Co-Teaching and Lesson Plans

I am terrified of lesson plans. There, I said it. I know I shouldn't be, as I've done them in my 406 and in the special ed component, but I am. Absolutely terrified. I think part of my problem, in 406 at least, was that I couldn't wrap my mind around a mini-lesson. Consistently I thought too big and wasn't sure how to pare my lessons down into short, sweet, and informative snippets. But now having watch Bob, Kim, and Buddy, I feel like (maybe) I get it. To have the privilege to watch them bounce ideas off each other was an awesome one but the part that was most useful to me was when Buddy pulled them back and said something to the effect of "but yeah, what's the goal?" I realized then that lesson planning is sort of like writing a good essay where at the beginning and end of every paragraph you can relate it back to the thesis because every paragraph is doing its job to most effectively get across your statement. Even if I have to literally write out HOW DOES THIS RELATE? at every point of my lesson planning so that I remember to periodically look back and change things if I must, I will do it. Whereas in the past I felt like I was floundering in my lesson planning because it was just so much to do, I feel like I have a solid base to stand on. Most of my classmates probably came to this realization a long time ago, but it was really perspective changing for me. I think having such a solid goal in mind is really the difference between being prepared, as in having a lesson plan, and being prepared to go down every possible avenue it takes for students to reach the goal of my lesson plan.

Chapters 9 and 10

Sometimes when I think about all the negative press that comes with public education these days- much of it from teachers themselves- I get discouraged. From the outside it looks like a bleak profession where first a teacher’s passion is crushed via the powers that be (the Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and the like) and subsequently their students’. Part of the reason I want to be a teacher is because most of my education has been made up by me dreading school because it felt boring and futile, often stressful and difficult, and like my teachers couldn’t care less that I felt that way. The other part of the reason I want to be a teacher is that I adored those teachers that made me want to come to school because they were vibrant proponents for their subjects, made me curious and eager to learn more, and in the end made me feel smarter and better off as a person for having had them as a teacher. I mention all this because while I was reading chapter 9 about book clubs in the classroom, I felt myself getting excited about being a teacher all over again because these are the type of projects that are meant to get students excited. The chapter ends with “after doing Book Clubs, do you think young people will want to read more books? We think they will.” And while I think this is incredibly important- and I no doubt want to at least get my future students to think, “hey maybe reading can be kinda cool”, I think the chapter is modest in the ways Book Clubs can help students as people. On page 204, it is suggested that teachers and students compile a list of social skills that should be remembered during book clubs (the idea is revisited on 213 where it is suggested these skills be used to develop a class criteria). A huge part of high school is meant to teach students the people skills they need to be “good” members of society. Personal responsibility, respect for others, and self-respect are all part of the suggested grading criteria. If students are making sure that they abide by these “rules”, reading should come naturally as they can only be responsible if they do the work assigned and can only give their classmates proper respect if they pull their own weight. If students are graded in this manner, no one can really be a “bad” or a “good” reader, there are only readers. Chapter 10, I have to admit, was a bit of a bummer after all my engagement in chapter 9. I agree that creating a “big idea” to shape lessons, particually cross-content big ideas, will help students to think more deeply and cause students to draw the connections that create understanding. In a way, “big ideas” are a way of teaching theory to students as you are asking them to look through a lens. This is a pretty interesting idea to me, but I wonder how often it occurs in schools. It seems to be a big undertaking for teachers to all work together, particularly when high schools tend to have different tracks and students may be in an honors track for some classes but a more standard track for others. It is a nice ideal but I don’t know how well it would work. That being said, I was also a little wary on the suggested grading technique for the Book Club. I really liked it but I don’t know how well it would fly with the administration. Schools want to see how technically “good” their students are and I don’t think that the assessments suggested can really do that.

I heart Daniels and Zemelman

I feel like I say this every week, but in case I haven’t gotten my feelings across, I’ll say it again: I love our text book. You may or may not understand how great and unusual this is. Textbooks are usually long and boring and difficult to understand, a good read for when I’m trying to fall asleep at night. But Subjects Matter is so fabulous, I’ve already decided that I will not try and sell it back at the end of the end of the semester (something I usually do, even if I really like the books, just because the money is something I need) because of how useful I think it will be as I begin to teach my own lessons. Chapter 5, with all it’s pre,during, and post reading activities is heavily dog-earred at the moment. I love that the authors don’t just tell you what to do but also explicitly how. For example, in the brainstorming activities it is suggested that occasionally students should be given a few moments to jot down their ideas before sharing so that “passive or unconfident kids” have something to say (104). Even things that might seem sort of obvious are stated, such as in the think-aloud strategy, where teachers are reminded to shift their voice when moving from the reading to their thoughts so students are able to separate the two. The authors leave no worry unspoken, even going so far as to present potential problems (or non-problems) and how teachers can address them, be it that students are unable to keep quiet (just remind them that they’ll be able to speak aloud at the end) or end up arguing (perhaps a lesson on valuing other’s opinions), as they may in the “written conversation” strategy, which was one of my favorites and I hope to be able to use someday. Chapter 7 on creating community in the classroom was wonderful as well. This past weekend at the writing conference, I attended a panel that asked us to write “teacher manifestos” and one part that I wrote was that I want my classroom to strive for community, not competition. Competition isn’t bad; but too much of it can drive even the most confident student down or the most humble student to have an unappealing ego. The first page of the chapter says it all for me: “good teachers know instinctively that the work of teachers runs even deeper than that [than teaching kids to read more or better]. We need to make the classroom a community, a place where students feel safe to take the risks involved in learning, where they see it connected with their lives, and where they help and learn from one another instead of working only as isolated individuals” (167). Two classes ago, it was suggested that I was dismissing content for saying that I feel that the more important thing is creating happy and empowered students. What I was saying, in different words, was precisely that of the authors. Students who are confident and happy won’t be so scared to try and learn difficult things, to share what they know with others, and will appreciate those around them for what they can offer. I love English and I love reading and I love vocabulary, puns, and Latin roots. I want dearly for everyone to have read some Steinbeck and some Shakespeare (who I’m not even a huge fan of) and John Kerouac because I see value in them and because having a working knowledge of them because certain authors are referenced so frequently, either explicitly or inexplicitly, and knowing them will make the work that references them will gain deeper meaning. There are many things that I value more than school (gasp). I will always love my family, friends, dance, and adventure more. It just is that way. But I still love, love, love reading. Because I feel this way, I am 100 percent aware and okay with the fact that sometimes, simply people won’t like the authors I teach. Not everyone will like To Kill a Mockingbird nor will everyone have had the chance or desire to read it. But I know that these people have other things to offer- maybe they’re fantastic at math or an excellent mediator, a hilarious comedian, a moving lyricist, or a compassionate friend. When community is valued over competition, knowing who is the valedictorian in the class isn’t valued over the star football player or the quiet art student. Being well-rounded makes for an interesting world and that is why students should be taking Brit Lit and Algebra or American History, regardless of whether they like it or not. But knowing every single grammar rule and reading as many classics as possible is most definitely not the end all be all of human existence.

I was going to leave it at my last post for the week but

I loved the chapters we had for reading too much to not share! The authors are head on in their descriptions of textbooks, both in their intention and misguided flaws. The two quotes I liked especially were: "those bodies of knowledge, those big building-blocks of information, need a place to live- and that's what textbooks are for, among other things" and "In the drive to include everything, key ideas fade into the background, or are never successfully communicated, or simply don't stick with students."

I have been feeling this for so long know but have not had a way to put it so succinctly. I knew that I felt textbooks had good intentions and there was something I felt was important about them. As the authors put it, textbooks are reference books. I have long believed that students should be taught skills so that, essentially, they could learn to teach themselves. This is why in elementary school (and again in middle and high school), librarians and teachers and aides all spend hours and weeks teaching students how to use a card catalogue (some schools and libraries still have them!), how to use the library database, how to look up a topic in a encyclopedia (and how wikipedia can be used as a starting point but not necessarily a reliable source!), about indexes and libraries and anything and everything source-y. Teaching students how to use these tools allows them to open worlds of knowledge or simply learn a little about something. But when you take these tools (textbooks **coughcough**) and make them the one and only source. Well, it's too little and too much at the same time.

Confession time: though I have worked very hard to maintain my grades throughout my school career, as a "good student" if you will, I very often struggle with the feeling that I don't have any real basis to actually learn anything. In high school teachers often accused us of not caring about learning and only caring about grades. This bothered myself and my classmates because we couldn't very well not care about grades, could we? It was our grades that would make our teachers and parents and friends call us smart, that would maybe help us get scholarships, get into National Honor Society, and make it so we could wear a cool little sash thing and have an extra tassle and pin at graduation. It wasn't that we didn't want to learn, it was just that learning how to sort of work the system could only be in our favor. We were BS experts, vocab-droppers, and multiple choice test taker extraordinaires. Honestly, I have to admit that these skills have served me doubly in many of my survey courses at college, where we're expected to learn twice as much as high school students in half the time. As a voracious reader since childhood and someone who has spent many hours googling and going from one link to the next to learn more and more, it makes me really sad that in the high school and college levels, it is often the case that "getting through it" is often valued over "getting into it." I think it would be so much more valuable for me to really understand energy conversion than to just know that it involved ATP ... or something?

I am grateful that despite what my teachers thought, I often really wanted to learn about what they were telling me and often they were excellent teachers who really taught me a lot and inspired me to learn more. Unfortunately some of them I could not understand, went to fast, didn't break things down, didn't give us a chance to delve in and explore different sources so that maybe one of them or all of them would trigger that lightbulb, and so I gave up understanding for figuring out how to simply pass. Without all those colorful opportunities, with one skim-able and forgettable textbook, what my teachers feared would happen happens: students give up any chance of understanding for simply passing. That is if they've been lucky enough to acquire those skills because otherwise they might fail, both your class and really having learned anything. And really isn't that you failing your students?

Class 3/25

Class last week was really interesting all around. I so much preferred the observation method we used last week as opposed to the I-Walk method. Though I think the I-Walk has its merits (you can get more observations done in a shorter period of time, it's good for observing classroom layouts, teacher to student ratios, and so on) I think last week's protocol gave us an opportunity to really, really see how teachers interacted with their students. As someone who likes to take my time with things and think about them, this method was very conducive to my own preferred methods. Of course, even though staying in a classroom for so long gave us a better opportunity to observe a teacher's style and how the students reacted to it and how the teacher reacted to the students, even still I found myself wishing I could stay and watch the classes for longer. It is nice to see a variety but sometimes I think we're going too fast to ever really see what's going on, to mull over what we saw, and then find a way to integrate what we learned into our teaching schema.

After the observations we got the chance to hear from parents what they look for in a teacher. I think this was so important to hear because nearly always parents will not have a say in who teaches their child and so I think it is crucial that we always try to be the best teacher a parent or child could hope for. And, like with the student panel, what the parents are hoping for is almost logical and really so easy: to be available. I think this sums up what the parents said because they all agreed that they think a teacher should make their personality available and, most importantly, be available and willing to communicate to a parent how their child is doing. Phone calls were brought up over and over again, requests that teacher's not only tell a parent when their child is struggling (though if this is the case they want to know as soon as you know) but also when their child is doing well. Because kids spend a minimum of six hours at school a day, not including the time it takes to get to and from school or any after-school activities, it might be inevitable that teachers see more of their student than the parents do.  They are trusting you to take care of their child as well as they would and that you care about them, as well.