The small group of families who started the discussion about Steller's philosophy stated in our position paper that our school has drifted from it's original ideals.
So what were those ideas? What does "open optional" or "progressive education" mean?
There's a large literature on this, but in many ways the ideas don't mean much until they are in practice. In other words, it's all easy to agree with until you have to make choices. Freedom is a good example. Who could be against freedom? The open optional concept that I grew up with put freedom first, with the idea that a student-centered education can only happen in an environment in which the student is free to make real choices (i.e.: not just choosing what color to paint a horse, but whether to paint or go riding).
The problem is, you can't have freedom without risk. If you're free to choose, you're free to make the wrong choice. Many parents and teachers (and a lot of student, too) aren't ready to go that far, and never have been. That's one reason why open optional education always served a minority of families.
Is the Steller community ready to trust students with real freedom? To find out, we need to think together about what the concepts mean in practice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Part of what intrigues me about the "revitalizing Steller" process is the education I will be receiving about the open optional philosophy of education. My ninth-grade child has been educated in open optional classroom/learning environments since kindergarten, but if someone asked me to define open optional, I would struggle. I could tell someone differences I see in open optional education and a neighborhood school classroom. For me, the understanding is truly in the process.
At Steller, I have seen educational freedom provided differently in every classroom. I have seen and heard definitions of Stellers educational freedom frequently discussed by students, staff and families individually and in a variety of committees. What I haven't heard or seen in two-and-a-half years are the responses, or conclusions, to the discussions that have transpired. Seems like the discussion continues and no answers are formed. The process bothers me.
I believe I have learned to extend a lot more trust out to my child's education at Steller. Very challenging. That trust extends out to the staff, and parents that are able to spend more volunteer time at Steller than I. Maybe part of the extension of that trust needs to be a stronger process and bond of communication between the triad of the Steller learning environment - the student, the administration/staff, the parent(s). Not always knowing what is happening educationally is part of the open optional education, but shouldn't there be a variety of options available for a parent to check into the continuing education of one child?
The revitalizing process as discussion is a terrific opportunity for myself and others to become more educated about the educational freedoms we aspire as a community at Steller.
Great comment, Brian. The issue of communication is critical, both in terms of everyone understanding the concept behind the school, and for parents, students and staff to keep in touch about what students and staff are doing. "Open optional" is meant to be a partnership, not a black box. How do we make that happen? More frequent conferences?
I am the parent of a seventh grader. We came because of the size, safety and friendliness of the school. I missed the glory that was Steller and don't know what has been lost.
I take issue with the strong statements about 'buying in' to anything. The idea of screening students/families/employees to weed out non-believers makes me nervous. 1. It's a public school. 2. Whatever unique educational philosophy the school embodies should stand on it's own merit. Either it's a good way to educate kids or it isn't. If some families/teachers/kids find it isn't for them they can choose to leave. We don't need to be excluding people.
Things HAVE changed since the 70's. Steller needs to change. It isn't enough to say 'we want bright, motivated, self directed students at our school and if you're not mature, smart, well supported by your family, etc, etc then perhaps Steller isn't the school for you.' East High doesn't get to say 'if you're not self-directed and motivated you're not welcome.' In a school district where 30 percent of the kids don't graduate and 60 percent of the Native kids don't graduate, it is irresponsible to write off big blocks of people because their parents aren't committed enough to the concept of open education. And why would we want to? If open schools are good they're good, aren't they?
Speaking of changes since the 70's: What about kids with learning disablities and the kids in special ed? Where do they fit in? When I attended Anchorage schools in the 60s and 70s and I remember when kids with learning problems were segregated, they went to different schools.
You need to make clearer the negative impacts of the things you are alarmed about. Grades? I am reminded of the bumper sticker that says 'If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one'. If kids/parents/families don't like or believe in grades, don't pay much attention to them.
I don't think the schedule is too restrictive and hindering kids from taking advantage of all these great opportunities to be out in the community. People spend far too much of their life working in my opinion, why are we so anxious to get them out there into work type settings?
Parents who are well connected can probably line up good placements for their kids but I think it's too much for the school to take on. It's simply too much work. And there are plenty of other worthwhile things teacher and staff can do with kids in a school setting.
Oh and one more thing. Please don't assume that everybody is opposed to NCLB and standardized testing. I was and now I'm not. I see it as a civil rights issue now.
Thanks for giving me a chance to express my views. My daughter and I love the school.
Sonda Juliussen
I agree that Steller is a great school and my son is a happy tenth grader. I think Steller can be even better with a little pulling together.
The term 'buy in' is used not to coerce or eliminate anyone but rather to make sure that all who come to this community of learners know what they are getting into and accept it so that there is no fall out later. There is a document describing 'Steller Philosophy' for all incoming students and I think all parents and students sign this. To me, it means that students are expected to take control of their learning path with the guidance of teachers who understand this process. So, for example, my son and I are not surprised when my son takes a SDL or IS and has seemingly open spaces of time and freedom in his learning program. What I would like in addition to this is that every teacher have a clear understanding of how to handle these, with training and guidelines, very good self- evaluation, teacher evaluations and peer evaluations and port folios as part of the process. If the whole community buys in, they all are open to training and keeping up these teaching methods.
For the record, I am not against grades, but I think they are secondary to other methods of evaluating and hope we have other methods always in the mix. I know that colleges accept many students without grades but I personally would not want to close any door for my son and if he happens to pick the one veterinary school that requires grades, for example, I would be disapointed if he did not get that choice. Additionally, I would not be unhappy if my son chose not to go to college if he found something else he likes to do that contributes to our society and his happiness.
I think the general principles of NCLB are fantastic, every child does deserve that same opportunities for a great education. I do not agree with some of the components of how it was overzealous with certain number requirements and grossly underfunded.
Thank you very much for setting up this opportunity for dialogue. I feel it is awkward to use compared to talking to someone but I am trying it for the first time and maybe will get used to it.
Question: If a parent enrolls their student in the Districts' Montessori School or Chugach Optional School do they need to support and participate in that school's philosophy? Or can they say, I really only want my kid here becuase it is a small friendly school, but I don't want them to learn the Montesorri approach or be taught with Open Optional education practices?
Can a school with a focused educational philosophy function with a large number of parents and students who are not participating in and supporting that philosophy?
This seems totally contradictory. I'm beginning to feel like there are folks who want to change the Steller philosophy to " a small, friendly school." There's nothing wrong with that, but lets be clear - that is changing Steller from it's original mission.
Responding too: "making clearer the negative impacts of things we are alarmed about."
It seems to me that "the glory that was Steller" can be seen in the vestiges of approaches and structures that are scattered around our school- many of which Steller pioneered in the District.
Let's start with Seminar and Paidea - a method Steller pioneered. We had one of the best teachers of this approach anywhere in the district until two years ago when she left. That event should have raised red flags with parents! We now have new teachers trying to learn it, with no mentors in house. To be effective, ALL staff should be able to use this method with ANY subject they teach. Otherwise it becomes a one semester 8th grade curiosity.
This is a HUGE problem.
SDL's - There is no standardized understanding among the staff about HOW these are to be done. The practice varies from staff member to staff member, causing confusion for students and very poor pedagogy. There is no mechanism to teach all incoming students how these work, and to encourage students to pursue these. Yet they are one of the unique dimenions Steller was founded on, and Karin tells me the comprehensive schools don't even allow independent studies anymore.Students coming to Steller should be seeking to access this opportunity, as it is not offered other places. Efforts over the last three years by concerned parents to correct this have so far been unsuccessful.
Counseling Groups are almost non-functional. There seems to be a lack of clear understanding about what the main focus of these should be, and evidently, a lack of understanding on the staffs part about what to do with these so that they thrive. Yet they are crucial by providng a smaller face-to-face context for kids, so that they not only know that there is at least one adult in the school who is concerned about them individually, but also should create a smaller group that helps them feel that they belong at Steller. Even at friendly Steller kids can feel isolated and alone, which will negatively impact there learning.
Intensives - There is little intensity about the intensive offerings. Parents have been asking since I have been at the school for more rigor, focus, integration, imagination and collaboration. I am disheartened when my kid comes home from intensives (which she has every year) and I discover how little of the time she is engaged in learning activities - even broadly defined. I am disheartened to walk into the school and see how many movies are being watched during this time. And not necessarily movies that further the learning, but seem to be little more than babysitting - unless they relate at least indirectly to the subject and the kids have to process them in some form (Seminar would be good, written responses, etc). These offerings should be dynamic, in-depth, challenging, inspiring and energizing. That seems to be an exception.
Collaborative Decision Making - one of the cornerstones the NASSP's Breaking Ranks study identifies as a crucial component to an effective school. We have the structure on paper, but have trouble getting parents and students to participate.Since I've been at Steller there has seems to be an ambivalence on the part of the principles to this important dimension of the school. Of course, one can hardly blame them if the community won't participate enthusiastically.
Flexibility and Freedom - We seem to lack trust in each other and in the kids more and more. We seem to be responding to changing community dynamics with the same fear everyone else is, with methods that do little to address the real issues, and create a climate of increasing phobia, paranoia, and distrust. These things do not produce a healthy community but impair it.
For instance: Do we need security cameras at Steller just becuase someone in a central office - not part of our community - says that we need them. Do they really protect us, REALLY, and does the protection they might afford offset the state of fear and mistrust their very presence automatically produces in our psyches abd bodies, whether we are aware of it or not?
Another instance: Would it hurt to try the Wednesday Schedule for a time and see what happens? We have several upper classmen who have noticed that we say certain things are importnat to us, but these things have little room in our structures. What that says, clearly, is that they are NOT important too us. These wise, perceptive young men are asking us to align our walk with our talk! We need more people like this in our society, and we should not only admit to them that they are right, but encourage their further growth and development, by TRYING their plan.
Do we embrace going against the flow and taking a risk? It is safer and easier to just keep things the same. But then we should admit that THOSE are the core values of Steller: safety, security, ease - and that that is who WE are, and that is the kind of person we want our kids to become.
If you've read this far, I'm honored that you respect me enough to do so. I deeply hope that I have helped you understand our concerns and have challenged you to a greater vision - for yourself, for our kids, for our school and for our larger community
Sincerely,
Gary
Post a Comment