Today I stepped down from being department head at my school. It's a normal thing; every three or four years, they cycle the leadership, particularly of large departments (like mine, which is the biggest there). I enjoyed the time, and now I get to have a little more free time, since I have fewer responsibilities for me to ignore, and that's always a nice change. I'll miss being "in the know" with some of the big choices in the department and school, but I have a pretty poor batting average on wise decisions for large scale things, so I'm sure that it's the right step.
One thing, though, that I always wanted to do for a department meeting but never got around to was to pose this question to my teachers and see, not only what we came up with, but why we made the choices that we did. The thought experiment is easy enough: What would you do if you could build a school?
The details: There's essentially no budget (but it needs to be within practical realms--no school on the moon, for instance), and you have full control over curricula decisions. The funding is no strings attached, so you can choose to have state standards or not, and we're not going to worry about graduation requirements or accreditation. In short, you could build a school from the ground up: What would you do?
What's interesting to me about this is my own first impulse. If I could, I'd make sure the kids had my class in which...I would teach...the state standards, 'cuz that's what I know.
Hmm.
I must flatter myself a lot, because I always thought I was a creative person, yet, for the most part, I really like what and how I teach. Why should I change it?
But when I start chewing on this idea, I realize that there are a lot of things that I accept as a given, so natural that it's the only way that I can conceive of teaching. Yeah, I know there are alternative schools, but I'm trying to figure out what I want, and I'm stuck inside the paradigm I know.
All that aside, I think, with a little pushing, I can get to something different than what I have. First of all, I would like for the school day to start later. My school currently starts at 7:30 am and it'd be nice if that weren't the case. Closer to 9:00 would be ideal. I'd also like to have half-day Fridays. Since I'm not beholden to state requirements at this juncture, I'd probably like a forty-five minute lunch. An hour's too long, and a half hour's scarcely tolerable.
I would want to have all the types of learning that my school currently offers (fine arts, performing arts, geography, history, English, maths, science, physical education, health, foreign language) but a few more, perhaps trade based--more computer programming, but also things like wood or metal shop, or a robotics class.
Looking at an array of offerings, however, isn't necessarily what would make it great. See, I feel like my class works really well because it relies on expected behaviors--assigning of homework, completion of homework, then in-class learning and discussion--and without that background, I don't know how I'd be able to do my job. If kids don't read the night before, it's a lot harder to discuss the literature or philosophy or what-have-you in class. And that's my whole jam.
Plus, why am I thinking in these courses, these differentiated compartments? I believe in required classes--there are some things that you have to learn, and a required class is one way to help you become a better individual. So, yes, in my Dream Academy, there are still math classes, even though I don't like them. But I don't know how to conceive of those classes. Something about longer, more discussion-based classes? Maybe doing a term of intensive work in, say, science and math, then rotating to a different grouping--history and English, say--for the next term? Would that be enjoyable to have such protracted time in a single place? It'd be different, that's for sure.
At my school, we do a Winterim, a time in January where the normal classes are suspended and the kids only come for three weeks, attending one class exclusively. Could that be a paradigm for a whole school? "These three weeks I have history and English. But in October, it's going to be maths and science!" Does that work? What about retention? Maybe some classes you have to rotate in and out of a couple times? Like, science is your first, third, fifth, and seventh rotations (thus giving a full semester), with English being your second, fourth, sixth, and eighth?
What does that look like on a day-to-day basis? I'm programmed to be able to sustain kids' interest for about 90 minutes a day, if I'm doing really well. I don't know if I could do that for 4 hours a day, every day. I fear it'd turn into a "Work on your computers for the next thirty minutes. Lord Dowdle has to catch his breath" if I were pushing myself that hard.
And what about homework? If there's only homework for one class, then should there be more as a result? Should I simply expect higher quality work? Is it fair to say, "In the 'real world'* you have to focus on one thing for eight hours and still make it look nice, so it's okay to train you this way in school"? One thing's certain: We look back at our childhood because it isn't like our adulthood. Is making a school more like a job really the best way to serve the students?
Anyway, I think I'll chew on this some more and see if I can't work out more of what I would do to build a school. I like the name, though: Dream Academy.
Sounds fun.
-----
* I have an issue with the "real life" argument. School is real life. That's why we make a big deal out of passing it, celebrate the graduation from it, and encourage kids to enroll in advanced levels of it. School is life, just like having a job is life. Or, more accurately, it's part of life. Dismissing what happens in school because you'll "never use it in real life" is both presumptuous (how do you know what you'll be doing in the future? What divination gives you the understanding of what's on the horizon that ensure you won't need the information being learned?) and inaccurate.
One thing, though, that I always wanted to do for a department meeting but never got around to was to pose this question to my teachers and see, not only what we came up with, but why we made the choices that we did. The thought experiment is easy enough: What would you do if you could build a school?
The details: There's essentially no budget (but it needs to be within practical realms--no school on the moon, for instance), and you have full control over curricula decisions. The funding is no strings attached, so you can choose to have state standards or not, and we're not going to worry about graduation requirements or accreditation. In short, you could build a school from the ground up: What would you do?
What's interesting to me about this is my own first impulse. If I could, I'd make sure the kids had my class in which...I would teach...the state standards, 'cuz that's what I know.
Hmm.
I must flatter myself a lot, because I always thought I was a creative person, yet, for the most part, I really like what and how I teach. Why should I change it?
But when I start chewing on this idea, I realize that there are a lot of things that I accept as a given, so natural that it's the only way that I can conceive of teaching. Yeah, I know there are alternative schools, but I'm trying to figure out what I want, and I'm stuck inside the paradigm I know.
All that aside, I think, with a little pushing, I can get to something different than what I have. First of all, I would like for the school day to start later. My school currently starts at 7:30 am and it'd be nice if that weren't the case. Closer to 9:00 would be ideal. I'd also like to have half-day Fridays. Since I'm not beholden to state requirements at this juncture, I'd probably like a forty-five minute lunch. An hour's too long, and a half hour's scarcely tolerable.
I would want to have all the types of learning that my school currently offers (fine arts, performing arts, geography, history, English, maths, science, physical education, health, foreign language) but a few more, perhaps trade based--more computer programming, but also things like wood or metal shop, or a robotics class.
Looking at an array of offerings, however, isn't necessarily what would make it great. See, I feel like my class works really well because it relies on expected behaviors--assigning of homework, completion of homework, then in-class learning and discussion--and without that background, I don't know how I'd be able to do my job. If kids don't read the night before, it's a lot harder to discuss the literature or philosophy or what-have-you in class. And that's my whole jam.
Plus, why am I thinking in these courses, these differentiated compartments? I believe in required classes--there are some things that you have to learn, and a required class is one way to help you become a better individual. So, yes, in my Dream Academy, there are still math classes, even though I don't like them. But I don't know how to conceive of those classes. Something about longer, more discussion-based classes? Maybe doing a term of intensive work in, say, science and math, then rotating to a different grouping--history and English, say--for the next term? Would that be enjoyable to have such protracted time in a single place? It'd be different, that's for sure.
At my school, we do a Winterim, a time in January where the normal classes are suspended and the kids only come for three weeks, attending one class exclusively. Could that be a paradigm for a whole school? "These three weeks I have history and English. But in October, it's going to be maths and science!" Does that work? What about retention? Maybe some classes you have to rotate in and out of a couple times? Like, science is your first, third, fifth, and seventh rotations (thus giving a full semester), with English being your second, fourth, sixth, and eighth?
What does that look like on a day-to-day basis? I'm programmed to be able to sustain kids' interest for about 90 minutes a day, if I'm doing really well. I don't know if I could do that for 4 hours a day, every day. I fear it'd turn into a "Work on your computers for the next thirty minutes. Lord Dowdle has to catch his breath" if I were pushing myself that hard.
And what about homework? If there's only homework for one class, then should there be more as a result? Should I simply expect higher quality work? Is it fair to say, "In the 'real world'* you have to focus on one thing for eight hours and still make it look nice, so it's okay to train you this way in school"? One thing's certain: We look back at our childhood because it isn't like our adulthood. Is making a school more like a job really the best way to serve the students?
Anyway, I think I'll chew on this some more and see if I can't work out more of what I would do to build a school. I like the name, though: Dream Academy.
Sounds fun.
-----
* I have an issue with the "real life" argument. School is real life. That's why we make a big deal out of passing it, celebrate the graduation from it, and encourage kids to enroll in advanced levels of it. School is life, just like having a job is life. Or, more accurately, it's part of life. Dismissing what happens in school because you'll "never use it in real life" is both presumptuous (how do you know what you'll be doing in the future? What divination gives you the understanding of what's on the horizon that ensure you won't need the information being learned?) and inaccurate.