Re: Change

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Apr 4, 2006, at 3:21 AM, ABurke5054@aol.com wrote:

> (1) Objectively testing narrow points of knowledge for statistical
> analysis, especially when high stakes are attached to that lone form
> of measurement (promotion/retention for children, public opinion as
> shaped by interpretation from any number of sources, determination of
> who manages a school, etc.) serves NOT to change what is done or how
> it is done, but only to entrench narrow approaches to meeting goals
> set by the nature of the test.
> ______________________________________________________
> Please.  Enough "shooting the messenger."  Move on.

The point is that the "messenger" delivers a garbled message because  
it is being inappropriately used ... because so much is at stake when  
the "message" arrives, those charged with decision-making modify  
behaviors to make sure the test scores "improve", but throw the baby  
out with the bath water.  And there really is no evidence that the  
test scores will improve much more in the next few years.

>  (2) Change does not occur unless the stakeholders are a part of  the
> change process, help to initiate the process (or at least agree  that
> change is necessary), and have a stake in its success;
> _________________________________________________
> Sometimes change does not occur because "stakeholders" are a larger  
> part of
> the problem than the solution.  Imagine, for example, a teacher  
> who  claims to
> be bamboozled by the insurmountable problem of walking down the  
> hall  to get
> a colleague to critique his lesson plan - does he sound like a  
> change  agent
> to you?

We have had this discussion before.  A colleague may be "just next  
door", but that other room may actually be a world away.  We are not  
talking about an office building here, Art.  But I don't blame you  
for not understanding this ... even school administrators (especially  
those from a central business office) seem to think that all they  
have to do is stand outside the door at the end of the day (or at a  
recess break) and wait until most of the kids have left the room  
before they walk in, unannounced, and expect the full attention of  
the teacher.  Yes, it seems like a logical and an easy thing to  
do ... you just send the kids packing, walk next door with your  
lesson plan, and ask your colleague to look it over and provide a  
thoughtful response in the leisurely quiet created by the sudden  
departure of 1000 children.  Never mind that any (and sometimes all)  
of the following might also take place:  A few kids hang around (some  
willingly, others not so), seeking help, advice, encouragement, or  
just a place to loiter (for any number of reasons, some -- if not  
most -- not readily apparent ... just another minor challenge to try  
to sort through) for indeterminate (certainly ahead of time, unless  
the visit was scheduled, which they usually aren't) lengths of time;  
the phone rings and, at the other end, is (take your pick) the school  
secretary wanting to know where such and such a form is (or reminding  
you to schedule the bus for the next field trip), the special ed  
director wanting to chat about Nancy's progress, a parent wanting to  
know about tonight's homework (or any other topic of discussion ...  
ranging from polite banter to occasionally hostile interaction) ...;  
everything has to be thrown aside because there is bus duty (or any  
other such type of task that teachers take turns doing); the room has  
to be cleaned really fast because the (name your poison) committee is  
meeting at 3:30, or (more likely) that meeting is starting in just a  
few minutes across campus (if you are lucky) or downtown at the  
district office; there is the team to be coached, a rehearsal for the  
play, or someone needs to sit in the library so it can stay open  
after school; maybe (heaven forbid) there is a rare opening for a  
4:00 doctor's appointment.  To name just a few ... remember, teachers  
are in rather intimate contact with students most of the day, and the  
only time they are free to do these "other" tasks, are available to  
meet and discuss (any number of topics with any number of audiences)  
is after school.

Because of these ... for lack of a better word ... "expectations", it  
is professionally wise to make an appointment to visit with a  
colleague to discuss matters of instruction, pedagogy ...  
whatever ... rather than just "drop in" with a professional request.   
You see, Art, all responsible colleagues are distracted by the same  
duties, obligations, responsibilities, and interruptions.  Some of us  
carve time out during lunch (we "do" a business lunch, as it were,  
minus the martinis, soft music or other percs that are found in the  
world of business and consultancy), but that time itself is  
constrained by whatever prep is necessary for the kids that will show  
up, like clockwork (whether you are "done" with your meeting or not)  
when the next bell rings in 35 minutes.  The value of a colleague's  
critique, too, is constrained by what you want out of it ... teachers  
can speak idly about what they are doing and/or planning to do and  
get some instant feedback while walking down the hall, but if  
*thoughtful* critique is the goal (or any examination of student work  
associated with it a part of the need), then longer blocks of time  
are needed.  It is sort of unfair to walk into a colleague's office  
(I don't care what profession you are in), plop a multi-page document  
on their desk, then sit down and wait for them to read it and discuss  
it thoughtfully with you.

And THIS is what I was talking about in those previous posts about  
"change".  I was talking about the need to carve out time in an  
otherwise busy day for teachers to thoughtfully discuss issues  
related to their profession (lesson plans, as it were ... but much  
much more than that) as a part of their ongoing professional  
development.  As a fan of Joseph Campbell's, I can assure you that I  
"follow my bliss" and find a way to carve out time for professional  
dialogue in the current system and structure of schools -- but there  
IS a better way, a way that is systematic, planned, and therefore  
useful, that goes far beyond the casual "walk down the hall" routine  
that you seem to think passes for deep, meaningful dialogue.

>  (4) No matter how heavy the hand of political posturing,  top-down
> imposition of change will only work for short periods of time  (if
> that long)
> ________________________________________________
> Maybe the answer is parrtly more and better suggestions from the   
> "bottom up"
> and less kvetching about problems coming from the "top  down."

If you want "better suggestions" from the bottom up, then e-mail me  
privately and we can talk about professional development and school  
restructuring without bothering the rest of the people on this list,  
who are more concerned with assessment than the broader issue of  
school change.

Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been."
- - Jimmy Buffett