After
teaching 14 years, I may have many ideas about what makes a good school, but I
still have many questions and doubts about the topic. I read with interest chapter
3 of Deborah Meier’s book, The Power of
Their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. While there
were several aspects of the school that I questioned, I also found many of
their ideas to be admirable. I was immediately drawn to their theory that “expertise
in early childhood development is a good foundation for starting a school for
adolescents.” I have taught adolescents for my entire teaching career, and,
some time ago, I came to the conclusion that middle school students are very
similar to preschoolers! They have a hard time keeping their hands off each
other, are easily distracted, and often have to be redirected.
The Harlem
school also understands that smaller class sizes shouldn’t be just for early elementary
schools. A maximum class size of 20, as the article suggests, would be a dream
for me. My largest class is 32; we can
barely fit all the students and desks in the room without running into each
other. Sadly, as funding for education decreases, our class numbers have risen,
making it more difficult to give each student the individual attention he or
she may require.
The idea of
only seeing 40 students per day is interesting. This year, I am seeing fewer
students than before – only 93, as opposed to 175 or so last year – because all
English teachers in our middle school are now teaching three two-hour blocks, daily,
rather than six classes with a new group of students in each. Not surprisingly,
I have found that teaching fewer students is much less stressful for me and, in
turn, better for the students. Although 93 is more than double the 40 seen by
the Harlem teachers, I do think there is a benefit to knowing more students in the
school, especially in the hallways between classes; students are more receptive
to direction from teachers they have built relationships with.
I liked the
Harlem school’s emphasis on common planning times for teachers. When I first
started teaching at my school in 2002, each grade was divided into three teams.
All students on the same team had the same four core teachers. Special
education teachers and elective teachers were assigned to be on teams with the
core teachers. Collaboration was valued, and, in addition to our personal
planning hour, we had a team planning hour every day. During those meetings, we
were able to discuss our concerns about particular students, and we held conferences
with the parents if necessary. In this way, students were not as apt to fall
through the cracks because one teacher would bring an issue to the attention of
the others, and we could all address it together. During our team planning, we
also planned cross-curricular lessons and units. Sadly, as funding decreased,
we lost our teams and began to look more like a miniature high school again.
Having taught both ways, I firmly believe that teaming is the very best way to
teach middle-school students.
I do have
some concerns with the Harlem school. First of all, they seem to value the core
subjects more than physical education, art, and music. The school teaches
literature, but I don’t see where it teaches language arts. This suggests to me
that they may not be spending enough time with writing instruction. Also, the
idea that teachers are responsible for assessing their colleagues would seem to
be a recipe for mistrust amongst coworkers. It also seems impractical that a
teacher would have enough time to properly observe and evaluate another teacher
without spending a significant time away from his or her own classroom.
It
seems to me that one would be hard-pressed to come up with the perfect school,
especially when funding is an issue. As Louie CK’s PTA meeting clip so
humorously illustrates, many well-intended people have their own ideas about
how children should be taught. Even though there are bits of merit to many
ideas, different perspectives show us that there is no one perfect way. We can
only do the very best we can with the students, funding, and knowledge that we
have. As we find out what works and what doesn’t, we will need to constantly be
open to change and adjust as we strive to do what’s best for kids.
