Lesson Study Survye 1 Teacher e-mail

Teacher Comments via E-Mail

Following the September 20, 2000 Lesson Study Day

Dear Mr. Shearon,

Thank you so much for asking the teacher's their opinions about the planning day. I've been teaching nearly thirty years and it is the first time a board member has ever asked us our opinion that I can remember. Also thank you for helping us to have some planning days to work on lessons. The majority of my faculty is excited to have some time to plan together. We high school teachers are so isolated and never have any time to plan with even our own department. The idea that we can plan together and improve on lessons from constructive criticism from other teachers in our own building is exciting. Thank you for your time.

****************

Mr Shearon,

I recently took your survey and found that not many questions addressed

teacher concerns, to my dismay. I completed the "Core Planning Day" on Wed.

and here are the questions I have.

1. Do you simply want teachers to work collaboratively, or do you want

teachers to change their entire teaching style, as the book suggests?

2. If we are expected to change our teaching styles (which might be a good

idea) how do you suggest changing the entire culture of our schools

(parenting styles, entertainment, language barriers) which effect student

learning as much as any teacher can? (the book went on and on about culture)

3. Does it seem to you that the rigid and extensive structure of core

curriculum goes against many ideas presented in the book?

4. How did Metro find the money to purchase a book for every teacher when

many of the schools I have been in did not have enough classrooms, teachers,

or books for the number of students enrolled? Were the books donated?

5. If we were simply expected to work collaboratively, as your survey

suggests, why was that not highlighted?

6. Is six hours in one year enough to bring about the change that the book

prescribes?

I don't want to sound angry, because I am not. We teachers only want the

best for the students we teach, and we do not feel that taking six days of

instruction away from them, without more specific results prescribed, is the

best thing for them. Many teachers were also hoping to get some time to

plan ahead for the next six weeks. We would greatly appreciate a little

extra time to plan some great lessons in advance, and also would enjoy time

to plan collaboratively with colleagues. If that was the main idea of Wed.,

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I realize that we still have 5 days that might

bring more enlightenment about our goal, but there are many aspects of The

Teaching Gap that can never happen in this contry (such as leaving your

class with 2 student monitors) not from lack of effective teaching, but

because of our culture, which will take much more effort to change (I am all

for this change) than six days will provide. If I and my colleagues have

missed the point, please let us know.

I truly appreciate you opening up this avenue of communication. Often

teachers feel like they are guinea pigs of experiments and have no say in

the matter.

Thanks for your time.

And here's my response:

Thank you so much for your post. I learn a lot from discussions, and especially from feedback from teachers. I'll try to give a thorough response.

I admit to being the first to see the possibility of incorporating lesson study into the extra planning time recommendation that came out of negotiations (and using it as a way to urge some of my fellow Board members to believe that such time could be valuable and worth trading off against instructional time). However, the implementation that you see wasn't from me. That came from a committee of teachers, principals, and central office staff that worked many hours right before school started to wrestle with the idea of lesson study, adopt it, and plan a path to its implementation in MNPS. I think that's important background for some of my discussion of your questions. I'll note as I go along where things came from the committee, but other than those things, the following thoughts are only mine.

"1. Do you simply want teachers to work collaboratively, or do you want teachers to change their entire teaching style, as the book suggests? "

I want teachers to do lesson study. That is working together collaboratively. And, it is possible that it may, over time, make some significant changes in the general approach to teaching. But it is not just collaborative effort, and it will not necessarily result in immediate change. I set forth my understanding of lesson study in my motion at the Board table (it's on my web site). It involves teachers, working in small groups, selecting an aspect of student achievement on which they think they can improve, researching what is known about learning in that area, designing a lesson or assignment to accomplish their goal, one teacher teaching the lesson while the others observe and then the group analyzing the result, revision, demonstration to peers, and publication. To me, the strength of this structure is that it begins with the big picture and a focus on student achievement, incorporates professional development, but presses on to actually take the goals and research to the nitty-gritty, real-world level of an actual lesson. This is the "ecological validity" concept mentioned in the book. It is focused collaboration directed to a product. IT IS NOT A PRESCRIPTIVE DIRECTION TO ADOPT JAPANESE (OR ANY OTHER) TEACHING METHODS!

"2. If we are expected to change our teaching styles (which might be a goodidea) how do you suggest changing the entire culture of our schools (parenting styles, entertainment, language barriers) which effect student learning as much as any teacher can? (the book went on and on about culture)"

I think, and I think the book suggests, that schools have a culture to themselves, separate and distinct from, though influenced by, the culture around them. The process of lesson study, I believe, will affect that school culture. The school culture will affect the culture of the community around it to some extent, but the school culture can change significantly and maintain itself without substantial changes in the surrounding culture. Sure it would be helpful if more parents did a better job, if our society lauded effort and achievement and creativity instead of just success, if children weren't in abusive homes and violent environments, etc. But, our primary job is to make schools the best, the healthiest, and the most motivating places we can within the context in which they exist. That means making the work we offer and try to sell to students (the "lessons" and "assignments") as good as we can make it. To me, lesson study shows a great likelihood of letting teachers have the time and structure to do that.

"3. Does it seem to you that the rigid and extensive structure of core curriculum goes against many ideas presented in the book?"

What I noticed in the book was a requirement that a district have a coherent, specific curriculum in order to allow the work of teachers on lessons to mesh into that framework. From that perspective, isn't the structured, sequential, specific, content-rich nature of Core Curriculum a strong basis for lesson study? If a team in one school works on a lesson (or series of lessons) aimed at the 2d six weeks, won't that work benefit all teachers in the system precisely because of Core? Please understand that I'm not arguing Core is perfect and doesn't need changed. It's been in place for a few years now, those of you in the classrooms have experience with it, so if there aren't some great ideas out there about how to improve it, I'd be surprised. And if there aren't some disagreements as to what would constitute improvement, I'd also be surprised. So, we need a way to have a discussion of Core and where we should be headed with it. I'm not sure how to do that. I would kind of like to see what comes out of lesson study, what areas teams choose to work on, before we decide. It may be that, by analyzing those choices, and thinking about why some areas may end up with more good lesson studies than others, we will begin to see a direction. But, I definitely do not think a specific, sequenced, content-rich curriculum is a hindrance to lesson study.

"4. How did Metro find the money to purchase a book for every teacher when many of the schools I have been in did not have enough classrooms, teachers, or books for the number of students enrolled? Were the books donated?"

The idea for buying the books came from the Lesson Study Committee, and I think from one of the teacher members. The belief was that this would be one time when teachers were put on a level playing field with principals and central office staff. Maybe that wasn't a good idea, but I sure thought it was. Would we be having this discussion if teachers hadn't had the book? As for money, I can tell you it didn't come from textbook accounts, funds for personnel, etc. Actually, I think it was a grant, but that's immaterial. We could have spent grant funds in a different way. For some one who believes, as I do, that teacher-led instructional improvement is critical to the future of this system, it seeems very reasonable to invest in something that could help establish a common vision of how that might work. And, to the best of my knowledge, we have enough money in the budget to buy approved books for our students. However, I'll ask about that next Tuesday night.

"5. If we were simply expected to work collaboratively, as your survey suggests, why was that not highlighted?"

Without knowing what happened at your school, this is hard to answer. We want small teams of teachers to complete the lesson study process this year and publish the results of their efforts. If that didn't come through Wednesday, I hope it will become clearer as the process develops.

"6. Is six hours in one year enough to bring about the change that the book prescribes?"

Maybe there's a little unintentional mistatement in your question. We have five days this year which the Lesson Study Committee chose to use as the time to do the lesson study process. That looks to me like enough "extended thinking time" to allow the completion of the process and showcasing of their result by each team. Will one year change teaching and learning as we know it in Metro? No. Do we want to do that? Maybe in some areas, but surely not in all. We just want to get better, as much as possible, and year by year, at engaging students in work that will challenge and intrigue them, in which they will find some intrinsic satisfaction, in which they will persist despite difficulties and to which they will give a reasonable effort, and from which they will gain skills and knowledge that they, their parents and this community will value.

"We teachers only want the best for the students we teach, and we do not feel that taking six days of instruction away from them, without more specific results prescribed, is the best thing for them. Many teachers were also hoping to get some time to plan ahead for the next six weeks. We would greatly appreciate a little extra time to plan some great lessons in advance, and also would enjoy time to plan collaboratively with colleagues. If that was the main idea of Wed., I'm sorry I misunderstood."

I think the lesson study process is "time to plan some great lessons in advance." It is also teaching those lessons with your peers and teammates watching, deconstructing that lesson, improving it, demonstrating it to a larger group and publishing the result. If I'm understanding your comment, and some others that I have received correctly, there may be a bit of discussion needed about planning for six weeks core units and the slightly more focused lesson study process, but I don't see the two as completely at odds with one another. Lesson study just requires some of that planning to become more focused and to be carried through into development of a lesson or series of lessons, or assignments, and the teaching, evaluating, improving, demonstrating and publishing of those lessons.

Again, thanks for your comments. Please feel free to share my responses as widely as you wish. Remember, these are mostly my thoughts, not the positions of the Lesson Study Committee. I'll be sharing your comment (anonymously, unless you give me permission to credit you), and my response, plus other feedback I've received with that Committee and my fellow Board members. And I would suggest that you and fellow teachers at your school include the Committee in your discussions. But, I am very appreciative of being a part of this process.

*****************

Dear Mr. Shearon,

I have a few questions regarding funding. What was the total cost for

the books (The Teaching Gap) for all the teachers?

Why are we using a 6 year old text for Spelling? I would like to know

the total dollar amount spent to purchase these texts. Several friends in

other schools had old texts - the same text - and received new ones. Also,

why did we not purchase what the adoption committee recommended? What is

the purpose of using an out-dated text?

How much money is being spent on testing first and second grade

students with the Terra Nova tests?

What is the rationale for spending this money in the first and second grades?

Please resond as soon as possible. I know you are extremely busy.

Here's my response:

Thanks for your questions. I'll try to respond.

I don't know the total cost of purchasing the books as that was not a Board decision. That idea was raised in the Lesson Study Committee, by one of the teacher representatives I believe, and was approved by central office staff. I know that when I bought copies of the book to give out to some principals and folks in the central office, the cost was around $11 per book. I have also heard that they were funded out of a grant, but haven't confirmed that. Below my signature line is a set of questions and responses I've just finished from another teacher, one of which goes into this area in more detail.

I have no idea why we wouldn't have followed the adoption committee's recommendation on any textbook. I can't remember the Board ever deviating from those recommendations. I will ask staff for a report on spelling texts.

I will also ask about the Terra Nova tests. We are required by the state to have a way of reporting on reading and math for 1st and 2d graders, even though our former Commissioner of Education convinced the legislature to take 2d grade out of TCAP and the state thus quit paying for the tests. The costs the next year, for Nashville and most other systems int he state which continued to use those tests both for information and to meet the state requirement, was over $8 per test, compared to about $3.50 the state was paying. I have suggested we look into a cooperative buying arrangement with other systems, but I'm unsure whether we've been able to implement that yet. I'll ask staff again about this.

**********************

#4 (Don't know why this one formatted so unusually, but...)

Hi Dave,

I have been at this education business for about thirty years and I still love what I do. We met all day on Wednesday and discussed The Teaching Gap.

I have experienced team planning in another school system. We released students 2 hours early on alternating Wednesdays. During that time frame, teams developed units of study and lesson plans to address curriculum needs. We observed test scores, especially "item analysis" information, to define strengths and weaknesses of curriculum presentation and student proficiency. Many tests were our own evaluation instruments.

We were so successful, that a math program we devised was adopted by the entire school district. The idea of having some freedom to try something was a motivation for us. As new programs are given to teachers to help us guide our students, that freedom must exist.

I may be in error, but I recall the book stating that many of the successful schools in Germany and Japan were led by teachers. And, most of the schools that I have been fortunate to be part of,

that were highly successful, were either site-based managed by designation, or were led by an administrator with foresight to allow teachers to utilize their strengths to devise teaching methods.

Were you ever part of a corporation that offered stock options or profit sharing? A person really takes ownership and pride in the success of the company. Suppose a teacher would be offered the option to become a stock holder in Nashville Metropolitan Public Schools. Takers would be few and far between because the system is guided, not by workers on the line, but by individuals, who may not have current knowledge of product development.

May I suggest that when we do our planning sessions, administrators from the Board of Education offices and school board members attend the sessions? I would further suggest that administrative personnel become substitute teaching professionals on a once a month basis.

Teachers are being told to acquire a substitute teacher before planning to attend professional development sessions. Adding administrators to the substitute pool would get them into the "factory" and would allow for professional development as suggested in The Teaching Gap.

I am remaining very positive regarding the potential for our planning sessions. I am sure there will be some great lesson plans written, as many of have been doing this for years, and I further believe it is the responsibility of experienced teachers to model and lead in this endeavor.

****************

After working with my fellow faculty members on this mandated exercise, I

can truely say that this is for the most part a wasted effort. It became

obvious very early in our study that the information in the book clearly

indicates that without a cultural change in the United States of America

that would have us become Japanese or German, such teaching methods can not

work. We are not comparing apples to apples. I enjoyed working with my

fellow employees. Wouldn't it be nice to have two to four hours each week

to colabortate with my fellow teachers. That would probably improve

students learning.

I am most concerned that our administration did not read this book and

understand that it is not applicable to teaching in Tennessee.

*****************

I am very excited about lesson study. My group and I have already identified a need in our school and have decided on a direction we would like our lesson to go. I would like for you and the board to concider that the Japanesse school have fewer skills that they work on in a year and they also go more in depth with the study of those skills. I am a sixth grade math teacher and we have 18 exit skills and we have to cover 48 skills totalin 6 six weeks time. That is a lot of skills that we have to "skim" over and never get to explore fully. I would like to also say that I looped with my kids one year from 5th to 6th grade. We did Jasper of Woodbury Adventures during math class and they really retained more from 5th to 6th grade. I did not here we didn't do that last year like I am now. Maybe like the Science kits we could use the Jasper Adventures for math.

Thank you for your time.

******************

Hello! My name is ***** ******* and I teach at **** Elementary School. **** ******* called me today and also faxed me your email requesting comments about our first day focusing on Lesson Study. I understand she shared with you how excited I was about this process.

There are many reasons why I am so excited about this process. One is the staff development. I have been so very fortunate over the last few years to be involved in some dynamic staff development. I feel as if so many things are coming together in this one project! For example, I became involved in the Schools for Thought program. So much of the book the Teaching Gap spoke to me about what SFT is trying to help teachers do. SFT prepared me to look at my teaching methods and examine my vision of what this classroom could look like. I'll admit to you and anyone else that this has been THE hardest thing I've done professionally. Many, many times I wanted to teach the way I 'knew'. I struggled (and still do!) with holding onto a vision of what teaching in a constructivist classroom looked like. This vision has not been a part of my teaching culture! The support structure built into the SFT program has been wonderful. I would not be as far along in the process of examining and changing my teaching methods if it were not for the wonderful people at Vanderbilt who ask me these amazing, probing questions which make me think about my teaching!

Another opportunity that I have had is my involvement in the MNPS Data Study which culminated in attending the Urban Schools Conference in Atlanta last year. SO much of what I heard spoke to me about my efforts in continuing to examine and changing my teaching methods. It was a boost to continue trying and it came at just the right time! I felt so alone in my efforts and was ready to throw in the towel. Change is difficult...and it is downright HARD!

Lesson Study has arrived at just the right moment. I truly believe in examining, reflecting, testing, attempting teaching methods to benefit my students. I am so thankful that the Board of Education is providing teachers with an environment where this is acceptable. Change without support is difficult - if not doomed. Lesson Study is designed to have support built in from our colleagues. It also has the support of the Board. I get a real sense that the Board is listening and INTERESTED in what we as teachers have to say. Our Board member, **. ******, came to some of our sessions. I get a sense of support from the Board as a whole that has not been present in years.

I've been a cheerleader for this process since I went to the training session at Joe C. Davis YMCA Camp. I believe my enthusiasm has helped win over a few 'non'believers or doubters. Beginning the presentation this morning at Goodlettsville Elementary was frightening. I had heard the rumbles and I could hear the grumbles as we began. I thought, "Oh my..this is going to be a LONG day." My heart was in my stomach. I felt such a responsibility to reach my colleagues and let them know what an opportunity this could be. Mr. Shearon, I have to tell you that it was not the same environment within a half hour. We may still have some doubters..some naysayers, but I truly believe that the majority of my faculty do believe that this is about teacher empowerment. The tone of the room changed. Instead of comments whispered behind hands, teachers were nodding their heads.

I am excited and continue to be excited about this process. It is such a tantalizing vision of the future of education in Nashville. I am eager to be part of this process of growth.

Thank you for the opportunity,

***************************

My name is **** ****** and I am a Physical Education teacher at *********

Elementary. I am ** and graduated from ***** University. I have been

in MNPS for three years. I read the book and it has impacted me greatly.

I have heard many different rumors about who purchased the books for us.

Did you pay for them? Can I reimburse someone? I thought it was that

good. It has certainly shaken the system. I want to also know how the

rest of the board has reacted. Will this be the start of a concerted

effort by our Nashville policy makers to avoid more broad based top down

reform and let the "Lesson Study" theories run their course? Thank you for

your time and I look forward to your reply.

***********************

I wanted to add a few comments regarding lesson study. Our first planning

day was a total lack of time. (We won't get another chance for collaboration

until November)! We already know that we need collaborative planning time.

We know that "two heads are better than one". I am amazed that the system

spent money on this book. Maybe some schools have never though of or discuss

this topic before, but we have beaten it to death at ****.

Please, just let us have some planning time to get with other teachers and

really plan. We don't need to sit in a meeting all day discussing the

importance of collaboration. We need to be given time to collaborate. I hope

that our next planning day is spent appropriately- planning.

I appreciate the fact that the board recognizes the need for collaborative

planning and are trying, in their own feeble way, to support us, but the

"powers that be" never seem to get the message. Just leave us alone and give

us some time and we can produce meaningful learning environments for our

students.

Thanks for the post. I had heard from ******* that the ********** faculty were already working in this direction. Maybe the Lesson Study Committee (chaired by Tom Ward, with principals, teachers and central office members), didn't need to recommend the purchase of the book. I know Helen McMackin, who first suggested the idea, thought it would be important, for once, to give teachers a chance to have the same materials in a professional development program that administrators and principals got. I thought it was a good idea, and many teachers have indicated that they found it very helpful. Not all, though, and that's understandable.

When I first read the book, it really clicked with me. I'd been looking for a way to build a structure for collaborative reflection and development of lessons into our system, and this seemed to offer it. After buying the book for principals, teachers, and administrators and reviewing it with them, they seemed to feel that the complete lesson study process would be new and different for our system. My impression was that the collaboration focused on a learning goal, and culminating in a lesson or series of lessons taught before observers with critical feedback, revision, and finally, publication, was different from the general approach we have used. With the proposal to switch six days of instruction to planning and professional time coming before the Board, and the resistance on the Board to that investment, I believe a critical element in passage of that investment was the support that of those who had read the book and considered its implications for our system.

I'm sure ********* is ahead of the curve on this one, and may have found the first day somewhat repetitive of work you've already done. But, from a system perspective, I think time spent getting a common framework and vocabulary was important, and I support the Committee's approach. One of the advantages I see is that, teachers in specialized areas, or working on a new course such as you have, will be able to work in inter-school lesson study teams to develop a lesson study, even though they may be the only teacher in that area in their school. The common framework and vocuabulary will make that possible.