But there is a lot of resistance to even trying these things in many schools.

K/R

Its SO CLEAR that youngsters learn by DOING!

Of the top of my head, there are administrators who insist on textbook-based instruction only, others who advocate for EDI, or explicit direct instruction, which is even worse (except in a few instances and only if used in moderation).

Especially with schools that are under improvement plans, we see extreme teacher centered and paper/pencil/textbook/workbook methods employed at the expense of hands-on and exploratory exercises.

I know teachers who so loved their school experience that they emulated it-- ELA teachers who just teach their favorite literature, nothing more, no writing applications, no research, no integration, arrrrgh!

And others who just look for the easiest to administer one-size-fits-all crap to serve day after day and year after year.

No wonder so many kids, as they get older, look more and more disengaged (comparing the typical high school student's affect to a second grader's).

We beat curiosity and creativity right out of them.

schools under an "improvement plan" had to include much of what you refer to in that plan. Or it wouldn't be accepted. No district wants the plan to be rejected, and outsiders sent in to control the improvement process. So they comply.

Hiring outside private "consultants" to come in and tell them how to manipulate data; how to TEACH TO THE TEST.

Adopting approved direct instruction curriculum.

Narrow focus on tested subjects, with constant practice testing.


It isn't "resistance." It's coercion.

At this point, we've got a whole generation of younger teachers who think that's the way it's supposed to be; they've never seen anything different since getting their first contract.

IMHO, schools under threat of takeover throw out hands-on and inquiry-based lessons and hit the teacher/textbook centered drill and kill techniques much to their own demise and to the irreversible detriment of the students.

argh.

and it's not because teachers want to. It's because the district can then point proudly to their "improvements," which are defined by what those evaluating the "improvement plan" are looking for.

It has nothing to do with teaching and learning, and everything to do with politics.

I remember the dumbfounded, and then outraged, look on the staff's face back in the very early years when my then district brought in consultants to teach us how to "use data to improve instruction." Two teachers from each school in our large district went to the training, and came back to report out to us. Our two could't even look us in the eye, they were so embarrassed by their "report."

What were they trained to do? The first thing: "Stop thinking of them as children. They are data."

If that wasn't bad enough, this came next: "Forget the outliers. You don't need to do anything different for the high achievers; the lowest won't move much. Focus on the 'bubble' students who are the closest to meeting benchmarks. That's where your greatest gains will come."

And finally: "Give more time to tested subjects, and let the things that aren't on the test go. Achievement is measured by the tests, so that's what counts."

Yes. We were dumbfounded, and we were outraged. Today? That's business as usual. If you AREN'T doing all of the above, you are a teacher who "needs improvement."

The above example was provided to an inquiry-based school that, not coincidentally, never had a problem meeting AYP. So we listened. We didn't explode on our colleagues who presented to us, because we knew they were just as unhappy with it as we were. When they were done, we glanced at each other, sighed, and went back to what we were doing right. We could ignore the trend at that point. I'm in another state now. I don't think anybody, at this point, gets to ignore the mandates, though.