December 4. 2008 14:58

I think that GCHS's staff development is more of a PLC although there are a few traditional characteristics. I think that often times after staff development the staff remains isolated and there is not a lot of collaboration. Also there are not many meetings when other staff members lead other than Brenda or Michael. However, learning is embedded in the workday and I think the outcomes are long-term and sustained. For example, our work with 6 Traits is ongoing and we continue to evaluate the progress. I do feel that a lot of high school teachers like to be isolated and work alone, and they are not interested in collaborating. I think this poses a real problem with forming PLCs in the high school.

F44AD

December 7. 2008 14:04

I agree that a lot of teachers like to be isolated. It would be great to have optional staff development, but I think the isolated teachers would not try anything new. As a result, the teachers that are the leaders would be the only ones benefiting. We would not be helping those that need the most help.

My intent is to be a "leader of leaders." I did not want to be principal so that I can be "all powerful", but I want our teachers to have input in decision making. I hope that is a strength for GCHS as we move more and more towards a professional learning community.

I am very concerned about the absenteeism of faculty and students, so I will be very happy if one of our positive outcomes is more satisfaction, higher morale, and lower rates of absenteeism for students and teachers.

Susan

December 9. 2008 09:44

I agree that establishing a true PLC will be a challenge here at Greene Central and at any other high school. I feel that many teachers are used to the traditional staff development which has the "one size fits all" theme. This has caused them to view staff development as just another meeting with remote topics that they may not be able to use or don't have time to implement.

When given the opportunity for ongoing collaboration on relevant and meaningful activities that are easily transferred to the classroom or on topics of their choice, perhaps there would be more teachers interested in attending and participating. Of course, there will still be those that prefer to work in isolation, but hopefully the collaboration would become contagious!

I think that we are moving toward a PLC and reading this book is a step in the right direction by having a small group of teachers collaborate and discuss issues together. I hope that eventually the movement toward PLC's will result in the positive outcomes that Susan mentioned above.

-Holly

Holly

December 10. 2008 21:28

Too much of our staff development is traditional in nature. We (Brenda and I) are given several topics to be covered in our sessions. It is generally a "one-size fits all." If you have bought any clothing sized like that you know that even if it fits, it is not flattering.

I know that what I do has some impact on some teachers. However, I am a big boy. I know that many teachers show up on Tuesdays and Thursdays because they have to be there. At the end of 40 minutes, they leave and nothing about their teaching has changed. They show up, serve their time, and earn the CEU. Sounds like a lot of our students, huh?

We must change the way staff development is created and delivered. I would love to have a PLC. I want to sit down with teachers and really delve into topics of common interest. I want teachers to design our staff development plan. On a side note, the 21st Century Professionals committee did review the results of the Classroom Technology Proficiency survey and chose some staff development sessions for the Spring based on the results. It is a start.

I would like to see strands of staff development much like what is seen at conferences. I think teachers should be able to choose the strand(s) that interest them and follow those sessions. In this arrangement, not all sessions would be mandatory. Perhaps only the introductory sessions in each strand would be required. After that, teachers would follow the strand(s) that appeal to them. If none of the strands spark an interest, give the teacher the freedom to develop a strand. We have plenty of resources (human and material) to support this teacher in his/her quest. What's wrong with treating teachers as professionals?

I probably strayed a little (a lot) from the reflection questions; however, I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm ready to improve what I do. I think we all are or we wouldn't be participating in this endeavor.

~Michael

5F0BD

December 11. 2008 09:40

I agree with Michael that those who are participating in this first book blog are open to change, creative, and professional. Michael and I do welcome your input and ideas at any time because we are here to support and assist.

Everyone knows I am an avid believer in Six Traits Writing. That's because I taught writing that way for my last 3 or 4 years, and I saw progress in every student. It totally changed my style of teaching. Prior to this, I was innately a writer, and for those students with some propensity for writing, who wanted to improve, I could always help them develop as writers, but for a larger number whose writing was weak in so many areas, I could point out tons of ways to improve. The students then had little idea how to revise. It was like drowning in chaos. Writing still remained too mystical. All of that changed when I began six traits.

I'd like to assist teachers in classroom writing assignments. Classroom teachers could select the topic, and I'd be glad to co-teach with the teacher, guiding pre-writing activities, peer editing, and rubric analysis. Then I'll assist with grading using the proper rubric. If this idea interests any of you, see me.

F0B5A

January 1. 2009 10:50

I think that alot of times people would not go to staff development if it was optional, but when they did go it would be more meaningful to them. Staff would be able to pick those things that would benefit them and their students. I do think that it would be necessary to have detailed explanations of what the staff development was so staff could make an informed decision about whether or not to attend. I also think that staff should be required to go to certain sessions and certain number of sessions since some staff would never attend if it was left up to them.
I see GCHS strength as administration’s participation in staff development and allowing staff members to participate in the decisions made for our school. Even though peers are involved in observations, I think that alot of times this is something that has to be done. Otherwise, there is little peer involvement as far as visiting classrooms to offer feedback and assistance. I do hope that most staff members would ask if they need help, but honestly there is not enough time for us to go into another’s classroom and do this.
I think that we are growing towards a PLC, but in alot of ways we are still traditional. We are having more staff development that is done by by our peers, we are working in smaller groups, and we do have more input into what we are doing. BUT, there are still many times when it feels like we are being forced to attend sessions and that it has nothing to do with what we are teaching or how we are teaching. Bottom line, those scores are still important and our success is measured that way.
Although there are many positive outcomes to having a PLC, I think the most beneficial result would be more satisfaction, higher morale, and lower absenteeism for both students and staff. I think that this would affect all of GC, whether it is students, staff, higher achieving or lower achieving students. If this happens, it will make for a better working and learning environment and success will be very evident.
The concept of a literacy community is exciting!

FC0EF

January 13. 2009 09:39

I believe that GC's staff development is more PLC. I think two areas that could be strengthened are follow-up and collaboration. I wish that departments could have the same planning period. I feel we'd receive staff development geared towards our subject areas and we'd collaborate with teachers in our department. In turn this would lead to more standardized information and activities and more utilization of things we learned in staff development.
I think that people would attend staff development if it wasn't mandatory simply because we need ceus. I will say that sometimes it can be frustrating to sit through a staff development that you've already seen/heard before.

Covey