Teacher #1: ‹I just close my classroom door, and do what I do best.Š Teacher #2: ‹What's the district got in store for us now?Š Teacher #3: ‹What? Another reform? Just leave me alone, and let me teach!Š Sound familiar? Feel familiar? The politics and bureaucracy of education can be more overwhelming than teaching itself, and with the political bandwagon focused on teacher and student accountability comes more innovation, more restructuring, more reformÖeuphemisms for more change. However, change is not always negative.
The Good: Schools are moving toward standard-based learning, common curriculum, and articulation of common goals. We know that centers of excellence are schools with consistency and organized planning. Imagine going to the hospital for several surgical procedures where you visit thirteen different doctors who all use different diagnostic tests, overlap various remedies, and come from different philosophical perspectives, undoing what the other just did. Isn't it possible that as students progress from one year to the next from Kindergarten through grade 12, that they have such an experience? Developmental Kindergarten, ultra-academic first grade, three long-term substitutes in grade 2, whole-language classroom in grade 3, drill and kill classroom in grade 4. Consistency is keyÖin the classroom, at a school and within a district.
The Bad: It is absurd to think that all educators could and would have common philosophies. We can work towards common standards of achievement, and we can work towards having a common curriculum, but we cannot assume that with a common curriculum, we have a common student population. We cannot afford a one-size-fits-all approach to learning.
The Ugly: So how do we have a common, integrated curriculum without a cookie-cutter approach to learning? We must differentiate between the program and the teacher. Empower yourself. What's in a name? Open Court.
Does that make your cerebral juices flow? If it doesn't, you probably have not been affected by the mandate. The majority of L.A. City schools were directed to use SRA-McGraw Hill's Open Court Reading Program this 2000-2001 school year in Kindergarten through Second Grade. Once again, our district does all or nothing.
Over 9,000 primary teachers, administrators, and support personnel were trained in the reading program. Literacy coaches were put at most schools. All of the core materials were bought for each classroomÖyes, even consumable workbooks. Ongoing training has been provided. Is this program meant to be consistent? Yes. Is it meant to provide continuity to our students? Yes. Has it been labeled as a one-size-fits-all program? Yes.
The question is, Does it have to be a one-size-fits-all program? No. I was outraged that such a program be forced upon me, and that a few of my Open Court trainers were not as knowledgeable about reading as I had hoped. In my fury I wrote down all of the good things that I do in my classroom and everything I had loved teaching. Making Words from Patricia Cunningham; the comprehension strategies from Mosaic of Thought and Strategies that Work, assessments and strategies from the CRLP RESULTS program, Writer's Workshop.
I have learned over the years to focus on what I can change and not on what I can't. It seemed the only logical thing that I could do was to look for similarities between what worked in my classroom and the Open Court Program. I was amazed at what I found. New names for old names, new ways of doing the same old thing, new structures for old ideas. "At first, I felt the program controlling me, but I'm the teacher. I control the program in the classroom to make learning deep and meaningful.
I believe much more can be accomplished if we take an additive approach to learning. Yes, we want consistency for our students, but don't stop everything that works well in the classroom. It‰s not an easy accomplishment to re-weave the content you teach and how you teach it; it will take time.
We are under a mandate to raise student achievement via Open Court. You say, our API went up last year without it. I say, so did ours. I ask youÖis that enough? If five out of our thirteen doctors were pockets of excellence, is that enough? Consistency does not have to mean uniformity, rather, thirteen doctors each with her own unique strengths, yet coupled with articulation of goals and organized service. Imagine. Thirteen different Kš12 teachers, each with their own unique strengths...couple that with articulated goals and a working system. What should we do? What are the solutions?
We need to open our classroom doors, talk, communicate, create a community of educators. Teachers in Japanese schools have 40 percent of their school day for planning and tutoring; and teachers in Beijing are in front of students three or four hours a day.
We need to lobby for more quality planning time with proper pay. The new contract in LAUSD allows for banking time (teaching longer four days of the week, so that there will be common planning time on the fifth day), but teachers still work a longer day.
We need to get involved in school and local issues.
We need to open our doors, not close them.
