Man, does this guy talk fast!

Last Friday, I was lucky enough to join some area teachers for a one-day visit by Dr. Taylor so he could introduce us to his AHA model of curriculum design.  Many thanks to Granville and Hudson Falls for inviting other professionals to their shared Supe’s Conference Day.

Dr. Taylor has quite the resume. He definitely qualifies as part of the Who’s Who in education including being named Educator of the Year by Phi Delta Kappa.  Over the course of his 42-year career (36 in the classroom), he has taught at every grade level K-12 at least one year.  There’s more if you’re interested.

Anytime we go to a workshop or conference, we want to be able to bring something useful back.  This time we were given access to the thousands of unit plans created using the AHA model.  That’s huge.  Each unit is 30 to 40 pages chock full of projects, anticipatory sets and other outside resources to go along with each like books, movie scenes, non-fiction, poetry, artwork and more.  Just having access to these materials made the day worth it.

But I don’t want to minimize.  This downplays what could be a really strong method of designing units.  See, in order for a unit to qualify for Dr. Taylor’s AHA stamp of approval, each has to include all 8 of Gardener’s Multiple Intelligences, the 13 Principles of Learning from Pi Lambda Theta and the 6 levels of Torrance’s Divergent Thinking Skills.  In addition, the unit plans include Dr. Taylor’s own character ed/ ethics and 18 I-Search projects, one each based on Frank Williams’ Higher Order Thinking Skills (for G&T students).

Let me try to break it down a bit.  First, an AHA unit will describe the content, the process and the product.  It will also include the standards with which it aligns.  Next, the options for the I-Search projects based on Williams’ HOTS are offered.  Here are Frank Williams’ HOTS. Ideally, a second set of I-Search options would be created and offered for the higher needs students.  Then, each AHA unit is broken down into 17 separate lessons.  The first 10 of which cover each of Dr. Taylor’s AHA universal themes.  Everyone of them works their way up the HOTS taxonomy, includes space for formative assesment, journal writing, homelinks, etc.  They really are incredibly thorough. My instinctive reaction when looking at a blank template is, “How the heck am I going to fill all that in?”  In his pre-made units, the compilation of resources is very comprehensive.

It’s a lot. To be honest, it has taken me all week to sort this much out…and I feel like I might still not be getting it all.

Here’s the problem. We had 7 hours total with Dr. Taylor.  It really wasn’t enough for him to do justice to the AHA model.  He was talking so fast- partially because he’s just that right-brained, partially so he could give us as much as possible- that some of it didn’t come off great.  At times, he was indecipherable.  I don’t know how much may have been lost in translation. And he certainly didn’t have time to explain completely how to use the AHA model.  I heard “10 of this…17 of that…18 total over here…”

Part of me wonders as well, if Dr. Taylor hasn’t got caught up in trying to make every new movement in education fit his model. The I-Searches are differentiated.  Williams’ skills build on Bloom’s taxonomy.  They add interdisciplinary connections. There is a formative assesment just about every day. Tack on the character ed and the divergent thinking…maybe it’s too much?  It was certainly too much to explain in one day.

Links

Dr. Taylor

ASCD’s What Works

HOTS

Multiple Intelligences

There's always one...

I just finished a great article in American Educator entitiled “Taking the Lead.” Honestly, I normally toss out this magazine without a second glance. I try to avoid union propaganda.  But this one caught my eye.  According to the article by Jennifer Goldstein, if we are to be treated as a true Profession along the lines of doctors and lawyers, we need to institute a system of peer assistance and review.

To put it simply, Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) takes mentoring, the peer assistance piece, and adds professional review.  The cooperating teacher/mentor is responsible for not only helping new teachers survive their first year or more, but also for setting standards-based goals, charting progress and making the case to a panel whether this teacher should stay or go.  In rare cases, PAR may be used for problematic veteran teachers as well.

In other words, teachers mentor new professionals, set goals for improvement, create a relationship and go to bat for the teacher (or the profession) when it’s time to rehire (or not rehire) the participating teacher.

Ms. Goldstein cites six features which distinguish (and improve upon) typical teacher evaluation done by a principal.

First, time is created to mentor the participating teacher.  A principal can’t be everywhere or an expert on every subject.  Weekly meetings between participating and cooperating (master) teacher dramatically increase the level of oversight of a new or problematic teacher.  The participating teacher gets an expert and a buddy to lean on.

Second, PAR links professional development with evaluation.  This is maybe my favorite piece. To quote Ms. Goldstein, “Teacher evaluation has generally been defined as a mechanism fo appraisal in order to determine fitness for employment rather than a means for improving performance.” [Italics are mine]. This is very true.  The “fit for employment” standard is much lower than the “fit to be a professional” standard.  Some teachers believe in being a professional, in improving themselves and their classrooms. Some don’t.  Unless you work in a cubicle, what job can you do in which you are not expected to get better?  PAR would help filter out the new teachers who will be professionals from those who don’t.  While teacher retention is an issue across the country, this will help us retain the best teachers.

And we all know that one teacher who uses the same lecture notes from 15 years ago or who has been tucked into an assignment in which the least damage can be done or isn’t seen before the first bell or after the last bell. PAR addresses these teachers by 1) making sure they live up to professional standards in the first years and/or 2) getting back up to that level if they have fallen.

The participating teachers have the trusting hand, the helping hand.  They have clearly enumerated standards to live up to.  They are evaluated using an objective rubric.

Third, PAR helps bring an individual’s teaching practices to light.  With regular visits by a cooperating teacher, regular review (and help in creation) of lesson plans, PAR makes one’s abilities more transparent. We normally work “behind closed doors.”  We get a few drop-ins by our administrators.  But for the most part we are on our own.  PAR makes a participating teacher layout what is really happening in the classroom.  It would help a teacher to justify a practice or change an unjustified one.

Fourth, done properly, PAR will unite administration with the teachers’ union. Cooperating teachers report back multiple times a year to a higher panel; the cooperating teacher and the panel decide whether a teacher stays or goes.  The panel listens to the cooperating teacher’s evaluation and standards-based review to back up a decision.  This review panel is made up of both the teachers’ union and the administration.  They get the opportunity to work together in a situation that doesn’t have to be “us vs. them.”

Next, there is greater confidence in the actual evaluation process. Ms. Goldstein is brief here.  From what I understand, with the standards, the continued evaluation process, the rubric, there is more confidence in this than in the traditional process.

Finally, maybe most importantly,  there is more accountability for teacher quality. New teachers get better.  Poor teachers get better or leave the profession.

We. Get. Better. We, as a profession, make sure we are supporting our own, holding them to high standards and weeding out those who don’t belong.

So What’s The Problem?

Well, you can start with the turf war.  Many principals feel evaluation is their territory.  PAR could alleviate work for administrators by freeing them from doing observations.  The trade off is sitting on the panel.

After that, we would have to figure out release time for cooperating teachers to handle their caseloads.  Larger districts could soak the loss of a teacher from the class part- or full-time easier than a smaller district could.

Then you would have to confront the collective bargaining agreement.  But if there is a real belief in The Profession, of wanting to quality control within the union, this could help us along.

Ms. Goldstein’s article was excellent. She makes a strong case for Peer Assistance and Review.  It’s an idea definitely worth researching.

Links

American Educator Magazine

The Original Article

The original: The Toledo Plan

So the hot topic this month up here in the North Country is the possibility of switching to a school calendar where we come nine days out of ten.  There hasn’t really been any consensus on it yet since there are still some (big) unanswered questions.

My first reaction is that it would be a bold idea- bold in the sense that it breaks the mold, it is an entirely different way of thinking about things, it acknowledges hurdles and faces them.

So, what are the pros and cons?  The benefits include great savings in fuel spending.  This older building sure isn’t the most energy efficient…we could probably turn off some zones in one building and shut down the other building altogether.  Since we are staying longer each day, the district does away with an entire bus run  9 days out of 10 and the tenth day there are no buses whatsoever (except the BOCES run). So far, so good.

Each day, students would be in each class an extra ~5 min to give you the 45 minutes you miss on the 10th.  But that also cuts down on total passing time over the two weeks.  On that tenth day, the possibilities are endless: field trips, school-to-work, extended team practices, Sup’t Conferences, team/department meetings, clubs, rehearsals, you name it.

BUT

But I worry  we lose the “tenth” period every day when kids can come in for extra help.  I suppose one a week you could simply schedule a period a day to counter that…

But I worry about the funding we may lose from the state….

But I worry about those parents who aren’t teachers. What do they do with little kids on that second Friday? Daycare is expensive.

But I worry about those kids who depend on us for a hot meal (or two) each day.  And would we then have to feed them more each of the other nine since they’re here longer? Food prices have gone up like gas prices have.

So

So, none of my worries are hurdles too big for a group with a strong plan to overcome.  I do have a lot of confidence in the group I work with and the community in which I teach to take this on.  With the right vision, skills, incentive, resources and action plan, it could be done.  As a teacher, I like to think of money being spent on educational, athletic and extracurricular programs rather than gas, no doubt.  But there are still some big questions to answer.

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

Standards Review and Revision

Intro

At our last department meeting, I pointed out a short article in NYSEC News article relevant to all of us.  The Board of Regents is reviewing and revising all of the state’s learning standards (schedule is linked on our ELA page).  Since ELA was the first to implement the new standards 9 or 10 years ago, we are the first to undergo the review and revision.  The article gives a short 2-page summary of the upcoming changes and recommendations.

I spent a day trying to sort out the language in the article (with lots of help from Claire- thank you!).  I also got a hold of the full report which I already posted on our ELA page.  My goal is to summarize the full panel report best I can for all of us.

Working Principles

There are 4 major areas that all involved agree need to be the focus. These are:

1.      Technology

2.      Literacy across all content areas

3.      Assessment including “multiple formative assessments which provide a more comprehensive view of progress and achievement.” Somehow proof of progress will be part of the new test? A portfolio piece?

4.      Format. This will be the most noticeable of the changes.

Recommendations

Taking theses working principles, the panel made a number of recommendations.  Some of these are:

1.      Replacing the current standards with new language. Our 4 current standards will not be standards anymore. Three of them- info and understanding, literary response and expression and critical analysis and evaluation- will now be considered functions or purposes of literacy, why we read.  “Social Interaction” will be subsumed throughout.

2.      The new standards will be designed using two things. The first is the Core Performance Indicators which I included on our ELA page. There are too many of them to list. The new standards will also be drawn from the 5 qualities- Meaning, Organization, Development, Language Use and Conventions.  How they are going to combine these two things, I don’t know. Especially in light of goal #6.

3.      They want literacy to be explicitly in all content areas.  I wonder if the ELA Panel has this power, but it seems like all parties involved agree this should be so.

4.      Literature and language is separate and elevated from literacy.  Literacy is a shared job across the content areas, literature is ours and separate from teaching a kid to read.

5.      In addition to reading, writing, speaking and listening, the standards will add some sort of “viewing and representing” to take into account multimedia/technology.  They don’t have the exact language down pat yet.

6.      The format of the standards, performance indicators and competencies will be completely revised. The goal is to reduce to size and complexity to make the standards more accessible to teachers and parents and to reduce repetition.  The discussion I sat in on last year suggested making the standards look more like math or science (which are very simple and clear).

One other big recommendation was including ELL students in with the ELA standards.  As this one doesn’t generally affect us, I’ll skip it.

Other Recommendations

Below are recommendations that are still under consideration.  These aren’t set in stone yet because of lack of consensus or wording.

1.      Should the term be “Representing” or just “Presenting”?

2.      How do you include technology standards that can be solidly worded but still able to evolve with the actual technology?

3.      How can PK-16 connections be created?

4.      The standards will require expanded teacher knowledge and skill in the areas of literacy, DI and technology.  As much as we want a reading teacher, we will be expected to know how to teach literacy.

5.      There is mention in this section again about “multiple formative assessments”.  In the same line, bold-faced, they recommend teachers stay involved in the creation of any new assessments.

6.      Grammar and conventions won’t be touched.

7.      PK-3 is under heavy review.  Their language may possible be modeled on Washington State’s standards.

8.      Internet ethics/digital citizenship is mentioned a couple of times.

Mostly from my Google Reader. Probably let’s you know how boring I really am

A Trail Runner’s Blog

Cyclelicious

Drudge

Education Week

Educational Technology

Endurance Planet

Firefox

Foreign Policy

Get Rich Slowly

NPR Education

NYT

NYT Opinion

NYT Education

OpenOffice

Pandora

StumbleUpon

The Final Sprint

The Simple Dollar

Slashdot

Wired: Top Stories

We dream in Ideals

Platonic Constants, never real

Vague and faceless always

Evoking Emotion

.

Dinner cooked and wine drank

The teapot is on

Subdued sight in holiday light

Gentle sounds, vinyl jazz night

.

They, he and she, exhaling smoke

And laughter

Big wooly hugs and smiles

Saying more than any words could

.

Across backyards, fences and electric lines

A woman in a window sees

This couple sharing, sharing, sharing

And is confused

Seeing for real

The Ideal

Here I sit

I sit alone

Sit alone pondering

Alone pondering thoughts

Pondering thoughts slowly

Thoughts slowly drift

Slowly drift away

Drift away slowly

Away slowly drifting

Slowly drifting writing

Drifting writing clearing

Writing clearing cleansing

Clearing cleansing words

Cleansing words heal

Words heal worlds

Heal worlds today

Worlds today hurt

Today hurt others

Hurt others less

Others less myself

Less myself included

Myself included less

Included less thoughts

Less thoughts occur

Thoughts occur less

Occur less now

Less, now gone

Now gone, thoughts

My 1st period Seniors are starting Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. It’s the story of the author’s attempt to live on minimum wage. She was really trying to see if a person could make ends meet making 7 or 8 dollars an hour. It’s easy enough to just do the math and realize it’s impossible but that doesn’t really make for a good story, does it?

Ms. Ehrenreich waited tables in the Florida keys, cleaned houses in Maine and worked at Wal-Mart in Minnesota. She set down some ground rules for herself. She kept her car and didn’t figure that into her bills, she refused to ever go hungry. Essentially she let herself cheat somewhat. But she also didn’t allow herself to use her education (she has a PhD in biology) and she had to take the best-paying job offered. One of the first things she admits is that she has the distinct advantage of being a white, native-English speaker.

Class was fun this morning. For an intro to the book, we talked about the price of living: the price of gas, the price of luxuries like cable TV and a cell phone and especially the price of food. Everybody agreed that the cheapest food is not only the most filling but also the worst for you. Think Dollar menu. Then it was on to the experiment. Could they live on whatever low-paying jobs they have now?

I gave out budget worksheets and had them do the actual math. Yes, really, math in English class at 8:30 in the morning. How much do you make per hour, multiply by 40? Take 20% off the top for taxes, 30% if you want health insurance, then multiply by 4 for your monthly income.

Just like the author of Nickel and Dimed, we cheated a little. I let them assume I paid the security deposit and gave them some basic furniture. Subtract rent, utilities, phone and food. Want luxuries? Subtract gas, car insurance and cable TV. Out of the 10 students working out a budget only 2 finished in the black for the month. One with $15 dollars left over, the other one is sharing a one bedroom apartment with a roommate who can’t afford food! The best comment came from the student finishing about $400 in the red. With a smile she summed it up with, “I hate my life.”

Yesterday was my first race of the year. The Shamrock Shuffle is a five-mile race through the neighborhoods of Glens Falls to benefit the Special Olympics (more on this later). Its a well-organized race with a hearty bunch of runners who brave the North Country March weather.

A lot of the runners use this race to kick off the racing season. I overheard quite a few people saying they hadn’t trained or they were just out to run and have fun, not really race. To be honest, that was my view too. The last few weeks’ schedule hasn’t really afforded time or plowed roads for running.

Last year, race day was bitter cold. Maybe 10 degrees and windy. But I had a good couple weeks before, got some running in and was well-prepared for the race. I did my normal “start at the back and pick people off one by one“. I ended up running the race in 40.20 for an average of 8.04 per mile. I was quite pleased but it sure set the bar high for the rest of the season.

This year was warmer: upwards of 20 degrees and sunny. The sun felt good though. My goal way to finish between 40 and 45 minutes (between 8 and 9 minute miles). I ran my first mile in 7.38. Yikes! Way too fast. Mile two was better; I slowed down to 8.03. Good good, exactly where I want to be. But it was starting to hurt. And from thereon out I was never really comfortable. I even walked through the water station around mile three to rub out a cramp.

Mile three has a lot of downhill. My pace picked back up to 7.23. Too fast, I know, but I only had two to go. I can push through two painful miles in my sleep. It was around the end of this mile that I learned the race was to benefit Special Olympics. As we were running down Glen Street in all our late race, ugly-wincing-stumbling, bad-form glory, a driver called out to a marshal to ask what the run was for. The marshal said, “Special Olympics, 5 miles.” My thought was yeah, Special Olympics for sure.

With less than a mile to go I was into my 34th minute. That was when I realized I could tie last year’s time of 40 minutes. A tie, that’s all I was hoping for. I crossed the line in 38.50, a minute and a half faster than last year! My average mile time was 7.46.

So I’m not sure what I learned from this. The pain of the race told me that I was in no shape to be running that. But my finishing time told me to heck with training. Kelly told me I make her sick, but that’s another story lol.

These things are really starting to take shape. I think the ones that are the most fleshed out are Tyler’s (who could use a hyperlink or two), Melba’s (who needs to layoff the hyperlinks a bit and balance them with pictures) and Ken’s (who could use both hyperlinks and pictures). Anna has a good couple of entries too even if she doesn’t like poached eggs.

You all are doing great so far. I threw this new assignment at you, made you guinea pigs and you are thriving. Thank you.

Here’s what I was thinking would come next. I’d like to see a new post added once a week through 4th quarter for a total of at least 11 or 12 posts by June. How does that sound to you? I’m going to build a list of entry suggestions for those of you struggling with direction. You’ll be able to find that with my pages.

Lastly, here’s the video of the reporter falling crushing grapes in case you missed it.