My Literacy Project

Teaching Literacy: A Workshop Approach

Overview:

The Course: My chosen group is a Grade 9 Applied class.

The Students: The course consists of 16 students. In my observation and prior knowledge of these students, I have assessed that eight are performing at a Grade 7 or 8 level, four are well below grade level, functioning at a Grade 5 level, and four are identified with and IEP, all for ADD or ADHD, and are also low functioning.

Of the students at Grade 7-8, four are motivated and hard working, five are not very motivated and seem very introverted. The four at grade 4 and 5 are also very introverted, and sometimes defiant when asked to complete work independently. The groups will help solve this. Those with ADD or ADHD are all very hyperactive and need a variety of stimuli to be productive.

Unit of Study: We are studying Short Stories for this unit.

Text: “The Sniper” by Liam O’Flattery. My class is 10 boys and 6 girls, so this is a good selection due to the quick pace and action that can hook a male reader. The girls will appreciate the suspense and heroism of the protagonist. I have done this story in the past and it always gets rave reviews. You can find it at the link below:

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/sniper.html

Skill/Strategy:

1) Locating Elements of Fiction: After giving the students lessons on the different Elements of Fiction, I have decided to start modeling how to locate these elements, and focus on one particular element per day to strengthen the students understanding. Understanding these terms as terms is one thing, but putting this knowledge into practice is something they all struggle with. These workshops will make this more of a hands-on skill. The specific elements I will be concentrating on are Setting, Characterization, Conflict. Each workshop deals with a different element, to help increase deeper understanding, which appeals to these types of Applied readers. By the end of the week, the students will have practiced locating these elements, and will be able demonstrate their knowledge more independently on a future site passage test.

2) Gist Statement Exercise: This will begin the five-day unit, to familiarize the students with making predictions and recognizing vocabulary.

3) Summarizing and Inference Skills: I will also work on improving their Literacy skills using a variety of techniques from the Think Literacy Document, including Graffiti Exercise, Bookmarking, and Summary Techniques. This will result in the students creating a short summary of the story, and is also a skill for next year’s OSSLT test.

The Workshop Plans

Before Teaching/Teacher Tasks:

· Create Story Chunks: The story itself will be broken into four smaller pieces of 400 words each, original text is 1600 words. This will allow for a closer study, and not overwhelm students who already have problems focusing, and using short-term memory.

· Give purpose – Reading for understanding, comprehension of short story model, locating specific elements in a text are all goasl to be accomplished by this group.

· Activate prior knowledge –Background on Irish civil unrest, Think Aloud about what causes people to start a war, the costs and casualties of war, which will involve the students to think about an idea that may be foreign to them.

· Choose best strategy – Bookmark Summary, Individual Literature Circles, Making Inferences, Chunk Material will allow for a variety of Literacy tasks, and will target the skills that need to be mastered.

· Instructions: These will be repeated by teacher every day, but will also be written out and attached to each group station. This will help the ADHD students who forget details and steps.

Grouping Students: Rationale

These groups will be determined before the workshops start. Since I have some students who are stronger than others, and I have students who have ADHD and ADD, the groups will be heterogeneous but the roles of each group member will change from day to day, and groups will be modeled after the “Grouping Without Tracking” method as discussed in the document “Differentiating Through Flexible Grouping” from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh at: http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/flexibleGrouping.pdf

This model will keep the students engaged and active, which I find cuts down on behavioral problems as well as focusing problems. Students will work in groups but also independently to study the story and work together. The stronger students will be chosen as Group Leaders, which will rotate every day of the workshops. Each student will rotate into another group, but maintain their assigned role. Since I have eight students that are strong Applied students, this will provide them will a chance to take charge. This will help keep the groups focused and productive. The students who are weaker in reading and inference will be assigned to be recorders, as well as Summarizers, since these are skills they can manage to complete for their group, but this will also help them refine these skills now and for the OSSLT next year. (See Workshop Graffiti Exercise Roles, Day TWO)

Class Length: Each period is 75 minutes in length

Day One:

a) Skill/Strategy: Thinking Aloud, Making Gist Statements, Making Inferences based on Vocabulary

b) Text Under Study: The story will be “The Sniper” for the next three workshops, broken into three smaller, 550 word pieces.

c) Modelling/Instruction: For the instructional part of the lesson, since this is the introduction, I will need to exceed the 10 minute model just for today.

· I will give a brief, overview of the Irish civil war as background to the story, and what “civil war” means as a term. This will be on Powerpoint. (5 minutes)

· I will also ask them to Think Aloud about the causes of civil war, to get them motivated to read the story, and promote sharing of ideas, since they will be working in groups. Their ideas will be put onto the board under the heading “Causes of War.” (10-15 minutes)

· I will model an example on the LCD or overhead projector of the Probable Passage they will be working on for this period. It is a worksheet from the Think Literacy Document at the following link on page 13 :

http://www.elan.on.ca/ThinkLiteracy/ThinkLiteracy.doc

· Students will be shown a Model of how to complete this sheet using a group of words from a popular fairy tale that the students would have prior knowledge of to reinforce the task. (10 minutes)

d) Groups: Students will then be put into four groups of four students. For this exercise, I will put the IEP and weaker students in a homogeneous group, since they might require extra help in completing the exercise. I will monitor all groups, but keep close to the weaker group for added assistance.

e) Group Work:

· I will tell the students they have 20 minutes to complete the worksheets. They will work collaboratively to place the words in the Word List at the top into one of the suitable boxes.

· This will help them create their Gist Statement about what they think the story may be about. They must put the words under the headings Setting, Character, Problem or Outcome, and if they are unsure about a word, it goes to the Unknown list.

· Students will then work to create a Gist Statement about what they think the story is about. (20 minutes)

f) Conclusion: Students will select one member of each group to be the Speaker. I will ask all four groups what they came up with, where they placed their words, and what their Gist statements are. This will be another Think Aloud, and I will put each group’s results up on the LCD or overhead sheet. (15 minutes)

Their final task is to take a piece of paper, fold it into a slimmer rectangle, and write down their group’s Gist statements. This will be their Bookmark, which we will use to study the story all week. (5 minutes)

I will conclude the class by asking them to go home tonight and define four vocabulary words to add to their Bookmarks. The words are spasmodically, parapet, silhouetted, drought.

DAY TWO:

a) Skill/Strategy: Today will focus on Summarizing, locating Setting details, and Making Inferences

b) Text Under Study: Same text

c) Modelling:

· I will explain the roles for each group and reveal the groups for today.

· For today, I will explain the task of Highlighting the story to find Setting details, which is known as a Graffiti exercise to reinforce the Elements of Fiction.

· I will quickly review the definition of Setting, and model what types of information they should look for, such as key words about direction, time, place and mood. We can brainstorm these as well on the board.

· They are also working together to summarize the first third of the story. I will stress they must find three key plot points and underline them as an ongoing summary.

· Students will end the group work by making a Prediction statement about the second half of the story, which they will do independently, but share with their group members. I will model this by using LCD/overhead after students have moved into their groups.

d) Grouping: Each student will play a role in the group:

Leader: Keeps everyone on task, composes written answers

Element Highlighter: Details of chosen Literary Elements will be underlined with a colored marker by this person

Speaker: Will discuss the group’s ideas at the end of class and Read Aloud

Summarizer: In charge of highlighting 3-5 important plot points of story section with a purple magic marker.

As mentioned above, the groups will be heterogeneous for the rest of the workshops. The students will rotate jobs every day. Each task will strengthen Literacy skills. Though the work is done as a team, each person has an independent job. The rationale is that a mixed group will foster better results, and the stronger students can help the weaker students in the task. Also, the other identified students will not distract the other identified students.

Each day I will assign new roles within the group. This also promotes a routine of group work, which struggling learners need, but also allows the novelty of a new role every day. Even if they struggle, the other stronger students can motivate the groups.

e) Group Work:

· Students will sit in their groups after my ten-minute lesson. They will sit in the groups, and the students will each have a copy of the Section One of “The Sniper,” as well as one Group Story sheet (same section) they will use to Graffiti in the center of the desks. The Group Story is slightly larger in print so students can read it from afar and mark it with more ease.

· Desks are grouped into fours, and each station contains a red marker and a purple marker. These are for the designated Highlighters.

· The Speaker will read aloud the first section of the story, to generate interest and engage the group.

· Students will then review the definition of Setting, and work to find ALL the setting details they could (at least 3-4 sentences minimum) that clearly show Setting. This will be discussed, underlined with a red marker by the Highlighter when the final decisions are made.

· Students then have to answer three Literacy questions, which will be the same for each Element studied, and taped to the desks next to the instructions:

1) From the highlighting, what are some directly stated details about (Setting, Character, Conflict)?

2) What are some details that you can infer about the story, but are not directly stated? Why do you infer these?

3) Make two predictions about the next section of the story, and add this prediction to your Bookmark. Explain your choices with proof form the story.

Students will discuss these questions together, and the Leader will compose the group’s response on the Group Story Section (space will be allotted for the answer.) The rest of the students must record this in their Student Notebooks.

The last task is for the group to discuss at least three important plot points in this section. The Summarizer must underline with a purple marker the three sentences the group feels is the most important plot points of the story.

Once this is done, the students must independently paraphrase these three sentences, and add these three points to their Bookmark. This will help them recall the story details for tomorrow.

This group work should take 45-50 minutes to complete each day.

g) Conclusion: The Speaker will discuss the results of their group and show the highlighted paper to the class for their choices. Once all groups have a chance, I will clarify any incorrect choices and praise the right ones so students are not confused.

I will ask students to Think Aloud their predictions for the next part of the story, which I will put on the board. This will end the class with an interest to read on tomorrow.

DAY THREE

a) Skill/Strategy: Locating Characterization Details, Making Inferences, Summarizing

b) Text Under Study: Same text

c) Modelling:

o I will ask the students to refer to their Bookmarks and review what happened in the story yesterday.

o I will review what Characterization and model some key words to search for. They will look for traits, physical features, and actions.

o I will use Section One that the students worked on yesterday to locate one or two Characterization details, since they will be concentrating on Section Two today. I will underline these sentences on the Overhead projector.

o I will review the Group Work expectations from yesterday.

o I will reveal the new groups and ask students to get into their assigned groups.

d) Grouping Students: Rotate students into new roles by assuming the next job from the list provided.

e) Group Work: The students will do the same tasks for the remainder of the workshops. The Graffiti exercise uses different colored markers for each element:

o Red – Setting (Day Two)

o Blue – Characterization (Day Three)

o Yellow – Conflict (Day Four)

o Purple – Summary (every day)

· Students will examine the second part of the story, selecting and highlighting these sentences.

· When finished, the students can also go back and examine Section One of “The Sniper” for character details that may exist.

f) Conclusion: The Speaker will discuss the results of their group and show the highlighted paper to the class for their choices. Once all groups have a chance, I will clarify any incorrect choices and praise the right ones so students are not confused.

I will ask students to Think Aloud their predictions for the next part of the story, which I will put on the board. This will end the class with an interest to read on tomorrow.

DAY FOUR

a) Skill/Strategy: Locating Conflict, Making Inferences, Summarizing

b) Text Under Study: Same text

c) Modelling:

o I will ask the students to refer to their Bookmarks and review what happened in the story yesterday.

o I will review what Conflict means by showing students three small Site Passage paragraphs from other stories, to emphasize difference in types of conflict

o I will use Section Two that the students worked on yesterday to locate one or two details, since they will be concentrating on Section Three of “The Sniper” today. I will underline these sentences on the Overhead projector.

o I will reveal the new groups and ask students to get into their assigned groups.

d) Grouping Students: Rotate students into new roles – they will also assume the next job from the list provided.

e) Group Work:

· The students will do the same tasks today, only looking for Conflicts in the story and details that illustrate these conflicts.

· We will make a brief Character List on the board branching from yesterday’s class, so they can assign conflict to these names.

· Students will make a Chart of the following headings: Person vs. Person, Person vs. Self, Person Vs. Nature. They will find all the examples they can of these types of conflicts, highlight them in the story, and add the names to the chart.

· Students can then look back into the first two parts of the story and highlight Conflict details there as well that may not be contained in the third part.

· The final question of the three will no longer be applicable, so it will change to the following:

3) Comment on the end of the story. In your opinion, was it a suitable ending or not?

f) Conclusion: The Speaker will discuss the results of their group and show the highlighted paper to the class for their choices. Once all groups have a chance, I will clarify any incorrect choices and praise the right ones so students are not confused.

We will discuss the Predictions that were accurate, and what lead the students to predict these outcomes. I will tell them to finish their Book Marks, which they will use tomorrow.

DAY FIVE

a) Skill/Strategy: Summarizing, Paragraph Structure

b) Text Under Study: Same text

c) Modelling:

o I will ask the students to refer to their Bookmarks and review what happened in the story yesterday.

o I will instruct the students to create a comprehensive Summary of the story they have just read. I will ask the students to Think Aloud and brainstorm a list of things to remember when creating a good Summary. The list should include adding only important details, omitting unnecessary ideas, never including dialogue, and rewriting in their own words so that the ideas are still clear and easy to read.

o I will instruct the students to get back into their groups.

d) Grouping Students: Students will rotate into new groups for the fifth day. Since the groups worked together on the bookmarks, the information may be similar. I will jigsaw the groups so that everyone is with new partners. This will provide a variation on the summary exercise.

e) Group Work:

· Students will compare their Bookmarks. Students will work together and start combing through the four bookmarks and crossing out any details that are redundant.

· All students will record in full sentences the details to create the Summary. In partners (two and two, Leaders and Summarizers and Speakers and Highlighters) will edit each other’s summary.

· At the end of the time allotted, (45 minutes like the workshops) the students must all turn in their summaries.

f) Conclusion: I will collect the booklets, now highlighted in many colors, and assign a group mark for the four members of each group. I will look for accuracy and completion, as well as their collaborative answers to the questions. Students will share their Summary group experience, and as a final closer to the week, they will take 5 minutes to write a small paragraph on their opinion of the story, to strengthen their skills of Making Connections. The question will be:

How can you personally relate to the Sniper’s struggle in this story? Have you ever been involved in a fight or argument that was important to you?

The Location of Elements will be assessed again on an independent reading selection, where students will complete the same tasks, only without a group dynamic. A site passage test will also be given, which will be assessed and graded. This will be in the next week when we end the unit. I will select a site passage, which is smaller in length, but tests their knowledge of the literary elements.

The Crowded Curriculum and Metacognition: Is there room for thinking about thinking?

I wanted to address the idea of overcrowding in the curriculum by discussing the new expectation that has been added to the new curriculum. I also would like to offer some personal solutions I have used to integrate this idea, as well as combat the issue of crowding.
My title reflects the subject of this entry, but I suppose it is a bit misleading. Metacognition, or “learning about learning” is a practice that many qualified English teachers had already added to their usual teaching responsibilities. It was never a distinct expectation until 2007 though. Upon perusing the old curriculum, which can be found at this link: http://www.smcdsb.on.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/High%20School%20Curriculum/english1112curr.pdf. I realized that there is a strong emphasis on literature, writing, oral communication, media, as usual, but the idea of reflecting on one’s own learning is not even mentioned.

Metacognition is an important aspect of developing a student’s education. Defined as both reflecting in action and reflecting on action, it is a student’s assessment of his or her own learning. This style of learning is not new, and on the website by Joel English, he talks about this style of learning as useful to writers, but its also applicable to any student at http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/3.1/features/english/metacog.html. He frames this idea as not only educational, but necessary for any learning. His MOO style approach (you’ll have to read the website for the anagram) offers a fresh insight into this idea.

But is adding this component going to tip the scales towards padding an already overloaded curriculum? Is it one more thing an English Teacher has to manage? Will something else be sacrificed to include this expectation? I say not so.

The new curriculum has streamlined and simplified its expectations for the reader; they are revised but not changed. The introductions to every strand clearly state three or four major expectation to be accomplished. The task of metacognition is for students to integrate reflection into their education. What I have done as an English teacher to help meet this expectation is to include a six question Journal at the end of every major assignment. The students are asked specifically, based on my comments on their written assignments, what they feel they did well and what they feel they need improvement on. The assignments are returned with no rubrics, so the students will focus and not simply look at the mark and ignore the comments. This has proven successful, and takes very little time to do.

It is creative integration techniques that will help an English teacher deal with the overall expectations. Teach by strand is a popular trend that our Public boards have adopted, but seems to create a shorter timeframe to accomplish tasks. By making assignments and lessons hit several expectations, you can combat the overcrowding.

The next website was recommended by a colleague, and although it is about Biological Science, it offers a three step approach that I feel blends my ideas about the need for metacogntion, and how to manage a crowded curriculum. The site is http://www.bioassess.edu.au/bioassess/go/home/pid/43. The threestep plan is as follows:

1) Make every assessment task a valuable learning exercise
2) Use assessment to prepare students for lifelong learning
3) Assess the most important aspects of the course

I feel that it is up to the professional to implement these ideas, and metacognition, though an addition, is necessary. I believe this expectation hits all three of these steps. If students are in the dark about the way they learn and think, or if mistakes will constantly be repeated, than the quality of learning goes down.

Ontario and PEI Curriculum: A Comparative Report

In researching both Ontario’s curriculum and the curriculum of Prince Edward Island, the issue of accountability and the differences in approach between the two provinces was eye-opening. Similarities far outweighed the differences. However, the issues of time on task, streaming English, standards and testing all lead into the question I pursued; which province has a clear vision of English study and its integrity?

I researched the Ontario Curriculum, its Program Guide, and the Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner. In PEI, I visited the Curriculum document, the Program Guide, and its Learning and Teaching Resources, which can be found at the following links:

http://www.gov.pe.ca/educ/index.php3?number=71943&lang=E
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/
http://www.ocup.org/

Time on Task:

In both provinces, 110 hours is uniformly assigned as the length of any English course. The Ontario curriculum and Program Guide discuss the need for teacher-allocated unit timelines, based on nature of unit, the streams attached (Oral Communication, Writing, etc.) as well as the professional judgment of the teacher. The use of Blackline masters and other curriculum documents are offered as a guide to teacher-organized unit breakdowns. PEI supports a similar vision, and focuses on breaking units of study down according to the streams, as opposed to an interpretation of the Ontario model of integrating all streams into all units. Both provinces are uniform in their time-lengths, so comparison based solely on this idea is not as easy to judge. Specifically, the units are not timed, and many vagaries exist for both.

Streaming English

Ontario and its English streams are broken down in to Academic, Applied or Essential, which later becomes University, College or Workplace stream. There is an emphasis in Academic on theory and abstract concepts, as well as more practical applications. Applied level English focuses on essential skills, concrete examples, and familiar situations for students who struggle with the discipline. Essential is in keeping with the compulsory credit requirements, and is based on needs of the class. PEI does not stream until Grade 9, which is still considered “junior high.” The achievements are measured over a grade 7-9 grid. The curriculum addresses “all learners,” but at this stage, there are all in the same group, without any streaming. PEI also focuses explicitly on Gardner’s learning theories of Multiple Intelligences at this level. Grade 10-12 is streamed in the Program of Study, but this is not obvious in curriculum document. It is only clearly illustrated in the Program Guide, which is a severe flaw of the PEI Curriculum document in terms of teacher understanding and application. The streams in PEI are Open, Enriched, Academic, General, Practical. PEI seems to provide more options for a struggling learner, whereas Ontario has only three major stream levels. In terms of accountability, PEI takes advantage. The schism between Enriched and Academic and General and Practical allows for a more complete assessment of where a child should be place. The three-stream Ontario model sometimes allows for an error in placement to occur; students who are strong but still Locally Developed may be placed in to an Applied stream due to the vast differences in teaching approaches, whereas PEI offers an alternative in Practical. As well, the requirements of Enriched may allow a gifted student to thrive and flourish, where Ontario students who master the Academic standards may feel stifled.

Standards

PEI and its vision of standards vary somewhat from Ontario. I sampled the Grade 10 course for both provinces. In PEI’s Grade 10 course, the document offers a grid which maps the achievements to be met for 10-12, which, for accountability’s sake proved a great visual for teachers and parents. The Ontario model builds and progresses in a similar fashion, but the three-year grid is not used; looking both forwards and backwards allows for a sounder approach to program planning.

PEI modifies expectations on the grid by year for its standards; for example, for the Grade 10 expectation of speaking and listening, it posits that Grade 10 should examine the ideas of others in discussion to extend own understanding, Grade 11 should follow up on and extend others ideas in order to reflect upon their own interpretations of experience, and Grade 12 should examine other’s ideas and synthesize what is helpful to clarify and expand on their own understanding.

In Ontario’s Grade 10 Oral Communication standards, which are synonymous with the Speaking and Listening in PEI, the approach is a broader description of student expectations, with Specific Expectations clearly listed after. Grade 10 students must Listening to Understand: listen in order to understand and respond appropriately in a variety of situations for a variety of purposes; Speaking to Communicate: use speaking skills and strategies appropriately to communicate with different audiences for a variety of purposes; and Reflect on Skills and Strategies: reflect on and identify their strengths as listeners and speakers.

For accountability, PEI offers a more outlined vision of where students are coming and going, and Ontario maintains a similar platform, but it is less transparent in writing unless intense, side-by-side grave level comparisons are made. The integration of all three levels in PEI is a solid means to account for teacher practices and student achievement.

Testing:

For teacher directed unit testing, in both PEI and Ontario, no curriculum supported the mandatory test idea. Both suggested a series of various culminating activities. In PEI, each specific outcome has Suggestions for Assessment and Notes/Vignettes that give helpful hints towards what teachers should do for instruction and appropriate assessment (review note-taking, teacher observation, performance tasks, self-assessment). PEI offers comprehensive appendices that give teacher-friendly advice on assessment tasks in the curriculum document. Both provinces make limited concrete reference to testing, and a more performance task-based approach is implemented with a high emphasis on student self-evaluation.

For broad provincial testing, PEI has the Pan Canadian Assessment Program, introduced in 2007. Before then, it completed the third cycle of the School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP) with an assessment in Science (2004) and in Reading (2005).

PCAP focuses on 13-year-old in three subject areas (reading, mathematics, and science). Then, two years later, the same cohort of students will be reassessed using the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) will be administered to measure how well 15-year-old students are able to use what they have acquired in school to meet the challenges facing them as they approach completion of their compulsory schooling.

In Ontario the OSSLT test administered to every Grade 10 student, a barometer of literacy and language comprehension skills, as well as writing and understanding and engaging of texts. The test is uniformly administered to all students province-wide, and tests student on Reading Graphical Texts and Writing a Supported Opinion, as well as other varied tasks.

The difference here is obvious; PEI supports a multi-disciplined test of three subject areas, where Ontario has the EQAO and OSSLT as exclusive to a subject area. For accountabilities sake, the English teachers in Ontario are held all the more accountable for the success or failure of a student in the Literacy Test. PEI and its test is placing many subjects up for accountability, and this inclusive approach to a standardized test seems to address accountability as cross-curricular – individual blame based on subject area is omitted.

In Conclusion...

If I had to choose between the two systems, it seems in terms of accountability that PEI has some workable ideas to include a child’s complete education, and accounts elementary and middle school as part of a collaborative journey. Ontario’s curriculum is superior in its organization and articulation of student expectations for teachers, but PEI offers a more accountable approach in my view. Full integrity of English can only be achieved as both an individual discipline and a cross-curricular amalgam. PEI’s inclusion of Visual Understanding and Dramatic Forms is missing or not as transparent in Ontario, and I feel though the PEI document is more of a challenge to read and navigate, its overall vision supports a richer study.

A Critical Review of “Accountability: Where do Teacher’s Fit?” by Lorna Earl

and “Accountability in Education” by the Alberta Teachers Association

Article Links:

https://webct2.brocku.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/PDF/LornaEarlArticle.pdf

https://webct2.brocku.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/PDF/AlbertaTeachersPaper.pdf

After reading both Lorna Earl’s paper and the Alberta Teacher’s Association document, these helped shape my own ideas about the notion of accountability. This issue has been a hot-button for both educators and public officials, and it continues to create controversy in today’s evolving education system.

The Alberta document was lengthy, and rather laborious to read; the information proved to be intensely thought provoking, but also overwhelming. I found that the four questions of accountability were presented as “Who is held accountable? To whom? For what? By what means?” This echoed the questions raised by Earl. The section that provided a timeline of Accountability was interesting, but if one is not familiar with the School Act or the governments “three year plan” in 1994, it was a bit confusing to follow. The best sections of this paper are the ones that discuss the underlying issues of accountability as it applies to educators – issues like assessment that addresses the full range of education goals, the use of data as a means of improving the system, and other current concerns that are multi-provincial. It clearly articulated the problems and emerging context that an accountability system needs to take. My favorite assertion was the need for “Two-Way Accountability,” where public officials and politicians who call for accountability are scrutinized for their own support of the system; the spotlight should not simply be “what are the schools doing right/wrong?”

Earl’s piece provided an easier read for someone who is still forming an opinion on the issue. Her section on accountability and quality was illuminating; her list of what all teachers should be accountable for provided a lot of interesting fodder. Areas like content knowledge improvement, a call for deeper pedagogical and emotional understanding, as well as a chance for teacher-directed meta-learning are the key elements that all teachers mush account for. I was a bit critical of her following list regarding teachers forging accountability relationships; the idea of responding to parents needs and desires seems to be a wonderful ambition, but this in itself becomes the root of many issues educators have with accountability – involving parents is one thing, the frequency in reporting to them is quite another, and the opinions on this vary. How much is too much? Does frequent reporting (weekly, semi-weekly) set a dangerous precedent for a teacher?

In my own experience, my issues with accountability stem from the issue of parent involvement. I think parents are an integral part of the education process, but not all students have parents who are willing to participate, are easy to reach or communicate with, and sometimes provide more negative influence than positive. Our Ontario curriculum is pushing towards more and more transparency with grades and the marking process; our Board has mandated two Marksbook reporting periods in between the normal Mid Term and Final report card. As of next year, our marks may be available online, for parents to access at any time, any day. This goldfish bowl may seem ideal for accountability, but also puts more pressure of educators to defend their marking and their assignment choices.

In my opinion, the issues that worry me the most in terms of Accountability are the following:

The Failure Issue – If our marks are continuing to be more and more transparent, the bigger pressure for educators comes when the issue of Failures arises – if the mark is a 47%, and the educator needs to make a professional judgment, how will parent’s understand this is they disagree?

Special Needs – In the push for EQAO and standardized testing, where do these kids fit on? How does this affect the overall opinion of a school on paper by the public? If they are to be fully included, will this affect the overall result?

Misdirected Spending – An overall concern, not just an English concern. Much of the accountability issue must be considered as a two way mirror as the Alberta document proposed, and in my own School board, the use of funds is often directed towards areas that do not need immediate attention. Allocation of public money is something that many teacher take issue with, and if we are to be responsible for teaching in the school, some of how the money is used should be discussed among educators themselves, and not only public officials and board administrators.

Parental Accountability - Teachers are constantly asked to be accountable, yet if the true education of a child is a parent-community-adminstration-teacher project, why are parents not held accountable for their child's education? Should at least one teacher interview be a mandatory task for any and all parents or guardians? Could this help shed light on this problem for all sides involved?

My Leadership Project

Here is my Leadership Project dealing with the topic of Classroom Management:

Leadership Project

The Problem:

1. “You have noticed (or it has been brought to your attention) that one of your teachers is having class management problems.”

Case Study

Within my English Department, Miss New, an LTO teacher who joined our team in September, has been having significant problem with her ENG 1P class. The problem lies in classroom management – the students have been increasingly disrespectful and defiant to Miss New, and she has regularly sent several of her students down to the office within the first 20 minutes of class. The other teacher administering ENG 1P is a Mr. Oldson, who is frustrated that Miss New is falling behind in her curriculum expectations due to the problem. Colleagues say the class is simply toxic; other teachers in my department are blaming the inexperience of Miss New as the root. The principal, the parents, and some of the other non-defiant students in the class are all complaining, and action must be taken to get this situation under control.

Context

To tackle this problem, one must look at some research from the provincial, board and school level. These documents all feed into one another, and provide some guidelines to handling the specific problem of classroom management.

Miss New’s biggest problems in her classroom is enforcing and maintaining the rules, and knowing how to handle all types of conflicts. Her reliance on the office as a safety net is proving to be counter-productive; students are being sent there for small infractions that should be dealt with by the teacher, like homework being incomplete, or persistent talking during a lesson. Students who are being willfully defiant, swearing, physically attacking other students in the guise of “play,” and being generally disrespectful, are being treated the same way as students who are late. The rules are not routinely enforced by Miss New, some rules are ignored, and others enforced without considering the situation.

The Ontario Code of Conduct is a provincial document that outlines certain policies that are province wide for school and classroom discipline.

The Code discusses classroom management clearly:

• All members of the school community are to be treated with respect and dignity, especially persons in positions of authority.”
• Members of the school community are expected to use non-violent means to resolve conflict. Physically aggressive behaviour is not a responsible way to interact with others.
• Insults, disrespect, and other hurtful acts disrupt learning and teaching in a school community. Members of the school community have a responsibility to maintain an environment where conflict and difference can be addressed in a manner characterized by respect and civility.
• Teachers and school staff, under the leadership of their principals, maintain order in the school and are expected to hold everyone to the highest standard of respectful and responsible behaviour; [Teachers] must maintain consistent standards of behaviour for all students

This clearly outlines that the problems within the classroom are first the responsibility of the teacher; the office is the next step if the established rules are not followed.

The Niagara Catholic District School Board has a Code of Conduct and it includes the Safe School Policies, which also can shed some light on how to approach Miss New’s problems – enforcing the rules, and maintaining a logical step progression for offences committed inside her classroom:

“The Niagara Catholic District School Board endorses the principle of progressive discipline in support of a safe learning and teaching environment in which every student can reach his or her full potential. Appropriate action must consistently be taken by school personnel to address behaviours that are contrary to Provincial and Board Codes of Conduct.” - Niagara Catholic District School Board, PROGRESSIVE STUDENT DISCIPLINE POLICY, Policy No. 302.6.9, Safe Schools.

The Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) - Principals: Developing a Comprehensive Plan for Support could also be consulted form an administrative standpoint, since the principal should also be aware an involved in this process. As a leader, it offers some good tips such as 1) pair the teacher with a colleague who can share successful classroom management strategies and 2) Consider having a follow up visit from the “mentor” teacher into the classroom of the teacher who wishes to improve as an opportunity for further support and dialogue

The Student Handbook for our school contains some of these mentioned standards, and also mentions that students sent to the office are done so after a serious offence, and after teacher discipline has also been administered first.

The last couple of documents I would address in regards to Miss New deals with her instruction: since the class is a Grade 9 Applied, and she has students who have difficulty reading and writing, and perhaps with behavioral issues as well. She should seek out two sources:

· Student IEP’s or IPRC’s, which is her responsibility as a teacher, as well as OSR’s to gain a more cohesive idea of what type of learner’s she may be dealing with in her class, and any prior problem other teachers may have experienced

· The Think Literacy Document, put out by the Ministry of Education, so she can vary her approaches, which may engage students who act out or ignore traditional methods of instruction.

Leadership

In my approach to Miss New’s plan, I would draw on the ideas and philosophies researched in the last project. Some key ideas I would use to implement a plan would be stemming from “The New Face of Leadership: Implications for Higher Education”

from the website “The Art and Science of Leadership.” It suggests that influence is the key to good leadership, not authority. This influence must be coercive and stem in many different directions to be successful.

I would also include the Office, my department as a whole and the parents as well, since leaders and followers are doing leadership. Equality is in the approach; this is a school and department problem, and should not be simply “pinned” on Miss New solely.

My plan will include steps that I take as a Program Chair, but the solution will also stem form the Department and school working as a team, trying to successfully implement real, workable changes, and collaborate for this common goal. The changes must reflect the desires of both the leader and the follower – I do not want my department to suffer, but to reinforce cooperation and morale, I include the whole system.

Some ideas form “School Leadership: A Profile Document” discuss the concept that a common thread among professional growth, encouragement and collaboration with staff, and maintaining and sharing a vision for all aspects of a leader’s career that is established with a number of resources and professional input. I myself must enforce and oversee the change and steps, but I will implement these through meetings, teamwork and influence. The changes must be organic, and not “cleaning up another teacher’s mess.” Miss New’s integrity should be maintained, and her colleagues should treat this as a teachable moment for a new teacher, and not a sign of weakness, poor training, or incompetence.

Plan

After doing research into leadership and the different approaches and philosophies that make effective tams or schools in tandem with the leader, I would use several approaches to solve Miss New’s problem:

1) Department Meeting: I would include the whole department, since effective leadership is about persuading and involving the entire team.

- We could sit down, and I would address the problem as one that “the school” has been experiencing with some students and classes, to avoid Miss New being singled out.

- We could anecdotally share “horror stories” and the positive steps we have taken in the past to address these concerns.

- As a team, we could do a Placemat activity, where we each fill in a square with an effective classroom management technique, then take turns discussing it with our partner.

- I would also ask them to brainstorm a step-progression chart that we could use as a Department, the included what was outlined in the Handbook, but more specific to an English classroom. We could agree on First Offense is a warning, Second a teacher-assigned detention, administered by the teacher, with a phone call home, and the Third is an office visit, with a detailed note in the Handbook for the VP. This provides consistency and teamwork, and Miss New feels as though she is not the only one who has faced these problems.

2) Teacher Mentoring: I would address the problem of Mr. Oldson by asking him privately to act as a mentor for Miss New. I would assign him to be the Course Leader, and persuade him to meet with Miss New every so often to touch base on the academic concerns and what approaches they could use together to teach the class. I would emphasize that his course knowledge and superior classroom management would help Miss New overcome her problems. This can make him feel as though I have addressed his concerns, without excusing Miss New or ignoring him. He also feels empowered and more in control, a part of the solution.

3) Set up a conference with the Resource and PASS teachers. This provides anecdotal background information on the students who have been the most problematic, and perhaps Miss New can hear what past elementary teachers have experienced and dealt with. A call to the past teachers could also be recommended.

4) A “Discipline” Sheet – a creation that allows teachers in my department to keep track of student’s poor behavior, indicating the measures taken, and how successful these measures were. I would require the teacher keep their copies and give me a copy also, and I would keep them in a binder for my Department’s reference. This allows Miss New to reference and read what others so on any given day, and could provide valuable feedback for future teachers as well as the Administration in the office.

5) All Teachers try one “Think Literacy” technique. This allows the whole department to grow and become more diverse in their teaching practices, and fosters the idea that collaboration and trying new ideas to professionally develop can create new opportunities to strengthen our department. I would ask that each teacher try one activity before the next English meeting, and we would share out results then – this also expands Miss News portfolio of classroom techniques, and allows her to break out of her shell and try new ideas the students may respond too.

6) Miss New’s “Classroom Management Plan” - Now that we’ve offered several strategies to help her, I would ask Miss New to come up with her new Plan for Classroom Management. These should reflect the workable changes we’ve offered, and I would review it myself and guide her in its completion. This should be administered to her students, their parents, and signed and returned. This should also be shown to the Principal during her TPA (Teacher Performance Appraisal), which I would stress is key to her success in the school and in the future. This would also include the Administration in solving this problem, without the principal or VP needing to intervene directly.

7) Encourage PD workshops. As a leader, anytime I am given PD information for colleagues, I will ask Miss New to attend as a “department liason” to help her own growth, but also to report back to the department for the team.

Overall the problem is one that started with one teacher hitting a roadblock, but the whole team coming to her aid. She maintains a sense of professional responsibility, and knows I still consider her a colleague. I solve the problem through collaboration and influence, and help to strengthen the English department and teacher camaraderie as a whole.

Poll

Please take the time to vote in my Poll about plagiarism - I am alwyas interested in professional feedback! If there is another option you would like me to consider other than the four that are there, please let me know!

Plagiarism and Policies

In my high school, there is a clear stance on the issue of plagiarism, and the policy regarding its definition and consequences are outlined specifically in the Student Handbook. This is a small book that serves as a hall pass, organizer, day planner, etc, and also contains all the policies and procedures of the school in the front. All students receive this on Day One. In summary, it outlines that plagiarism is borrowing or stealing the ideas of others, be they professional, published works or another students creation. As a professional, I believe this is a standard definition for all schools across the country. A few problems that I see fall under the category of consequence and consistency.

The Handbook outlines that a mark of zero is to be given for the plagiarized assignment, or the student must resubmit another, original assignment. It is really left up to the discretion of the teacher, which can be problematic in terms of consistency. If one teacher awards a zero and the mark stands, and another allows the student to resubmit, it can send a mixed message about the results of academic dishonesty.

A Policy that our department has adopted was one that I myself created after an instance of 6 senior students plagiarized a Hamlet assignment. As a teacher, I feel that consequences for plagiarism should involve the student. I created the Zero Form, which has the school letterhead and contains a brief paragraph about the mark that is being given and the assignment it is given to. The students are then provided with 6 options that consititute why they may be receiving the zero. Two of them are Plagiarism, one being form another student, one from an outside or published source. They must pick the one that applies to them. This is signed by myself, the student, and the parents. All of our department has started to use this, and it allows the students to feel responsible, included, but also accountable.

In terms of resubmission, out department usually stands firm that the mark will be given and kept, but we all have supplementary tasks that can be given to the student to make the grade up, which is a different task than the one they plagiarized. I believe this is also a sound practice, because the student is still allowed to academically grow, but also sends the message that cheating on a certain assignment has lasting consequences.

A wonderful site I plan to implement into my courses is at the link below:

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/study/plag.html

I found it to be a comprehensive site that addresses this issue, but it is also easy to navigate and clear in its definitions and ideas. It answers any questions students may have, especially the ever challenging "what constitutes plagiarism."

Hope this is helpful - please give me feedback on the site or my policy :)