I’ll begin this with a letter to the editor I submitted to the Northfield News, which I think is self-explanatory:
On Feb 9 the Northfield School Board entertained two options for next year’s school calendar. Both involve having a one hour late-start EVERY MONDAY of the year, so that teachers can have the time to meet in professional learning communities. These meetings would replace the four days that have traditionally been scheduled with 2 hours either late start or early release. Parents have one month to comment on the proposed calendar. (continued)
I strongly object to this change.First, it will further reduce instructional time for each student. We already have fewer instructional days (173) than other areas of the country (e.g., the Northeast, which has about 180); now we are chipping away at those fewer days. We are reminded each year by building principals that every minute of instruction counts. If true, then reduction in instructional time is a very big issue.
Second, this calendar, while perhaps convenient and congenial to teachers and principals, is problematic for working parents of elementary students. Working parents are unlikely to be able to stay home until 9 or 9:30 every week with their young children. They will now have to pay extra to have supervision for their young elementary children (or else leave them unsupervised). The plan is not “cost-neutral” as claimed by the district, but a new cost imposed unilaterally on parents.
My third objection is that the only options on the table contain this late-start provision. Parents had no voice in formulating these options, or discussing with the committee what effects this change would have on them.
Lastly, the justification given for this change is that “research” has “shown” that professional learning communities are beneficial for education. I find this statement vague and possibly misleading. Our teachers have been in PLCs for at least some time already, and our performance as a school district is heading down, not up. What exactly is the evidence, IN NORTHFIELD, that PLC’s are improving student experience?
My experience as a parent is that the Northfield school district is a very staff-centric one. We do (and fail to do) far too much to suit the convenience and preferences of teachers and administrators, instead of centering efforts, energies, and resources on students. Parental concerns are ignored far too often. It’s time for this focus to change.
I urge other concerned parents to make their views known to school board members, and to do so soon.
I haven’t yet heard back from the News—usually they publish my letters though sometimes it takes a few weeks. They also limit letters to 400 words, so there is not a lot of room for expansion.
But as I wrote the letter, and as I phoned and emailed school board members about the issue before writing the letter, I became increasingly clear about how I felt about a larger issue: The Northfield School district has become increasingly staff-centric, and that compromises the overall educational quality delivered to its students.
I don’t deny that having teachers be in professional learning communities has value. I question the relative value of those meetings against instructional time for kids. I also question why these meetings can’t take place after school or before school (in the case of Bridgewater, which already has a very late start). I suspect the answer has something to do with the large proportion of teachers who coach. But that raises the question, why is coaching more important a priority than teaching. And, coaching aside, I question why the burden of holding these meetings should fall upon families with both parents working outside the home, or single parents who work outside the home (like me).
For more information, see the ISD 659 website has PDF of background information and Frequently Asked Questions.
The District added a calendar survey to their website. Let them know what you think.
I very much appreciated this well presented opinion from a parent who not only has kids in various school age groups, but has a strong professional opinion to offer.
I might agree that professional learning communities my be good for students, but I question the productivity of one hour per week.
By the time you gather the files, lay them out, and begin to discuss things, you may only get to talk in depth (a whole 4 minutes each) for 15 or so students.
Human nature is also a factor, as teachers like to prepare and be ready for class, so there is a good chance that the whole hour may not be used.
I think that the cost to the students and parents with this shifted schedule against the benefit is too high, and that the current late start, or whole staff development days is a much better implementation.
If you bring in someone to do a staff development session, you can get larger groups together for seminars in half and whole day increments. In a one hour session, you are not going to get much of a value add for the time spent.
I see this whole plan in a negative light. I am all for staff development, and anything that will help the learning of our students, but I do not think this model is it.
I think we could start school on September 1st at the earliest, and see if we could shave off a vacation day or two if we need to during the year.
Good letter Kathie. My question on all this….if staff professional learning communities are important, why don’t they schedule them during the beginning or end of the school year? I do not understand why June/July/August are not used in a more productive manner by our schools. We have billions of dollars of school facilities sitting idle during these months. Let’s cooperate and get teachers together for professional development during that time. Eliminate the broken weeks, keep students focused and on task.
Does a shorter school day still “count” as a full instructional day? So we’d still technically have 173 “instructional days”? Shaving off an hour a week for about 35 weeks…sounds to me like we’re losing about 5-6 instructional days, one hour at a time!
Last weekend’s Northfield News: Schools may start an hour late each Monday.
As a parent of an elementary student, I empathize with demands on parent schedules. But as a college instructor and spouse of an elementary teacher, I also have a very different perspective on opportunities for teachers to meet specifically for “learning communities.”
Teachers do attend other meetings, but much of what is discussed is administrative business and troubleshooting. Teachers often don’t get enough time to talk and collaborate about teaching and about their curriculum. You might have, at a given school, teachers with rich and diverse talents tending in relative isolation to the bubble of their own classrooms, when they might do better if they could (and were required to) meet regularly to collaborate on best practices. Where one teacher is weak, another may be strong, and mentoring has been shown to be a very effective tool (and is often a required part of Qual-Comp type discussions in which teachers are compensated for quality teaching and not just years of service).
College faculty get sabbaticals to go off and get recharged in their perspectives and methods. Public school teachers do not. Learning communities are not the same as sabbaticals, but they serve some of the same purpose.
The last time there was a female principle at Greenvale, she did a remarkable thing: She came in early, with rolls or doughnuts and refreshments, and invited any teachers interested in discussing best teaching practices on a regular basis to meet with her and other like-minded teachers. This was not required; only those who had the time or could make the time, given other family commitments, etc., came in. But it was unique in the Northfield system (other schools were not doing this), and it was valuable.
One could debate the pros and cons of building such discussion into a contract, and requiring all teachers to attend--even those who may not be that interested. But I think we’ll see more of this if the financial crisis and the anti-tax crowd don’t completely gut the education system. And we should see more of it--to overcome the isolation and lack of mentoring and collaboration that still plagues too much of education at a variety of levels.
Yes, you can find many bright spots where collaboration, mentoring and discussion of best practices exist, perhaps even in Northfield public schools. But it is not the norm. For many teachers, it is demanding enough (and sometimes too demanding) to tend to a large class of students with many great and diverse needs; making the bubble of your own classroom work is sometimes all that some teachers can do. Some don’t come up for air till the summer. Some with families don’t have time or emotional energy to consider reading articles in educational journals, to collaborate, and to stay sharp professionally. Old habits and a minimalistic pragmatisim reign, and the rich potential of collaboration goes untapped.
Regarding the scheduling of learning communities at the start or end of the year as Ray recommends: It’s not the same kind of thing. People who go to church regularly, or to AA regularly, or to Politics and a Pint, or a music jam in town, get a very different, habitual experience than those who go off on some kind of conference or retreat once or twice a year.
A great deal of good learning and teaching is about habits, or revising habits, and those are best tended habitually, regularly. If you build it into the schedule on a weekly basis, it’s better than using it as bookends to the year.
Regarding the inconvenience to parents: There may be other ways to handle that. For example: You could hire substitute teachers regularly so that learning communities could meet. This would be a big expense, but the boost that it might give the district in terms of increased quality of teaching might be very significant. Perhaps significant enough to offset the expense by cutting back the school year, or the minutes in the day. But once you rob from Peter to pay Paul, it’s hard to get those days or minutes back later if folks decide to axe the learning community meetings. Or you could hire extra gym, playground and library staff so that teachers could meet over an extended lunch period. Also expensive. There are no easy ways to achieve the goal.
I would also venture to say that college instructors (myself included) sometimes simply don’t have the same opportunities or inclination to do this kind of collaboration. Scholars on college and university faculties are sometimes more opinionated (in my experience) and even more set in their ways than the stereotyped tenured public school teacher nearing retirement. Generalities often get one into trouble, and there are open minded instructors all the way from elementary schools to universities, but I fear that the trenches may sometimes be deeper in academia. That’s my view from the trenches, anyway.
Kathie asks for evidence in Northfield that PLCs are effective. Some of the evidence comes from Prairie Creek Community School, which has an hour-and-a-half early dismissal on Mondays for staff development. The results seem to be positive, but I haven’t gotten details. I don’t know how Prairie Creek parents handle the early dismissal. PCCS is a progressive charter school where teachers share a common educational philosophy. Would what works in such a community work for the traditional public schools? I don’t know.
I think, in principle, it’s good to have regular opportunities for teachers to build community and to learn from one another. One question is whether teachers would use the time in that way, as an opportunity to address larger issues of community and professional growth, or would it be used to finish planning that day’s lessons, for putting the finishing touches on a field trip, or for addressing the many immediate tasks that face teachers every day (probably especially on a Monday morning).
Paul mentions professional mentoring as a requirement of Q-Comp. Northfield’s teachers rejected a plan by the board to institute Q-Comp. I’m not necessarily advocating in favor of Q-Comp, but I do think that, if teachers have this time for professional development each Monday, there needs to be some (buzzword alert) accountability. The point should be to re-energize teachers and raise the standard of their teaching. If the schools can’t show that happening, I can guarantee that they will face more hard (and increasingly angry) questions from people like Kathie. As well they should.
If I were on the board, I would favor trying out the Monday late start for PLCs as an experiment for a year. I would invite a qualified outside researcher to monitor the experiment, compile data on its effectiveness, and make recommendations about the continuation of the program after the trial period. This district is always talking about making decisions based on data. Use this opportunity to collect that data, and then act upon it in an appropriate way.
I would do this only after the board has come up with a plan that would address parents’ concerns about the inconveniences of the late start.
Wow--lots of good comments. I think I’ll do different posts to respond to different issues. First up: lost instructional time (see Susan’s comment)
I’ve tried to figure out how many we are talking about, and I’m not sure what the right answer is. (Commentators on the Northfield News site have also wrestled with this). I think, at a minimum, it’s 14 hours lost, relative to this year. That is the equivalent of at least 2 full days--and maybe more (Susan’s calculations lead her to think it’s more like 5-6 days).
Here’s one point: The school district ought to be more forthcoming with this number. And, it ought to explain to parents WHY, when they send us monthly newsletters from principals EXHORTING us to get kids to school on time because “every minute counts,” it is therefore not going to hurt education to lose 14 or more hours.
I think this is a large issue, and one PARENTS SHOULD PARTICIPATE in making the decision.
If the arguments are strong for trading off instructional time for increased staff development time, then let’s hear them. Yes, I agree with both Paul and Rob that staff development has value, and regular staff development trumps stuff over the summer or on breaks. But….I could easily see the extra hours (particularly on Monday mornings) going to last-minute prep for that day instead of to deeper pedagogical issues. And, just because staff development has value does not automatically mean it has MORE value than instructional time.
I also think there are other ways to achieve weekly (or bi-weekly) PLC meetings: schedule them after school. (Or before, for BW). This would come out of teacher’s prep time, which seems to me a better solution. Perhaps it would mean that teachers would have to be given some extra comp time off another day of the week--I think the contract calls for them to stay in the building 15 minutes after students leave each day--maybe this could be tweaked.
My major point is, why look first at reducing instructional hours for kids?
I agree with Kathleen. If this is such a big need it should be done outside of school hours.
Kathleen also mentioned that we should contact the school board which I (and others) have done.
The standard reply, from those who chose to answer, was to take the survey on the website.
After reviewing the survey I came away with the feeling that this issue was already decided.
The questions on the survey didn’t leave much or any room for opposing views. It seemed more like it was posted to confirm their point of view.
Kathleen great post. I agree. Once again the school administration is shoving a change down our throats--our choice--either one hour late start on Mondays or one hour late start on Mondays. Perhaps someone else can see that this is not a choice. How about the staff come in one hour early every Monday and do their meetings then! (Or stay for one hour after school every Monday.)
Disrupting the schedule for all of the students every week will cause many scheduling problems--especially where a 6 day cycle will mean that each Monday may be different classes. My experience with current late start and early dismissal days are that both teachers and students struggle with the differing schedule and it interferes with instructional time.
Teachers and administrators are together in supporting this because it gives them a benefit--not because it is good for students.
OMG.
Jane and I agree on something…..
Ok. Onto another point. I’m taking a little offense at the term “parental” (or family) inconvenience.” Because I think it really does trivialize what could be a really big problem.
Families with middle or high school students might be “inconvenienced” a little by a weekly late start. It might be not great, but those aged kids could (in theory) get themselves up, showered, fed, dressed and out the door on time by themselves.
Elementary students cannot. Or should not. Especially the kindergarteners and first and second graders. There’s a question on the district survey (a topic for yet another post) that asks something like “Should parents be expected to keep their children home?” This completely neglects the economic realities for many working parents.
Bridgewater’s schedule in particular is a problem. Already, we have a daily late start (8:50). If we push Monday start times back til 9:50, then parents can’t get to work much before 10.
Well, some say, they should drop their kid off at KidVentures. Several problems. One: KidVentures is a relatively expensive program. I pay something over $7.00 a day for about 60-90 minutes after school each day. Lots of parents I know don’t use KidVentures due to its relatively high cost. (My preschool day care was a lot cheaper, had more and better space, and a better ratio of staff to kids). Two: BW KidVentures is pretty much confined to the cafeteria. My kid is already stuck there most days after school (single mom, working outside the home, employed full-time). I don’t want to do it twice in the same day. Three: Where on earth is KidVentures going to find enough extra staff that will only work one or two hours a week??? No one seems to have thought this through.
And, even though I can afford an extra hour or two, many working families would have a tough time doing so. Hourly workers, who are just scraping by, who have two or three young kids--what are they supposed to do? KidVentures would be their only solution--but at $20.00 or so for the three kids?
For economically struggling families with young kids and parents who work outside the home, this proposal is devastating, not merely “inconvenient.” As one parent put it to me rhetorically, “Does the school district and board think that the city is exclusively comprised of really rich families or families that have a mom at home?”
I don’t know what they were thinking. It seems to me, though, that had they bothered to get parental input earlier in the development of the proposal, they might have avoided the perception that they just don’t care.
A brief intro:
Thank you Kathy for starting this discussion. As Kifi point out in comment #2, I appreciate your viewpoint. I hope that those who read this consider that I am also a parent of a Northfield Schools student and that I have a strong professional opinion.
I am joining this dialogue to offer an insider’s perspective on how Professional Learning Communities function, how they differ from traditional staff development, and how they can fundamentally change the culture of a school community. My views are offered from a personal perspective, not as a representative of the entire school district or of all teachers. My hope is that I can give you an accurate picture of what I will do if the community invests in this PLC release time.
What is Different about Professional Learning Communities?
It seems like the question is whether or not this time will have enough value to be warranted.
Three years ago, I started reading about Professional Learning Communities (PLC) while earning my Education Specialists degree from the University of St. Thomas. I became immersed in the philosophy of Professional Learning Communities and am excited about not only the possibilities that Professional Learning Communities hold for the future of education, but for the product that I have already been a part of along with my colleagues at Northfield High School.
I think there may be a fundamental flaw in the current discussion surrounding PLC time. In comment #4 Ray Cox (I would put Ray or Ray C, but those both point to Ray Cox or Ray Coudret) says that staff development should be done in June, July and August. I don’t agree or disagree with this statement, but I feel that Ray is looking at PLC time through the lens of a traditional staff development model.
In the traditional model of staff development, teachers receive training in things such as identifying kids with mental health issues, rules and regulations around a Special Education referral, child development, blood borne pathogen training, chemical abuse issues, teaching reading across the curriculum, CPR etc. Whereas these types of training are useful and necessary for the operations of our school, they are not specific to individual student learning and they most certainly could be done on any staff development day as set by the board, whether it was June, July, August or January as this information and training is not of a time sensitive nature.
By contrast, Professional Learning Communities are a complete shift in the philosophy of staff development. The idea is to constantly work with other teachers to define goals, devise strategies, and compare results between and among teachers. These conversations are centered around the students I see Monday through Friday. A staff development day last June, or three weeks from now will not allow me the immediacy to address the issues I am facing with specific students and specific concepts on an every day basis. The one-hour release isn’t simply another hour to correct tests or prepare lessons, and it is not a four training on use of technology in the class room. This will be time dedicated for teachers to establish best practice networks at the building or district level. This will be time that is built in to talk about how to serve the kids I have right now and to collaborate with my colleagues on an ongoing basis about the how to best serve the kids I saw this week.
In my next entries I will present (a) an example of the work of an actual PLC group; and (b) concrete results from the work that I have been involved in while working with two different PLC groups. Unless of course someone tells me not to:o)
…and one more thing.
Kathie, Doesn’t the questionaire from the District include a question about parents providing a supervised option combined with normal bus hours? If so, wouldn’t this address your concern from #13?
Today’s Nfld News: Conversation on late starts must continue.
Anyone know who was on the School Board’s Calendar Committee? I don’t see any references to it anywhere on the district’s website or minutes.
As a teacher in the Northfield Public Schools, I would like to add to what Ray Coudret says regarding the opportunity of regular PLC meetings. The process of staff development that teachers in Northfield have been moving towards is a very different approach than has been taken in the past. As with anything new, it takes some time to adjust to change. One of the critical features of PLCs is that they meet on a regular basis. Despite what some in the community seem to think, it is not easy to find a time before or after school for this to happen. Most teachers are involoved in committee work or meetings several times a week either before or after school at the building or district level. Many teachers are coaches or are involved in supervising other student activities such as speech, chess, yearbook, drama etc. and this is an unaviodable conflict for professional development (parents-- are you willing to step in and coach or eliminate these programs for your children?). Some teacher supervised student groups and meetings with parents happen before school as well. Teachers also have families and other obligations after work the same as everyone else.
Early release or late start options seem to work for other districts. Also, for those concerned about instructional time being lost, take a look at the length of our school day compared to other schools-- I don’t have the data but I know that we have a longer day than Prairie Creek and some other public schools in the area.
I serve on the district calendar committee. I will assure you that the needs of families are not ignored in our discussions. Certainly, if this is adopted we want to make it as easy on families as possible. If you have alternative ideas about how to make this work for everyone, please make your opinions known.
I will let Ray share his PLC experiences rather than go on at this point, but would be glad to share information about my own experience if anyone is interested.
I know Kari Nelson, chair of the school board was (she called me and we talked at length); I believe Ellen Iverson was as well--I emailed her once to express a concern but did not receive a reply. I don’t know which teachers were on this committee (the “Meet and Confer” committee)--but school board member Diane Cirksena advised me to make my feelings known to them. There’s no list on the district website I can find listing the names, however. And I’m guessing that by now, district members are well aware of the issue. It’s just a pity that it took this to bring about their awareness.
Howdy Ray Coudret,
And thanks for the posts. You make a lot of points I absolutely agree with: PLC’s are a very good thing, and they aren’t the same as class prep or administrative meetings.
And, as a parent, I have been particularly impressed with the math teachers at both the middle school and high school--I happen to think that the math curriculum is the strongest area of our curriculum. So when you say that you all have used your PLC time to great and specific advantage with students, I say, I agree. I see the results in the day-to-day interactions with kids. You know by now that I never say nice things to be nice--and you also know that I have profusely thanked you for the excellent instruction you provided to my kid. Such excellence was also provided by Abbie Meierbachtol and Doug Bengston.
But (you knew a but was coming, didn’t you?) I don’t see the same kind of commitment, involvement, or whatever you want to call it in all other areas of the secondary curriculum. In fact, in some cases, quite the contrary. All of which is to say, I’m skeptical that the math faculty are a representative sample. (Many of you folks arrive at 7 am to give students extra help--that is NOT typical of all secondary faculty). So I’m not absolutely convinced that ALL teachers would make the same good use of PLC time that you math folks have.
More generally: Even if I put aside the concern about unevenness across faculty, I’m still left with the problem--why take away instructional time to make room for PLC? Why not prep time or other meeting time?
Lastly, to answer your question in # 16. I’m confused by your confusion. I’m trying (unsuccessfully, apparently) to say that, for some parents, staying home til 10 am isn’t an option, and paying for KidVentures might also be a big financial hit on the budget. And,I’m saying, I don’t think real young kids ought to be left at home to wait for a bus. I hear that maybe this is going to be addressed soon by the district--but i still feel like this issue should have been thought through before the proposal came to the school board.
Back to Paul Fried and Rob Hardy,
Rob, I like the idea of tying in an assessment/accountability component. A real one, though. In the past, the district has used biased surveys (example: the one on their website for this issue), and then only selectively reported results. I remember a few years ago a climate survey was taken at the middle school, but the only “results” reported were that “positive trends” were noted on “some” of the questions. That’s the opposite of accountability.
I don’t think Prairie Creek can be used to argue for the effectiveness of PLC’s. I think Prairie Creek is great (tried to get my daughter in, in fact), but there are so many differences going on between them and the public school. To name a few: smaller size, more committed parents (you have to apply to go to PC; public school is the default), more committed teachers (they have a much lower pay scale, which implies to me those teachers are sort of “paying” to teach at PC, presumably because their commitment to the school’s philosophy is stronger),less bureaucracy. So, yeah, they are very successful, but it could be any of these factors, instead of or in addition to their extra staff development time.
Paul: I think you make some excellent points. But I would argue this: the reason that Julie Nielson (I think I’m spelling her name wrong, sorry) was so successful with PLC’s at Greenvale was first of all, she was an extraordinary principal who had the respect and support of her staff (something that has often not been true at GVP, from what I hear), and second, she offered incentives to those teachers who WANTED to participate. Voluntary engagement is likely to be very different from mandatory attendance. So I don’t know how comparable that excellent experience is going to be to what is being proposed.
And again, even if it is, I don’t see the argument for why it has to be instructional time that is used to make room for PLC time.
Perhaps it’s because I’m an entrenched, opinionated academic, but that’s how I see it.
From the District survey:
“These next three questions will tell us your:
*Desire for supervised non-classroom activities during that one hour per week
*Desire for bus pick up or drop off to match late start or early release or stay on same schedule as non-shortened day
*Preference for parent drop off and pick up”
This goes on to ask…
“1. Supervision preference:
Supervision preference: KID VENTURES would be the ONLY adult supervised activity
KID VENTURES and ONE HOUR OF FREE SUPERVISED NON-CLASSROOOM ACTIVITIES would be offered for adult supervision of students”
This seems to indicate that the District is open to addressing the needs of parents as Kathy expressed in #21.
Tomorrow when I get home, I’ll work up a coherent outline of my view on the need for dedicated time… right now I hear the call of a fluffy pillow as I need to take care of my own two kids before I go off to school in the morning.
Again, thanks to all for the respectful tone, especially to you Kathy for moderating and to our hosts, Tracy, Griff, and Ross. I hope that members of the board will be able to use these conversations to gauge public concern and desire with regard to this subject.
Just to clarify one thing: The Breakfast meetings at Greenvale Park were not PLC meetings in any shape or form. They were voluntary-- very useful and fun, but not PLC groups.
Mr. Coudret, I have a high school son, so I won’t face any particular scheduling hardship if the district proceeds with a late start or early dismissal, but out of curiosity, I went to the district website to take a look at the survey. The questions did not seem particularly cognizant of any of the practical issues Dr. Galotti describes above. Instead the questions were of the “would you rather be stabbed with a fork or have your fingers slammed in a door” variety. There was no option to say, I don’t want to or can’t afford to be injured.
I have no doubt that many teachers have school-related commitments before and after school that make it a challenge to add a structured activity. Maybe a different way to frame your question to parents would be to ask for support for eliminating or delaying after school practices, club meetings or other extracurricular activities one afternoon each week to enable teachers to participate in PLCs. That would avoid decreasing instructional time, would relieve parents of the cost and struggle of finding childcare, and, most importantly, would say out loud that activity related to teacher’s professional development and its impact on student learning is more important than other activities.
To Ray Coudret:
(re post 23) Ok, now I get it. Sorry (teaching stats this term--fried brain).
Ok, here’s my problem. Suppose we later find out that 65% of parents responding favor KidVentures only and 35% favor the free hour of childcare. So we eliminate the free childcare. Problem: what happens to the kids from families who can’t afford to pay more? They’ve been outvoted? But that’s not fair. The majority can’t “vote” these families into a more favorable socioeconomic status….
And, the on-line survey introduces several biases. People can vote twice from different computers (like in a computer lab) and skew the results. People who don’t own home computers don’t get a chance to vote. People who don’t have English as a first language can’t read the survey. Etc.
So, yes, that question on the survey is a nod in the right direction, but it really isn’t enough.
In #11, Jane writes that “Teachers and administrators are together in supporting this because it gives them a benefit–not because it is good for students.”
That was a little bit personal, Jane. Especially given the amount of research supporting Professional Learning Communities, and specifically the need for built in time to make these work. See anything written by Dufour and Eaker. I along with many of my colleagues, am not “just a teacher”, I have kids that attend Northfield schools. My kids education is far more important than anything else in this equation.
In comment #9, Kathy states “But….I could easily see the extra hours (particularly on Monday mornings) going to last-minute prep for that day instead of to deeper pedagogical issues.”
The reality that I have witnessed is that teachers are excited about their Professional Learning Communities. The teachers that I work with (not just in math, but throughout the District) use the limited amount of time that is currently set aside to set goals, discuss the results of research and to talk about where to go next, but the bulk of the work is (and will be) done using time above and beyond what is set aside.
In the following example I will break down tasks according to PLC, meaning that it was done during currently allotted PLC time, and Outside PLC, meaning the task was done outside of regular prep time or PLC time, and Above and Beyond, meaning the work was done outside of any allotted school time.
In our high school math group, some teachers have started to work on a concept called common assessments.
PLC: The group uses their current weekly meeting time to discuss what concepts are the essential pieces of learning. In other words, what concepts MUST our Algebra II students know before they get through the end of the class. They also decide on how this is going to be assessed and who is in charge of developing questions for the various concepts.
Outside PLC: Group members develop the assessments tools that will be brought back to the group for revision and adoption during the next PLC time.
Above and Beyond: Over lunch the group shares their assessment ideas, revises as needed and assessments are put on the server or emailed to each other for inclusion on the next quiz or test.
Outside PLC: The assessment is used for the next quiz or test.
Above and Beyond: After each of the three teachers have corrected their class assessments, they do an item analysis on the test to identify who got the common questions wrong or right and identify why the students missed the concept. Teacher X sees that the students got question number five correct 95% of the time, whereas Teacher Y sees that the kids got the question correct about 70% of the time and Teacher Z has identified that 72% of the students have the question correct.
PLC: The three teachers share and compare their grading procedure in order to calibrate expectations. The teachers also look at the analysis of student results and discuss how they presented the material. It turns out that Teacher X has a unique presentation of the concept, which Teacher Y and Teacher Z then bring back to their classes and share with the students who need remediation. Then the process repeats.
This is not a hypothetical situation. This situation is a snapshot of a very complicated and involved process whereby your kids, OUR kids benefit right now, this year! Just as the current time that is dedicated to this process, the one hour that is being proposed will be an investment by the community that will be multiplied many times over not only by the time that teachers will spend outside of this meeting time, but in the results that are coming and will continue to come about as your children’s teachers have built in time to collaborate. Think of the power of this happening every week, multiplied by the 40 to 60 different Professional Learning Communities.
I agree with you Kathy when you wrote “for some parents, staying home til 10 am isn’t an option, and paying for KidVentures might also be a big financial hit on the budget. And, I’m saying, I don’t think real young kids ought to be left at home to wait for a bus.”
If we can work as a community to satisfactorily address that issue, and IF as a community we can find a way to support the one hour proposal, I think we can all benefit from this through a realization of the potential of Professional Learning Communities.
Don’t know about most people here, but in my job it is expected to get all of my work done on a regular basis.
This sometimes means coming in earlier, leaving later or working through my lunch break. i do it because I have a passion for what I do, and out of a sense of responsibility.I do this without having much of the summer off.
Evaluating and helping students to succeed seems to me a very important part of a teachers job and should be done on a regular basis.
Setting aside extra time and putting the burden on students and parents, seems unfair.
Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get the job done.
Peter,
As a spouse of an elementary teacher at Greenvale Park, I can say unequivocally that she regularly “com(es) in earlier, leav(es) later or work(s) through (her) lunch break. (She) do(es) it because (she) ha(s) a passion for what (she) do(es), and out of a sense of responsibility.” She also sometimes goes in to work on a Saturday or a Sunday. She is certainly not the only teacher that does this things.
She and her colleagues already do evaluate and help students succeed on a regular basis. This Professional Learning Communities proposal is an attempt to formalize and go above and beyond what has been done on an ad hoc basis heretofore.
Why can’t PLCs meet before or after school?
A simple question that no one has really answered…
I’m glad that Ray Coudret is contributing to this discussion with some valuable insights from an experienced teacher. For an institution devoted to education, the school district doesn’t always do the best job of educating the public. I appreciate the kind of outreach Mr. Coudret is doing here.
In part because of No Child Left Behind, and all of its mandated assessments, and in part because of a general infatuation with measurements and assessments, there is a ton of data on student performance available to teachers. That data is worthless from a pedagogical standpoint unless teachers can sit down and analyze it and develop a plan for acting upon it in the classroom. What Mr. Coudret is saying is that PLCs can be used to sift through that assessment data and put it to good use in the classroom. If PLCs are used for this purpose in a disciplined and professional way, the hour on Monday morning would be well spent. The “lost” instructional time will be recouped in more efficient, targeted, data-informed pedagogy.
I think an understanding and sympathetic personal relationship between a wise teacher and an individual student is worth more than all the standardized and impersonal assessment data in the world, but based on the prevailing trends in education, Mr. Coudret’s theory is perfectly sound.
The district still needs to find a way to implement this plan that will not create hardships (I agree with Kathie that “inconvenience” is too weak a word) for working families in Northfield.
Randy….having had my fingers slammed in a door, I’m going to go with stabbed with fork and see how that works out.
Ray Coudret makes some excellent points for immediate and timely interaction with staff. But Peter also points out alternatives as to how that can be accomplished. I think the main objection to a late start every week is that it ‘steals’ time from the students, and creates a ‘broken’ week every week. When I was on the school board we worked very hard to keep ‘broken’ weeks as few as possible. They really do create significant problems for students and families. I have to believe that there is a better way to facilitate meeting times that are meaningful and productive other than Monday mornings.
Thank you Rob for your words, I am hoping that my insights will give people an accurate picture of what is at stake. I wholeheartedly agree that relationships are the key to or highest importance in education. This is part of the art of teaching.
Regardless of any standardized tests or NCLB requirements, students benefit when I have more time to draw from a broader pool of knowledge and when I have greater opportunity to use research to inform my instruction. This is part of the science of teaching (pedagogy).
Putting these two concepts together in just the right way is what every teacher strives for.
Bruce, thank you for your reply in #30. Your comments were truthful and were exactly what needed to be said.
Peter, Since I don’t know you and don’t know what your profession is, I can’t say that my colleagues and I are more dedicated to teaching, or more passionate about education than you are for your job, but I am sure that if you have colleagues such as the ones that I have been working with for the last 14 years, you have a very dedicated and impassioned group of people to work with.
Thank you to all for your comments and feedback. Your discussion here very much reflects the range of thoughts I’ve heard from others this week in-person and over the phone. Just wanted to let you know that we (I think I can speak for other board members) are listening and taking stock of all comments, emails, and conversations. Thanks for taking the time.
Ellen Iverson
Ray and Ray: Excellent points both. Ray Coudret--your description of how you and your colleagues use PLC’s is outstanding--as a parent and as a teacher, I could not hope from more from any group of teachers. But, I remain skeptical that every PLC at the high and middle schools would be as effective as you have been. That’s probably another post.
The point I want to make here is that we seem to be assuming that PLC time MUST come from instructional time. Anne Larson seems to be saying that if
PLC’s were scheduled after school, that sports and other activities would have to be “eliminated” (her word, see post #19).
I don’t see this at all.
My son gave up sports after 7th grade, but is a complete theater rat. I see theater as not only an extracurricular activity, but a true “language arts” one as well, and since I believe that’s a core academic area, even more important than math (sorry, Ray) I have been desperately grateful to the theater staff, both teachers and those from the community.
But, even with all this support, I could certainly live with it if no rehearsals or practices or performances were held, say, on Mondays. I don’t think this would necessitate elimination, as Anne suggests. I think there would actually be some benefits--more down time for kids, if it were Monday, that coordinates well with Monday being “family night” etc.
More generally: I’ve resented, for a long time, the fact that sports (and other activities, but mainly in this town it is sports) seem to be regarded as sacred, and educational time not so sacred. I have resented teachers missing curriculum nights, and open houses, and parent conferences because, after all, there’s a GAME (tournament, practice). While at the middle and high school, my son has been repeated hurt (in small ways) by teachers who refuse to meet with him, or teachers that don’t get assignments back for literally weeks, or the like, BECAUSE OF THEIR COACHING commitments. (Disclaimer: Not all coaches behave this way. Many balance coaching and teaching appropriately. But many do not, and its those instances I’m complaining about.
And here we are again, letting sports (theater, name your favorite extracurricular activity) drive our educational decision making.
I don’t buy it. I vote no, strongly and loudly.
I also don’t buy the argument that we can’t even CONSIDER inconveniencing teachers by looking at after school times, but it’s ok to try to push through a proposal that would hurt or inconvenience MANY MORE parents and students in the district (before we even ASK parents for their participation in making that decision).
That gets to commenting on the whole process of this issue, which I’ll save for a later post.
Kathy,
I agree wholeheartedly with you that language arts are the key academic component. I further agree that there should be a family night with no activities whatsoever (another blog, perhaps). As much I support those ideas, I am in agreement to an even greater degree that sports and activities can not be the driver for any school’s schedule.
I have spent a lot of time describing my experiences with Professional Learning Communities, and will be happy to give you some of the results that I have seen but in the next posts I want to talk about a few of the concerns I have heard. I have divided them by topic so that you can refer to them easily for discussion or if you would like to make fun of me to your friends ;0)
The evidence to regarding “Why can’t this be done before or after school?”
According to the nonprofit educational research institute, The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/4.html) “formally rearranging the use of time in schools so that staff are supported in their interactions is a prime issue to be resolved by restructuring schools.”
In other words, a major obstacle to positive school change is building in time for teachers to collaborate. The time that we have outside of student contact time is already full. There are special ed meetings, curriculum meetings, site level meetings, and District meetings. There are students who need help, papers to correct, assessments to be created and evaluated. These things do not invent themselves, and they don’t happen unless they are done during prep time, before and after school, late at night, and on weekends. Any teacher could do less of these, but the level of service to our students would suffer. Professional Learning Communities will only work if the time is dedicated.
The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/4.html) goes on further to say “In studies comparing how teachers around the globe spend their time, it is clear that in countries such as Japan, teachers teach fewer classes, using a greater portion of their time in planning, conferring with colleagues, working with students individually, visiting other classrooms, and engaging in other professional development activities (Darling-Hammond, 1994, 1996).”
As I have tried to point out in my examples, the one hour dedicated to Professional Learning Communities is meant as a way to facilitate the beginning of processes described above. The trade off for our community is simple: If we can find a way to make this one hour per week available, we can begin to effect the kind of change that people have been clamoring for.
The evidence regarding SEAT TIME
I have heard a number of people who have talked about seat time. Does anyone have any evidence? I do.
If you go to the research about effective schools (try http://www.mes.org/correlates.html) you will not find a reference to length of day nor to seat time. You will find that in effective schools “teachers allocate a significant amount of classroom time to instruction in the essential content and skills. For a high percentage of this time students are engaged in whole class or large group, teacher-directed, planned learning activities.”
In other words, it’s not QUANTITY of time, it’s QUALITY of time. A dedicated hour for Professional Learning Communities will raise the quality of every minute, for every student, for every class.
The study goes on to say that “results of the assessments are used to improve individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program”. This is exactly what I have been describing in my posts. A dedicated hour for Professional Learning Communities will increase the ability to collaborate to improve the instructional program for OUR kids.
CONCLUSIONS AND SOLUTIONS
I saw several posts that described frustration with the lack of input previous to now. I understand this frustration. But I also wonder, do people want input so that they can tear this idea down, or do people want input so that we can come together to make our schools better?
I know that you, Kathy have dedicated your professional life to the study of the psychology behind decision making and processes of thought, so I believe that your motives are genuine. With that said, you know that although perception is a person’s reality, the perceptions of a group of individuals varies, giving alternate realities depending on perspective. Perhaps the mistakes in process on this topic were simply mistakes due to the complications of communicating with 14,000 citizens. Could it be that this is a great idea that has some merit? If the process was flawed but the obstacles can be surmounted, is there merit in the idea?
Rob, you have put forth some great ideas including the need to provide busing opportunities and adult supervision for kids to address the hardship for parents. That’s a great idea, but I am biased because half of the 300 teachers in the District have kids in the schools and like every other parent, it is a hardship for them (and I) to deal with a late start.
Rob also suggested that the District build in the time for a year, and evaluate the results. This whole process is about improvement of instruction, so the evaluation piece sounds logical and should b doable. The devil is in the details, but it seems like a worthwhile component.
Does anyone think those ideas are even close to a workable solution? Do these ideas address any of the issues that have come about? What other ideas do people have?
I have shown you my evidence as to why I believe this is the right thing to do. I have given as further evidence, my own personal case study of a working Professional Learning Community. I don’t intend to be disrespectful nor smug, but I am not interested in more unsupported opinions as to why this is a bad idea. Show me your evidence. If you can show me one documented instance where a school was damaged by institution of a dedicated weekly time such as the District has asked for Professional Learning Communities, I will buy you dinner for two (you and I) anywhere in town and will allow you to gloat over your victory for as long as you wish to linger over your dessert. You can choose the most expensive wine, I will have a Guinness (or four ;0)
I do think that if the process is the problem, there should be more discussion on how to facilitate shared decision making.
Ray (Coudret), I think you and I are in a surprising amount of agreement on many issues. I think the process is at the root of the problem, and therefore, that the first thing we need is a better, more transparent process.
So let me do my post on process. And, for the benefit of sports fans, I will use a football analogy (the irony here is thick—I know exactly 2 football plays--the Statue of Liberty play, which is apparently only used by seven-year-olds because it is so cheesy, and the one I’m about to describe. But, I’m hoping to get a good visual in the reader’s mind’s eye).
The play is called “the flying wedge play” and it has been outlawed for at least a few decades for reasons I will describe. (God, I hope I don’t screw up the description--I heard about this 30 years ago in a college course--I forget why it was brought up, ironically, as it was in a psychology of memory course. ).
Several players arrange themselves in a V formation, and link arms. The ball carrier stands in the middle of the V, carrying the ball. The wedge guys all put their heads down, helmets forward, and they all race down the field toward, and through, the defensive team. Or the defensive line. Or the guys playing defense. I don’t know the correct term. Til they get to the end zone, where the ball carrier crosses the end line (goal line?) and scores a touchdown.
Apparently this play was originated by some military strategist, and when it was first used, it was regarded as brilliant and teams all over started adopting it. Because, basically, it pretty much always worked--none of the defensive team (or line, or players, or whatever the term is) could get to the ball carrier.
It got outlawed after only a couple of years, though, because it apparently caused such great injury (and maybe even a death or two) to the defensive team (line, players, whatever) that it was considered dangerous and unsportsmanlike. So, even though it was effective, it is barred and you will never see it in the NFL or (I am assuming) college or high school football.
Why am I talking about football, you wonder? Because I submit that the district administrators AND the school board have been running a flying wedge play on this issue. They’ve been hell bent to shove this policy down the throats of families in the community. They’ve had their heads down, ears closed, and with great determination and conviction that their goal is a pure one, have barreled into many non-teacher parents. Causing a great deal of damage to trust in the whole system.
First, this proposal was developed in a committee with no non-teacher parents. It was brought for a first reading to the school board under the misleading label: Items for Information: 2009-2010 School Year Calendar.
Now, I am probably the only person in town who actually reads agenda items. I read that agenda, and did not get from that listing that anyone was going to propose weekly late starts. I don’t think any reasonable parent would.
Another parent told me about it. She overheard a staff person talking about it, and urged me (in whispered tones) to go to the school board meeting on Feb 9--something big was about to break. I rolled my eyes, asked if we were playing spy vs. spy, and got her to tell me what the issue was. When she told me there was going to be a presentation on weekly late starts, and that my only chance to talk would be on Feb 9, I became alarmed.
I checked out what I’d been told with a school administrator, who shall remain nameless. Everything I’d been told was confirmed. I started emailing school board members (the 5 that have their emails posted). I also tried calling 2 but couldn’t get through. Only 2 of the 5 school board members replied, and both pretty much advised me that if I had input I should give it at the school board meeting (or, they implied, I should shut up).
Kari Nelson, chair of the board, called me at home the next day. We actually had a long and good conversation and she insisted that there would be no action on the proposal for a month, and that a district survey would be coming. She repeatedly said that parental input was wanted and valued, and that there was no reason for anyone to feel that this was being kept a secret. I believed her--I have known Kari for a long time (she was Prez of the Longfellow PTO when I was VP), and, although we have VERY different personal styles, I respect her a lot and think she has a lot of integrity. Plus, she had a lot of guts to call me and she actually talked to me and listened to me, and we had a good back-and-forth which was what I’ve wanted to have all along. So when we wrapped up that conversation, I felt relieved.
The NEXT day, a staff member in the district who occasionally works with my daughter came up to to me to tell me that HER supervisor had been “interrogating” her to see if she was the one who “LEAKED” the info about the calendar to me. The supervisor apparently was told to find the source of the leak by her supervisor, who was acting on orders (as I heard it) from Dr. Richardson.
Meanwhile, other parents have been emailing me the replies they have received from school board members. None have been very substantive. They’re kind of all very short, and very “Thanks for your concern. You can come to the school board meeting if you like, or you can take the survey.”
Then, the survey came out, and, dashing my hopes for some openness and some transparency, it is very biased toward the idea that this will be implemented, and asking our opinion on some implementation details. See Randy Jennings’ very humorous post # 25, above).
Now, of late, Greenvale and High school parents are getting the same email from the respective principals (but it has the same wording, which makes me suspect it’s really coming from the district office), encouraging parents to take the survey and saying, in bold print, “NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE YET.”
And several parents are emailing me to say “Yeah, right, like they’re actually going to listen to us.”
Point man on the wedge? Hard to say, but I think Dr. Richardson bears some responsibility for the poor and slanted communication. I assume he either sits on the calendar committee, or communicates with them regularly. I assume that if the poor communication originated with the committee, he could have (and should have) overruled the secretiveness and been more transparent.
Other wedge players? Calendar committee members, school board members. Heads are down, plowing forward, chanting the mantra that PLCs are good. No willingness to engage in dialogue back and forth, of the type that we’ve had here.
Invitations to “speak” at the board meeting are a little disingenous, because although parents can speak, no one will respond. I have (in the past) gone to board meetings, but it’s become utterly pointless. Agenda announcements say it all:
Conveniently for the board, there is NEVER any time to debate or discuss anything with them as a board. (You can try the individual conversation route--but 3 of the 5 never even acknowledged my email--although, in fairness, Ellen Iverson eventually contacted me this week after reading my earlier post that mentioned her).
Damage done by the flying wedge? Well, lots of parents are really ticked off. One, a friend, said to me this week “You know, this has destroyed my trust in the school board in one fell swoop.” I’m not sure if that’s an overreaction or not, but
dammit, school board and administration, START LISTENING!!! WAKE UP!!!! It’s not always all about what teachers want (no matter how genuine or pure their goals). It HAS to be a jointly formulated plan that involves all the stakeholders in the formulation.
I’m gonna go on to another post soon, as this is getting too long.
Griff and Tracy like it when bloggers include links to relevant info. Here’s one for flying wedges.
http://www.the-game.org/history-flyingwedge.htm
Where do we go from here?
Ray Coudret asks that question. He also asks, quite fairly I think, whether parents only want input because they want to stop the PLC idea from going forward.
Well, I can’t speak for all parents any more than he can speak for all teachers, but I think what I would like is to have some parents participating in the formulation of the PLC plan. Not to kill it, but to shape it so that it suits the needs of kids and parents AS WELL as it suits the needs of teachers. And it seems like there ought to be a way to do this.
I think Ray has convinced me that PLCs can work and do work, at least in certain circumstances. I think the idea IS worth pursuing, even if it eventually cuts into instructional time--but I’m still not convinced that it has to cut into it. And I would be very interested in reading the links Ray has posted and thinking about the data he points us toward.
I think Rob Hardy is right, to propose that there needs to be some sort of assessment of PLCs if and when they are implemented, if they come at the cost of instructional time. Personally, I would want to see it be a rigorous type of assessment as opposed to a self-report one where teachers say whether they like them or not. I’d want to see some outcome measures tied to student learning. And I’m not sure teachers as a group will like this--our teachers voted Q Comp down a few years ago by a huge margin--even when it was designed by teachers (if I’m not mistaken, Ray Coudret was a co-author) of the plan and even though the “assessment” component proposed seemed a little too easy to me at the time. (The assessment component I would want to see would be a lot tougher).
I think the school board should table the PLC idea for a year, form a task force consisting of three groups of people represented in equal numbers: Teachers who are not parents of kids in the district; Teachers who ARE parents of kids in the district, Parents who are not teachers in the district. And those groups ought to work together to come up with a plan that addresses the many concerns that have been raised. And, while they develop this plan, they should report on it, reguarly and transparently, for anyone who wants to give input.
More generally, I hope going forward that the school adminstrators and school board members would wake up and realize that there is a huge communication problem going on. It needs to be worked on. Trust needs to be reestablished (not just assumed). I would hope they would use the communication vehicles they have (monthly elementary newsletters, regular PAC meetings at the middle school, I’m not sure what at the high school) and figure out ways of encouraging TWO-WAY communication between families and schools.
The ECFE program in town, of which I was and am a big fan, has as one of it’s mottos that parents are children’s first and best teachers. It’s a little hokey and syrupy, but I actually believe that. And if one believes it, then I think it requires that school administrators stop thinking that making ANNOUNCEMENTS to parents is enough. Good communication involves listening, and responding to concerns.
That’s what I would hope for.
PLC groups are designed to improve teaching by reviewing common assessments to determine where teaching has failed. If a principal is serious about PLC groups, they must set aside time weekly to make them work. Teachers will be held accountable for their time because they must create, discuss, and improve their teaching strategies. Where I teach, we are asked to fill out worksheets after our PLC groups meet, so we are held accountable for our time. In the day of accountability and No Child Left Behind, PLC groups can be a powerful tool.
Ideal situation
Teachers give common assessments for students in common courses
After students have taken the common assessment, teachers meet to look at what strands students did poorly/well on.
Teachers meet weekly to strengthen their teaching methods based on what strands students did poorly on.
If students score low on strands, teachers can re-teach the info. Also, if teacher A’s class do a better job than teacher B’s class on a specific strand, then teacher “A” can share with teacher “B” what/how they are teaching the information.
If you don’t meet weekly, you will never get anything accomplished. If one class scored poorly on a specific strand on the test, then you want to fix it immediately so those students have the knowledge they need to succeed. PLC groups work, but they take a huge investment of time. Northfield teachers sound like they are trying to buy into the PLC philosophy, so hats off to them! Yes you lose a little bit of instruction time, but would you rather have 1 hour of instruction by an average teacher or 55 min of teaching by a master teacher? PLC groups develop master teachers by examining data and fixing areas of weakness.
Former NHS grad and current teacher in Lakeville
Today’s Nfld News: District’s calendar committee will look at options.
Anne Larson (comment #19), can you tell us who else is on the district calendar committee besides you? It puzzles me why this information can’t be found on the district’s web site.
Kathie Galotti and Ray Coudret both have letters to the editor in today’s Nlfd News.
I just received an email from the school highlighting the survey and the proposal. I was horrified that the survey provided a no opinion option but not a no way option. I have already signed my children up for camp that is held the last week in August. It will be odd if the kids have to miss school because of camp. But so be it.
And KidVentures for two kids is expensive. $16 a day and would I have to pay extra for the morning now as well?
Also, I agree with Ray Cox about the scheduling nightmare that is a weekly early or late start. My kids have enough going on without adding another schedule change.
I would love for the teachers to have the opportunity to have these Learning Committees, but this proposal is going to be a burden on our finances and our lives. Not what the the teachers probably intend, but I certainly resent this approach as we are the ones making the sacrifices.
Ellen (comment #35), thanks for letting us know you’re paying attention to this discussion as a board member. It would be great to hear your thoughts about both A) the issue, and B) the process.
(I emailed 5 of the 7 board members asking them to chime in here.)
It’s troubling to me when new issues like this come before the board if school board members don’t make transparent their own questions, their thinking, their biases, their learning process on the issue, etc. Without this, the citizenry has a tendency to believe that things are a done deal, that the board is beholden to the administration or to the teachers or to whoever.
The Northfield News has done two stories and one editorial on this issue and not one school board member has been quoted. Maddening!