One of the questions the discussed, and an issue that preoccupies me, is the issue of using technology to amplify teaching instead of just providing window dressing (“putting it on top”, as they would say).  

I am finding that the biggest challenges I’m having in this area are the following:  learning curriculum delivery for 4 subjects (Alg 1, Resource x 2; Alg 2, Inclusion & Resource; and English 4, Inclusion).  The challenges of my goal JUST as it pertains to my two Resource Alg I Resource classes goes to the difficulty, where I have a number of students (4-5) who are progressing acceptably, another 2-4 who are struggling to maintain, and final group who are fairly resigned to failure and who refuse to engage in the learning process in the class.

Is there a way to address the needs of the two former groups, while attempting to advance the ball with the latter group?  

It seems technology can help in this area; not just because it allows some individualization of content/instruction, but because – and I’ve seen this to be one MAJOR aspect of technology – students can better conceal their difficulties in the classroom, where they are generally quite reluctant to demonstrate the level of academic challenges they confront.  Technology can help mask that and not embarrass them.  I had never thought of that aspect to what we’re trying to do. 

My Second T-TESS goal is to use diverse strategies to plan and implement individualized, Algebra I TEK-related instruction for my students.

My biggest challenges remain simple:  the learning curve I myself have with tech (even with PD in these areas) and the time/effort/attention required to create it.  Once it’s up and running, it seems management would be more doable.  But, logistically, creating something on my own is impossible … even incorporating what others are doing means I have to find out what they’re doing.

I just sort of console myself with the idea that I’ll be better next year than I am this year.  I have to understand that I’m starting from a different place from others who seem to be making the change with little problem or disruption:  “Keep it simple:  use tech that supports learning with a limited amount of time and that improves the level of instruction.”

I have often reflected over the topic for my professional development and practice since coming to Berkner 8 years ago (almost to the day).  This year this concern has REALLY been drilled home as we’ve already lost 6 professionals in the SPED Department THIS academic year alone (I’m not talking about people who left last year!).  Six THIS year!  And I know the workload, stress, and emotional challenge of various aspects of the job largely cause this.

I have often felt like I’ve been in “Survival Mode” this and previous years; maybe never to the extent I have felt this year, however.  

One of the areas this has affected is my first T-TESS goal, strangely enough.  At first glance, it would seem to be the easiest; however, because Indicator 13 Compliance (or ARD paperwork compliance in general) seems less of an urgency when lessons need to be planned, papers need to be graded, FOCUS needs to be updated, grades need to be updated/turned in, and all the other priorities.  It’s easy to forget the rather “trifling” matter of ARD paperwork.

RISD Administrators, at the school and district office, have always known me as being one of the better SPED Case Managers with the quality of my compliance with ARD/IEP compliance.  This year, I feel like this priority as slipped due to the other urgent priorities I have, instruction being the foremost.

I’ve been thinking about off-loading these requirements onto the student and family.  I can get the Parent Data Form completed by making it a Google Doc and sending the link home to be filled out (I’m not sure why no one has thought to do this … I guess that a hint!).  The student can fill out his Student-Led ARD Agenda in the same way (via a Google Doc).  These are probably the two forms which cause our folders to be out of compliance most often – same with the Student Interest Inventory.  As these are completed, they would be available via my SPED Site (or whatever I name it) to be printed prior to the ARD and placed in the Student Folder.

I will attempt to do this by the end of Spring Break, in fact.

The tenor of the webinar, however, isn’t for me to digest, but for Administrators to digest.  I value myself and colleagues; I don’t often get the feeling that we’re valued by admin.  That’s just a fact.  I like them.  But I don’t feel valued, and I don’t know anyone on campus who thinks differently.

About 2 years ago, I decided that I wasn’t going to allow job responsibilities to invade MY personal and family life, and I think the decision has kept me from burning out, as it has for my co-workers.  My children need and deserve to have a dad who is very actively involved in their lives from the time I get home (4:50) until they go to bed (9:00); bring home 2 additional hours of work is EXTREMELY unfair to them.  (I won’t even mention the divorces and marital problems that have resulted from the demands some teachers feel have been put on them, to the detriment of their personal/familial lives.)

We’re currently down 2 Teachers in our Department, a third has been a long-term sub since the 3^rd week of school.  If it’s not a priority for those positions to be filled appropriately, instead demanding that we cover those class periods with our Conference Periods, etc., then, well, I have to live my life accordingly.

“How to make Learning Really Stick for Your Students”.  If I had to say, I’d say this is the chief focus – and challenge -- of my teaching.  It nicely fits with my second T-TESS goal (i.e., differentiated, TEK-connected instruction for all students to maximize student engagement and learning/growth).

If there’s one thing I’ve always noticed, as a therapist (before moving to Texas), basketball coach, and now teacher, is the considerable consternation experienced by all concerned when a concept, skill, or aptitude once learned or acquired (albeit often superficially) is quickly forgotten or overwhelmed by other considerations.

We all know this is probably the 3^rd or 4^th greatest challenge in teaching—ultimately, it holds one of the primary concerns for educators:  the permanence subject retention.  Last year, I personally saw numerous Algebra I students sort of muddle their way through solving one-variable equations early in the year, only to have their tenuous hold on the skill slip from their grasp a month or two later; at that time, they were completely incapable of simplifying expressions or solve equations anymore.  This usually happened right about the time we learned to graph equations, compute slope, find intersections, and all the rest.  (Imagine the challenge of rudimentary algebraic skills, superficially “mastered” after taking Geometry for an entire year?!)  It will be completely gone.

I didn’t even the issue plagued me until one day I bought a Saxon Algebra I book (because home schoolers like mine use them) and marveled at what I saw!  I instantly knew that this was the fatal flaw of so much of what w’re doing in modern public education:  almost total lack of comprehensive, strategic review of the top, say, 10-15 TEKS of Algebra I ALL YEAR LONG!!! … not done on an occasional, random “spiral review” in a chapter, but BUILT INTO the curriculum for the entire year!

My thoughts turned toward canards about “Drill and Kill” and “Mindless Repetition”, but the solution finally came as I was walking from my car, only to be met with about the 40^th repetition of a particular drum riff, scale warm-ip, measure of music for the band, marching movement, etc.:  THIS IS WHAT BAND AND INSTRUMENTATION AND SPORTING HAVE BEEN DOING FOR CENTURIES!!!  I’ve never heard Kobe Bryant or LeBron James complain about mindless repetition of essential footwork or skills like free throw shooting.  The naysayers are all wrong.  Does theater only rehearse one time before opening night?  Do police offers stop live-fire training because they’ve got it down already … and it would be a wasted to continue reviewing stance, aiming, tracking, and shooting?  

By saying this, I’m not saying that teams should emphasize review to the exclusion of other things.  What I’m saying is that if we aren’t working hard to maintain the gains we’ve earned, then we’re going to give them back.

My class works consistently on reviewing key Alegebra I TEKS for the first 15 minutes of every class.  My class, with 100% accuracy, can define and identify Domain and Range; they can solve single-variable equations, with use of a calculator, at > 95% accuracy; they can evaluate equations via Functional Notation; and a number of other key skills.

This fact led my First Period Resource Algebra I class to average 45% on a Semester Final Exam that had a school-wide average of 48-49% (I doubt it’s even statistically significant).

By purposeful, strategic review, results speak for themselves.  And we ALL know it has to be true.

If there’s a person that should be consulted or followed (on Facebook) this year of 1:1, it would be Eric Curts, whose self-acclaimed expertise is in Technology Integration, particularly, it would seem, with Google-related apps.

This would match my Second T-TESS goal of providing differentiated lesson plans via my Google Classroom to help to improve student engagement with the subject matter and learning outcomes.

Google Slides was a major asset he spoke about, something that has been addressed around campus a lot.  The versatility seems to be one of the chief strengths when combined with other Google-related functions and apps (forms, docs, etc.) and You Tube.  These things can be embedded on the slide itself.

That would seem a way to differentiate instruction fairly quickly.  I could have a slide with a problem, and, for instance, wherever a sticking point was for a student in solving an equation, a link directing the student to reference material could be provided (at that point where the problem is encountered).  Or after, say, a quiz, the quiz could say that with a score of 60-70, this or that other slide should be reviewed.

I sort of like the idea of a student keeping a slide notebook for the year, where each important Unit and Skill is treated in a slide, created by the student.  The student could include clips from my instruction or from Khan Academy.  This would prove very helpful during times of subject review.

He brought up something called “Pear Deck Add-ons” which allows the teacher to take existing slide presentations and adding interactive elements.  I thought that would be helpful in making something old new.

A single lesson could have multiple slides that address the primary targets … or particular learning objectives of various students/groups.  The possibilities would be endless.

I think THIS app would likely be the one I use to reach the T-Tess objective, as it seems the most simple and practical.

The webinar with Sarah Curts was probably the webinar with the least amount of applicability to either of my T-TESS for the major reason that I refuse to use Facebook or Twitter, and these were the two issues discussed most often:  building a networking/collegial presence online.

As I reflected, however, the point of making advantageous professional connections makes sense, whether on campus, the district, or the country electronically.

There are few dynamic, great mentors to choose from in any given school; however, the possibilities are vastly increased when online forums and social media are employed.  I can get additional support and resources aimed at further either T-TESS goal (or both, obviously).  No one needs to re-create the wheel, right?  If time is in such short supply, finding out what others are doing, and borrowing from them, can be a massive time saver.

I have, for instance, thought a lot about the content standards to focus on the most in my Strategic Review mini-lessons.  I want to maximize the results for them; I want subject mastery in the truly key areas of the TEKS, and even the sub-skills within broader TEK categories.  I have no way to know these without some input from others.  This is my first year teaching Resource Algebra I, and there’s no guarantee that I will be teaching it again.  So I can’t devote a massive amount of time for something that I may not be doing again.  That’s not working smart.

Thus the importance of collaboration.  I will not use Facebook or Twitter, but there are other options I could explore in the weeks ahead.

The webinar has opened up, inexplicably, another week.  If there is ONE video I might watch again, it would be Jon Corippo’s, as his interests and teaching emphases and modalities seem to more closely match my own than anyone else’s.  

He is a BIG proponent of strategic review.  He discussed reviewing the 8-10 (I can no longer remember) major grammar rules.  He cycles these through for the entire school year (roughly 4x each for the whole academic calendar).  This reinforces the subject matter for an entire year; frankly, I don’t understand why this isn’t the default approach to education.  In fact, in a Classical Approach to Education, this was fairly common, although the time between subject presentations was more pronounced.

One of his approaches was to administer a test until everyone scored above, say, 80%.  While this may seem antithetical, his explanation was fairly simple:  repetition breeds consistency.  I can’t argue that.

What I’m thinking, however, is to shrink the Strategic Review to an even shorter/smaller window:  the same TEK presented (and represented) more than 60 – 80 times in a school year:  that would mean every third day, at a minimum.

I teach students with handicaps in math calculation and math problem solving; if this is the case, doesn’t it make sense to present the main TEKS as much as possible?  This is Best Practices in any situation, much more in Special Education.

I am confronted, however, by the fact that this approach is SERIOUSLY frowned upon in education today:  Drill it, Kill it, Mindless Repetition, Busy Work, and all the rest.

I’m not saying that mindless repetition doesn’t happen; however, if you can mindlessly perform a particular operation/function/etc., we used to call this automaticity.  And automaticity used to be called reflexive, the basic definition of skill mastery:  if you can “thoughtlessly” perform a skill, then it is mastered.

Today this is discussed negatively, just as phonics instruction was frowned upon in the late 1960s-1980s; thankfully, that gave way to a renewed focus on phonics instruction, and the disaster of illiteracy among our struggling readers has almost disappeared.  I remember the day when the children I counseled could NOT sound out a word.  Thankfully, those days are largely over.

Those days need to be over when thoughtless automaticity in the area of multiplication and addition facts are over as well.  It’s a shame we got snookered.