Let’s face it, as educators,
our plate is full and the only way to confront the problem is to take something
off the plate.
I can’t remember a teacher
or administrator that hasn’t articulated to me that there are too many local
and state mandates, too many expectations, too many standards, … you get the point, the plate is indeed
full, to say the least. Yet, when I
consult with teachers in an effort to make the plate less full, I am met with a
number of challenges.
When teachers and schools are
tied to programs and resources it becomes easy for the broader learner goals to
become a secondary consideration.
For example, I was reviewing
resources and learning tasks with a team of first grade teachers in an effort
to make literacy units more manageable. I
asked them why they read Johnny Appleseed. The response was, “Because we always
have.” Nothing against Johnny Appleseed, but consider the
school reads Johnny Appleseed in
kindergarten, first grade and second. In
a similar situation in the same school, a fourth grade team of teachers
explained they read a particular book because they “liked it.” Both these responses came in the same
conversation that articulated how little time there was to teach everything
required by the curriculum.
Teacher teams, schools and
districts are choosing resources and tasks based on likes and preferences
rather than standards, curriculum alignment and research-based instructional
practice. Now, in each scenario I was
not criticizing reading for pleasure. I
believe we can read books we enjoy, while considering upfront as we plan these
three things: purpose, intent and focus!
All I wanted was a justification for engaging with the particular
resources, but you can see what happens to curriculum, teaching and learning when
schools don’t think about such matters.
In another situation all too
familiar, teachers were required to teach spelling for thirty minutes; however,
because they were using a newly purchased program, the spelling curriculum had
no relationship to anything else students might be reading or studying in other
content areas. Reading, writing,
spelling, grammar and vocabulary were taught in isolation with little, if any
relationship to one another. Scheduling was a nightmare! In scenarios like these the clock is ticking away
each day shifting the focus from teaching and learning to coverage of materials
and information.
When students have an
understanding of how reading, writing, the conventions of language and engaging
in dialogue are connected and help them think and acquire information, they are
more likely empowered to transfer that knowledge to all texts and content as
they attempt to master standards across the curriculum. The significance of this is twofold; when literacy
resources and efforts are connected and integrated, teachers are engaging in a
process that will substantially impact time efficiency, while student
understanding is also greatly enhanced.
It seems mandates have
trumped empowerment. In frustration,
districts have tried to dummy proof educators; thus more mandates. Schools are overwhelmed, but the truth is
they have lost focus. When Larry mentors
principles he suggests they focus on one thing for a teacher to concentrate on
for immediate improvement. This is
because research has proven we cannot successfully deal we too many growth
issues in one setting. Likewise, schools
cannot implement multiple programs simultaneously and expect students to
prosper. Research also suggests it takes
three to five years for a program to become fully implemented at proficient
levels, and six to nine years for a teacher to move from novice to expert. But, what do we do when we do not achieve
immediate results, or if a strategy does not work after the first attempt? I’ll answer my own question. We move to the next program or the next fad,
never truly mastering anything. We are
trying to do too much!
