Writing

Reflections on a Visit to KIPP Adelante

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

A Better Education

For educators and policymakers who are passionate about social justice, one of the most vexing problems in American education is closing the achievement gap. On almost every measure of student performance—standardized test scores, high school graduation rates, and college admissions—middle-class white students outperform lower-income students of color. In the nationwide discussion about closing this gap, the KIPP charter organization has been widely heralded as a model of success.
In early April, I spent a day at KIPP Adelante, a KIPP middle school in downtown San Diego. After spending the past year immersed at High Tech High, I appreciated this opportunity to experience a different school environment with its own unique priorities and structures. Prior to coming to High Tech High, I was a teacher in Oakland, California, at a school where the student body closely resembled KIPP’s target demographics, namely, low-income African American and Latino kids with math and reading skills several years below grade level. As such, I was especially interested in seeing, firsthand, the strategies that KIPP teachers use to address the achievement gap.
What struck me first and foremost about KIPP Adelante was the orderly behavior of the students we encountered. A sense of seriousness pervaded the school. In each of the classrooms we visited, the majority of students appeared focused on the lesson, working quietly on the task at hand. Every classroom had at least one student rep who stepped forward to introduce him or herself, looking us in the eye and extending a professional handshake.
A key element of KIPP’s educational philosophy is an emphasis on shaping appropriate student behavior. Towards this end, the school has created a system of external rewards (known as “ganas”) and demerits (known as “debits”). At the school store, students can trade their ganas for physical rewards like pencils, sweatshirts, or bowling trips. The teachers also share a number of acronyms, chants, hand signals, and routines that the students learn early on and practice repeatedly. For instance, during the eighth grade community meeting we observed, rather than having students clap or cheer, the Director of High School Placement encouraged students to “shine” their approval silently by flicking their open palms back and forth or to snap their fingers quietly. In the fifth grade classrooms, when students wanted permission to use the restroom, they held their hands up in the shape of a “Quiet Coyote.” Students also learn call and response chants, as well as behavioral expectations such as SLANT (Sit up straight, Lean forward, Ask questions, Nod, and Track the speaker). These little “gimmicks,” as one science teacher called them, acculturate KIPP students to respond quickly to adult direction, which allows for more “time on task” in the classroom.
My fellow graduate students and I had the opportunity to observe three fifth grade classrooms, where one of KIPP’s Five Pillars—the “unrelenting focus on results”—came through most vividly. In each of the classrooms, the pressure of preparing students for the upcoming California Standards Tests (CST) manifested itself in a different way.
Throughout the math teacher’s lesson—direct instruction on calculating perimeter while students silently took notes—she made frequent reference to the exam. For instance, she emphasized the importance of putting the correct units next to a numerical answer because “little things like that will get your answer wrong on the state test.” When reprimanding students for their lack of focus, she expressed her disapproval by saying, “I only have 16 days ‘til testing,” making it clear that they were on a tight timeline.
In the science class, students spent a large chunk of the period playing bingo to review for the exams. The bingo questions required a great deal of factual recall, and students referred extensively to a pile of flashcards with definitions and memory aids. The teacher also used kinesthetic mnemonic devices to help the kids remember concepts such as the path of oxygen through the body. Their exit card, a daily ritual, checked for understanding of key exam content. Finally, in the English Language Arts class, the teacher made a point of telling us how much she wanted her kids to have an opportunity to write poetry, but she was concerned about spending too much time on the writing. Instead of creating poems from scratch, her students took an existing poem and swapped out some of the words with their own.
The latter two teachers, who graciously spoke with us at length, explained that a significant portion of their professional development time centers on strategies for raising test scores. Teachers work together to develop common language around test taking strategies that they teach to the students, such as “Brain Bubbling” or “Power Stripping” or “Martian Style.” In the English Language Arts classes, teachers spend a great deal of time assessing each student individually on their reading levels using Pearson Education’s Analytical Reading Inventory. In the Language Arts room, a poster on the wall proclaims, “All fifth graders will move up at least two reading levels by the end of April.” To achieve this goal, the teachers are experimenting with using literature circles and Socratic Seminars, strategies inspired by their director, a former English teacher. Every six to eight weeks, all teachers administer benchmark tests using the EduSoft program, which generates CST type questions and provides detailed results by student. Occasionally, they also administer full-day CST practice sessions.
Our visit took place two weeks before the California Standards Tests, and we kept clearly in mind that our observations might have looked very different had we visited during another time of the year. Nationwide, though, KIPP’s intensive focus on preparing students for standardized exams has been hailed in the media as an effort to give disadvantaged students an unparalleled education. Paul Tough, an editor at the New York Times Magazine, characterizes KIPP’s approach as “an unexpected twist on the ‘separate but equal’ standard.” Citing conversations with KIPP’s founders, he describes their attitude as follows: “An ‘equal’ education is not good enough. Students who enter middle school significantly behind grade level don’t need the same good education that most American middle-class students receive; they need a better education, because they need to catch up.”
My observations at KIPP left me wondering, though, about the use of the word “better.” Are KIPP’s low-income students of color truly receiving a better education than their counterparts at more affluent, suburban schools across town?
If “better” means more time and effort dedicated to raising standardized test scores, then perhaps the answer is yes. KIPP’s behavioral norms, instructional strategies, and professional development are impressively well aligned toward achieving higher test results. More than any other school I have visited, KIPP struck me as a well-oiled machine in its clear focus on a unified, school-wide goal.
But closing the gap between low-income students of color and affluent white students means paying attention to more than standardized test scores. In terms of predicting life outcome, college admissions and college graduation rates are, arguably, even more important measures to consider. Indeed, KIPP Adelante’s own mission statement is a nod to the latter argument. Its mission is “to ensure that [their] students develop the academic skills, intellectual habits, and character traits needed to succeed in top-quality high schools, colleges, and the competitive world beyond.”
KIPP’s emphasis on extrinsic motivation makes me question how effective it is in achieving these goals. In the short run, the school’s ganas and debits system, its hand gestures and other routines, efficiently shape student behavior, facilitating quick compliance to adult direction. I wonder, though, how these structures affect the students’ internal motivation in the long run. A significant body of psychology research has shown that both rewards and punishments are largely ineffective in producing lasting change in attitudes and behaviors. University of Rochester psychologist Edward Deci has found that these techniques, in fact, undermine children’s ability to take responsibility for their actions. I wonder, then, how many KIPP students actually internalize their “good student” identities, developing intellectual habits and traits that endure well after they leave the school. And how many are just behaving like good students in the short run because of their highly controlled environment?
I also wonder to what extent KIPP students are developing meaningful skills beyond those tested on the standardized exams. To succeed in “top-quality high schools and colleges,” students need the ability to write fluently for a variety of purposes and audiences. They need practice crafting multiple drafts of their writing, so they can learn to self-assess and refine their work. To succeed in “the competitive world beyond,” they also need opportunities to practice collaboration and creative problem-solving, to work through group conflicts and wrestle with challenges that push their critical thinking. Most of all, they need to develop skills in self-direction and self-advocacy. With few role models in their families who have gone to college, these students need opportunities to explore their areas of passion and define their own goals, so that they have the drive to stay in college when obstacles arise and there is no one around to advocate on their behalf. All of these skills, which have no place on standardized exams, take a great deal of time to foster, and I question whether KIPP’s intensive focus on test prep leaves time for their development.
In short, KIPP has staked its reputation on proving that it can help these students achieve high test scores, but at what cost? Why is it that these low-income students of color must spend the bulk of their days on work that emphasizes factual recall, when their counterparts in a wealthier part of town likely spend a larger proportion of their time on more meaningful tasks? Does their behavior need to be molded so strongly, their time apportioned so narrowly, that they have such little opportunity for self-expression? Is that what it takes to raise test scores with disadvantaged students: a tightly controlled environment where kids have little room to be kids?
And what of the teachers? It was clear from our visit that KIPP attracts highly dedicated, hard-working teachers who care deeply about their students. But when I asked the fifth grade science teacher what she craved professionally, she expressed a longing for more time to “form relationships” with her students, to focus on them as “teenagers and to meet them where they are as teens.” How discomfiting that at a school where students are with the staff from seven in the morning until five in the afternoon, teachers find little time to build relationships with their kids.
At my own school in the future, working with a similar population of kids, I hope to seek out a better balance. There’s nothing inherently problematic with having a school-wide focus on results or with using assessment to guide instruction. The problem is equating “student achievement” so narrowly with “scores on standardized tests” at the expense of all else. Just as much as their wealthier suburban peers, disadvantaged urban students need to engage in activities that build intrinsic motivation, that help them discover their passions, that allow them to explore and express their unique identity. Depriving them of these opportunities for the sake of raising test scores only deepens the social inequities that schools like KIPP claim to address.

School Finance Class: Balancing the Budget

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0700

Balancing the Budget

To balance the Kennedy High budget, I began by outlining for my study group eight options* for increasing revenue or cutting spending in order to make up our $145,994 deficit. Given our limited meeting time, I decided to crunch the numbers in advance so that my study group members could quickly see exactly how much money each of the budget cutting options would save and exactly how much money each of the revenue raising options would generate. I hoped this outline would help us get a sense of each option’s relative impact, so that we could focus our attention on decisions that would make a big dent in reducing the deficit, rather than spending too much time discussing specific line items that would make little difference.

It quickly became clear that for my study group, keeping staff and salaries intact was a priority. For instance, one group member advocated strongly against consolidating the Dean of Students and College Advisor roles into one position because she felt that such a dramatic change would be difficult to reverse in the future, and losing a valued staff member would have a strong negative impact on teacher morale. Similarly, though we discussed across-the-board pay cuts, as well as progressive pay cuts based on level of income, concern for teacher morale ultimately prevented us from touching salaries. We also chose to keep benefits intact, though we decided to try out an experimental opt-out plan for teachers who already had coverage through a spouse (with a caveat from Kay that we would have difficulty negotiating a good rate from the insurance company if too many people opted out.)

Honoring the interests of our students also played a key role in our decision making. Although we decided to increase enrollment slightly, we tried to minimize impact on the culture of our school by introducing a graduated increase in class size (adding 4 students in 9th grade, 2 students in 10th grade, and none in 11th or 12th grade). We also chose to preserve the full-length Summerbridge program, though we would begin charging those families who could afford it.

The major budget balancing initiative we agreed on as a study group was to work on raising ADA from 92% to 96%. We rallied quickly around this option, perhaps because it required no painful cuts, though in real life, I might worry about relying so heavily on an option with such unpredictable outcomes. Despite our best efforts, raising ADA could prove significantly more difficult than we currently envision.

Our main points of disagreement arose over changing specific line items on the “Supplies and Other” page, mostly because we could easily see the merits of arguments for both sides. For instance, when discussing whether to cut from the Materials & Supplies line, one member suggested that we could reduce the budget slightly from $52,000 to $40,000 to bring it in line with how much teachers actually spent this past year, $39,468. However, another study group member questioned whether such a small cut was worth the possibly demoralizing message it would send to teachers. Ultimately, though, because we recognized that changes to these very specific line items had relatively little impact on our overall deficit, our study group was quick to compromise on these decisions.

Teacher Voice

After interviewing Colleen about her experience with budget study groups, I am inclined to agree that bringing teachers into the decision-making process makes most sense when a school actually has substantial discretionary funds to spend. Allowing teachers to wrestle with how to allocate grant money or a large materials and supplies budget would be beneficial so that they can understand and take ownership over the trade-offs.

However, when there is no extra money to play with and therefore few concrete decisions for a study group to make, I worry that it would be misleading and frustrating to suggest that teachers can have a voice in shaping the budget. From our experience balancing the Kennedy High budget, I’ve learned that the budget decisions that make the biggest impact on reducing a deficit usually have to do with salaries, benefits, and enrollment—three highly contentious areas where, understandably, it might be difficult for teachers to make objective decisions that balance their own interests with student needs. In addition, because information about specific salaries and teacher performance needs to be kept confidential, a teacher study group couldn’t have access to all of the details that would inform decisions about salary cuts or consolidating positions. As a result, during tough financial times, though I would strive to help teachers understand how local and state decisions are impacting our school finances, I would be reluctant to give teachers the impression that they have significant voice in shaping our specific budget.

Teacher Compensation

Although I still have many questions and concerns about performance-based pay, I am increasingly persuaded that it could work in a school setting. Initially, I was tripped up by the enormously difficult task of creating a specific rubric that would measure teacher effectiveness, but I no longer feel that such a rubric is necessary in order for performance-based pay to work. In fact, I am concerned that being so specific with regard to expected classroom performance or student outcomes (even when the outcomes are not tied to test scores) would constrain creativity and innovation. As Larry has said, simple structures beget complex behaviors, whereas complex structures beget simple behaviors.

Instead, I am increasingly convinced that a strong school leader can be trusted to make subjective decisions about teacher performance, as long as teachers have a clear vision of a school’s overall objectives. To assess teacher effectiveness, I would streamline the High Tech High teacher document into a few, clear objectives. For instance, as a school leader, I would emphasize Student Engagement, Rigorous Inquiry into Your Discipline, and Fostering Strong Relationships. (Several of the other expectations on the document, such as enforcing school rules, being on time, and working well with colleagues and parents, I see as basic job responsibilities. When considering their effectiveness, I want my teachers to focus their attention on the big three above.)

But how would I measure teacher effectiveness along these three objectives? Taking “Rigorous Inquiry into Your Discipline” as an example, let’s begin by stating what I would not do. I would not create a highly controlling rubric that spells out exactly what rigorous inquiry should look like in the classroom. As Daniel Pink suggests in Drive, setting expectations so narrowly results in people performing narrowly to the goal, rather than pushing them to innovate.

Instead, as a school leader, I would create a series of professional development opportunities around this theme of rigor. One week, we might have the humanities teachers gather together to look at student writing samples and generate ideas about how to create rigorous writing assignments. Another week, I might ask an obviously rigorous teacher like Karl Wendt to come share his project-planning process and have the teachers identify the elements of rigor they encounter. Or I might pair up each science teacher with a practicing scientist in an industry job and ask the practicing scientists to give their perspective on the rigor of an upcoming project. In short, the goal would be to generate a rich school-wide discussion around the idea of rigor, to help teachers develop some common vocabulary around this concept and to share some exemplary models to inspire their own work. Equipped with this deepened understanding of their objective, teachers would then have the freedom to meet this objective of “Rigor” using their own expertise and creativity to guide them. As a result, rigor would likely look different from classroom to classroom. The school leader would then be trusted to assess these different manifestations of rigor based on frequent classroom visits, conversations with each teacher, conversations with students, and looking at student work.

These are just my initial thoughts on performance-based pay. Before implementing any such plans, I would want to delve deeper into the research and look at models of performance-based pay in other industries, both non-profits and for-profit businesses. Although schools do not map so neatly onto these other industries, I think there are still valuable insights to be gained in learning from their models.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Options I presented to my study group:

"Kennedy High" Budget Builder

We need to cut $145, 994 from our expenses or raise that much in revenue.
For our discussion on Thursday, we might want to consider some combination of the following options.

OPTION 1
Consolidate the Dean of Students & College Advisor roles into one position (savings: $68,400 in salary + $13,666 in benefits)

OPTION 2
Across the board pay cuts for all staff:
1% (savings: $14,845)
2% (savings: $29,690)
3% (savings: $44,535)
4% (savings: $59,380)
5% (savings: $74,225)

OPTION 3
Increase the number of students.
(Assumptions: Currently, we have 412 students/4 grades = 103 students/grade, which means 2 teams of 51 or 52 students per grade).

Increase to
432 students --> 2 teams of 54 per grade (would raise revenues by $129,547 so our deficit would shrink to $36,145.)
440 students --> 2 teams of 55 per grade (would raise revenues by $181,366 so we would no longer have a deficit. We would have $7,796 in available resources.)

OPTION 4
Come up with strategies to raise ADA (Though this option is less predictable than the previous options.)

Raise to 93% (would raise revenues by $14,079 so our deficit would shrink to $133,435)
Raise to 94% (would raise revenues by $42,240 so our deficit would shrink to $108,316)
Raise to 95% (would raise revenues by $70,400 so our deficit would shrink to $ 83,196)
Raise to 96% (would raise revenues by $98,560 so our deficit would shrink to $ 58,078)

OPTION 5
Cut from Supplies & Other. (See Kay's e-mail for more details about specific line items in this category.)

Cut from Materials & Supplies (savings: up to $52,000)
Cut from Student Travel & Field Trips (savings: up to $20,000)

OPTION 6
Revamp our salary scale completely to consider performance-based pay. (Savings unclear: would require serious discussion)

OPTION 7
Put a different cap on benefits, altering the premium or raising the amount of co-pay. (Savings unclear: would require serious discussion)

OPTION 8
Increase fundraising efforts. (Increase in revenue is unpredictable.)

School Reform Class: Structural Reform of HTH Chula Vista

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:40:44 -0800

Memorandum
To:       Superintendent Caillier, Cabinet Members and School Board
From: K. Flewelling and Lillian Hsu
Date:    03/09/2010
Re:       Structural Reform of High Tech High Chula Vista

       High Tech High Chula Vista opened in August 2007 as a part of the High Tech High organization. Like other High Tech High schools, its structures are built around three design principles: Personalization, Adult-World Connection and Common Intellectual Mission. Essentially, we attempt to create a positive learning environment for a diverse array of students, craft projects that connect to our community, and make sure each student has an opportunity to go to college if that is his or her desire. Additionally, HTHCV also implemented seven habits of the heart and mind. These are: Refinement, Evidence, Mindfulness, Perspective, Perseverance, Cooperation and Compassion. These habits are expressed in our courses and projects, and the values are commonly held throughout the campus.
       Teachers currently attempt to advance these principles primarily through project-based learning. In practice, though, teaching at HTHCV is a hybrid of traditional schooling and innovative interdisciplinary projects. It is our contention that there are several important potentials that have been underwhelmed, due to a lack of supportive structures. We will introduce these potentials and, finally, propose a new structure that might better serve our essential values.

Potentials
Clarity of purpose
   While the design principles seek to provide a clear goal and purpose of our school, as these abstract ideals have translated to practice, the structures have grown increasingly complicated and the purposes extremely muddled. As teachers begin project planning, they are confronted with five core values, or potentials, which often compete for priority within the daily agenda.
   The first of these is adult-world connection. We desire to make projects that have students more than playing at life but actually participating in it, but it is time-consuming to develop community connections and identify consultants who can help support the project. Ideally, projects would intimately connect to the adult-world, would be informed by experts, and would create real solutions to genuine needs within our community.
   Secondly, the habits of the heart and mind each represent critical skills and attitudes we hope students will have when they leave our school, and we try to incorporate these habits into our projects and practices as much as possible. Habits such as the ability to refine your work, look at issues from multiple perspectives, or know how to work effectively with others extend far beyond the reaches of school or classroom and have the potential to shape successful and active citizens long after they have graduated high school.
   Third, college readiness must be taken into account. This is a part of our common intellectual mission, and teachers hope to foster self-advocacy, responsibility, independent study, time management, and other critical skills our students need to get admitted into 4-year university programs and be able to flourish there.
   Fourth, the content standards cannot be completely ignored, although most teachers would admit that they do not teach directly to the content standards. We are also aware that our students must score as well or better than district averages. Content standards, especially in Math and Science, do not always fit seamlessly into projects, and many conversations orbit around how to improve test scores in these subjects. More than just being a part of state requirements, we also recognize the importance of many content areas and hope our students will leave our schools with deep understandings in Math, Science, History and English.
   Finally, student choice fits somewhere in this cluttered array of important considerations. Ideally, students would have a great deal of autonomy to choose their own path and play to their own interests. To varying degrees, teachers offer students the ability to participate in directing the course of their projects, but typically, choice is expressed somewhat artificially through mandatory projects. Indeed, students cannot opt out of projects, choose their own courses, or develop their own directions, and thus, many students never get genuinely interested in the work that they do in our “school of choice.”
   Teachers struggle to plan projects that are meaningful to students, rich with content standards, directed towards college readiness, connected to the community, and full of opportunities to practice the habits of the heart and mind. We do our best to direct attention to each of these important ends, but typically, the emphasis is placed on college readiness and content standards, and the adult-world connection, habits of the heart and mind, and student choice get short shifted.
Structural Reforms
   In order to maximize the above potentials, we propose restructuring the academic program at HTH so that there is a distinct morning project block and a separate afternoon seminar block. The focus of the morning project block would be the adult-world connection and the habits of heart and mind, whereas the afternoon seminar block would prioritize the content standards and college readiness skills.
Morning Project Block
   Each semester, students would meet in their chosen project block for three hours every morning. The key elements behind the morning project block are:
Student Choice & Grade Integration
   Rather than being embedded within a grade-specific humanities or math-science class, projects would be driven by authentic community needs. Thus, instead of proceeding through a set sequence of courses in different disciplines, students would decide each semester on their choice of project block. This element of student choice is crucial so that all students in the project are genuinely invested in the work of the group. In addition, because each project block would be open to students of all grade levels, this reform would allow students to avoid being artificially grouped with other students based primarily on age. Instead, students would find themselves coalescing around common goals and intellectual interests.
Opportunity for Authentic Community Connection & Expert Involvement
    We believe that by giving projects the time that they deserve and stripping away the competing demands of content standards and college prep skills, teachers can truly prioritize the adult-world connection and design projects that are more authentically embedded within the community. Because each project would last for an entire semester—as opposed to one or two months, as most HTH projects are currently structured—teachers could partner more extensively with experts from the community so that their involvement extends beyond a one-off lecture, as is typical of projects right now. The semester-long period would also allow our students to make a greater impact on their community by creating something of lasting value, such as an ongoing business or student movement.
    Rather than taking an occasional field trip, the three-hour block of morning time would allow students and teachers to meet regularly off-campus. Indeed, the bulk of the project could take place at a community site, such as a homeless shelter, an art gallery, or a nature reserve. We envision our students running their own businesses downtown or putting on a daily radio show at a local news station.
  Refocus on the Habits of Heart & Mind
   This dedicated project block would prioritize the habits of heart and mind so that cultivating these skills becomes the primary goal of every project, rather than an afterthought. At our school, the habits of heart and mind would be more than buzzwords that students and teachers reflect on primarily at the end of a project or during POLs. Rather, they would be the core skills and values that are carefully embedded into every project.
Afternoon Seminar
   In contrast, the afternoon seminar block would prioritize the content standards and college readiness skills. Each seminar would last for eight weeks, so students would have the opportunity to take five different seminars per school year. Rather than being project-based, these seminars would be more akin to college courses that delve deeply into specific topics such as “The History of Student Movements” or “The Physics of Space Travel.” As with the projects, these seminars would be open to students of all different grade levels, and the students themselves would choose which seminars to take.
   As at many liberal arts colleges, students would need to fulfill certain “distribution requirements.” By the time they graduate, they would need to have taken three seminars each in the social sciences, natural/physical sciences, math, and literature/writing. However, the students would have the freedom to decide the order in which they would take these courses. Moreover, they would have the option of taking on an independent study during seminar time, to pursue other intellectual passions.
Conclusion
   What unifies the morning and afternoon block is the element of student choice. We are entrusting students to make decisions about their own educational path based on their evolving interests and goals. This model of schooling gives students control over their learning, which is essential for helping students become more autonomous, self-directed learners. However, each student would make these choices in direct consultation with his or her academic adviser. Each adviser would serve approximately 15-18 students and would stay with the student for all four years of their high school experience. The adviser would help students develop independent study plans and would make sure that each student met the distribution requirements necessary for graduation. The advisers would also help students develop their graduation portfolios, for which they would provide defense in their senior year.
   We believe that our reform clarifies our priorities as a school and simplifies our school structures so that they match the values that we profess to hold. The High Tech High organization has continually evolved since its inception in 2000, its structures changing organically with the needs of the teachers and students. In fact, when HTH began, it had a schedule fairly similar to the one we propose today. While some figures in the organization may see this as regressive, we propose this change with the conviction that we are now uniquely suited, with experience and insights, to actualize the original ideals for the benefit of our students, our teachers, and our entire community.

Data & Assessment Class: The LGBT Survey

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800

Purpose
Our Diversity and Equity study group wanted to gather data around LGBT issues at High Tech High Chula Vista. After taking Rob and Ben’s diversity class in the fall and hearing Brett’s GLSEN presentation, we were inspired to assess the climate for LGBT students on our campus. We hoped that this data would inform planning for advisory curriculum leading to the Day of Silence in April.
Details & Steps
We created a multiple-choice questionnaire based on GLSEN’s nationwide school climate survey, adapting it to fit the needs of our school. For instance, given our large Spanish-speaking population, we emphasized that questions about homophobic comments referred to those made in both Spanish and English. We also expanded the examples of homophobic comments to include more contemporary expressions students used, such as “No homo.” In addition, because some teachers wanted to address other issues of equity in the survey, we added a second section to the questionnaire around issues of race and ethnicity.
On our first staff day in January, we invited Brett Petersen to conduct a GLSEN training for our teachers. Two days later, during a 45-minute morning meeting, we presented our draft of the survey to the entire staff and asked them to jot down their feedback on note cards. Specifically, we asked for comments or suggestions regarding the individual survey questions and concerns that might arise when administering the survey.
The feedback we received from teachers was extremely mixed. Some teachers were uncomfortable that we had given specific examples of homophobic expressions in the survey; they feared the examples might encourage students to use these expressions. Others felt we hadn’t gone far enough. If we were using specific examples of homophobic epithets such as “homo” or “queer,” they wanted us to give specific examples of racial epithets as well. Several teachers wanted to expand the survey to include other issues of school climate. One particularly passionate teacher wrote in a follow-up e-mail:

I am curious how people would feel if we made a survey about, for example, safety in expressing religion, and if someone who was GLBT or of a minority represented race said, ‘Well what about me?’ and we responded, ‘Well, we can deal with that later.’ I would feel even more ostracized. I cannot predict the ways that people are being harassed, but to say we are only dealing with Race and GLBT, that is picking who we feel like acknowledging based upon our zeitgeist, and that is a disservice to our students.

In addition to feedback about the questionnaire’s content, several staff members expressed concern about administering the survey without knowing exactly what we planned to do with the results. Others felt they weren’t ready to address the student questions or comments that might arise when they gave out the survey in advisory. We thanked the staff for their feedback and assured them we would review all of it as we considered next steps.
Our study group met multiple times to read and discuss the staff feedback. We used many of the staff’s suggestions to revise the survey and make the language more accessible to students. However, despite many suggestions to the contrary, we decided to refocus our survey strictly on LGBT issues because our original vision was to work on creating advisory curriculum leading towards the Day of Silence.
We also decided to administer the survey in humanities classes, rather than advisories. Most of the teachers who had expressed discomfort with handling questions stemming from the survey were science-math teachers. We decided that rather than delaying the survey until all of the teachers had received adequate training to overcome their discomfort, we would streamline the process by asking humanities teachers to give out the survey. We believed that humanities teachers were more comfortable with discussing controversial issues given the content of their courses. (Also, four of eight humanities teachers at the school were on our study group.)
At this point, some study group members wanted to present our revised survey and strategy at another morning meeting and get another round of feedback from all of the teachers. Other members felt we should just make a decision and move forward. We compromised by e-mailing the revised survey to the entire staff and encouraging teachers to attend our lunchtime study group meeting if they felt a burning need to voice any feedback.
In the end, no other teachers attended our study group meeting, and only one teacher responded to our e-mail. I checked in individually with the humanities teachers to see if they felt comfortable administering the survey and addressed their questions about handling any negative student comments that might arise. We posted the questionnaire online using Google’s survey tool. We also asked all teachers to fill out a companion staff survey, so we could compare their responses to the students’.
The survey results were fascinating, especially the contrast between staff and student responses. Some of the most interesting findings were:
50% of students say that they FREQUENTLY hear the expression “That’s so gay,” "No homo," or “You’re so gay” in school (compared with 67% of teachers who say they RARELY or NEVER hear these expressions.)
29% of students say they FREQUENTLY hear homophobic remarks IN CLASSES (compared with 0% of teachers... more than 85% said that they RARELY or NEVER hear those expressions in class).
76% of students say they think SOME or MOST of the students make homophobic remarks.
1 out of 10 students say that homophobic comments negatively affect their work at school.
26 of our students say that they SOMETIMES or FREQUENTLY do not participate in class because of homophobic comments made towards them.
57% of students say that they DON'T KNOW whether there is any individual teacher or other school staff person who is supportive of LGBT students at our school.
54% of students say that when they hear homophobic remarks, another student NEVER steps in or speaks up.
19% of students say that staff people or teachers NEVER step in when they hear a homophobic expression.
For the 45-minute morning meeting where we presented the survey results to the entire staff, I created the following agenda:
Mining the Data (10 minutes) Teachers sit in pairs: At each table, they will have copies of student and staff survey results presented as pie graphs. On note cards, each pair jots down 5 key findings that struck them from the survey results.   Implications of the Data (25 minutes): Each pair merges with another pair to form groups of four. Then, each member of our study group joins one group to serve as a facilitator and note-taker for the discussion.  
Protocol: What struck you? (10 minutes): Each pair shares which findings from the survey struck them and why.   What next? (15 minutes): The entire group discusses…
What steps could be taken next?
What strategies might be most effective?
What can we do as individual teachers? What can we do as a staff?
What kind of support and/or professional development can the Diversity and Equity study group provide to facilitate this process?
Debrief (10 minutes): Each facilitator reports out 3 next steps that participants suggested during the small group discussion.
Reflection & Facilitation Tips
This staff meeting was extremely productive. Asking teachers to spend time looking at the survey results made the follow-up discussion much more concrete than if we had discussed this issue without any data to ground our conversation. The pair-share, followed by the small group discussion, allowed for many voices to be heard. Also, having the study group members serve as note-takers for the small group discussions allowed us to document all of the feedback from the staff.
Some of the next steps that the teachers suggested include: role-playing difficult conversations that teachers might have with students, presenting the survey data to students and sparking a student-led campaign, designing a hate speech workshop for advisory, creating anti-hate speech posters, and planning a school-wide event around the Day of Silence in April. Our Equity and Diversity study group will review all of these staff suggestions as we continue tackling the use of homophobic language on campus.
This experience, in conjunction with the Consultancy Protocol we did in class, helped me grapple with the difficulties of making decisions at a teacher-led school with a highly opinionated staff. For others who would like to try this process, I would recommend establishing clear norms about the purpose of study groups. From the beginning of this process, I would make it clear to the staff that though we will solicit their input, ultimately, the study group will make decisions in such a way that we can move forward in a timely manner.
I also found it extremely helpful to check in with teachers individually throughout this process, rather than always checking in with the teachers as a group. Speaking one-on-one with the teachers who would be administering the surveys and addressing their questions or concerns individually made for a much smoother process than bringing everything up again with the entire staff.
Many teachers initially expressed skepticism about our survey. Some questioned whether we would get any definitive results—whether the data would “tell us anything.” Others questioned whether it was wise to administer the survey without knowing exactly what we would do with the results. In the end, though, I think most of the staff was extremely surprised and challenged by the data we gathered. The data forced teachers to confront the fact that homophobia is widespread on our campus and helped teased out the nuances of when this is happening, where, and to whom. Conducting both a staff and student survey helped the teachers recognize that there is a chasm between their perception of homophobia on campus and the students’ perception. Even teachers who had initially offered a great deal of push-back when we first brought up the survey seemed more bought into this issue after we presented the survey results. This experience helped me recognize the value of using data both to rally a staff around an important issue and to inform decision making.
I also discovered what a long, labor-intensive process data gathering can be. Putting the questionnaire online using Google’s survey tool is the easy part. However, crafting the survey so that the questions are accessible to students, soliciting feedback for revisions, and helping staff feel comfortable with administering the survey all took much longer than I expected. Over the long run, I could envision teachers’ patience and enthusiasm for the data-gathering process flagging. This experience highlighted the importance of choosing your battles carefully when it comes to data gathering. School leaders need to make sure that the questions under investigation are truly worth all of the staff’s time and effort.

Advanced PBL Class: The San Diego-Iraq Connection

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0800