Improving Instructional Quality in Jewish Day Schools and Yeshivot ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

een made in the areas of science and social studies inalignment with state curricular guidelines. The mere existenceof these standards, however, does not imply that curriculumdevelopment is ongoing. Curriculum development involvesdeep and ongoing conversations collaboratively refined byboth administrators and teachers. End of year conversationsshould take place among teachers regarding the effectivenessof the curriculum. Teachers at different grade levels rarelyconverse over curricular issues. Teachers at the school needongoing conversations about curriculum to ensure properarticulation. Administrators need to provide time for teachersto converse over the curriculum.• Supervision – Supervision at the school is traditional, tooinformal, and lacks consistency of use. The administratorscould use additional professional development in the latestapproaches to cutting edge practices in supervision.Supervision of instruction needs to be the focus of schoolimprovement. Supervision and evaluation are confused.Teacher evaluation at the school is contractually driven andadministrators utilize a form, based on Charlette Danielson’sfour domains for teacher competency. The form itself merelylists her four categories with a few descriptors and withoutprecise explanation for what satisfactory, unsatisfactory, orstellar performance looks like. Comments made by evaluatorsare subjective. There is no indication that such evaluationschange teaching behavior or improves instruction. It does,however, serve an accountability function and contractualobligation. Most teachers shared their ambivalence with this“dog and pony” type observation. One representative teacherstated, “I’d rather them just pop in my room anytime ratherthan have to put on a meaningless show for them.”In a later chapter I will amplify each of these three areas ofconcern as they relate to a school’s instructional quality. In themeantime, parenthetically, how would you characterize your schoolin terms of its teaching, curriculum, and supervisory practices? Figure1, however, is inadequate by itself to fully comprehend the import of14
the instructional process without turning attention to a deeper level ofthe instructional process, called the “instructional core” (see City,Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009). The instructional core (see Figure 2below) is “composed of the teacher and the student in the presence ofthe content” (p. 22). A reciprocal relationship exists between eachcomponent (i.e., between student and teacher; teacher and student,student and content, and teacher and content). The aforementionedauthors explain:Simply stated, the instructional task is the actual work thatstudents are asked to do in the process of instruction – not(italics in original) what teachers think they are asking studentsto do, or what the official curriculum says . . . , but what theyare actually doing. (p. 23)Figure 2The Instructional CoreSTUDENTTEACHERCONTENTLearning occurs in the interaction among these three vitalcomponents. For instance, if we match the level of content to thestudents’ ability level, then learning is more likely to occur. Asteachers’ knowledge of the content and skills in delivering itincreases, students are more likely to learn. If students themselves areengaged in learning (e.g., on task, challenged, monitored), then15
Page 1 and 2: Improving InstructionalQuality in J
Page 4 and 5: Appendix C: Assessing Your Role as
Page 6 and 7: others, involved in a cognate enter
Page 8 and 9: Weissberg, Walberg, & Wang., 2004).
Page 10 and 11: all. “We are never asked for what
Page 12 and 13: administrator. He was well-organize
Page 14 and 15: Sartoris, DiPrima Bickel, & Garnier
Page 16 and 17: grade conferences, etc., effective
Page 18 and 19: school’s teaching practices, the
Page 22 and 23: learning is more likely to occur th
Page 24 and 25: content, and the need to ensure tha
Page 26 and 27: pattern.] I didn’t really realize
Page 28 and 29: constraints, increase in administra
Page 30 and 31: The Transformational Change Project
Page 32 and 33: that are not strategic, but episodi
Page 34 and 35: my personal involvement in work wit
Page 36 and 37: schools to even greater levels of s
Page 38 and 39: was: “Well, you know, finding tim
Page 40 and 41: called direct teaching), although e
Page 42 and 43: surprised when no one can answer
Page 44 and 45: RecommendationsI. Teaching1. Teache
Page 46 and 47: standards,” a significant opportu
Page 48 and 49: decide on an area or theme they’d
Page 50 and 51: • Reflective journaling - Another
Page 52 and 53: 3. Deep instructional improvement v
Page 54 and 55: Instructional leadership is about e
Page 56 and 57: 76). Teachers who employ instructio
Page 58 and 59: short answers to two questions. The
Page 60 and 61: may become involved in cooperative
Page 62 and 63: utilized within a differentiated le
Page 64 and 65: Research-Based Teaching Practices i
Page 66 and 67: curriculum? Schools, in my view, to
Page 68 and 69: learning objectives have been ident
Page 70 and 71:
Developing curriculum at the planni
Page 72 and 73:
4) Emphasize both the academic and
Page 74 and 75:
An Overview of Best Practices in Su
Page 76 and 77:
with practices best suited to promo
Page 78 and 79:
dialogue and meaningful supervision
Page 80 and 81:
• Ongoing - Too much of professio
Page 82 and 83:
to do so. In fact, utilizing in-sch
Page 84 and 85:
greatly to meaningful supervision a
Page 86 and 87:
and amplified by James MacGregor Bu
Page 88 and 89:
Leadership is predicated on the fou
Page 90 and 91:
Citing Jim Collins (2002 cited by F
Page 92 and 93:
Notes1. Before continuing, I sugges
Page 94 and 95:
ubric of “professional developmen
Page 96 and 97:
throughs, explains that according t
Page 98 and 99:
members are not fully cognizant or
Page 100 and 101:
AcknowledgementsI thank all the ind
Page 102 and 103:
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and
Page 104 and 105:
Burke, P. J., & Krey, R. D. (2005).
Page 106 and 107:
Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., Posto
Page 108 and 109:
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and s
Page 110 and 111:
Good, T., & Brophy, J. E. (2007). L
Page 112 and 113:
Johnson, C. C., & Fargo, J. D. (201
Page 114 and 115:
Marzano, R. J., & Brown, J. L. (200
Page 116 and 117:
Popham, W. J. (2008a). Classroom as
Page 118 and 119:
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2009). Isr
Page 120 and 121:
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P.
Page 122 and 123:
Annotated Works on Instructional Le
Page 124 and 125:
This volume is an inspiring introdu
Page 126 and 127:
you want to learn how to teach stud
Page 128 and 129:
AppendicesAppendix A: Instructional
Page 130 and 131:
Suggested responses:1. To be effect
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix C: Assessing Your Role as
Page 134 and 135:
SA A D SD 3. My spoken language as
Page 136 and 137:
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
Page 138 and 139:
SA A D SD 13. I have a well-defined
Page 140 and 141:
SA A D SD 13. I rarely desire to se
Page 142 and 143:
20. This is a well managed school.
Page 144 and 145:
Appendix F: Teacher Attitude Questi
Page 146:
41. My colleagues and I usually dis
show all

Improving Instructional Quality in Jewish Day Schools and Yeshivot ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?