C&I First Blog Ever! (2/17/09)

As I reflect on our readings and write for the entire class to see, I recognize the intellectual assent I’ve given to much new science thinking while industrial age education is my personal lived experience. I believe that the relationships among faculty, between faculty and students, and between individuals and course material is far more important than any individual or the course material itself. I believe that the metaphor of a living organism is much better than that of a machine when talking about schools. Moreover, I believe that a school needs to be a community of learners that includes the student voice. At the same time, I have not sufficiently challenged the industrial age thinking of classrooms with a set number of students and a single teacher as a way to structure learning. I find myself too concerned about productivity in a sense of more uniform “quality output.” Two aspects of the industrial age model that most strike me have been my assumption that motivation is the responsibility of the teacher (Senge, 32) and that some of what I do to improve is simply work harder within the same basic framework. In the article for this coming Thursday, Wagner speaks of teachers being resistant to change because they are risk averse, while those in leadership positions tend to be more willing to risk. In reflecting on this, I’d suggest that school leaders aren’t as affected by change because we have much greater influence over the shape of any school change and, perhaps more importantly, we are evaluated by making change, understood as growth or improvement. A leader of any organization today would be loathe to find praise or positive feedback for maintaining the status quo of an organization, no matter how good that may be.

An example of my use and implementation of new science thinking in our school has been the formation of a co-curricular council to mirror the academic council. This group works collaboratively and discusses issues that are bigger than the interests of the individual programs represented. Within the past few years, this group developed and has “ownership” (Wagner) of updated policies regarding freshman participation requirements, the earning of a block letter, and a revised procedure regarding academic eligibility that allows parents, counselors, moderators, coaches, and the student him/herself have a voice in the process. Another example that we’re going through this year is an examination of our school schedule. The energy came out of WASC, itself a more collaborative process that involved a wide variety of stakeholders. In going through the process to determine parameters, goals, and ultimately a new schedule, I have met with the student leadership team on a monthly basis. Their input, like that of the faculty members, appeared on all documents that the various groups have examined and narrowed to a sharper focus. The students are clearly energized to be engaged in thinking about something that will have a dramatic and real impact on the operation of the school. In thinking of concrete industrial age examples, I feel like the fish who cannot see the water. One area that seems clearest to me is when I’m not interacting directly with a student or group of students. I find myself easily thinking of our “educational product” through large sets of data. I can think in a much more mechanical way, for example, when examining our AP scores and talking about our entrance requirements for those classes.

Note: Saw "The Class" this weekend. An outstanding film that would spark great discussions about teaching, learning, discipline, and multicultural education. I highly recommend it.