discussion post

Classmate Responses-

Two years ago, our principal implemented collaborative planning within departments, with a special focus on courses that have a Milestone exam at the end of the semester. In the math department, we created one large collaborative group for our Algebra and Geometry teachers. While we each taught different standards, we all had one common goal - seeing our students grow academically.

Our first task was to deconstruct the standards for the curriculum units. In our conversations, we found that most of the seasoned teachers (those having more than ten years experience) did not have a full understanding of what needed to be taught. There were two teachers who believed that their method was the best way, and weren’t willing to make changes. In the beginning, this brought about some conflict within the group, but as we continued to talk and make the connections between the standards as they related to each course, the seasoned teachers were starting to recognize that changes needed to be made.

After analyzing the standards, we needed to evaluate our old lessons. Most of our lessons fell under the conform area under the Transformational Matrix - low impact and low engagement. There were very few lessons that had a high impact on learning and engagement. In making changes to these lessons, we had to evaluate what worked and didn’t work and what we needed to add to the lessons to increase student engagement. We also decided that we needed to rely on additional resources provided by the state and district in order to make improvements in our instruction.

We also realized that not all teachers were using technology in their classrooms. We all have a set of graphing calculators, but most teachers were not using them. Where some teachers were very knowledgeable on what the calculators could do, there was no formal training provided for others. This is where our orbits of ability were not being put to use. Some teachers were also hesitant on using web-based tools, like Khan Academy and USA TestPrep, which taught students how to answer open-response questions on a math test. We realized that by not using these programs, we were doing our students a huge disservice in not properly preparing them for testing. We had become so accustomed to giving multiple-choice tests because of the convenience. If we wanted to see change, we would need to implement these programs quickly.

As a leader, I would encourage collaborative groups to perform a needs-assessment to see where teachers need assistance. Through these conversations and collaborations, teachers can determine where they have difficulty and provide assistance to each other. I would also encourage my teachers to start collaborating early - don’t wait until school starts. We should use the data collected from last school year and review lessons from prior collaborative meetings to start developing plans for next school year. By starting early, a school leader can schedule professional learning based on their teachers’ needs. As curriculum and technology changes, teachers need to be provided with grade-specific training on how to implement these strategies in their classrooms.

Last school year, the administration implemented a reading program called Jane Richardson's guided reading. This program was put in place due to the number of students who are not reading at or above grade level. This program is very structured, giving teachers less autonomy to their guided reading groups. Every guided reading level has a specific lesson plan that is to be followed every two-three days. Most on level or below level groups will read two-four books a week. The teachers are required to complete the extensive lesson plans for every book that is taught. In some weeks, teachers are creating 5-9 lesson plans for their groups. I believe this program is geared more for teachers who are new to the guided reading program and aren't sure how to read with children.

The issue that I face as a veteran teacher, and have seen from my other veteran teachers, is that we have put practices in place over the years that are working for us. We have had time to practice and implement, but are not allowed to use these practices within this program. I feel like following the 'script' of JRGR has made me feel like I don't know what I am doing. The program is so scripted that at each reading level you are to ask specific questions. The other stressful part is that the instructional/admin. the team comes in almost twice a week to sit at your guided reading table to observe you. Observations are not usually stressful for me because I welcome the feedback to my practices. Although this program makes me feel less confident in my teaching abilities, so observations cause me to panic and become stressed. Even my highest readers become very stressed when another adult is hovering over them at the guided reading table. These students sometimes aren't able to answer questions they typically are able to answer because they are nervous.

As a leader, I would use this program as a secondary source to implement only with students who are reading below grade level. Or, I would use this program with teachers who are new and or struggling to implement the guided reading process. I would want my teachers to have flexibility when creating lesson plans and questions. I would use the program on a case by case basis. When observing, I would sit away from the table, or ask if reading groups could be recorded for discussion/observation purposes and allow for fast feedback. I think it is important to see teachers implement the strategies in real-time, with their students in front of them. But, I think it is important to capture participants in a normal relaxed atmosphere, to truly see how everyone is functioning.

Four years ago, our fourth-grade team was asked to look at writing as a grade level. Our task was to collaborate to create common lesson plans to teach narrative writing for the following school year. At the time, fourth and fifth grade teachers were known for their autonomy in their teaching therefore there was very little collaborating among the teachers. On my team, we had three teachers who had been teaching for many years and nearing retirement, two teachers who had been teaching for about 10 years, one teacher who had been teaching for three years, and a first-year teacher who recently graduated. The make up of the group was diverse in years teaching but we were not on the same page. There was push back from the veteran teachers who were not comfortable with technology and a few members did not seem interested in collaborating. During our discussions regarding some of the standards, there were different interpretations. Honestly, during this task, we had four out of the seven teachers who were invested and participated therefore lack of full participation does not align with the process of upgrading a unit. The four of us became more comfortable with each other and were able to have the difficult conversations when there were different interpretations.

While creating some of these lessons, we did have different strengths, but we did not seek additional assistance outside of our group to increase our orbits of ability. As we were collaborating, we did focus on higher order thinking and giving students more choice in their narrative writing rather than giving them a story starter. We included the use of technology for those students who wanted to use it, but it was at the automating level which “does not demand a significant change in instructional practice, assessment, or student thinking” (Hale & Fisher, 2013, p. 27). We did not use resources to help guide us on making true upgrades that would lead to truly transforming the unit. As a team we did appraise and brainstorm the unit, but we did not have clear guidance or guiding questions to help us with this phase of the process. Four teachers did commit themselves to the process, but we were not consistent with the communication phase. Many open discussions occurred before but when it came time to implement, there was less communication during the implementation. There was a brief conversation after, but our team lacked the true reflection portion. Although we discussed how the unit went with our students, we did not have deep meaningful conversations on each step and how it could be improved. This was a learning experience for us all and we did grow from it. Since then, there has been some grade level changes with teachers and now we are more cohesive but still need to improve with our collaboration.

As team leader, my goal this year is to build our team relationship as we have lost some members and added a few. I want my team members to feel comfortable expressing their ideas and have a judge free atmosphere so that we can have those deep, important conversations to do what is best for our students. For the activity listed above what I would do differently is that I would clearly communicate the expectations and procedures for the task. I would have them read one of the chapters and utilize some of the diagrams in the appendix from the Upgrade Your Curriculum (Hale & Fisher, 2013). It was beneficial to see a real-life activity and the steps taken during their process. Also, the importance of reflecting at the end of the lesson is critical so that members can examine what went well, what improvements are needed, and any changes that could be made. A lesson that has been transformed is not stagnant and changes as your group knowledge changes or ideas change which can lead to more transformations including incorporating other standards.

·