we do reading now, without regard for the years of performances that supported a strong reading program.
So where does this lead me? We need to be careful with the data. Too many people generalize and come up with conclusions without looking at the big picture, as well as the tiny pieces that make up that picture. The next time my class bombs an exam, I shouldn't re-teach to ALL of the students; not all of the students need that. By making everyone re-learn it, I'm doing exactly what I dread whenever I get notices from my district---making a change without thinking of everyone.
So, that's my thoughts for now. By all means, weigh in with your thoughts as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I enjoyed your post. The "magic bean theory" seems to be quite popular these days! Will I sound old if I say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." At least you are learning something through the process which will help you be a better teacher. With experience comes wisdom...it's only my third year teaching - so much to learn yet.
You are so right on here. (I like the magic bean analogy) I also like to use the forest and the trees. Are we looking at data through the lens of the trees or the forest. My analogy is the focus on the students is the tree and the focus on the organization is the forest. I too like to focus on the trees.
Post a Comment