1. How does our school setting show growth from past models of what school used to look like? Do we need to update where we are? How?
2. How does our school or setting reflect the axiom of form should follow function?
3. What is the interplay and connection among form, program structures, schedules, grouping of students grouping of professionals, and space? Is it evident in our setting? Should and could that be changed? How?
Reading assignment for next week: Chapter 5
Monday, April 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Looking at the classical tenets Heidi Jacobs says are fundamental to the reinvention of schools:
First, I believe we still a long way from allowing function to dictate form.
Should we allow function to drive form? Of course.
Do I believe our district wants to change, innovate, and try new approaches? Absolutely. We clearly have the support and visionary administrative leadership to push the envelope.
So why aren’t we? It’s complicated, but the short answer is that there are still four components that keep us locked into traditional models and dictate most decisions in our educational system: 1) curriculum content/design, 2) grading standards, 3) facility layouts, and 4) timeframes.
What would it look like if form truly drove function? The curriculum module for a subject would be relevant with the proper design of critical attributes combined with the latest developments in that field of knowledge. Mastery of the module content would be measured for pure academic understanding and practical application with no behavioral considerations. Risk taking would be valued and attempts that result in failure would be allowed, even encouraged. The module could be taught/learned in any setting - including a classroom, at home, or sitting in Starbucks. And finally, mastery could occur in a week, a month, a year…
The wildly misguided belief that learning only occurs in X minute blocks of time, 175 days a year, and only between 8am and 3:30pm on Mondays through Fridays is so antiquated it is beyond ridiculous…one could argue that it borders on unethical.
Regarding the second tenet, I would argue that, in fact, if done properly, the whole should actually be greater than the sum of the parts. The concept of learner synergy should be emphasized and planned for. Even within the most tightly defined course objectives we must build in room for synergetic and accidental learning. In other words, plan for the unplanned serendipitous events that can occur when students are allowed to explore and discover in individual study, collaborative efforts, or project based learning activities.
An entirely new mind set is required if we are to break out of the out-dated, tradition-bound belief systems we have followed for decades.
Can we make the changes needed? Yes.
Will we? It remains to be seen.
A brief clarification: in reading back over my previous post, it struck me that a reader might interpret it as being specific to our district. Please know that it was written on a much broader, generic scale. The implied criticism (and use of “we”) is meant to be targeted to education on a state and national scale.
In fact, I consider what we are doing here in BISD to be at the leading edge of exploring education reform and innovation. In many ways, I believe the work of the administration (both central as well as campus-based) in this district deserves to be held up as an excellent example of how a large system can encourage discussion, engage in honest internal review of the systems in use, and take the initial steps in effecting long term change that matters.
I, too, agree with Greg. We are a cutting edge district who wants to change and have students learn in an environment that reflects their life outside of school. However, when reading this chapter, I felt so overwhelmed. From matching time frames to tasks to grouping students to grouping staff. I tried to get a grasp on where to begin from Heidi Hayes-Jacobs in this chapter. I didn't get an answer. So....where do we begin?
Also, this chapter led to many questions - probably questions more about details than the about change and are we ready.
This chapter was very thought provoking. I agree with Jaime that the task seems overwhelming. Redesigning the way we teach students, their groupings, the schedule, and our facility is a huge task. We would need to be open to creating new learning environments to meet student needs and interests. Students should not be lock-stepped into a 13 year education when some could finish earlier and others would need more time. I am very interested in creating a grouping of students across grade levels based on interest.
I think that we as administrators will have some interesting conversations about this book.
One of the things I thought this chapter didn't bring up is that changing our schedules, calendars, etc. is not only difficult for the school, but also for parents. I think we need to be honest and realize that part of the benefit of public schooling is that it serves as free daycare for many of our families. When you start talking about structuring days around learning and giving the students different options, you also have to realize that this could become a hardship on many working parents. I would be interested in how other schools work through this.
In response to question #1, I think our actual physical settings are part of what keep us from moving around. So often, even when we design classrooms with common space because we are not prepared to teach like that the space goes unused. I think one way to start this discussion is to do as she suggests on p. 78 and create a flowcharts and really start to look first at function and then how we can use what we have to create the school we want. I was overwhelmed reading this because I just imagined going in and changing all of our schools physically, but the more I thought about it, I think we first have to start using what we have most effectively. I know that we could do this better at my campus.
It is affirming to me to note that you guys seemed a bit overwhelmed about all the details that will need to be addressed before systemic change will occur. As I was reading the book, and as I listened to HHJ, my mind was racing about all the possibilities. I, too, was wrestling with exactly how to start. I hope that professional learning opportunities next year will afford those who are interested in exploring a perfect venue for doing so. We are definitely going to need some "trailblazers" in order to help us design new models. More later...
To answer the first question honestly, I do not think that we have broken from the "mold" of the 20th or even 19th century school model. We are held firmly in place by systems perpetuated by the settings (buildings) and systems (textbooks, state standards and accountability) that have been created for us. However, I do believe that we have pushed the envelope as far as we can within those systems to create the best learning environments for our students. It is good enough? No? How do we break out of this model and update what we do? That is the big question that we all want the answer to. I do believe that it will not happen until we ACT on what we all believe are the best practices in education. This will call for profound changes and not surface tweaks in what we do.
Do we practice form following function? Again, I think that we do our best within the confines of antiquated systems of learning. Can our systems improve? Without a doubt, but not without huge changes in our thinking and acting. I believe a start would be redesign task force, which HHJ has suggested several times in the book. This team must look at student needs as its starting point, and find a way to make our present settings work for our students.
From personal experience, I know that it is possible to create learning environments and settings that are created to individualize and maximize student learning. And that was the easy part. The hard part is changing the thinking and habits of teachers who have taught and certain way for many years and will not want to change. I was lucky; I got to hire my entire staff brand new with using specific criteria for their employment. It will not be that easy in an existing setting.
I believe this to be the most challenging/overwhelming chapter yet. And the reason - there is so much that seems hard to change (schedules and learning space) because of the trickle down effect. Greg said it best - BISD wants to change but it seems there are some very be hurdles to overcome first. However, it can be done! We must start with small pockets of change, prove the effectiveness of the change and then nurture the growth. Perhaps a "school within a school" model could start the process. We must also move forward on what we can control, right now, and that is updated curriculum. The road ahead is long, but it is a journey that we must take. The small successes along the way will provide the motivation to keep the pace and continue to move forward in this endeavor.
Walker Creek was designed to accomodate form follows function. There are many open spaces to extend the classrooms. The challenge is to make sure that this innovative building is used to its full potential. We have to look at how we are grouping students and staff. Are we stuck in the past as far as schedules and groupings? HHJ gives several suggestions on how we can move forward even with the limitations of structures. Field trips and distance learning can take us to new spaces.
As I read this, I snickered because Mullendore was built in 1955 and by looking at the layout and design of the school, it is obvious the needs/expectations of the day are vastly different than those of today. There are only two plugs in each room, obviously there was not a need for electricity to support the current teaching technology of the day. The building has a north/south orientation, so windows could be opened and breezes could cool the building without the assistance of refrigerated air. Now this doesn’t mean that Mullendore can’t engage in 21st century instruction, this is not my point at all. I believe that the fact that we are engaged in a discussion of this topic offers hope for the future. As Marta pointed out, her school was designed with the form following function, and this is a tremendous step in the right direction. Birdville has a school board/community willing to spend a little extra with a bent for the future and I am very proud to be here. I think we have the right philosophy in place, we are trying to address the technology aspect, so on the surface I feel good about the work we are embarking on. I think these are the “easy” things though. The hard work lies in working on the schedule , addressing the philosophy of assessment, and the largest and most important aspect that needs some love is the content to be taught. I realize that the state has much to say about this, but Birdville is progressive enough to pull this off. I think the move of Instructional Specialists to the Curriculum and Instruction department is a wonderfully right move, and I am eager to see where this will take us.
Having the same facility as Marta I agree with what she said about the arrangement in our buildings. There is much potential for the kinds of learning opportunities discussed in this book.
There was a lot of discussion in this chapter about how having a set period of time for a class is a barrier to learning. I couldn't agree more. However, in a previous chapter Ms. Jacobs dismissed self-contained classrooms as an anachronism. I think one of the great things about self-contained classrooms is the fact that the teacher is not as constrained by time as departmentalized teachers. If a teacher needs a two hour block one day for SS and the next day the math lesson needs to run a half over over- no problem usually. Stowe is only departmentalized in 5th grade, in part, to help get them ready for middle school.
I think an interesting argument could be made that self-contained classrooms with flexible staffing and student populations might be an idea for even secondary classrooms considering that the teacher as the sole expert in the classroom is considered 20th Century thinking and the 21st Century belief is that kids can learn from each other and others (experts and other kids) throughout the globe through various web 2.0 methods.
Having the same facility as Marta I agree with what she said about the arrangement in our buildings. There is much potential for the kinds of learning opportunities discussed in this book.
There was a lot of discussion in this chapter about how having a set period of time for a class is a barrier to learning. I couldn't agree more. However, in a previous chapter Ms. Jacobs dismissed self-contained classrooms as an anachronism. I think one of the great things about self-contained classrooms is the fact that the teacher is not as constrained by time as departmentalized teachers. If a teacher needs a two hour block one day for SS and the next day the math lesson needs to run a half over over- no problem usually. Stowe is only departmentalized in 5th grade, in part, to help get them ready for middle school.
I think an interesting argument could be made that self-contained classrooms with flexible staffing and student populations might be an idea for even secondary classrooms considering that the teacher as the sole expert in the classroom is considered 20th Century thinking and the 21st Century belief is that kids can learn from each other and others (experts and other kids) throughout the globe through various web 2.0 methods.
Post a Comment