New Vision Staff Development

"Three powerful ideas" are explained in the article by Sparks and Hirsch. Results-driven education, system thinking, and constructivism all have positive educational outcomes in mind.

Result-driven education seems to be a somewhat obvious and redundant term. I'm not sure how this method is different from other forms of education. Perhaps it is simplistic in view, but education has always been "results driven". When one begins with an outcome in mind, the path to that outcome can be accomplished through specific tasks and information imparted. Therefore, the desired results drive the curriculum. Due to the Kentucky Reform Act, standards and test scores dictate information imparted by teachers to students. However, Kentucky claims to use a constructivist method, which would appear to be working from the opposite end of the spectrum. It would seem there is some confusion in the establishment of practices for the state.

I am not familiar with the term "system thinking", yet it appears to make good sense. Each part effects the whole; therefore, systematic planning should provide balance and equity to the curriculum. This sort of planning, it seems, would be beneficial to all districts.

Constructivism has merit on a number of levels, however, a good direct teacher will also implement the sort of inquiries that constructivism considers unique to its own philosophy. While the theory may be good for higher achieving students, lower functioning students often require more structure and more direct teaching in order to ultimately gain the basic skills necessary for higher order thinking. Again, the best direct teachers employ similar strategies of inquiry, and use far less "teacher talk" than the stereotype. Using a direct method means that the class is guided into a more specific areas, which, considering the chaos, violence, and noise levels of many classes, may be preferable to allowing students full reign over their own learning. Granted, I'm referring to classroom management, but any method can be an exciting learning experience, assuming the attitude and personal style of the teacher is compatible with the method. In my 600 hours of observations, good teachers often used a combination of methods geared toward the personalities and abilities of his students. Limiting oneself to a specific philosophy or method may not be in the best interests of the students, and in fact, may stymie the creativity and zest of the educator.

The shifts in staff development are interesting and exciting. I have yet to experience anything of the sort, and have not yet been in an environment where inservices are realistically geared to the classroom. If I decide to teach again, I hope to encounter a more progressive atmosphere where the ideas mentioned in the article can be implemented.