Core Values & Foundation Coursework |
This course began my exposure into High Tech High's (HTH) way of proceeding by being immersed and observing their new teacher training program, The Odyssey. Using a project based learning approach to the work, I was introduced to HTH design principles and inspirational colleagues. I learned to observe, listen and record the events and the perspective from which I viewed them. Above all, I began to wonder...
|
A Reflection on Equity, Perception and The Odyssey Experience
The dean at my former school said “equal does not mean the same” when referring to the consequences administered when dealing with student infractions. Merriam-Webster defines equity as “fairness or justice in the way people are treated” or “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” As I attended High Tech High’s (HTH) new teacher orientation, or The Odyssey as it is called, I heard the word equity and equitable used quite frequently. Alongside The Odyssey experience, we as graduate students were being educated on how to be observers and researchers of learning experiences. We were to share the experience as participants and observers, including the various positions in between the two roles. We learned about perspective and how that can influence our work in research as Chiseri-Strater (1996) stated, “For ethnographers, writing about how we are positioned is part of the data.” With all of these experiences and new ideas swirling in my mind, several questions began to form. What does equity in a school or classroom look like? What is HTH’s vision of equity? Does a model based on equity translate to the best learning experience for all students?
I began with a quick search of what HTH says about its design principles on its website (www.hightechhigh.org) and the following appears to relate to its vision of equity:
Common Intellectual Mission
High Tech High schools are diverse and integrated. Enrollment is non-selective via a zip code-based lottery, and there is no tracking of students by perceived academic ability.
Personalization
High Tech High teachers know their students well, and are committed to a learner-centered approach that supports and challenges each student. Through projects, students pursue their passions and continually reflect on their learning and growth. Students with special needs are supported through a full inclusion model.
A full inclusion model is defined as one that allows all students to participate in a unified classroom regardless of the special needs that a student may possess. Vanderbilt researchers and professors, Douglas Fuchs and Lynn Fuchs, talk about the needs of educators when attempting to implement a full inclusion model.
“However this will require fundamental changes in the roles of special and regular educators and the entire teaching and learning process.These changes include a radical constructivist vision of teaching and learning and a concomitant de-emphasis, even rejection, of standard curricula, directed instruction and accountability standards” (pp. 80-81). “From a holistic, constructivist perspective, all children simple engage in the process of learning as much as they can in a particular subject area; how much and exactly what they learn will depend on their backgrounds, interests and abilities” (Stainback & Stainback, 1992, p.7).
During the Odyssey event the community was very integrated; founders mingled alongside new teachers, and presenters ate lunch side-by-side with interns. There was no segregation of teachers regardless of their background, length of service or subject area. The experience was created so that all went through the formation process; yet it allowed for individual expression. Attendees were asked to follow Adria Steinberg’s The Six A’s of Designing a Project and participate in HTH’s project tuning protocol. In addition, the attendees were encouraged to personalize the work by following their passions and using their abilities to design, build and fine-tune projects. So does one conclude that the attendees had an equitable experience? From my participation and observations I would say yes; they were immersed in the same “classroom” of events and workshops however their learning and outputs were not the same. Based on their talents and interpretation, they experienced and produced different results. This is in line with the idea that they were treated free from bias regarding their varied backgrounds or upcoming roles. The Odyssey scenario thereby modeled the principles of full inclusion and personalization, adhering to what I perceive is, at least in part, HTH’s definition of equity.
When I read many of the Odyssey Pre-Readings articles it seemed that a common thread was how teachers discovered that equitable did not mean the same in terms of student learning and assessment. Marc Shulman (2008) quotes one of his old professors in how equal treatment of unequals is one of the worst practices in education today. In each article there was an “Aha” moment when the teacher found a way to cross the divide of a diverse student population. This included such options as allowing students to choose the book they wanted to read and selecting the proof of learning that best fit their talents and abilities. This falls in line with another of HTH’s design principles of teachers being the designers or co-designers of a school’s curriculum and culture. I believe that John Dewey influenced this way of proceeding in his famous novel Democracy and Education (1916) where he states:
“How one person’s abilities compare in quantity with those of another is none of the teacher’s business. It is irrelevant to his work. What is required is that every individual shall have opportunities to employ his own powers in activities that have meaning” (p. 203).
At this point in my observations and readings, I am beginning to appreciate the idea of creating a space where everyone has access to learning the same ideas in different ways and how that may provide benefits to the learning process. However this is where perspective kicks in, specifically my perspective. My readings and observations left me wondering if there are different ways to structure the learning that would facilitate as many benefits but maybe with less demands on the teachers and students alike. There is a tremendous amount of work that is required to plan a unit so that all academic levels of students will have access and derive benefits from it. I know that I don’t know enough about the model yet to make any firm decisions or opinions as to how the HTH example could be improved.
My experience in educational institutions, whether as a student, teacher or administrator, is in the traditional “industrial age” model of education. Students listen to lectures, regurgitate the information and if one is lucky, transfer a bit of the knowledge to a new situation. However, here I am today: a fairly respected professional both in the corporate and educational worlds. I survived the system I was matriculated through and have witnessed many success stories of the students I have served in a traditional model. This leads me to more questions. One of my areas of inquiry surrounds the idea of equity and the full inclusion model. As I enter into this experience I have a certain perspective regarding the ideas of tracking. In the early years of my prior school I had classes that were more inclusive than tracked. We did not have many pathways through the school so a majority of the senior students were enrolled in the calculus class I taught. The math abilities of the students were definitely varied, as was their motivation to be there. Now I will be the first to say that I am not a master-teacher. I think my students would say I was a pretty good teacher because I really cared about them and the love of my subject was evident. I found this non-tracked class to be a challenge. I believe I let down students at both ends of the math-ability spectrum. In trying to not lose the lower math competency students, I felt I held back the mathletes in the class. Then when trying at the end to really focus on some of the harder concepts, I almost lost (and I’m sure frustrated) the non-mathletes. As the school grew and more pathways were defined, students with a perceived higher math ability were placed in the honors or advanced classes and for me, the instruction and rapport in the class improved (as did the test results). These experiences and others have helped form my perspective that tracking students may provide certain benefits.
In my inquiry journal I was asked to reflect upon how my own biases and/or perceptions would influence my interpretation of HTH’s core values. On August 6, 2014 I wrote, “my previous experience in traditional education has me very curious about the inclusion of all model”. I am biased, but bias does not have to be negatively connotated. In a lecture by Zoltan Sarda on the topics of observation and research we learned that our perspective influences both of those items. When we observe an event three sources of knowledge form our perspective on a situation: objective information, attributional sources and funds of knowledge. These bias our research and it is important to recognize and document them in our research. An objective item would be those pieces of information that are not affected or swayed by emotions. For example, in the Heider-Simmel (1944) experiment video an objective piece of information is that an object in the shape of rectangle was on the screen. An attributional bias I recorded in my journal was that “the large triangle aggressively batters the little triangle.” It was my opinion or perspective that it was an “aggressive” act. And in relation to my previous statements regarding my experience in traditional schools, I may provide a funds of knowledge perspective for others into research regarding the positive or negative aspects of tracking students.
My thoughts on perspective and equity were also influenced by the readings assigned, especially by the article by Lisa Delpit entitled Skills and Other Dilemmas of a Progressive Black Educator. In it Delpit (2007) describes her journey from the more progressive style of an “open-classroom” to a more traditional setting in her classroom when she, observing both the progress by her older, more traditional colleagues and the results of her students, determined that a more traditional approach is what this group of students needed. Part of her revelation was acknowledging that minority voices may have been hushed in the research of certain pedagogies and this applies equally to research colleagues as to the students in the room. Are minority students being included in the research of various programs and standards? In her conclusion she puts forth a challenge, “The key is to understand the variety of meanings available for any human interaction, and not to assume the voices of the majority speak for all,” (2007, p.185). In echoing the challenge put forth by Delpit, Nieto wrote an article about what she thinks it takes to be a good teacher where she states, “...when you have a more diverse teacher education faculty, you also have a diversity of experiences, viewpoints and expertise, and this enriches the climate for everybody,” (2006, p. 471).
These readings provided me with different perspectives regarding the full inclusion model. What I take from them is that by hearing from all of the voices in a room that has not been segregated by perceived academic ability that we can learn from all voices in a room. That there are other intangible elements of collaboration, respecting and playing off of other people’s strengths that results in a symbiotic learning environment. I do not doubt the ability of the HTH example to create successful learners, however I still have questions regarding the inclusion model for all types of students. Just as Delpit found that her black students responded better to a more traditional pedagogy, how then do we know if all students equitably benefit from the HTH example?
If I return to The Odyssey experience I believe that it represented a full inclusion model as no one was segregated by experience, subject matter or any other criteria. In interviewing one of the participants, they stated that they believed they would have benefited from a session grouped by subject area and another stated that after being an academic coach they were fairly well versed in HTH’s principles but could have gained more from direct learning/teaching strategies. The question of equity that then comes to my mind is, do the benefits that persons gain from working in a full inclusion model outweigh the possible individual growth that could be achieved by a more segregated approach to learning? If the Odyssey participants had been given the opportunity to meet, at least in some fashion, by criteria such as subject area or previous involvement with PBL/HTH, could it have been a more helpful experience?
One of my cohort members defined equity as when you allow all people to reach their full potential by having control over their own destiny. My question is whether the full inclusion model follows that definition of equity? If a full inclusion classroom includes the aspects of personalization and differentiation does all of that combine to allow individual students to reach their full potential and is therefore equitable? Based on my prior learning and teaching experiences, I am not sure at this moment whether all are reaching their full potential in a given subject area when using a full inclusion model. However, I will restate my query that even if some academic content is not fully developed is that an acceptable loss or trade off to the benefits or results that an inclusive, equitable model may provide?
I respect the many voices that speak to the benefits of this model, from Ron Berger (2003) speaking to the idea that building a culture is paramount to creating teachers and students who care about the work, to the founders of HTH, Larry Rosenstock and Rob Riordan, who voiced with such passion and dedication to learning the results of their research and continually examination of the HTH experience. My hope for my research once again returns to Delpit and even Ladson-Billings whose comments that in potentially building a new educational future that it could be a place where “we could conduct multiple projects using multiple approaches,” (2006, p. 10). I hope to research if learning environments could benefit from multiple educational structures for the varying needs of students and still remain equitable.
So as I conclude my first course in my graduate studies I am grateful for the methods and opportunities to learn by listening, observing and reflecting on practices that seek equity and the desire to build life long learners. I do not yet have the answers to the questions I posed regarding equity but hope that the learning experiences with my cohort, teachers and school site this year provide me with much knowledge so as to form an educated opinion. As Eisner so eloquently stated, “I learned what to look for, and I could recognize quality when I saw it. In addition, I could give you reasons for my judgement” (2004, p. e-2). I will remember that I bring perspectives to this process that should be noted, and challenged, during this year and beyond. Combining all of these elements I aspire to be a researcher and a leader who listens and is informed , yet continually open to better practices.
References:
Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Reading culture: contexts for critical reading and writing, 180-185.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Eisner, E. (2004). The roots of connoisseurship and criticism: A personal journey. In Alkin, M.
Evaluation Roots. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (n.d.). Inclusion versus Full Inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 80-81. Retrieved from http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2357/2414567/Volume_medialib/Profiles/pp2b.pdf
High Tech High. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hightechhigh.org/
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Nieto, S. (2006). Solidarity, courage and heart: what teacher educators can learn from a new generation of teachers. Intercultural Education, 17(5), 457-473.
Shulman, Marc (2008). Equity in assessment. UnBoxed, 1.
Steinberg, A. (1998). Real learning, real work: School-to-work as high school reform. New York: Routledge.
Inquiry Journal
Lectures by Robert Riordan, Larry Rosenstock, Zoltan Sarda, Kelly Wilson
The dean at my former school said “equal does not mean the same” when referring to the consequences administered when dealing with student infractions. Merriam-Webster defines equity as “fairness or justice in the way people are treated” or “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” As I attended High Tech High’s (HTH) new teacher orientation, or The Odyssey as it is called, I heard the word equity and equitable used quite frequently. Alongside The Odyssey experience, we as graduate students were being educated on how to be observers and researchers of learning experiences. We were to share the experience as participants and observers, including the various positions in between the two roles. We learned about perspective and how that can influence our work in research as Chiseri-Strater (1996) stated, “For ethnographers, writing about how we are positioned is part of the data.” With all of these experiences and new ideas swirling in my mind, several questions began to form. What does equity in a school or classroom look like? What is HTH’s vision of equity? Does a model based on equity translate to the best learning experience for all students?
I began with a quick search of what HTH says about its design principles on its website (www.hightechhigh.org) and the following appears to relate to its vision of equity:
Common Intellectual Mission
High Tech High schools are diverse and integrated. Enrollment is non-selective via a zip code-based lottery, and there is no tracking of students by perceived academic ability.
Personalization
High Tech High teachers know their students well, and are committed to a learner-centered approach that supports and challenges each student. Through projects, students pursue their passions and continually reflect on their learning and growth. Students with special needs are supported through a full inclusion model.
A full inclusion model is defined as one that allows all students to participate in a unified classroom regardless of the special needs that a student may possess. Vanderbilt researchers and professors, Douglas Fuchs and Lynn Fuchs, talk about the needs of educators when attempting to implement a full inclusion model.
“However this will require fundamental changes in the roles of special and regular educators and the entire teaching and learning process.These changes include a radical constructivist vision of teaching and learning and a concomitant de-emphasis, even rejection, of standard curricula, directed instruction and accountability standards” (pp. 80-81). “From a holistic, constructivist perspective, all children simple engage in the process of learning as much as they can in a particular subject area; how much and exactly what they learn will depend on their backgrounds, interests and abilities” (Stainback & Stainback, 1992, p.7).
During the Odyssey event the community was very integrated; founders mingled alongside new teachers, and presenters ate lunch side-by-side with interns. There was no segregation of teachers regardless of their background, length of service or subject area. The experience was created so that all went through the formation process; yet it allowed for individual expression. Attendees were asked to follow Adria Steinberg’s The Six A’s of Designing a Project and participate in HTH’s project tuning protocol. In addition, the attendees were encouraged to personalize the work by following their passions and using their abilities to design, build and fine-tune projects. So does one conclude that the attendees had an equitable experience? From my participation and observations I would say yes; they were immersed in the same “classroom” of events and workshops however their learning and outputs were not the same. Based on their talents and interpretation, they experienced and produced different results. This is in line with the idea that they were treated free from bias regarding their varied backgrounds or upcoming roles. The Odyssey scenario thereby modeled the principles of full inclusion and personalization, adhering to what I perceive is, at least in part, HTH’s definition of equity.
When I read many of the Odyssey Pre-Readings articles it seemed that a common thread was how teachers discovered that equitable did not mean the same in terms of student learning and assessment. Marc Shulman (2008) quotes one of his old professors in how equal treatment of unequals is one of the worst practices in education today. In each article there was an “Aha” moment when the teacher found a way to cross the divide of a diverse student population. This included such options as allowing students to choose the book they wanted to read and selecting the proof of learning that best fit their talents and abilities. This falls in line with another of HTH’s design principles of teachers being the designers or co-designers of a school’s curriculum and culture. I believe that John Dewey influenced this way of proceeding in his famous novel Democracy and Education (1916) where he states:
“How one person’s abilities compare in quantity with those of another is none of the teacher’s business. It is irrelevant to his work. What is required is that every individual shall have opportunities to employ his own powers in activities that have meaning” (p. 203).
At this point in my observations and readings, I am beginning to appreciate the idea of creating a space where everyone has access to learning the same ideas in different ways and how that may provide benefits to the learning process. However this is where perspective kicks in, specifically my perspective. My readings and observations left me wondering if there are different ways to structure the learning that would facilitate as many benefits but maybe with less demands on the teachers and students alike. There is a tremendous amount of work that is required to plan a unit so that all academic levels of students will have access and derive benefits from it. I know that I don’t know enough about the model yet to make any firm decisions or opinions as to how the HTH example could be improved.
My experience in educational institutions, whether as a student, teacher or administrator, is in the traditional “industrial age” model of education. Students listen to lectures, regurgitate the information and if one is lucky, transfer a bit of the knowledge to a new situation. However, here I am today: a fairly respected professional both in the corporate and educational worlds. I survived the system I was matriculated through and have witnessed many success stories of the students I have served in a traditional model. This leads me to more questions. One of my areas of inquiry surrounds the idea of equity and the full inclusion model. As I enter into this experience I have a certain perspective regarding the ideas of tracking. In the early years of my prior school I had classes that were more inclusive than tracked. We did not have many pathways through the school so a majority of the senior students were enrolled in the calculus class I taught. The math abilities of the students were definitely varied, as was their motivation to be there. Now I will be the first to say that I am not a master-teacher. I think my students would say I was a pretty good teacher because I really cared about them and the love of my subject was evident. I found this non-tracked class to be a challenge. I believe I let down students at both ends of the math-ability spectrum. In trying to not lose the lower math competency students, I felt I held back the mathletes in the class. Then when trying at the end to really focus on some of the harder concepts, I almost lost (and I’m sure frustrated) the non-mathletes. As the school grew and more pathways were defined, students with a perceived higher math ability were placed in the honors or advanced classes and for me, the instruction and rapport in the class improved (as did the test results). These experiences and others have helped form my perspective that tracking students may provide certain benefits.
In my inquiry journal I was asked to reflect upon how my own biases and/or perceptions would influence my interpretation of HTH’s core values. On August 6, 2014 I wrote, “my previous experience in traditional education has me very curious about the inclusion of all model”. I am biased, but bias does not have to be negatively connotated. In a lecture by Zoltan Sarda on the topics of observation and research we learned that our perspective influences both of those items. When we observe an event three sources of knowledge form our perspective on a situation: objective information, attributional sources and funds of knowledge. These bias our research and it is important to recognize and document them in our research. An objective item would be those pieces of information that are not affected or swayed by emotions. For example, in the Heider-Simmel (1944) experiment video an objective piece of information is that an object in the shape of rectangle was on the screen. An attributional bias I recorded in my journal was that “the large triangle aggressively batters the little triangle.” It was my opinion or perspective that it was an “aggressive” act. And in relation to my previous statements regarding my experience in traditional schools, I may provide a funds of knowledge perspective for others into research regarding the positive or negative aspects of tracking students.
My thoughts on perspective and equity were also influenced by the readings assigned, especially by the article by Lisa Delpit entitled Skills and Other Dilemmas of a Progressive Black Educator. In it Delpit (2007) describes her journey from the more progressive style of an “open-classroom” to a more traditional setting in her classroom when she, observing both the progress by her older, more traditional colleagues and the results of her students, determined that a more traditional approach is what this group of students needed. Part of her revelation was acknowledging that minority voices may have been hushed in the research of certain pedagogies and this applies equally to research colleagues as to the students in the room. Are minority students being included in the research of various programs and standards? In her conclusion she puts forth a challenge, “The key is to understand the variety of meanings available for any human interaction, and not to assume the voices of the majority speak for all,” (2007, p.185). In echoing the challenge put forth by Delpit, Nieto wrote an article about what she thinks it takes to be a good teacher where she states, “...when you have a more diverse teacher education faculty, you also have a diversity of experiences, viewpoints and expertise, and this enriches the climate for everybody,” (2006, p. 471).
These readings provided me with different perspectives regarding the full inclusion model. What I take from them is that by hearing from all of the voices in a room that has not been segregated by perceived academic ability that we can learn from all voices in a room. That there are other intangible elements of collaboration, respecting and playing off of other people’s strengths that results in a symbiotic learning environment. I do not doubt the ability of the HTH example to create successful learners, however I still have questions regarding the inclusion model for all types of students. Just as Delpit found that her black students responded better to a more traditional pedagogy, how then do we know if all students equitably benefit from the HTH example?
If I return to The Odyssey experience I believe that it represented a full inclusion model as no one was segregated by experience, subject matter or any other criteria. In interviewing one of the participants, they stated that they believed they would have benefited from a session grouped by subject area and another stated that after being an academic coach they were fairly well versed in HTH’s principles but could have gained more from direct learning/teaching strategies. The question of equity that then comes to my mind is, do the benefits that persons gain from working in a full inclusion model outweigh the possible individual growth that could be achieved by a more segregated approach to learning? If the Odyssey participants had been given the opportunity to meet, at least in some fashion, by criteria such as subject area or previous involvement with PBL/HTH, could it have been a more helpful experience?
One of my cohort members defined equity as when you allow all people to reach their full potential by having control over their own destiny. My question is whether the full inclusion model follows that definition of equity? If a full inclusion classroom includes the aspects of personalization and differentiation does all of that combine to allow individual students to reach their full potential and is therefore equitable? Based on my prior learning and teaching experiences, I am not sure at this moment whether all are reaching their full potential in a given subject area when using a full inclusion model. However, I will restate my query that even if some academic content is not fully developed is that an acceptable loss or trade off to the benefits or results that an inclusive, equitable model may provide?
I respect the many voices that speak to the benefits of this model, from Ron Berger (2003) speaking to the idea that building a culture is paramount to creating teachers and students who care about the work, to the founders of HTH, Larry Rosenstock and Rob Riordan, who voiced with such passion and dedication to learning the results of their research and continually examination of the HTH experience. My hope for my research once again returns to Delpit and even Ladson-Billings whose comments that in potentially building a new educational future that it could be a place where “we could conduct multiple projects using multiple approaches,” (2006, p. 10). I hope to research if learning environments could benefit from multiple educational structures for the varying needs of students and still remain equitable.
So as I conclude my first course in my graduate studies I am grateful for the methods and opportunities to learn by listening, observing and reflecting on practices that seek equity and the desire to build life long learners. I do not yet have the answers to the questions I posed regarding equity but hope that the learning experiences with my cohort, teachers and school site this year provide me with much knowledge so as to form an educated opinion. As Eisner so eloquently stated, “I learned what to look for, and I could recognize quality when I saw it. In addition, I could give you reasons for my judgement” (2004, p. e-2). I will remember that I bring perspectives to this process that should be noted, and challenged, during this year and beyond. Combining all of these elements I aspire to be a researcher and a leader who listens and is informed , yet continually open to better practices.
References:
Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Reading culture: contexts for critical reading and writing, 180-185.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Eisner, E. (2004). The roots of connoisseurship and criticism: A personal journey. In Alkin, M.
Evaluation Roots. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (n.d.). Inclusion versus Full Inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 80-81. Retrieved from http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2357/2414567/Volume_medialib/Profiles/pp2b.pdf
High Tech High. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hightechhigh.org/
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Nieto, S. (2006). Solidarity, courage and heart: what teacher educators can learn from a new generation of teachers. Intercultural Education, 17(5), 457-473.
Shulman, Marc (2008). Equity in assessment. UnBoxed, 1.
Steinberg, A. (1998). Real learning, real work: School-to-work as high school reform. New York: Routledge.
Inquiry Journal
Lectures by Robert Riordan, Larry Rosenstock, Zoltan Sarda, Kelly Wilson
Learning to Listen - This link contains an excerpt from my Inquiry Journal. It was an exercise led by Rob Riordan on the importance of listening and reflecting on equity. This exercise, along with other interviewing techniques, really opened my eyes to the benefits of listening.