Author Archives: Maren Johnson

Zombie Brains, Talk Moves, and the Next Generation Science Standards!

Posted by on
Life in the Classroom, Professional Development, Science


Brain in hand
By Maren Johnson

The zombies' odd, shambling gait, and their need to hold their arms straight out in front in order to maintain balance?  That's indicative of
damage to the cerebellum, the part of the brain responsible for motor
coordination.  The zombies' hunger, and thus their unrelenting urge to chase and eat humans?  Clearly
a problem with the hypothalamus, the appetite control center of the brain—the zombies just don't know when they are full! And all that zombie rage? Oh yeah, that's originating in the amygdala, apparently overactive in the case of zombies.

I started the lesson by giving students a chance to surface their prior knowledge: students wrote answers to the questions, "How do zombies look different from humans?" and "How do zombies behave differently from humans?" We then discussed their answers as a group. I was a bit floored by the response. Students who rarely participated were eager to share, and these students knew A LOT about zombies. All that zombie knowledge gathered over the years from movies, TV shows, books, and video games? Now the students had a chance to share it in an academic setting. They also wanted to know more about the biology involved!


Many of the students were wildly excited about this science lesson.  My choice of words here is deliberate–in one of my class periods, it was a bit, well….wild. Students talking all at once, to me and to each other—they were on topic but almost no one could hear anyone. How to contain the chaos yet still direct that positive energy towards learning?


Continue reading →

Little Red Marbles and the Next Generation Science Standards

Posted by on
Life in the Classroom, Professional Development, Science
Photo Oct 11, 2013, 11:09 AM

by Maren Johnson

"Atoms are little red marbles too small to see," responded one of my students when I asked what he knew about atoms. I teach biology, so while atoms are important, we don't talk about them every day, and it was near the beginning of the school year. I asked a few clarifying questions to figure out what he actually meant.

No, he didn't think atoms were LIKE little red marbles, he actually thought they WERE little red marbles, that is to say, little round hard things colored red. Where did he get this idea? Well, to be honest, probably right here at school! We frequently use models at my school to teach about atoms. There's a few demonstration models up to the left created by the crafty physical science teacher at my school. Down to the right you can see a model of a neon atom constructed by one of my chemistry students.

While use of those models results in a lot of understanding, it can also can result in some misconceptions, especially when taken too literally!

Continue reading →

Collective Bargaining and Dead Fish: We’re just a bunch of teachers after school

Posted by on
Education



Wild salmonBy Maren Johnson

The last bell rang on the last day of the school year.  I looked around my science classroom. Dead fish at every lab station, the remains of several interesting labs.  Yes, they were preserved, and yes, the students had followed instructions on putting them back in containers, but still, these dead fish just could not sit in my classroom over the summer—they would need to be disposed of properly, and I would be the one who would need to do that. 

During that school year, teachers in my district did not receive any paid time after the end of the year for closing down classrooms, performing check out procedures, and so on.  At the moment the last bell rang, that was it–any more time spent doing those activities was on our own, and unpaid.  Really, the idea that teachers are done with classroom work the moment the students leave in June is absurd.

Soon after that school day, my local association bargaining team, of which I am a member, met in my classroom for a planning session.  As we surveyed the dead fish on the lab benches, the bargaining team talked about how all members have the equivalent of “dead fish”—things that just have to be done after the end of the school year in order to ensure a great start to the next school year.  Surveys and individual conversations with members revealed the same thing—teachers and other educators needed some time at the end of the school year.

When our team put together a list of priorities for the next bargaining season, you guessed it—a paid day at the end of the school year for all members made the list—and we got it! Unfortunately, the term "Dead Fish Day" did not make it into actual contract language–nope, instead we're calling it by the much less imaginative term “M7 day,” named after the “M” section of the contract.

Continue reading →

CSTP celebrates the big 1 – 0 ! Now where are those talking points?

Posted by on
Education, Education Policy, Professional Development, Teacher Leadership

Photo

by Maren Johnson

We’ve got something unique here in Washington state in terms
of education organizations that work with teachers.  Yeah, we have some great districts, state education agencies, unions.  In
addition to all that, here in Washington, we’ve got an independent nonprofit
with a focus on teaching—and that organization, the Center for Strengthening
the Teaching Profession, is celebrating its ten year anniversary this month!

So what does CSTP do? 
Just a few of the activities:

Community Dialogue
and Advocacy.  What’s different about
CSTP advocacy training?  No talking
points provided!   Whether online or in
person, CSTP advocacy training gives teachers the opportunity to develop their
own messages for their own audiences, whether that audience is local, state, or
national.  At an advocacy training
before a recent legislative session, one teacher, a tad frustrated, asked, “Where
are the talking points?”  The facilitator’s
response: “The talking points will be better if you, the teachers, develop
them!”

The communication is not just limited to speaking—writers’
retreats (and this blog!) have given educators the opportunity to develop writing
skills.

Teacher Leadership.
Very frequently, in K-12 school cultures, the term “leadership” is used
interchangeably with the term “administration.”  The Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession
has worked to expand that definition with the development of the Teacher
Leadership Skills Framework.
The NBCT Leadership Conference, one of CSTP’s
signature events, has been a launchpad for many newly certified NBCTs to not
only hone leadership skills, but also to develop their own personal network of
statewide teacher leaders. 

CSTP doesn’t just strengthen the teaching profession, CSTP
strengthens individual teachers.  One
teacher recently said, “There’s a whole lot going on besides what is
going on in my own little classroom, and CSTP helps me learn about it.”

Research.  CSTP commissions research to help all sorts
of agencies and organizations better understand teaching and learning, as well
as support for teaching and learning, in Washington state classrooms.

And hey, the audience for all this is definitely not limited
to teachers!  CSTP pulls together
instructional leaders of all sorts in work such as helping train and
support the Instructional Framework Feedback Specialists for our new state
teacher principal evaluation system.  In
another example of working with administrators and teachers across the career
continuum, CSTP developed a module designed to help principals better assist
new teachers in their buildings. 

Advocacy, leadership, and research?  It’s been an amazing ten years.  So where is CSTP going in the next ten?

National Board Certification: The Times They are A-Changin’

Posted by on
Uncategorized

by Maren Johnson

A few years ago I decided to pursue National Board Certification.  Then I looked at the process.  No way!  I would never have the time to do that!  My children were very young, I had a full time job, numerous other responsibilities.

I sat on the idea for a year, but then found I was still interested.  However, doing it all in one year was just too much.  So what did I do?  I decided to spread the work over two years by doing Take One the first year, and the rest of the process the next.  Yes, that did break it up a little bit, but I always wished I could have broken it up even more–it was quite an uneven split between one entry one year and three entries plus the assessment center the second year!

My story is not unique–the time burden and financial demands the National Board process places on individuals in a single year can be an obstacle to pursuing National Board Certification.  These obstacles bear no relationship to whether or not a teacher's practice actually meets the National Board standards. 

Now that process is changing! National Board Candidates will now have the option to complete the process over some years, and pay as they go.  The certification fee, payable over time, will be approximately $1900, as compared to the current $2565.  These changes will make the process more accessible to more teachers–time, financial issues, family and other commitments, will no longer be quite the road block they once were to pursuing this rigorous process.  This increase in accessibility is welcome!

Currently, the National Board process consists of four entries and six assessment center exercises, and candidates complete all of this in one year.  NBPTS is looking to reformulate those 10 parts into a smaller number of components. Implementation of the new process will be spread over multiple years as components are developed and released. Two of the components will likely be available in 2014-2015, and the other components after that.  

Once all of the components are available, candidates will have a choice:  Want to do the whole thing in one year?  Great!  Do circumstances necessitate that you spread it out over several years?  That's fine too!

What's not changing?  The rigor and the National Board standards.  This thing is still going to be tough, and it's still going to focus on improving student learning.

There are some long and short term implications.  In the short term, rolling it out over a few years means that the only candidates certifying in that transitional time span will be retake candidates from previous cycles.  What does this mean for candidates who had been planning for a stipend, such as candidates who may have been counting on it for the last ten years before retirement?  What does this mean for candidates who had been counting on National Board Certification to fulfill state teaching certificate requirements ?

What do these changes mean for this year?  Will there be an influx of candidates this fall once teachers realize that if they do not get into the pipeline now, it will be a few years before they are able to receive certification?  Or, on the other hand, will candidates want to wait and not start until next year so they can be part of the new process?  How do Take One candidates fit in?

What about the next few years?  What will candidate support systems look like? How will cohorts be structured?  What are the implications for legislative support?  How about those National Board rituals, both big and small?  This past year, we lost "the box" and the associated "packing parties" with the move to online submission.  That turned out, for the most part, to be a welcome change.   As this new National Board Certification process moves foward, what are the shared events and key moments that will bring NBCTs together?

Related articles

Washington State Teacher Evaluation: At High Risk?

Posted by on
Assessment, Education Policy

by Maren Johnson

So educators don't get the summer off. Yes, it can be a time of rest and relaxation, but it's also a time for preparation, training, and study. This summer, in particular, educators around our state have been getting ready to implement our new teacher evaluation system, with framework instruction, calibration trainings, and local bargaining.

After all this, what sort of news do we get, now, at the end of the summer? Well, we're at risk. The Department of Education sent our state a warning letter saying that our state teacher evaluation system does not comply with the waiver requirements for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA or No Child Left Behind)–our state has been placed on "high-risk" status.

So what's the problem? Well, the U.S. Department of Education is not satisfied with the way Washington state law ties teacher evaluation to state tests. Current state law (5895) reads as follows: “Student growth data…must be based on multiple measures that can include classroom-based, school-based, district-based, and state-based tools.”

The issue? The word "can" as it relates to the state-based tools. Instead of "can include" state tests, this warning letter is looking for something more along the lines of "must include" state tests.

How could our state address this?

If state tests were required for evaluation, one possibility is that we could end up with two separate teacher evaluation systems in Washington state, one system for teachers with state tests, one system for teachers without them. I teach tenth grade biology. I don't know how student growth could be measured by the Biology End of Course Exam, since it is only given once at the end of the year, but if it were, that could mean that my teacher evaluation score would depend on state tests while the history teacher's evaluation, just next door, would not, as there is no state test in history. The possibility exists that a value added measure could be attached to end of course exams through a multivariate model—this is a controversial idea.

Another alternative? Evaluate teachers in teams. What's this all about? Here's the language from the high-risk warning letter:

"Since under Washington state law student growth data elements may include the teacher's performance as a member of a grade level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school, along with the amended request, Washington must provide business rules defining these teams of teachers and explaining how student growth is calculated for a team. Washington must also provide data to demonstrate that Washington's use of shared attribution of student growth does not mask high or low performance of educators."

Again, our state assessment system just won't work for this. Should the physical science teachers in my school be evaluated based on my biology students' test scores? What about the PE and band teachers? Should they be evaluated based on overall school or grade level student scores on state tests? This has actually happened in other states, and it makes little sense!

Requiring teacher evaluation to be tied to student sores on state tests is not a system that will work well in Washington state (or probably any state for that matter!). Our state student assessment system just doesn't fit with our state teacher evaluation program, nor should it. Forcing an alignment between the two will neither improve state education nor result in an increase in student learning.

 

Related articles
Washington gets federal warning on teacher evaluations
Wash., 2 other states get federal warning on teacher evaluation
Arne Duncan Puts No Child Left Behind Waivers In Three States On 'High-Risk Status'

The Post-Game Show: Three Things I learned this School Year

Posted by on
Life in the Classroom, Professional Development
Photo Jun 9, 2013, 7:50 AM

by Maren Johnson

We're teachers. That means whether we end the school year battered and bruised, or triumphant and victorious, we generally don't have reporters following us around on the last day of school asking us about the highlights in student learning for the year. Replays of key moments in our classroom game are not usually publicly rebroadcast for analysis by a panel of color commentators.

Our post-game show is a little different. If we want to reflect on the school year, we're going to have to do it on our own. I checked out my schedule for the period immediately following the end of the school year: there's some professional development, a conference, and quite a few bargaining sessions. Other teachers have similar activities.

What's missing from this end of school line-up? Reflection. It really is. There is no time specifically pencilled in at any of my own particular meetings (as far as I know!) for looking back on the school year. That's interesting. I think the reflection is implicit–many of the meetings include check-ins, debriefs, annual reports, and the like–but explicit individual (or group) reflection is not generally an agenda item.

So how will I tell the story of my school year? Well–I don't want to forget about it–each year is remarkable. I've told several of those stories here on this blog, but a few of my stories from school this year are just going to have to remain at school 😉

Some things I learned this year, in no particular order:

Continue reading →

Ambitious Teaching = Rigor + Equity

Posted by on
Education Policy, Science, Social Issues
Photo May 19, 2013, 12:32 PM

by Maren Johnson

"Ambitious teaching = rigor + equity. What does this mean for the Next Generation Science Standards?" This provocative question, posed at a conference last week by Mark Windschitl of the University of Washington, has been a framework for me for the last few days not just for thinking about science standards, but also for thinking about teaching in general.

First off, I like the term "ambitious teaching." Ambitious teaching sounds accessible, because, well, that means we as teachers can all aspire to high goals–and if we don't succeed, we can always try again! It's kind of like a "growth mindset" for teaching. Ambitious implies continuous growth, as opposed to reaching an endpoint.

Ambitious teaching in the context of the Next Generation Science Standards? That means rigor for both the teachers and the students–the new standards marry science practices, disciplinary ideas, and cross-cutting concepts in a way we haven't seen before. This will challenge our teaching, and it will also challenge our students. How to get the students to achieve this level of rigor? Growth mindset might again be part of the answer: Ann Renker, principal of Neah Bay Middle and High School, serving the Makah Indian reservation, has had remarkable results with growth mindset and incorporating the ideas of “hard work, not natural intelligence” throughout the school.

The Next Generation Science Standards have been designed from the ground up with equity in mind. Previous national science standards were based overtly, explicitly and almost exclusively on European tradition: Science for All Americans, basis of the National Science Education Standards, stated, "The sciences accounted for in this book are largely part of a tradition of thought that happened to develop in Europe during the last 500 years – a tradition to which most people from all cultures contribute today."

Continue reading →

Student (and teacher) Engagement: Increase the drama!

Posted by on
Education, Life in the Classroom, Professional Development, Science
Photo May 11, 2013, 4:04 PM

by Maren Johnson

The audience will not tune in to watch information. You wouldn’t, I wouldn’t. No one would or will. The audience will only tune in — and stay tuned in — to watch drama.

~David Mamet, playwright and screenwriter

I don't usually get my teaching tips from television screenwriters, but I thought the above quote was worth some thought. If drama has a wide definition–let's say drama is a story resulting from human interactions–then adding drama to our teaching is definitely a way increase student engagement–the "tuning in" that David Mamet talks about above.

Our students often aren't here for the information, they're here for the drama. The students frequently find that drama in the actions of their peers. One of our jobs as teachers? Try to create that drama in our subject matter and class activities. Is drama necessary for learning? No, but it sure can help. Some ways to create that drama? Building teacher-student relationships, and including stories about content matter and school.

Last week at my school, a teacher sent out a link to an inspiring (and dramatic) Rita Pierson video on teacher-student relationships. Some teachers discussed it at lunch, a few other teachers commented by email. Teachers engaging other teachers, all right.  Another example: also last week at my school, a teacher announced "Staff Spirit Day" with the theme of "Hey, I went to college!" We were to wear our college sweatshirts and tell students positive stories about our college experiences.

No college sweatshirt being handy, I donned my high school FFA jacket–yeah, that's right, vocational agriculture all the way. I was part of an amazing high school FFA team–we competed in nursery landscape contests across the state and even made our way to nationals in Kansas City.

The FFA jacket I wore last Friday prominently featured the name of my high school, a neighboring school district to the one in which I now teach. As I was sharing stories of high school and college, one of my current students reminded me, "Ms. Johnson, my grandpa was your high school biology teacher!" Sure enough, which meant that my teacher-student-teacher relationship with this family now spanned two school districts and several generations! Good, we've got some human drama.

This high school biology teacher, as I described to my class, was a colorful character, a former Marine who was able to do push-ups with one arm while suspending himself between two student desks. He brewed coffee in his science prep room and gave us worms to dissect. He retired with the graduating class: the students proclaimed him the "Senior senior."

Continue reading →

Inappropriate Jokes and Student Teacher Evaluation

Posted by on
Education, Professional Development
by Maren Johnson

I had an outstanding student teacher this year. It was a positive experience for both of us: some lucky school in our area will be very fortunate to have her as their new science teacher. Hard working, enthusiastic, and knowledgeable, she makes the future of the teaching profession look bright!

We don't often get student teachers in our school because of our relatively rural location somewhat distant from college or university teacher education programs. When we do get student teachers, they frequently are completing online certification programs. For prospective teachers in rural areas, or for those who move during their education or need to continue working to support themselves, online learning is often the only option. My student teacher completed an accredited online program with a strong presence in our state.

My student teacher excelled in the classroom. Her clinical supervisor, a retired teacher from our area, provided helpful and supportive feedback, and was definitely an asset to the student teacher's development. The online program's student teacher evaluation system, however? More than a little funky.

Continue reading →