The two guiding principles that are most relevant to creating sustained change in my school are the first two in the chart. The first one is as follows:
"Evaluation and change are highly personal. No claims of 'objectivity' or 'data-driven decision making' can circumvent this reality. People change first, then programs; significant change is never easy. Anticipate emotional responses to evaluation and change. Take time to build relationships." - p. 163
1. What is your relationship with faculty, parents, and administration?
I am a newer teacher in my school. However, I have reached out and become a sponsor, and this year I am a mentor teacher for a first year teacher. I feel like I have maintained a fairly close relationship both with my administrators and the teachers in my department. I do not work as closely with the other teachers in the school, but my relationship with them is amiable enough to be a good foundation. In terms of parents, I feel like I am getting better and better about maintaining close communication with parents. I focus on the best interests of their children, and several parents seem to recognize that.
2. Can you identify the strengths of all the teachers you work with in the school?
I think that I would be capable of doing this. I can already identify the strengths of many of the teachers that I know and work closely with, based on anecdotal knowledge. We also have a data program and monthly benchmarks in all of the EOI courses, which would be a great place to start in terms of curricular strengths. Additionally, our principals have been very good about dropping into classrooms regularly this year, so I could turn to them to talk about the observations they've made. Finally, of course, I could talk with the teachers about what they think their strengths are. I feel like I could get a good picture of teachers' strengths, since I have so many sources for that information.
3. In what ways have you actively reached out to build a community of learners that is willing to take risks?
Currently, I've only done this in small ways. Last year, I worked with my department to find an approach to teaching writing that we all thought would be effective. This year, I've been more willing to step out of my comfort zone and talk with my colleagues about how we can all approach teaching different topics. Additionally, I am trying to model risk-taking in terms of volunteering for classes I've never taught and participating directly in the district's curriculum alignment. Also, I suppose my coaching practice this year could count?
The other guiding principle that is relevant to our school's current situation is as follows:
"The more those who are expected to change are involved in shaping the change process, the more sustainable the change effort will be. Evaluation that is controlled and managed from the outside is far less effective in supporting real change than evaluation that comes from within the system." - p. 163
1. How involved are the faculty in the shaping of current efforts?
I think that the faculty could be more involved. Part of that is the way our evaluation, curriculum development, etc. is structured, and part of that is due to initiative of some faculty members. We are somewhat involved in the evaluation of both teachers and students, but teachers who are not on leadership teams are not really involved in the design process. We try to let teachers have a say in the changes that go on at our school, but the efforts don't seem to be resulting in teachers' true involvement.
2. What are some of the ways you are attempting to bring some of those outside the process more inside the process?
We are creating small committees and having meetings to discuss changes that we can make on our level. We have regular team meetings among small groups of teachers, administrators, and counselors to discuss issues with particular students or groups of students. We also have data meetings within each department to discuss the results of our benchmarks and to discuss how we can tailor both our tests and our instruction in the future.
3. Is there a leadership team taking shape within your school?
Yes, to some degree. We have created a "data program," but there isn't much that goes beyond the data focus. We focus on tracking student performance and progress, and we do regular remediation for struggling students. The ultimate focus is getting students to pass their EOI tests. I would love to see us form leadership teams that go beyond the EOI preparation data.
Questions for you:
1. Do you feel like the guiding principles discussed here are pertinent to your school too? How so?
2. In terms of the guiding principles discussed in chapter 11, what is one that you think would be most relevant to your school's situation? Why?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Literacy Learning in the Early Years and Adolescent Literacy
Chapter 4: Literacy Learning in the Early Years
The first section of the chapter talks about initiatives in early education and how that is relevant to literacy leaders and professional development efforts. One initiative is for supporting curriculum in the pre-k through 3rd grades because there is evidence of a "literacy achievement gap [that] starts early and persists throughout the grades" (61). Professional development should support teachers' implementation of higher standards and school-family relationships. Another initiative that the chapter discusses is the use of assessments in early education, and professional development should emphasize "learn[ing] and exchang[ing] ideas about the collection and use of assessment data" (61). The chapter also discusses technology initiatives and suggests that professional development focus on both the selection of "appropriate technology" and the integration of it into the curriculum (62). The final initiatives are about educator evaluation, which the chapter posits should be used "to plan ongoing professional development to support teachers' abilities to demonstrate competence" in their evaluated areas (62).
Professional development that focuses on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards should have a few areas of focus. It should emphasize an "integrated model of literacy" that effectively combines all aspects of literacy, rather than teaching reading, writing, speaking, etc. separately (62). Expectations should be cumulative and vertically aligned to build on students' knowledge continually. Teachers should plan collaboratively to support students' literacy development. Professional development should also help teachers support students "become proficient in reading complex texts independently and in a variety of content areas" (63).
The chapter describes a few different approaches that can support students' early literacy development. Teachers should focus on "strategies that promote a positive view toward reading" (64). Strategies should "help expand children's vocabularies and conceptual understandings" through discussion of texts. Students should be supported in understanding the functions of print and the purposes of writing, and teachers should help build up print awareness on a regular basis with a variety of strategies. Teachers should introduce students to types of texts and text structures through discussions that "[go] beyond simple recall" (66). Teachers should give students various opportunities to both listen to and respond to stories to help develop listening comprehension. In terms of decoding, teachers should focus on strategies to promote three areas: alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness (awareness of speech sounds), and phonics ("link[ing] written symbols and sounds") (67). Finally, teachers should give students opportunities to write in a variety of contexts every day.
The chapter concludes with a section on accountability and assessment. Assessment should be developmentally appropriate. Assessment should be used to track literacy development that informs decisions about curriculum and instructional approaches. The chapter outlines a few approaches for this type of assessment, including oral observations and observations of print awareness.
This chapter begins by describing the evolution of adolescent literacy instruction. In the 1960s and 1960s, there were initiatives related to helping "students who needed instructional support in using reading to learn," which began the focus on content area reading (86). However, there was miscommunication and a lack of appropriate professional development, so many content area teachers "did not feel prepared" to support students' reading (86). Content area reading approaches later evolved in the 1990s to become what we now know as content literacy or disciplinary literacy. From then until now, content area teachers are expected to approach literacy by teaching their students "how to write, think, and learn with text within the context of disciplinary literacy"; they are encouraged to teach their students to think like experts in their field (87).
The next section of the chapter discusses aspects of effective literacy programs for adolescents. Students should be able to read a "wide variety of reading material," much of which should appeal to them (88). Instructional strategies should focus both on skills and engagement, and teachers should be responsive to students' individual contexts. Assessment should be used as a tool to guide instruction, and teaching should include both modeling and "explicit instruction in reading comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum" (88). Finally, schools should employ the assistance of reading specialists to guide teachers, and schools should emphasize the relationship between the school and the community.
The last two sections of the chapter outline standards for literacy coaches as outlined in leadership standards and Common Core and content literacy standards.
A few highlights: Literacy coaches should conduct a literacy needs assessment that is implemented "by developing a schoolwide literacy team" (90). Literacy coaches should also familiarize themselves with adult learning strategies and implement them in every aspect of their coaching. Additionally, good literacy coaches "keep up-to-date on current research about teaching, learning, best practices, and curriculum materials" (90). Literacy coaches should be familiar both with content area standards and the actual subject matter of the actual areas in which they will be coaching teachers.
The first section of the chapter talks about initiatives in early education and how that is relevant to literacy leaders and professional development efforts. One initiative is for supporting curriculum in the pre-k through 3rd grades because there is evidence of a "literacy achievement gap [that] starts early and persists throughout the grades" (61). Professional development should support teachers' implementation of higher standards and school-family relationships. Another initiative that the chapter discusses is the use of assessments in early education, and professional development should emphasize "learn[ing] and exchang[ing] ideas about the collection and use of assessment data" (61). The chapter also discusses technology initiatives and suggests that professional development focus on both the selection of "appropriate technology" and the integration of it into the curriculum (62). The final initiatives are about educator evaluation, which the chapter posits should be used "to plan ongoing professional development to support teachers' abilities to demonstrate competence" in their evaluated areas (62).
Professional development that focuses on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards should have a few areas of focus. It should emphasize an "integrated model of literacy" that effectively combines all aspects of literacy, rather than teaching reading, writing, speaking, etc. separately (62). Expectations should be cumulative and vertically aligned to build on students' knowledge continually. Teachers should plan collaboratively to support students' literacy development. Professional development should also help teachers support students "become proficient in reading complex texts independently and in a variety of content areas" (63).
The chapter describes a few different approaches that can support students' early literacy development. Teachers should focus on "strategies that promote a positive view toward reading" (64). Strategies should "help expand children's vocabularies and conceptual understandings" through discussion of texts. Students should be supported in understanding the functions of print and the purposes of writing, and teachers should help build up print awareness on a regular basis with a variety of strategies. Teachers should introduce students to types of texts and text structures through discussions that "[go] beyond simple recall" (66). Teachers should give students various opportunities to both listen to and respond to stories to help develop listening comprehension. In terms of decoding, teachers should focus on strategies to promote three areas: alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness (awareness of speech sounds), and phonics ("link[ing] written symbols and sounds") (67). Finally, teachers should give students opportunities to write in a variety of contexts every day.
The chapter concludes with a section on accountability and assessment. Assessment should be developmentally appropriate. Assessment should be used to track literacy development that informs decisions about curriculum and instructional approaches. The chapter outlines a few approaches for this type of assessment, including oral observations and observations of print awareness.
- How does this chapter relate to something you read this week?
- How can you address these issues as a literacy leader?
This chapter begins by describing the evolution of adolescent literacy instruction. In the 1960s and 1960s, there were initiatives related to helping "students who needed instructional support in using reading to learn," which began the focus on content area reading (86). However, there was miscommunication and a lack of appropriate professional development, so many content area teachers "did not feel prepared" to support students' reading (86). Content area reading approaches later evolved in the 1990s to become what we now know as content literacy or disciplinary literacy. From then until now, content area teachers are expected to approach literacy by teaching their students "how to write, think, and learn with text within the context of disciplinary literacy"; they are encouraged to teach their students to think like experts in their field (87).
The next section of the chapter discusses aspects of effective literacy programs for adolescents. Students should be able to read a "wide variety of reading material," much of which should appeal to them (88). Instructional strategies should focus both on skills and engagement, and teachers should be responsive to students' individual contexts. Assessment should be used as a tool to guide instruction, and teaching should include both modeling and "explicit instruction in reading comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum" (88). Finally, schools should employ the assistance of reading specialists to guide teachers, and schools should emphasize the relationship between the school and the community.
The last two sections of the chapter outline standards for literacy coaches as outlined in leadership standards and Common Core and content literacy standards.
A few highlights: Literacy coaches should conduct a literacy needs assessment that is implemented "by developing a schoolwide literacy team" (90). Literacy coaches should also familiarize themselves with adult learning strategies and implement them in every aspect of their coaching. Additionally, good literacy coaches "keep up-to-date on current research about teaching, learning, best practices, and curriculum materials" (90). Literacy coaches should be familiar both with content area standards and the actual subject matter of the actual areas in which they will be coaching teachers.
- How does this chapter relate to something you read this week?
- How can you address these issues as a literacy leader?
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Professional Development and Coaching Updates
Professional Development Program
I've gotten some feedback about my preliminary PD ideas, and as of tonight, I'm about halfway through writing up my actual plan for the program. Each of the parts of our program is supposed to have about 1-2 paragraphs of general description, correct? I feel like I'm making fairly good progress. I still haven't decided which one to do in more detail yet. I've got the whole-group session, the small-group break-out sessions, the lesson workshops, and the follow-up PD. Which do you all think might be easiest to plan in detail? I think one reason I'm having trouble narrowing it down is that I'm not sure which ones could contribute ideas for my grant proposal. What do you think?
Whole group session topics: writing overview, academic vocabulary overview
Small-group break-out session topics: Classroom Structures for Facilitating Writing Development, Types of Academic Writing, Evaluating Writing, Introducing Vocabulary, Exploring Vocabulary in Context, Continued Use of Academic Vocabulary
Lesson workshop topics: Writing Lesson Planning, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Planning, Writing Lesson Plan Analysis, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Plan Analysis, Writing Lesson Model Analysis, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Model Analysis
Follow-up Options: Article Study, Literacy Coaching, Action Research
Coaching Practice
I've finished the observation portion, and I've written some questions and observations that I can share in the post-observation meeting. We were supposed to have our meeting this morning, but my partner teacher had something come up, so we're doing it next week. I've been doing reflections with every step of the way, and they've really helped me gain a sense of how I think I'm doing with the different aspects of the coaching process.
I'm a little nervous about the post-observation conference. I'm trying to prepare, with the readings we've done and the coaching stances in mind, but I'm nervous that I will be too evaluative or not facilitative enough. I suppose it does take practice, though. How are you all doing with those issues?
I've gotten some feedback about my preliminary PD ideas, and as of tonight, I'm about halfway through writing up my actual plan for the program. Each of the parts of our program is supposed to have about 1-2 paragraphs of general description, correct? I feel like I'm making fairly good progress. I still haven't decided which one to do in more detail yet. I've got the whole-group session, the small-group break-out sessions, the lesson workshops, and the follow-up PD. Which do you all think might be easiest to plan in detail? I think one reason I'm having trouble narrowing it down is that I'm not sure which ones could contribute ideas for my grant proposal. What do you think?
Whole group session topics: writing overview, academic vocabulary overview
Small-group break-out session topics: Classroom Structures for Facilitating Writing Development, Types of Academic Writing, Evaluating Writing, Introducing Vocabulary, Exploring Vocabulary in Context, Continued Use of Academic Vocabulary
Lesson workshop topics: Writing Lesson Planning, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Planning, Writing Lesson Plan Analysis, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Plan Analysis, Writing Lesson Model Analysis, Academic Vocabulary Lesson Model Analysis
Follow-up Options: Article Study, Literacy Coaching, Action Research
Coaching Practice
I've finished the observation portion, and I've written some questions and observations that I can share in the post-observation meeting. We were supposed to have our meeting this morning, but my partner teacher had something come up, so we're doing it next week. I've been doing reflections with every step of the way, and they've really helped me gain a sense of how I think I'm doing with the different aspects of the coaching process.
I'm a little nervous about the post-observation conference. I'm trying to prepare, with the readings we've done and the coaching stances in mind, but I'm nervous that I will be too evaluative or not facilitative enough. I suppose it does take practice, though. How are you all doing with those issues?
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Professional Development 2
I am really excited about the prospect of an article study--I've never participated in one before. I do think, based on the preparation section of the chapter, that an article study requires dedicated teachers more than other forms of PD might. In terms of the facilitation of discussion, I love the idea of starting with "ratings" of the article. I think that facilitating evaluation is a great way to help teachers share their insights. I also really like the idea of text coding; like with our students, it definitely helps to give people focus for their reading and a method for writing down their thoughts quickly.
I like the idea of working closely with the school's principal for faculty meeting PD. I feel like if you decide on a topic in conjunction with the principal, and if the principal is the one to introduce the PD session, teachers are more likely to be receptive to it. Also, I really like the overview samples that this chapter provided. They are very succinct, but still informative. I feel like I would accidentally make the overview too lengthy or detailed.
I love the idea of doing a lesson study! Imagining how it would work in my school, I do think it's a good idea to start with a pre-made lesson plan and tweak it to suit the needs of the group. I would be concerned about developing a rapport among the members of the group so that one member feels comfortable teaching the lesson and discussing their teaching with the rest of the group. I suppose it would just be really important to emphasize the fact that it is the lesson being studied, not the person.
I feel like a lot of strategy 7 is review for us, based on what we've read and discussed so far. I do think that, for me, there were two big take-aways. For one, I think it's important to establish guidelines for working together. My data team at my school did that this year, and it's going a lot more smoothly than it has gone in the past. I also agree that it's important to conclude PD sessions with a heads-up about how you will follow up on the PD topic. I wish I had attended more PD that was followed by further inquiry into the topic.
Questions:
1.) What are some more open-ended questions you could present to an article study group?
2.) When time is severely limited, such as with PD during faculty meetings, how can we prepare for the possibility that the session takes longer than originally planned? What can we do to prevent having to hold people over the time limit?
3.) How can you best prepare a group of teachers to handle a lesson study professionally and seriously, particularly if they are hesitant about being the lesson-teacher?
I like the idea of working closely with the school's principal for faculty meeting PD. I feel like if you decide on a topic in conjunction with the principal, and if the principal is the one to introduce the PD session, teachers are more likely to be receptive to it. Also, I really like the overview samples that this chapter provided. They are very succinct, but still informative. I feel like I would accidentally make the overview too lengthy or detailed.
I love the idea of doing a lesson study! Imagining how it would work in my school, I do think it's a good idea to start with a pre-made lesson plan and tweak it to suit the needs of the group. I would be concerned about developing a rapport among the members of the group so that one member feels comfortable teaching the lesson and discussing their teaching with the rest of the group. I suppose it would just be really important to emphasize the fact that it is the lesson being studied, not the person.
I feel like a lot of strategy 7 is review for us, based on what we've read and discussed so far. I do think that, for me, there were two big take-aways. For one, I think it's important to establish guidelines for working together. My data team at my school did that this year, and it's going a lot more smoothly than it has gone in the past. I also agree that it's important to conclude PD sessions with a heads-up about how you will follow up on the PD topic. I wish I had attended more PD that was followed by further inquiry into the topic.
Questions:
1.) What are some more open-ended questions you could present to an article study group?
2.) When time is severely limited, such as with PD during faculty meetings, how can we prepare for the possibility that the session takes longer than originally planned? What can we do to prevent having to hold people over the time limit?
3.) How can you best prepare a group of teachers to handle a lesson study professionally and seriously, particularly if they are hesitant about being the lesson-teacher?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)