Subject: Working on School Change

Posted by Tim Joy on 2/1/2014

Message:

Happy February to all!

So glad to see that school change remains a hot topic. In the last two weeks, many folks (and thanks to all!) have generously commented on and provided ideas for my wobbly attempt at a school change model. A few references in my comments should suggest a particular kind of model I am proposing - Robert Marzano, Doug Lemov, Mike Schmoker, John Roberts and Elizabeth City, Chenowith, et al. In short, I am focusing on teachers as leaders who work in teams to improve their collective skill.

I may be way off here, but my assumption is that, in such a model, the curriculum is merely "viable and guaranteed." Remember, I am referring to the model. If I were talking about a real school that my children attended, darn-tootin' I'd be all about the curriculum.

Comments germane to the model building process, with respect to elements in this model, are very helpful and to the point. For instance, I've been losing sleep over the use of co-flows (don't tell Jay Forrester!) Forrester is adamant that such relationship do not exist anywhere. Barry Richmond, on the other hand, said, sure, they happen all the time. So, is the stuff (in the stock) actually being "uploaded" to the student through the learning process or is it a simultaneous delivering and learning relationship designed by a competent teacher?

This has been a fascinating couple of weeks thinking about the variety of ideas presented here. A few people have raised the critical factor of school culture and the quality of relationships within a school. The current version of the model omits these, and the arguments to include them somehow are too compelling to ignore.

The Student Learning portion of the model need work, especially with the faulty assumption that students retain everything and for eternity. That's next up.

Thank you all,

Tim Joy
Portland