Adventures with SLCs

January 20, 2008

SLCs might just work…

Filed under: Early signs of success — Chris @ 4:23 am

Building the academies was challenging. Challenging for the teachers because they were used to teaching in isolation and being the “master” of one specific grade level or course. (English 3 teacher versus an all-level language arts teacher or Government teacher versus being a social studies teacher.) Challenging for the students and parents because they were used to a school system that let students take whatever courses they wanted in whatever elective areas they wanted at anytime. In addition, they were used to demanding Teacher X over Teacher Y if they spoke loudly enough. Now, they would have to follow a coherent sequence of courses with specific electives in the academy of their choice. In addition, the students would have to learn to work with the teachers of the specific content areas in their academies since they would not be allowed to change core content area teachers because Teacher X was the only Algebra 2 teacher in their academy.

One of the core beliefs of SLCs is the idea of personalization. Teachers and students would know one another and develop relationships . Teachers would recognize the students in their academy, they would know their names, know the challenges they faced and work as a team to help the students face these challenges successfully.

The first day I really realized the SLC structure was working in the Health Science & Human Services Academy was during an academy meeting.  Earlier that day, I had a harsh conversation with a student (Raymond) who was thinking about dropping out of school because he did not think he would be able to graduate with his class on time because of his lack of credits.  Raymond was determined he was going to “check-out” of school. I flat out told him that I would not allow him to do that – and I would not sign his “check-out sheet” once he tried to drop out and I would make sure no one in the academy would sign it either. (Raymond didn’t realize that it really didn’t matter if we signed it or not, but the threat of it made him stomp off in a huff.)

At the academy meeting that afternoon, I asked the teachers if they all knew Raymond.  They all nodded their heads, some groaning and some shaking their heads. (Raymond was one of those kids.)  I told the academy about my conversation with Raymond and how he was thinking about dropping out and my threat of no one signing the withdrawal forms. The teachers all nodded their heads in agreement and left for the weekend. 

The following week, Raymond was bombarded by everyone of his academy teachers (even those in who class he was not a student) about his plans to drop out of school. Raymond understood that dropping out was not going to work in the Health Science & Humans Services Academy because there were 30 adults who were not going to allow it to happen. In May, Raymond ended up graduating with his class on time.

I always remember the Raymond story as the moment I realized that the SLC structure was really working. If I had asked a group of 30 teachers at Chavez the year before if they all knew who Raymond was, most would have told me no.  At this point, all of the academy teachers (whether Raymond had been in their classrooms or not) knew who Raymond was – at the very least by sight and by name.  All were willing to talk to him to tell him dropping out was a non-negotiable in our academy.

Whether the teachers and students wanted to do it or not, relationships were forming. Many of which continued after students graduated and after teachers left Chavez HS.

More Acronyms and Terms

Filed under: Introduction — Chris @ 4:22 am

TAKS – Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (AKA – the test – 1999)

TEKS – Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (State curriculum)

TAAS – Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (Old test – 1990)

TEAMS – Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (Older Test – 1984)

TABS – Texas Assessment of Basic Skills (Oldest Test – 1978)

EOC – End of Course exams (given previously as a predictor of TAKS results before TAKS was “the test”; now being developed as a replacement to TAKS at the high school level.

DUCK – Determined to undermine, criticize and kill success

BMW – B*&*^, Moaning and Whining

Charlie’s Rules – What’s said at the table, remains at the table and is not repeated. (Similar to the Vegas Rule. This rule is vitally important to build trust among the team and to determine when one is venting and when there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed.)

October 29, 2007

Academy Coordinators – What do they do?

Filed under: Leadership, Transitions in the team — Chris @ 11:49 pm

When the five coordinators were chosen, I don’ t believe any of us really knew what our jobs would entail. We knew we would be implementing the SLC planning and implementation grant (which the school was already late in implementing).

The suggestion of multiple SLC coordinators came from a group of teachers who visited a site in Los Angeles who was implementing SLCs. The group’s recommendation was that a SLC Coordinator be chosen for each SLC, much like a magnet coordinator oversaw a district magnet program. While a district magnet coordinator recruits from the entire HISD population, a school SLC coordinator would only work with students zoned to the school.

Our first order of business was to determine what the final makeup of the the SLCs. (9th grade SLC vs. 9-12 SLCs; themes of SLCs; etc.) Once the final decisions were made, the coordinators began drafting four-year coherent sequences of courses that students would follow within each strand in each academy. Each academy had between two to six strands within the academy. Most strands were similar to each other within the academy and changes were made at the upper level electives. (For example: in health science, three strands existed at first – EMT; Allied Health and Sports Medicine. The beginning coursework were identical until the junior or senior year where a student might take Health Science 2 over Sports Medicine 1 or a dual credit EMT course. NOTE: the EMT program never took off at the school because of lack of student interest. This program eventually changed to the Pharmacy Tech certification program.) The coordinators used the CTE coursework to create the coherent sequence of courses (except for the fine arts area).

Once the academies went wall-to-wall during the 2002-03 school year, the coordinator role began to change depending on the academy. We were still teachers (teaching half time in the mornings). The afternoons were devoted to our teacher planning time (which seemed nonexistent) and time to be the Academy Coordinator.

We quickly learned how to schedule students and help the counselors with schedule changes to help ensure students were following their coherent sequence. At times, we assisted in the discipline aspect of working with students. We were housed in the academy office suite area, so I quickly learned the names of the students who were always in the office for disciplinary reasons. Since the students began to see us as another resource for them, we became quasi-counselors at times as well. In addition, we ran the academy meetings – which varied on anything from academy business to learning together and working together for our academy students as a PLC. We were the “change agents” of the school in terms of learning how to function as a SLC, a PLC and improving instruction on the campus through hands-on, relevant learning for our students. We were to be teacher-leaders – not just administrators who had not been in the classroom with the students during the school year. We understood what the classroom was like, what the students were like and the pressures the teachers faced from administration, parents and students.

At times, there seemed to be some conflict between the various “leadership groups” as to who knew what was happening and why it was happening at the school. One principal met with each group at different times during the day/week regarding specific issues. For a few assistant principals, they believe they were being kept “out of the loop” because they did not get the information from the principal and they did not have a good communication system with their SLC Coordinator. In addition, some department chairs felt like their opinions were passed over for those of the SLC Coordinators and thus they were only “glorified messengers.” At some point, the issue was brought to light and a “leadership meeting” was created – be in once a month or so during Friday’s staff development time or during Tuesday morning meetings at 7:00 am (depending on the principal).

How the coordinators were viewed by the teachers varied as well. Some teachers saw the coordinators as extensions of the administration and as someone who was against them rather than for them. Some saw the coordinators as the people who helped out the counselor or AP when no one else was available. Some saw us as a resource for any issue to arise. (I can’t tell you how many times I was asked about fixing the copy machine, where to request paper for the copy machine, how to get a light bulb replaced or a student’s phone number to call a parent. My favorite was an email from a teacher who told me that I had to get her out of our ropes course professional development because she would not do it. She seemed to forget that professional development had to be approved by the SDMC and I had no authority to tell her that she could or could not be excused from the professional development.)

Regardless of how were were viewed, we were considered to be reliable sources of information because we had the ear of the principal – or at least spoke to the principal and sat in on various meetings were things were discussed. This meant that if we said something, it was believed as the truth. Therefore, it was prudent to not speculate on any comings or goings, because people believed they were true – even if it was just a guess. (My successor found this out quickly once she mentioned something as a heads up for a teacher and the teacher went immediately to the principal to ask if her job was in jeopardy because the SLC coordinator told her something. She learned quickly that some information must be kept quiet since those who she could could trust as a teacher were not necessarily trustworthy since she was now seen as “one of them.”)

As leadership changed at the school, the SLC role varied from a quasi-administrative/counselor role to one of assistant to the academy principal (running copies, keeping notes, agendas, etc.). The role’s definition varied by how much the building principal and the academy principals were willing to share leadership, in addition to what they believed the role of the academy coordinator to be. This role was also determined as to what instruction on a campus was to look like and how much of a role teacher leaders were to be given in the “official” instructional program of the campus.

July 22, 2007

Bibliography

Filed under: Reference & End Notes — Stephanie @ 12:22 pm

Here is a list of all of the books that we used for research, reference, and guidance during our planning, implementation, and evaluation phases:

“Creating and Sustaining Small Learning Communities: Strategies and Tools for Transforming High Schools (Book & CD Rom)” (Grace Sammon)

“Getting Started: Reculturing Schools to Become Professional Learning Communities” (Robert Eaker, Richard Dufour, Rebecca Burnette)

“Fires in the Bathroom: Advice for Teachers from High School Students” (Kathleen Cushman, Lisa Delpit)

“Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution : a report of the National Association of Secondary School Principals in partnership with the Carnegie … on the high school of the 21st century” (National Association of Secondary School Principals (U.S.))

“Breaking Ranks II: Strategies for Leading High School Reform” (National Association of Secondary School Prin)

“Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement” (Richard Dufour, Robert E. Eaker)

“Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work (Book & CD-ROM)” (Richard Dufour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas Many)

“The Handbook for Smart School Teams” (Anne Conzemius)

“The Facilitator’s Fieldbook: Step-by-Step Procedures * Checklists and Guidelines * Samples and Templates” (Tom Justice, David Jamieson, David W., Ph.D. Jamieson)

“The Power of SMART Goals: Using Goals to Improve Student Learning” (Anne Conzemius, Jan O’Neill)

“Leading in a Culture of Change” (Michael Fullan)

“The New Meaning of Educational Change” (Michael Fullan)

“Making the Grade: Reinventing America’s Schools” (Tony Wagner)

“Change Leadership: A Practical Guide to Transforming Our Schools (Jossey-Bass Education)” (Tony Wagner, Robert Kegan, Lisa Laskow Lahey, Richard W. Lemons, Jude Garnier, Deborah Helsing, Annie Howell, Harriette Thurber Rasmussen)

October 27, 2006

Developing the Career Academy Themes

Filed under: In the beginning..., Introduction, Student Voice — Stephanie @ 2:48 am

One frequent question that we have heard repeatedly since implementing our SLCs/Academies is “How did you select the career themes for the academies?”

It was easy… we just asked the students.

When the school opened its doors in August 2000 under its first SLC grant, the grant plan, which was originally developed through focus groups with community members, parents, students, and school staff, called for the creation of one Freshman Academy and three other career academies in Fine Arts & Communications, Health Science & Technology, and Business, Marketing, & Travel/Tourism. An additional career-themed SLC would be developed as a Magnet program in Environmental Science.

After the school opened and we began the planning process to move the students into their self-selected academy, we visited other schools and decided to survey the students one more time to make our final decision on our academy themes. The students were surveyed in February 2002… and the results were very interesting…

In September 2001 we experienced what everyone else across the United States experienced — the shock and horror of the 9-11 hijackings and attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Five months later we had no clue that that event would have an affect on the career interests of our students. We developed a survey to allow students to rank their preferred career interests and we used a list of industry categories from the U.S. government. We administered the surveys to all 9th, 10th, and 11th grade students on our campus — roughly 1100 students. Their responses indicated that they were interested in the following career areas:

  • Fine Arts (Visual and Performing)
  • Business
  • Advanced Technology (Networking and Software Engineering)
  • Engineering
  • Communications & Media
  • Health Science
  • Human Services
  • Law & Criminal Justice

Less than 5% of the students indicated any interest in Travel & Tourism — which was one of the original career areas included in the original plan that was developed with input from all stakeholders. Surprisingly, a very large percentage of students were interested in careers in law enforcement and homeland security. Apparently, the events of September 11th had essentially killed all interest in careers in the travel industry and increased interest in law and security-related careers.

Additionally, there was a much larger interested in technology careers and an unexpected large interest in engineering.

We bundled the selected career themes together based on percentages of interest which resulted in four separate “themes”:

  1. Arts, Communications, & Media
  2. Business & Criminal Justice
  3. Health Science & Human Services
  4. Engineering & Advanced Technology

But now we had a problem. Our school was constructed with the classrooms separated into five “pods” or “houses”. If one was allocated to the Environmental Science Magnet program and another was supposed to be our Freshman Academy, then that left only three houses for three Career Academies. We didn’t have room for four.

We also realized that our Career & Technology courses — the electives courses that aligned with the career themes — were set up in four-year coherent sequences by the state and our students would not be able to take the fourth year advanced courses (the courses that lead to work-based internships and certifications in different areas) if they started their elective sequences in their 10th grade year.

Suddenly we had some research and decision-making to do. Our discussions with school administrators and with consultants from our district led us to an examination of our ideas for a Freshman Academy. Until this point, no one had questioned the plan for keeping the 9th graders separate from the older students in order to help them acclimate to high school. We did some more research and came to the conclusion that we might not need a Freshman Academy. All of the research that we could locate indicated that Freshman Academies work wonders for 9th grade students who are entering traditional, comprehensive high schools. We couldn’t find any research that involved Freshman Academies within the context of high schools that were broken up into multiple schools-within-schools like we were planning.

We took our research findings to our Shared Decision-Making Committee and put the issue to a vote. The final decision had only one dissenting vote. We would now drop the plan for creating a Freshman Academy and add a fourth Career Academy.

During the following year — our implementation year — all students entered their self-selected academy and the selection numbers were nearly even across the board. We were shocked that the students self-selected themselves evenly across the academies. Our principal looked at the selection information for a moment then looked at us and said, “Well, of course the numbers are even… all of you planned out the academies BASED on the percentages of student interest which you leveled out when you combined the career areas!” She was right. If a total of 25% to 30% of the students were interested in each of the “bundles” of career areas, then it made sense that those same students would select the same way when we sent out the academy selection forms.

We were able to avoid implementing our “selection leveling” plan — and to this day we still have not had to level selections for regular enrollment. (Late enrollment after school has started is a different story, but we are usually able to give students their second choice and we allow them to switch the following year if there is room.)

At the end of year one we did add one more SLC. We realized early in implementation that we had a number of ESL students who were at levels 1 and 2 which required a more sheltered instructional experience so that they could develop a stronger mastery of English. We placed those students together with ESL teachers and they shared space in the same house as the Environmental Science Magnet program. At the end of the year, these students decided they were their own SLC and they called themselves the “Newcomers.” Today our Level 1 and 2 ESL students still have their own SLC, and after they advance to level 3 they select one of our other career academies in which to finish their high school education.

Our experience has shown — and continues to show — that student voice in decision-making can be crucial to the success of any initiative, large or small. Our academy structure has been successful in engaging the students and providing exciting and relevant experiences because the students had a voice in deciding on the themes.

October 26, 2006

Table of Contents

Filed under: Introduction — Stephanie @ 5:43 pm

This will eventually be a post that contains links to all of the categories/sections of this “blook”.

Introduction

In the Beginning

  • “The Grant”

Implementation

  • “The Grants”

Early Results

  • Early Signs of Success
  • Room For Improvement

Leadership

  • Transitions in the Team

Lessons Learned

  • “The Grants”
  • Communication
  • Leadership Team
  • Student Voice
  • The Schedule

Artifacts

School Portrait

  • Demographics

June 5, 2006

Students As Allies — Student Voice

Filed under: Implementation..., Student Voice — Stephanie @ 9:53 pm

During the same year that we focused on Quality Teaching and Learning (using a protocol around chapters from Fires in the Bathroom), some of our students participated in a project sponsored/organized by the MetLife Foundation and What Kids Can Do called “Students As Allies“.

The students developed a climate survey and administered it to a random selection of students from across the school.

Highlights from the results of our survey can be found in the Final Report on the Students As Allies website.  Our results are in the Houston .pdf report. 

Fires in the Bathroom

Filed under: Implementation..., Student Voice — Stephanie @ 8:31 pm

How Chavez High School used Fires in the Bathroom to open up the discussion of Quality Teaching & Learning with our faculty.

Planning

The idea to use the book and a protocol with the faculty came from a Leadership Retreat attended by the school principal and four teacher-leaders in the summer of 2003. We were already planning two days of Project-Based Learning (PBL) with our external service provider, and after doing the protocol at the retreat, the Leadership Team (principal, School Improvement Facilitator, and the Smaller Learning Community coordinators) decided that it would be a good lead-in to the PBL training.

The Leadership Team developed a “game plan” at the retreat that focused on developing a school-wide definition of Quality Teaching & Learning (QTL). The “game plan” included doing the same protocol with the faculty and then using the results of the protocol to guide the development of QTL assessment rubrics (for faculty and student use) and to guide the development of faculty Personal Learning Plans (PLPs).

It was decided that in order to do the protocol with the whole faculty, other staff members would have to be trained in the protocol. The Leadership Team planned a meeting to train the Instructional Leadership Team (all assistant principals, SLC coordinators, department chairs, and literacy coaches) in this protocol and then have this team participate as facilitators for the whole staff activity.

Preparation

The Leadership Team asked the district contact to help plan the agenda and logistics for the first meeting (to train the Instructional Leadership Team). This was crucial for helping the school Leadership Team understand how to develop the agenda and logistics for the whole school activity.

Additionally, two meeting dates were set — one prior to the first day of duty for the Instructional Leadership Team to meet and go through the protocol, and a second one for the whole staff during the week before school opened. We literally had meetings to plan meetings.

Results

The initial results were very positive. Overall, the majority of the faculty enjoyed the activity and took a lot away from it regarding ideas for improving teaching and learning.

After school opened, continuing the dialogue became difficult because everyone was immediately immersed in the “mechanics” of the beginning of the year. After the scheduling issues and other “new year” things settled down, the teams refocused on QTL.

Follow-Up

To keep the faculty discussing these ideas, the Leadership Team used the following “follow-up” strategies:

  • “Chalk Talk” (in mailroom/faculty workroom) with guiding questions about QTL and the descriptors of QTL that the faculty developed.
  • External Service Provider trainig on Project-Based Learning
  • Sharing ideas verbally in department and SLC meetings
  • Bi-weekly reflection sheets for teachers to record what they used and what they planned to use

Additionally, the staff developed rubrics from the descriptors that teachers and students used to assess teaching in the classroom.

The Protocol

(to be added later…)

June 2, 2006

This is a story about…

Filed under: Introduction — Stephanie @ 2:04 pm

…One school’s adventures in implementing Smaller Learning Communities. Our story will take readers through the beginning, implementation, and evaluation/revision stages and include detailed information about the successes, challenges, and lessons that we learned along the way.

This story will be written in small “chunks” in the form of an online blog.  When writing is complete, readers will have the option of searching through the blog, downloading a free .pdf, or purchasing an inexpensive printed and bound copy.

Hopefully this chronicle of SLC implementation will be helpful for others who are involved in (or just beginning) similar initiatives.

May 22, 2006

Brief History of the School

Filed under: Introduction, School Portrait — Stephanie @ 7:14 pm

Chavez High School, which opened in the fall of 2000, was built as part of the Houston ISD “Rebuild 2000” program that provides funding for the construction of new schools to relieve severe classroom overcrowding. The school was built to accommodate 2,400 students. On August 16, 2000, the school opened its doors to approximately 1,500 students in grades 9-11. In school year 2001 – 2002, the school enrollment was 1,950 including grades 9 –12. The community is predominantly Hispanic and 80% economically disadvantaged. The student enrollment has increased each year from 1200 in the first year to a current enrollment count of 2,200. In CHS, 75% of the students are at-risk for dropping out of high school. The enrollment is comprised of 83% Hispanic, 10% African American, 4% Asian, 3% Anglo, and 18% are identified as Limited English Proficient.

Chavez High School is currently in the fifth year of full implementation of Smaller Learning Communities in the form of 4-year Career Academies based on a student interest survey given to students in grades 9-11 during the 2001-2002 school year. The Academies include: Arts, Communications, & Media, Business and Criminal Justice, Health Science & Human Services, Advance Technology & Pre-Engineering, and the Newcomers Academy for incoming LEP students. An HISD Environmental Science Magnet is also included as an Academy. A master schedule is in place to allow most students to take core courses, elective courses and Career & Technology courses within the Academy. All Academies are career-themed and focused around the electives so that the Academy Teams consist of teachers from all curriculum areas including the electives classes, rather than just four-core areas.

The architectural structure of the school lends itself to the Academy model, one of the strategies for creating smaller learning communities. Each Academy is separate from one another and contains fully equipped science labs, language labs, computer labs, and classrooms. An Academy Principal, Counselor, Academy Coordinator, Adult Advocacy Program Coordinator, Literacy Coach, and clerical support are also located in each Academy. The structure is well designed for the large enrollment as well as the programs and electives offered at Chavez High School, and provides our large urban student population with smaller and more personalized learning environments where academic rigor and high expectations are the standard. With a physical structure and organizational structure in place, our focus is now on improving curriculum and instruction to facilitate improved student learning for all students in all disciplines.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress