Focus+Chapter+1

Focus Book Study Chapter One Discussion

Now that you have read the Introduction and Chapter 1, what are your initial thoughts, questions, concerns.

Start off your response with a bullet and your name in bold followed by your comment. You can piggyback your response off someone else or start your own line of discussion.
 * **name** response

> Implementing new and improved techniques without discarding any of the old, ineffective ones is just as bad. We add responsibility one after another upon teachers and students without discerning which ones truly support the essential fundamentals of learning. All too often, an improvement gets lost in the frustration of “work overload” and is chucked simply because we don’t make the time to implement it properly or we are too attached to our old ways of doing things. After all, we are creatures of habit. > I celebrate Mr. Schmoker’s quest for the basics: reading, writing, arithmetic, and articulation. These fundamental skills are essential to learning and the foundation upon which all other work out in the real world is constructed. Indeed, each time we examine successful endeavors; successful companies, winning teams, and effective schools; we find they maintain their focus on these essentials. > **Sara T.**I thought this was a very interesting start to the book. There are things I agree with and things I strongly disagree with. I agree that there should be more collaboration among the teachers. We need to know what each other is teaching. If we could nail down a curriculum like Schmoker discuss on page 10, it would be extremely helpful for students moving on to the next grade level-- then we, as the teachers, know exactly what the students were taught the previous year. I also think it needs to be what is actually talk, just as Schomoker emphasized. This would be extremely helpful to both students and staff, and I think it's something that the school corporation should think about doing. As far as collaboration, I thought it was interesting how he stated that what the students learn depend on which teacher they have. I think it's so important for teachers to collaborate. All of the students in each grade level should be learning the same things-- not necessarily with the same teaching style (since we all teach differently), but they should at least learn the same things. I disagree with Schmoker's comments that we should avoid new programs, etc... I think too many programs is a problem, yes, but I disagree with his thoughts on technology. Our world is evoloving. The kids are doing and learning different things that even I didn't know as a kid. If we, as teachers, don't keep up with them, we're going to lose them in class. I want class to be fun and interesting while they're learning, and if we lose them from the get-go by not incorporating what they're using at home, they won't learn anything. I think technology is very important, and as it continues to evolve, I think we need to, too. > > I'd like to add to a line June said as well. "I don't see technology as a new program." I'm assuming you're talking about the part in Ch 1 when he talks about the teacher that only used the overhead projector? I found that really strange that he thought that was ok. I really don't think we should //avoid// adding in and trying new technology. I //do// think that is something the groups could discuss when planning their lessons and think about how they need to use technology //effectively.//
 * ****Deb Z.**** Who can count the number of books published over the past 30 years claiming to hold “the key” to improving education? I would lose track after the first few thousand. Therefore, the bold claim that “If we choose to take just a few well-known, straightforward actions…we can make swift, dramatic improvements in schools” seemed like just another empty band-aid approach to fix education. But, after diving in, I was pleasantly surprised with Mr. Schmoker’s “cure-all.” In this day and age of newer, better, and high-tech, the simple fundamentals are easily lost. In a recent conversation with a librarian, I mentioned that our school religiously observes SSR; she instantly scoffed at such an “old-fashioned” idea. But, the fact is, SSR is an effective strategy that builds literacy skills. So what if SSR has been around for 50+ years? Why do we feel the need to throw out things that work simply because something new comes along?
 * ** June ** I am glad that Sara brought her concerns about some of what Schmoker says. I love that he emphasizes good curriculum, good teaching and literacy. These three things should be our focus as teachers. I also agree that we shouldn't continually adopt "new programs," but I don't see technology as a new program. It is a tool, we as teachers can use, to improve curriculum, teaching and literacy. I don't think we should implement technology as a "program, but integrate technology in meaningful, practical ways for our students. They will only continue to have more and more access to technology in the future.
 * **Melanie** I find Schmoker's main idea interesting but I'm not completely convinced from Chapter 1. I'm not sure if it's his writing style or that it's just too early to tell. Overall, I thought the first chapter was repetitive and I think that's why I really struggled through Ch 1. (Maybe it's just been way too long since I've done any academic reading). I'm wondering how a school implements this. Do we just stop everything we're doing or have done in the past and start from scratch? I love the idea of sitting down within departments and even within grade levels to discuss curriculum. The idea of really digging into what we teach and lining everything up so we're all on the same page sounds great. I think this would help teachers be more productive but what I disagree with is how he's suggesting we do it. It seems a little extreme. For example, in Chapter 1 he talks about a teacher at a middle school that fails to get their students to excel or succeed (according to analyzed data) and says, "the teachers would be asked to observe and meet with others in the school who taught the common curriculum effectively; the teachers were then expected to teach in the same fashion." I like to idea of observing those who succeeded, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with the idea that they teacher automatically adopt the others methods and just teach it their way. I can see many teachers being uncomfortable with that.
 * Chrissy I do agree with some things Schmoker is saying but not all. I do agree with his three elements of curriculum: 1. What we teach - We must make sure that we are all on the same page when it comes to what topics and standards we are focusing on. We need to decide what is essential and make sure everyone in that grade is teaching it. We may deliver it differently because we all teach differently but at least we would all be presenting the same topic. 2. How we teach - In this area we must make sure that all students are learning each segment of the lesson or we can't move them on to the next. This is were differentiated instruction comes in to play and most important knowing our students as individuals. 3. Authentic literacy - This is important in getting students involved. Making literacy meaningful to their every day lives. The one area I don't agree on is technology. We just watched a TED talk today at Akron and it was all about using technology with our kids. It was amazing how different this broadcast and this book are when it comes to technology. This is such a technology driven era that it is how our students learn. I think technology helps them learn to think. There are so many ways we can implement technology into our curriculum so it helps our students learn even more. It will be interesting to read on to see what more Schmoker has to say about all three elements and how he can show us how to implement them.
 * __** Scott **__ - I guess my take on this as I read is that we as teachers find it hard to really dig into what we do. When we remove all of the "gimmicks" and all of the "fads" we also remove a lot of the excuses for our performance. When we pair down the curriculum to bare bones reading, writing, and talking, we expose our flaws as teachers and we have fewer areas to place blame outside ourselves. Gut checks and hard self-assessment aren't easy when we are looking at the drastic effect we have everyday on kid's lives. I'm sorry but the "sit down, shut up, don't move, and listen to me" stuff doesn't work! We have to find ways to reach these kids and IMO (yes I used text on purpose!) talking and technology are the keys. If they cannot explain what they know to someone else, they didn't learn it. I'll stop my rant here, but I also liked these quotes:
 * "all teachers applying them consistently and reasonably well (p.10)" //These base standards HAVE TO BE pervasive and solvent in EVERY room.....we don't do that.//
 * "what you learn depends on what teacher you have (p. 13)" //ridiculously, transparently TRUE!//
 * "Clarity is the antidote to anxiety....if you do nothing else as a leader, be clear (p. 17)" //very, very evident daily//
 * // " // We should celebrate gains in any of these areas as we guide and advise teachers at faculty meetings (p. 20)" //we don't celebrate staff successes and/or the people who do things the right way like we should. Just as constructive criticism should guide you to improve your faults, a pat on the back drives people to continue with the efforts.//
 * __** Scott continued **__ The ideas about accountability and performance based pay were interesting as well. it would be interesting to see the class size load and per student time numbers for those schools as well. Here's an interesting link to a school accountability issue in Tennessee.
 * []


 * Teresa - I think it is very important to master the basics. I liked the football anology, that the front line had to learn to block in order for the offencse to be effective. If students learn the basics of reading and writing to express themselves clearly, it will lead to success in the classroom. I am not against new programs if they prove themselves. Computers are here to stay. I heard a news report about some ritzy schools across the country that use technology only as an extreme measure in some instances, but otherwise use none. I know we learned the "old fashioned way", but that is history. These kids are exposed to technology every way they turn. You have to be technology savvy just to operate most tv's now! I also feel that teachers that are teaching the same courses should teach the same materials to the students, but I also feel teaching methods do vary.
 * __ Jenny S. __ I think that the first chapter opens the book up well. I agree with some of his thought but seem to struggle with others. I like the three major concepts/necessities that he suggests each school needs. I like how he points out that Apple computer has always stuck to one main goal and will not ‘sell out’ in order to prevent jeopardizes their high standards. I think that as schools we are required to stretch too thin and this distorts the main focus of why the students are here and that is to learn. I think some of the points that Schmoker is trying to make sure appear as common sense to most people. Have a good teacher, keep the students engaged, focus on one major learning objective at a time. Unfortunately, these basic steps are often overlooked for standardized testing and other factors that come into play in public schools. I agree with Scott when he said that the successful achievements of individuals are not recognized as often as they should be. I would like to see more of that high praise for something done right and successes made.
 * **Annie**: Chapter One, although a sluggish read, set up a belief that I agree with. I think we need to teach deeply and not focus so much on quantity. I still remember a professor from my first semester of college telling the class, "I don't care how much we get through. I just want you to really get what we do." He went on to explain that we would stay on a topic until everyone had a sound understanding. I appreciated and respected this mindset and found it refreshing as a student coming off of twelve years of rushing through content. I agree that we need to choose new programs wisely or leave them behind if they do not fit our focus. I think many of our peers will agree that simplification and focus would be a positive change, but how do we get started? Some of the decisions are beyond our classrooms, schools, or even our corporation. Will we have to justify shaving down state standards? How do we say "no" to doing what we feel are too many programs when we are told to do them?