Are We in the Midst of a “Ghettoization in Education”?

While listening to a recent interview with the legendary journalist and news anchor, Tom Brokaw, he was discussing the “ghettoization of America”.  He claims that because of our affinity to social media and other internet applications, we mostly expose ourselves to thinks we “like” and issues we subscribe to.  Our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram feeds are driven by people that we are fiends with and most likely share similar ideals, beliefs, etc.  When we visit news websites on our phones, tablets, or computers, they are likely the ones that we tend to agree with politically, socially, or economically. Brokaw explains that because of these trends, we are not exposing ourselves to ideas outside of our own umbrella.  And because of this, we only deepen our affinity and opinions to those ideas under our own umbrella.  The effect of these trends are that we don’t expand our thinking and push alternative ideas.  Brokaw wonders how these trends are affecting society as a whole. 

This got me thinking about education.

Are we in the midst of a “ghettoization in education”?  As educators, are we broadening our ideas and thinking beyond our own umbrella?  While there are certainly those educators that are of a growth mindset, they are continually striving to be better at their craft and to make changes to positively impact student achievement.  However, with the ongoing implementation of Common Core and other standards, I have been noticing a portion of educators that want to be “left alone”, don’t want to do “another new thing”, that feel “this too shall pass”, and “if its not broken, why fix it” mentality. As Carol Dweck calls it, they are of a fixed mindset and believe that where they are- under their umbrella, or in their ghetto- is adequate and nothing new needs to evolve.

As educators, we have the social and moral responsibility to our students to continue to seek out better and more effective ways to build content knowledge and life skills. If we are not continually striving to develop our craft, it is the students who lose in the end. As comfortable as it may be in our ghetto and under our umbrellas, we need to push ourselves to go beyond our comfort zones.

Reciprocity of Reading and Writing

There is a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing.

In any discussion of a processing system for reading, we must remember that we are really talking about a larger literacy processing system, one that includes both reading and writing of continuous text. While reading and writing are different processes, they are complementary. Readers and writers use the same sources of information and integrate them:

• In reading – to recognize written signs (visible information) and connect them to the invisible information.
• In writing – to use invisible information in a constructive way, producing a text of visual signs that will communicate to others or to self.

The process is not even as separated as those two bulleted points make it seem. Readers often think like writers. They notice how writers use language or give attention to new words and remember them later while writing. They may take notes or extend their understanding through writing. Writers reread what they have written so they can experience it another way and often revisit texts for ideas or to notice the writer’s craft. Through instruction, we can take advantage of this reciprocity, achieving higher-quality processing in both reading and writing.

Adapted from Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency: Thinking,

Talking, and Writing About Reading

Reciprocity of Reading and Writing

There is a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing.

In any discussion of a processing system for reading, we must remember that we are really talking about a larger literacy processing system, one that includes both reading and writing of continuous text. While reading and writing are different processes, they are complementary. Readers and writers use the same sources of information and integrate them:

• In reading – to recognize written signs (visible information) and connect them to the invisible information.
• In writing – to use invisible information in a constructive way, producing a text of visual signs that will communicate to others or to self.

The process is not even as separated as those two bulleted points make it seem. Readers often think like writers. They notice how writers use language or give attention to new words and remember them later while writing. They may take notes or extend their understanding through writing. Writers reread what they have written so they can experience it another way and often revisit texts for ideas or to notice the writer’s craft. Through instruction, we can take advantage of this reciprocity, achieving higher-quality processing in both reading and writing.

Adapted from Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency: Thinking,

Talking, and Writing About Reading

Do You Know What Makes an Effective School Team?

It’s not a secret that when people collaborate and work together, the whole is more effective and efficient, right?  Well, if it’s not a secret and we all know this, then why aren’t we putting those thoughts into action at our school sites?  Don't we owe it to our students to do absolutely everything to be effective and efficient?  Michael Fullan calls it our “moral imperative” and that we owe it to not only to every individual student, but to every individual in our society!  If we want to thrive in our democracy, our educational system must work together to be successful.

I felt charged up again about the need for effective teaming when I read a recent Edutopia.org blog post from Elena Aguilar.  Again, Elena has reminded us of how important it is to TEAM. 

Strong teams within a school are essential to retaining and sustaining teachers. In schools with low staff turnover (even in challenging urban contexts), teachers report feeling connected to colleagues and supported by them. They also describe feeling that they belong to a team whose members are fulfilling a mission together. The emotions activated in this context are those which keep us engaged in a difficult endeavor for a long time. Public education is a hard place to be these days -- we need structures (such as strong teams) that cultivate our emotional resilience.

If a team is effective, then people learn from each other. They accomplish far more than would be possible alone. They inspire and challenge each other. An individual's strengths can be exploited, and we don't have to do the stuff we're not so good at. Again, this is an efficient approach to undertaking a huge project (transforming a school, for example), and it feels good.

What Makes a Good Team?

1. A good team knows why it exists.

It's not enough to say, "We're the 6th grade team of teachers" -- that's simply what defines you (you teach the same grade), not why you exist. A purpose for being is a team might be: "We come together as a team to support each other, learn from each other, and identify ways that we can better meet the needs of our sixth grade students." Call it a purpose or a mission -- it doesn't really matter. What matters is that those who attend never feel like they're just obligated to attend "another meeting." The purpose is relevant, meaningful, and clear.

2. A good team creates a space for learning.

There are many reasons why those of us working in schools might gather in a team -- but I believe that all of those reasons should contain opportunities for learning with and from each other. I have met very few educators who don't want to learn -- we're a curious bunch and there's so much to learn about education. So in an effective team, learning happens within a safe context. We can make mistakes, take risks, and ask every single question we want.

3. In a good team, there's healthy conflict.

This is inevitable and essential if we're learning together and embarked on some kind of project together. We disagree about ideas, there's constructive dialogue and dissent, and our thinking is pushed.

4. Members of a good team trust each other.

This means that when there's the inevitable conflict, it's managed. People know each other. We listen to each other. There are agreements about how we treat each other and engage with each other, and we monitor these agreements. There's also someone such as a facilitator who ensures that this is a safe space. Furthermore, in order for there to be trust, within a strong team we see equitable participation among members and shared decision-making. We don't see a replication of the inequitable patterns and structures of our larger society (such as male dominance of discourse and so on).

5. A good team has a facilitator, leader, or shared leaders.

There's someone -- or a rotation of people -- who steer the ship. This ensures that there's the kind of intentionality, planning, and facilitation in the moment that's essential for a team to be high functioning.

While this is not an exhaustive list of what makes up an effective and efficient team, it does remind us of the mindset we must have as we sit down with our fellow educators.   We must remember that its not about US, its about the STUDENTS and we have a “moral imperative” to do everything we can to work collaboratively for student success.

Thanks to Elena Aguilar (again) for reminding us of the power of teamwork.  You can read more fantastic ideas and insight from Elena at her blog, https://www.edutopia.org/users/elena-aguilar.

Do You Dialogue?

What is dialogue?  A dictionary definition of dialogue is “seeking mutual understanding and harmony”.  A thesaurus notes synonyms for dialogue as “argument, back-and-forth, conversation, debate, deliberation, discussion, and talk”.  While the definition seems clear, there could be confusion as to some of the synonyms.

If the point of dialogue to seek mutual understanding and harmony as a result of the interaction, the same can not always be said about the synonyms argument, conversation, debate, etc. The world is full of interactions.  Sometimes in those interactions people are just talking.  In others, there is a conversation.  And in others, there is dialogue.   Talking involves basic exchange of words and phrases not always tied to an intended outcome.  A conversation compounds upon talk and involves an informal oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas between two or more people.  It becomes a dialogue when two or more people become more formally invested in the interaction; understanding not only what needs to be said, but also understanding and honoring the other participants’ needs, values, and convictions.

Generally speaking, simple talking does not incite a movement. Basic conversation does not spark innovation. It is dialogue that is truly impactful and creates transformational and lasting change.   Here are a few things to keep in mind when you desire meaningful dialogue.

15 Strategies for Meaningful Dialogue

1.     Err on the side of including people who disagree.

2.     Initiate dialogue through a sense of empathy.

3.     Ensure a presence of equality, empathetic listening, and surfacing assumptions nonjudgmentally.

4.     Minimize the level of mistrust before pursuing practical objectives.

5.     Keep dialogue and decision making compartmentalized.

6.     Focus on common interests, not divisive ones.

7.     Use specific cases and data to raise general issues.

8.     Bring forth your own assumptions before speculating on those of others.

9.     Clarify assumptions that lead to subculture distortions.

10. Identify mistrust as the real source of misunderstandings.

11. Expose old scripts to a reality check.

12. Focus on conflicts between value systems, not people.

13. Be sure trust and rapport exits before addressing transference distortions.

14. Express the emotions that accompany strongly held values.

15. Encourage relationships in order to humanize transactions.

Strategies adapted from Daniel Yankelovich, 1999.