It’s been a while since I’ve written here, mainly due to hassles managing a classroom full of 12-year-olds full of holiday cheer bent on early celebration. It’s exhausting to maintain a focus right now. We have another week to go, right up to Dec. 21. And despite pressure to join the merriment, I push back and still celebrate reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic. And science.
The best thing going on in the classroom has been a year-long science project I joined. It’s a fairly simple concept. The NSF provides funding for graduate students in science, technology, engineering and math to “improve communication, teaching, collaboration, and team building skills while enriching STEM learning and instruction in K-12 schools.” The kids are enjoying science in a way I’ve never seen in all the years I’ve taught.
A graduate student (in my case, a biologist) comes in for 10 hours a week to assist with math and science lessons in a team teaching arrangement where he provides the content knowledge, and I help with lesson design and classroom management. He also does support work for me outside the classroom. He brings in demonstrations, gives lectures, and sets up experiments. The kids take notes, ask questions, measure stuff, make graphs and write reports. He gets a stipend, and I get some money, as well. The kids get to see how a scientist works and thinks, and they pump him for information about any number of things. Communication and mathematics skills are supported while science process and content knowledge is built, all seamlessly as part of the package.
Project participants from the various schools have monthly meetings where we all sit around and talk about what we’re doing. One of the things that keeps coming up is the question of how to sustain this after the grant money runs out. I say it can’t be done without the scientists. Having a live person from the field who can meet with the kids directly on a daily basis is the most powerful curricular initiative I’ve ever been a part of.
I’m thinking about how this project could serve as a model for curricular reform. Instead of tackling the problems of achievement and motivation from a skills and accountability position, we’re providing the kids with experiential opportunities to use the science process skills. Rather than hiring consultants and instructional aids, or investing in more tests and pre-packaged reading and math programs we could pay more graduate students for their time in return for their expertise, and we’d be enriching the system simultaneously on both ends.
We’re using the curriculum and state standards to guide our planning, which allows the program to remain responsive to local needs and limitations. There are no tests other than the ones we make. The kids are all excited to study science, and they’re using academic skills along the way.
It’s not a boring subject in school for them this year. Interestingly, as I come to think of it, the instructional approach we’re using is pretty standard. Nothing fancy, just lots of time and energy.
13 Comments
Doug,
I think “live from the field” is a great idea. Ordinarily
these students would never meet. Each phase of study
(and field of practice) seems sealed off from the other.
Like Tupperware, each area is tightly closed and though somewhat transparent, really rather a mystery.
Great blog – as usual.
Peggy
Oh you foolish dreamer! Wanting a pilot project to go on, especially one that cost money? Well, we can all dream can’t we?
It is Christmas, remember.
My class is involved in one of these fellowships this year as well! I’ve learned more about science in the last four months than ever in my life. My students are fascinated. It might be interesting to get our kids talking to each other about the experience. What do you think?
Sounds like a plan. Maybe the teachers could compare notes, also.
Doug, this really does bring up a good question about carrots and sticks that folks try to use to move policy. See the feds would love to get you doing this on an ongoing basis, so they think, hey lets give them startup money then the state/locals can pick it up on an ongoing basis. The locals figure they already have things to spend money on, thank you very much, and if it’s great (and they may think so too) why don’t the feds keep funding it? Everyone know what they want to have happen, they all want it to happen, they just don’t want to pay for it. So the feds think, MAYBE if we get them started, they’ll keep doing it. Talk about passive aggressive!
It’s true that curriculum initiatives are never sustained for very long. We get weary of “changes” that are either not materially supported, or for which we’re given too little training. I don’t expect this project to last long, either. You’re right, Alice, nobody wants to pay. What’s interesting about this project is that it isn’t primarily aimed at schools, but at the scientific research community, which sustains itself on grant money. If this was coming from the Dept. of Education it would look completely different.
Doug,
I think what you are doing is great. Who initiated this project? I am very interested in getting a project like this started in my school. I teach science to grades 2-5 and am having a hard time (being my first year teaching science) trying to find time to do any extra-curricular projects. The students just finished their yearly science projects and now my brain feels like mush. If you could have any input, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
The effort that was required of me to “get it started” was filling out an application, and attending an interview. Like I said, it’s part of a grant, but the grant isn’t something that I set up. It’s a much bigger project that’s being administered through the University here, and it involves several local schools.
“One of the things that keeps coming up is the question of how to sustain this after the grant money runs out.”
This is what separates “doers” from “teachers”.
Doug, these are two profound statements. I suppose your statement angers me more than mine angers you, and I know it angers you.
I might just delve into your comments much more deeply on my blog. In this instance your thought process appalls me, and is a very good example of how the system is broken.
I didn’t say who is asking the question, which may make a difference to anyone’s understanding of what I meant, I suppose. The question about sustaining the initiative comes from university faculty, for the most part. Teachers understand the limitations of time and energy – and money – that make the suggestion problematic. Nobody expects this project to continue. I’m simply daydreaming here. There are other, more realistic, ideas in place to create a legacy from the project.
The remark about “doers and teachers” is built on a cliché. It doesn’t make me angry, just skeptical about any claim that might come from it.
“It’s exhausting to maintain focus”. Hear Hear! Thanks for the honest portrayal of your classroom and yourself. It is good not to feel alone in managing the hoards.
I’m not adverse to writing grants, etc. but you can spend the rest of your professional life doing development to sustain a program like this because where ever you get the money it will not be sustained funding until the project is part of the regular school budget. And make no mistake there is HUGE resistance in moving the source of funding to the regular budget. I know this not only from schools, but my work as a public library advocate. We spent years trying to get funding for an after school homework program that started as a private grant into the city budget. That was eventually funded by the city, but with recent budget cuts, it’s gone now. I’d say oh well, but I’m sure in 5-10 years, they’ll want to start the program again.
Post a Comment