Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g4TGpAO27366; Wed, 29 May 2002 12:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <LAW2-F108R5rcOsC5ip0000eacc@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2158] working within the big picture X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: RO Content-Length: 2880 Lines: 46 About a month ago, Joan Allen and I had a short discussion of the importance of program level support for learners and teachers. Joan said that while program support makes the teacher's job easier, there are teachers doing great work with EFF even in the absence of program support for their efforts. I agree with her, but I've been mulling it over and feeling that we missed something in this exchange, and I think it centers on "Working within the big picture," one of the EFF common activities. If we have a "big picture" that the teacher's efforts are central to the instructional environment, learning process, and student achievement, and that program level support makes the teacher's job easier, then we might feel that resources and energy should be focused on the classroom and teacher. Professional development might target teachers' performance, money might be spent on individual classroom efforts, supervisors might devote their energy to managing, evaluating, and improving teachers' ability to employ the latest "best practices." If student outcomes need improvement, then the burden falls on the teacher and the results are the teacher's success or failure. In this "big picture," time for teachers, staff, and administrators to work together, have discussions, and solve problems might be seen as a luxury, something that would be helpful but must take a backseat to the first priority demands on resources. In their preliminary discussion of results of the staff development research they did (in one of last year's FOBs), Cristine Smith and colleagues reported that teachers needed but did not have time for collaboration and discussion. If, on the other hand, the program itself is seen as the setting for learning, then the focus of efforts is broadened. Time for discussion and collaboration becomes a necessity rather than a luxury, and every member of the program has a crucial role in supporting student learning and achievement. I think that Shirley Wright's description of her program's efforts (in "Learners First," an article in a 1999 issue of FOB) is a great example of working within this "big picture." Barry Sheckley and Morris Keeton describe "ecologies that support and enhance learning," in which each part of a program or organization has an important part to play in the success of the members and of the organization. I think that viewing our programs as ecologies would represent a significant shift in our big picture of the work of adult and family literacy educators. What do others think? What are the current "big pictures" within which we work? How do they impact the work we do, and the effects on both working conditions and student outcomes? _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:45:28 EST