TOPIC: Which changes would you suggest for your school? Why? Which change would you not recommend? Why?
METHOD: Chat session on July 14, 2000 from 3:00 - 4:00 p.m.
PROBLEMS: None
The group began by agreeing that most of the ideas were great, but thought they would be challenging to implement. We began by discussing the portfolio / student database (Wiggins), and its uses for assessment. We saw the merit in what students can learn from the reflections, but had concerns about continuity from one grade to another, students transferring from schools, consistency of teacher participation, and hardware reliability. We agreed that if teachers were behind the idea and student work was backed up regularly, this program would be exciting. We would also like to see some college departments besides the fine arts requiring students have portfolios for admission. This would give students an incentive for participating. In short, this is definitely something we would like to see in our classrooms.
The next articles we discussed were the Jones and Johnson pieces (business relationships). Tammy thought that "volunteers from businesses could be great role models / mentors." Mike added that input from businesses about what they desire for "skills and abilities needed in the workplace" would give schools a clearer vision for teaching. Many times schools look to businesses for the financial backing, but the employees of these businesses can function as guest speakers, evaluators, and mentors: more influential roles for young people. Even though George did not feel this would be helpful in his type of building (K-8), we want these types of relationships with businesses in our schools.
Parent roles in schools was the next topic for discussion (Haynes and Colon). We all agreed that many times we fall short of effective communication with parents. Many times we have difficulty communicating with the lower socio-economic sector of school, as well as the limited English-speaking parents. As for effective communication, we feel that it takes place more in the elementary levels, with parents becoming less involved in classrooms as students get older. But we wanted to see parents involved at the "higher" levels of the school. We want these parents to have decision making power, giving them more "responsibility" for their school. Bryan stated that if we could get parents to help "'redesign' and understand the reforms taking place in education today...they may take more investment in it and become more active. Divide them into specialized groups with a specific purpose." We felt that parents are still needed in the classroom, but we want them infused into leadership.
Later in the discussion we came back to the parent issue again, revisiting effective methods of communicating with parents. Some of the methods beyond the telephone were web pages, email, and newsletters. We noted that not all parents have access to email and web pages (digital divide). I think we all agreed that we as educators need to look at more ways of reaching parents, and keeping them informed and involved in our buildings.
As for assessment (Wiggins and Yoshida), we quickly notes how we are all frustrated with the current state of measurement. Melissa started by noting that there will always be "conflict between assessment outlined in articles ...and the fact that we give letter grades and standardized tests." Tammy echoed these thoughts, and expressed the concern for "consistency" with these standardized tests as well. Too often the tests change, as well as our student population, and these are all reflected in the state scores. The group addresses the ideas of the end of the year exhibit and student critique circles. As for the exhibit, Mike suggested that evaluators be people such as parents, community members, administrators, and even board members." Melissa added that this would be a great opportunity to "showcase that 'extra learning.'" Critique circles would also be very effective, but we would need to make sure that teachers and students were adequately trained of helpful feedback.
The final area of discussion concerned the Cahill and Hoover articles. Mike had some challenges to the article's notion of CLCs being a remedy for the weakening of families and churches. He thought that this program's ideas extended the school beyond its original role: to educate. Bryan countered, saying that he though the key was getting "everyone to work together...for the sake of the community." And Melissa added the question: "Isn't the school part of the community?" Mike understood their thoughts, but still felt that "teachers would just be stretched beyond what their time allows, to be good educators." Beyond that, the group stated that they would rather work more on improving communication, instead of having CLCs and family resource centers in their schools.
In short, we want more businesses in our schools, we want parents involved at the "upper" levels of our schools, colleges need to consider alternative assessments (portfolios), look at effective ways to improve our parent communication, and keep CLCs and LRCs out. I think Bryan echoed our sentiments best when he said, "I think we can make all this happen if planned correctly."