Being in the professional development business, we frequently get requests for programs that can improve student achievement. Teachers and administrators are disappointed when they find out that we do not offer quick fixes. At a conference this weekend, I had a chance to hear Todd Whitaker, author of the book What Great Teachers do Differently. He told a story about how open classrooms got started.
An elementary school in rural Indiana became overcrowded. On the opening day, the principal asked for two volunteers to teach in the auxilary gymnasium. After a long silence, the two best teachers in the school raised their hands. The results were incredible. They collaborated when it made sense to collaborate; when they conducted separate lessons their students were as quiet and focused as students in enclosed classrooms. The principal thought she had stumbled onto a new instructional delivery model–the open classroom.
The following year she mandated four more open classrooms. The results were dismal. Within a year the program had been dismantled. Open classrooms were deemed a failure. The moral of the story, of course, is that open classrooms had nothing to do with the success of the auxillary gymnasium project. Students of those teachers would thrive in almost any situation. You see, it was the people, not the program.
Looping, interdisciplinary teaming, school uniforms, credit recovery, and other programs must ultimately rely upon the strength of teachers to be successful. I might go as far as to say, that any program will work when you create situations where teachers can get the job done. If we can minimize distractions, maintain order in the classrooms and hallways, place a high value on quality instructional time, and provide necessary materials, the “programatic” nature of instruction matters little.
This is part of the reason that I believe UDL to be such a powerful organizing set of principles. No instrucitonal methodology is required. Take the instructional method of direct lecture as an example. That strategy has gotten a bad reputation in the last ten years. The problem is not that lecture is a bad strategy. If it works for you, lecture away. The problem with lecture is not that it is a bad way to instruct students, it is that there are so many poor lecturers out there. Here is the catch–you do not get to decide for yourself if you are a good lecturer. At least partially, the arbiter of that is student results. If all of your students are engaged and are benefitting from the instruciton, the lesson was a winner. If not, try something else.
To sum it all up, when we allow student engagement (as exemplified through quality student created products) and achievement to guide our efforts, nothing is “off the table” in terms of instructional approaches, and we create opportunities for teachers to hone their craft in ways that make sense to them.
