“If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”
I’m not sure who said it first or even if I wholeheartedly agree, but in the terms of my topic today, it seems relevant. I had a really interesting experience this Friday while attending our staff meeting, that not only left my head reeling from information overload, but it prompted me to start thinking long and hard about the way I approach my teaching day.
A little background to set the stage. We had early dismissal on Friday for what is called a “School Improvement Day”. At our school, staff got together to discuss future plans for our school and how to deal with the upcoming crush of report cards. The meeting was lively, with lots of interesting ideas being floated and discussed, but when it was over, I found myself more confused than when I went in. It probably wasn’t as much about what my colleagues were saying, but rather a newspaper article I read prior to the meeting. At lunchtime, I came across an article in the local paper called “Teachers are adapting, but not union.” It caught my eye for a number of reasons, the obvious one is because I’m a teacher, but also because I recently attended a conference on teacher leadership and innovation, and was curious to see what “adaptations” the writer was talking about.
With my head filled full of topics shared in our meeting and thinking about the Tom Fletcher article, I began to ponder how much progress I was actually making in instituting change in my classroom. I would consider myself a reflective practitioner (and no that doesn’t mean I practice looking at my reflection), which essentially means I often over-think or over-analyze stuff, and this one was really bothering me.
A bit about Fletcher’s article. It stemmed from recent forum put on in Vancouver that discussed the future of education. In his story, he provides quotes from Andreas Schleicher and Yong Zhao, two well respected educational innovators, and then explains how some of their work, points to a dramatic change needing to take place across the world in terms of how education is presented and assessed. Schleicher, who is the director of education and skills for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, suggested that larger class sizes don’t always equate to lessened performance. He suggested, that in some cases, larger class sizes permitted for greater funding opportunities for student innovation. His stance, flies in the face of the prevailing educational view in BC, that smaller class sizes provide better learning environments for students. Schleicher’s findings and claims, drew a predictably oppositional response from some of the BCTF members in attendance.
I’m not sure who said it first or even if I wholeheartedly agree, but in the terms of my topic today, it seems relevant. I had a really interesting experience this Friday while attending our staff meeting, that not only left my head reeling from information overload, but it prompted me to start thinking long and hard about the way I approach my teaching day.
A little background to set the stage. We had early dismissal on Friday for what is called a “School Improvement Day”. At our school, staff got together to discuss future plans for our school and how to deal with the upcoming crush of report cards. The meeting was lively, with lots of interesting ideas being floated and discussed, but when it was over, I found myself more confused than when I went in. It probably wasn’t as much about what my colleagues were saying, but rather a newspaper article I read prior to the meeting. At lunchtime, I came across an article in the local paper called “Teachers are adapting, but not union.” It caught my eye for a number of reasons, the obvious one is because I’m a teacher, but also because I recently attended a conference on teacher leadership and innovation, and was curious to see what “adaptations” the writer was talking about.
With my head filled full of topics shared in our meeting and thinking about the Tom Fletcher article, I began to ponder how much progress I was actually making in instituting change in my classroom. I would consider myself a reflective practitioner (and no that doesn’t mean I practice looking at my reflection), which essentially means I often over-think or over-analyze stuff, and this one was really bothering me.
A bit about Fletcher’s article. It stemmed from recent forum put on in Vancouver that discussed the future of education. In his story, he provides quotes from Andreas Schleicher and Yong Zhao, two well respected educational innovators, and then explains how some of their work, points to a dramatic change needing to take place across the world in terms of how education is presented and assessed. Schleicher, who is the director of education and skills for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, suggested that larger class sizes don’t always equate to lessened performance. He suggested, that in some cases, larger class sizes permitted for greater funding opportunities for student innovation. His stance, flies in the face of the prevailing educational view in BC, that smaller class sizes provide better learning environments for students. Schleicher’s findings and claims, drew a predictably oppositional response from some of the BCTF members in attendance.
The article goes on the mention some of the philosophies currently being posited by University of Oregon Professor Yong Zhao who insists that not only are standardized tests outdated, but that they are “creativity-crushing drills”.
So with these perspectives in mind, and report cards and FSA’s right around the corner, I couldn’t help but question our current modes of assessment, and the value of assigning the FSAs or even letter grades. I have a lot of questions that still need further research, so my next step is to find out more about both of the men mentioned in the story and draw my own conclusions.
In my next blog post, I am going to dig deeper into the work of both Schleicher and Zhao and see where their assertions stem from, and if their “innovative” philosophies are merited. I know from the article how columnist Tom Fletcher feels, the question now is…how will I?
(Notes taken from The Langley Times Newspaper, page 14. Thursday, February 5, 2015)
So with these perspectives in mind, and report cards and FSA’s right around the corner, I couldn’t help but question our current modes of assessment, and the value of assigning the FSAs or even letter grades. I have a lot of questions that still need further research, so my next step is to find out more about both of the men mentioned in the story and draw my own conclusions.
In my next blog post, I am going to dig deeper into the work of both Schleicher and Zhao and see where their assertions stem from, and if their “innovative” philosophies are merited. I know from the article how columnist Tom Fletcher feels, the question now is…how will I?
(Notes taken from The Langley Times Newspaper, page 14. Thursday, February 5, 2015)