Disrupting School Rituals

           In this article in Urban Education, Eric DeMeulenaere (Clark University) describes how he and two high-school teachers started their school year in a way that shook up the usual get-acquainted/syllabus-review/rules-and-expectations ritual for a group of 27 seniors: 

• The classroom lights were out and the blinds closed. 
• At the rear of the classroom, a projector displayed the question, Why are we here? 
• On a side wall in bold letters were several signs with life aspirations, including: Write a novel, Hike the Appalachian Trail, Be a Mom, Live off the grid. 
• Chairs were arranged in a circle, and students sauntered in and sat near their friends. 
• The teachers stood in a corner, backs to students, talking among themselves. 
• Three minutes passed, and students’ chit-chat subsided to puzzled whispers. 
• Finally one teacher walked to the middle of the circle and read a story about a painful conversation he had with his father, who had returned after abandoning the family. 
• The teacher said, “I’ve only shared that story with four people before today,” and then, gesturing to the back of the room, added, “This is partly why I am here today.” 

          This was the kick-off for an innovative “Roots and Routes” class in this low-performing urban high school in central Massachusetts, designed to change the usual pattern of very few students going on to post-secondary education. The group was drawn from every achievement level in the school – potential valedictorians and gang members, gamers and teen moms – and all, says DeMeulenaere, were “woefully underprepared for college.” The principal’s charge to the teachers and DeMeulenaere was to help students prepare for and apply to colleges – and teachers had free rein to try different methods.

          “While this project focuses on the internal and micro-level interactions of students and teachers in a single urban school classroom,” says DeMeulenaere, “it recognizes that the classroom culture is deeply influenced by the larger school and community context.” This included a depressed economy, poverty, and segregation, along with inadequate funding for the school, poor administrative decisions, less-than-effective teaching in some classrooms, and insufficient counseling and psychological services. Still, DeMeulenaere and his colleagues hoped to change the distrustful relationships between students and their middle-class teachers by shifting school rituals associated with factories and the military to trust-building rituals drawn from the theater and places of worship. 

          DeMeulenaere describes three other experiences from the first week of the Roots and Routes project (which took place during the 2008-09 school year), all designed to “shake the students free from going through the motions of schooling…” 

• The altar – At the end of the first day, students were given a handmade artist book created by one of the teachers and given several days to create their bucket list and a symbol that represented themselves on their life journey. When they were finished several days later, students placed their books on a table at the back of the classroom decked out with a black tablecloth and candles to resemble an altar. DeMeulenaere shared his aspirational list and symbol, and invited students to follow suit. After an awkward silence and some giggling, one student stepped forward, and others followed, clearly investing in the ritual that couldn’t have been more different from standard school protocols. “The fact that no one could even assess these projects,” says DeMeulenaere, “that teachers completed this task alongside students, and that everyone shared their books in the class disrupted the status hierarchies in this classroom and began to forge new relationships between teachers and students. And through a collective and ritualized sharing, each member of the classroom community was recognized for their individual humanity rather than their status role in the classroom.” 
• The mountain climb – On a hot day shortly after this, students were driven to the base of the tallest mountain in the region, divided into three teams, and dropped off at different locations. With no maps, compasses, or assistance from the teacher accompanying them, students were asked to figure out how to get to the top of the mountain. In addition, each group had an egg, a helium balloon, a bag of ice, and an opened 50-pound bottle of water; the challenge was to get to the mountaintop without breaking the egg, popping the balloon, spilling any of the water – and before the ice melted. Each group got lost at least once, says DeMeulenaere. Students expressed frustration that the teachers wouldn’t help them and struggled with the four items, especially the water container. But all the groups came up with creative solutions, including using hair ties and plastic bags to seal the top of the water bottle and using sticks and belts to harness the heavy jug. All students reached the summit before their ice melted, and there was great celebration and euphoria, with the first arrivals cheering on the others. One high-achieving student who initially wanted nothing to do with one member of her group who she believed was headed for prison was deeply moved by the leadership he took and, in her college essay, said she “began to see myself and the people I grew up with in a new light.” 
• The permanent marker incident – At the top of the mountain, one of the teachers noticed that several students had used a permanent marker to write their names on one of the stone lookouts. Before they returned to school, the teachers gathered students in a circle and asked them to reflect on the incident without saying anything. Back at school, there was a lengthy discussion in which some students said it wasn’t a big deal (like carving initials in a tree, a way of capturing the moment), others saying they should tell the principal and accept the consequences. But the discussion wound up in a different place: several of the perpetrators paid for cleaning supplies and those students, accompanied by others who weren’t complicit, returned to the mountain with their teachers and scrubbed the stone markers clean. 

          DeMeulenaere and his colleagues continued in this vein for the rest of the year, including taking students through a high ropes course, visiting their families, and returning several times to the “altar” to discuss students’ and teachers’ aspirations. The result was a higher level of trust within the group, students seeing their classmates in new and more-accepting ways, and improved academic achievement. 

          “Teachers want students to do more than just go through the motions of schooling,” DeMeulenaere concludes. “But teachers too often fail to recognize that their deployment of scripted school rituals fosters routinized relationships marked by hierarchy, control, distrust, and disengagement. This is even more pronounced in urban schools where differences in the socioeconomic and racial backgrounds between teachers and students foster even greater distrust… Teachers committed to social change need to think beyond curriculum redesign and pedagogical innovation and begin to re-envision the micro-level interactions of classroom rituals.” 

 “Disrupting School Rituals” by Eric DeMeulenaere in Urban Education, January 2023 (Vol. 58, #1, pp. 59-86); DeMeulenaere can be reached at edemeulenaere@clarku.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #966 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.

Homework as Gap-Widener

          In this article in Educational Researcher, Jessica McCrory Calarco (Indiana University/Bloomington) and Ilana Horn and Grace Chen (Vanderbilt University) say that in many schools, homework is a “status-reinforcing practice,” one of several that “stratify students’ opportunities for learning and bolster the ‘meritocratic’ narrative that higher-status groups succeed in school because of individual competence, effort, and responsibility.” And indeed, lower-SES students report spending less time on homework, more often hand it in late or incomplete, and receive more-frequent and harsher penalties, contributing to a widening achievement gap vis-à-vis more-advantaged students. 

          In their longitudinal ethnographic study, Calarco, Horn, and Chen were surprised to find that in elementary and middle schools, where teachers are more aware of students’ home situations, teachers don’t attribute homework difficulties to outside-of-school factors and structural inequalities. Rather, teachers tend to blame students who struggle with homework (and, in elementary schools, their parents). The researchers found that many teachers see homework through a lens of individual agency and a “myth of meritocracy – the idea that people who are responsible, motivated, and hard-working will be successful, regardless of the challenges they face.” 

          This belief system gives teachers justification for three practices that clearly widen pre-existing SES gaps: 

• Assigning homework that students are not able to complete independently; 
• Punishing students who don’t complete homework (many classes begin with students being      asked to get out their homework so it can be checked by the teacher); 
• Rewarding students who regularly meet homework expectations with praise, bonus points, and    “homework passes” that allow them to miss assignments without penalty. 

Step one to addressing this situation, say Calarco, Horn, and Chen, is for teachers to question the myth of meritocracy and recognize the structural inequalities affecting many students’ ability to successfully complete homework. Steps two, three, and four are assigning manageable homework; not treating homework as a proxy for individual responsibility, competence, and effort; and lowering the stakes for homework completion. 

          Some educators have gone further, making homework optional or ungraded. But “because homework is such a deeply entrenched part of the grammar of schooling,” say the authors, “and because homework can also serve other purposes – signaling school rigor or helping parents feel connected to the school – some families and educators may resist its elimination.” Schools that stop giving homework need to find other ways to fulfill these legitimate needs. 

          Even the radical step of eliminating homework doesn’t address the unequal advantages of students whose families have more time and resources to support their children’s learning. “The need for structural solutions to structural inequalities, however, should not discourage educators from taking steps in the short term to reduce the harm caused by status-reinforcing practices,” conclude the authors. “Schools and teachers alone may be unable to fix social inequalities, but they can avoid making them worse.” 

 “‘You Need to Be More Responsible’: The Myth of Meritocracy and Teachers’ Accounts of Homework Inequalities” by Jessica McCrory Calarco, Ilana Horn, and Grace Chen in Educational Researcher, November 2022 (Vol. 51, #8, pp. 515523); Calarco can be reached at jcalarco@indiana.edu, Horn at ilana.horn@vanderbilt.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #965 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.

Can Project-Based Learning Work in AP Courses?

        In this article in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Anna Rosefsky Saavedra (University of Southern California) and seven colleagues report on their study comparing students’ performance on two Advanced Placement exams (U.S. Government and Environmental Science) following traditional and project-based instruction. For teachers trying to implement an innovative project-based learning classroom, say the authors, “the AP context is particularly challenging because of the sheer amount of content covered in the course-specific AP curriculum frameworks and the looming end-of-year, high-stakes examination.” 

        The researchers looked at the exam results of students in five predominantly urban, low-income school districts around the U.S. What did they find? Students who learned through project-based learning did significantly better on AP exams than those with lecture-based instruction. This was true for students from both low- and high-income families. The researchers found that teachers using project-based learning focused their learning objectives on more-sophisticated thinking and communication skills, did less AP test prep and quick-turnaround assignments, and spent more time on student-centered activities like simulations and debates. 

        The authors have several caveats. First, shifting from traditional to project-based pedagogy is a “substantial change for teachers,” requiring high-quality, ongoing, job-embedded PD and coaching support. Second, the teachers using project-based learning in this study chose to participate, indicating that they were “early adopters” who were more motivated than those in the control group to try something new and/or were drawn to, or already knowledgeable about, project-based learning. Third, the schools in the study were philosophically aligned with project-based learning, offered many AP courses, and required open access enrollment in AP courses. Classrooms and schools without these favorable conditions might not get the positive results found in this study.

        Still, say the authors, “The traditional ‘transmission’ model of instruction, in which teachers transmit knowledge to students through lectures and assigned readings, may be suboptimal for supporting students’ ability to think and communicate in sophisticated ways, demonstrate creativity and innovation, and transfer their skills, knowledge, and attitudes to new contexts.” 

 “The Impact of Project-Based Learning on AP Exam Performance” by Anna Rosefsky Saavedra, Kari Lock Morgan, Ying Liu, Marshall Garland, Amie Rapaport, Alyssa Hu, Danial Hoepfner, and Shira Korn Haderlein in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, December 2022 (Vol. 44, # 4, pp. 638-666); Saavedra can be reached at asaavedr@usc.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #964 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.

Using Fermi Questions to Foster Community

        In this article in Mathematics Teacher: Learning & Teaching PK-12, Kathryn Lavin Brave and Jillian Miller (Baltimore County Public Schools) describe using Fermi questions to get students thinking about key mathematics standards while bolstering their social and emotional skills. Fermi questions were named after the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Enrico Fermi, who was known for his theoretical and practical contributions and for making reasonable estimates from limited data.

        Fermi questions are designed to get students working on a challenging problem “by making reasonable assumptions about the situation, not necessarily relying on definite knowledge for an exact answer” (Taggart et al, 2007). These questions are especially helpful, say Brave and Miller, as schools emerge from the pandemic, providing an opportunity to combine math problem-solving with building SEL skills, especially collaboration. Some examples:

        - How many times can you say the ABCs in 24 hours?

        - How many hairs are on your head? 

        - How many sticky notes would cover the chalkboard? 

        - How many pizza boxes would it take to cover our classroom floor? 

        - How much water is wasted by a leaky faucet in one day? 

        - How many cars drive by our school building in a day? 

        - How many plastic containers does the cafeteria throw away each week? 

Brave and Miller suggest this step-by-step plan for using a Fermi question in an upper-elementary classroom:

        - The teacher gives background information on Fermi and the role of estimation in solving problems.

        - Students are presented with a Fermi question that’s appropriate to their grade level and a mathematical skill or concept they’re learning.

        - Students are encouraged to make “wild estimates” on what the answer might be.

        - The teacher introduces the idea of “outliers” and the class discusses answers that seem too high or too low to be plausible.

        - Students discuss which estimates might be closer to the exact answer and why.

        - The class discusses a plan for finding the answer, dividing the Fermi question into a series of questions than might be used to get relevant data.

        - Students get into groups to find the answer; the teacher fields initial questions like, Can we use a ruler? Can we use a calculator?

        - The teacher circulates, guiding students with mathematical questions and prompts and highlighting interesting strategies and insights for the whole class.

        - The teacher points out SEL insights on self-regulation, sharing, self-awareness, patience, and persistence.

        - The teacher reminds students to evaluate their work and make mid-course corrections.

        - Finally, groups present their answers to the whole class for critique and discussion and share what they learned about social and emotional skills. 

 “Using Fermi Questions to Foster Community” by Kathryn Lavin Brave and Jillian Miller in Mathematics Teacher: Learning & Teaching PK-12, November 2022 (Vol. 115, #11, pp. 801-807)

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #964 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.

How One Elementary School Dramatically Improved Math Achievement

        In this American Educational Research Journal article, Elham Kazemi (University of Washington), Alison Fox Resnick (University of Colorado), and Lynsey Gibbons (University of Delaware) describe how the principal of a racially diverse, low-SES elementary school shifted math instruction from teacher-centered and procedure-focused to student-centered and emphasizing discussion, problem-solving, reasoning, and sense-making. Over three years, the school rose from “failing” status to being named as a School of Distinction by the state, with fourth and fifth graders outscoring the district and state (passing rates for fifth graders went from 20 to 79 percent) and no achievement differences among the school’s racial and socioeconomic student groups. 

        Kazemi, Resnick, and Gibbons studied this turnaround with a particular focus on how the principal worked with teachers and teacher teams. Their observations:

        • Teachers as learners – The principal was clear about her vision for an improved mathematics curriculum and classroom practices that needed to change, say the authors, but she also believed teachers “needed to be trusted and engaged as competent sensemakers in messy and experimental learning.” To encourage risk-taking, one of the principal’s mantras was, “You can’t look good and get better at the same time.” She knew it would take time for the pedagogical changes that needed to be made, with plenty of mistakes along the way.

        • Modeling risk-taking – As the principal worked shoulder to shoulder with teachers in grade-level meetings, math labs, and PD sessions, she shared their struggles implementing new materials and pedagogical practices, built collegiality and trust – and continued to communicate clear and high expectations. “I’m constantly shifting back and forth between pressure and support,” she said. “As I’m listening, I’m thinking all these things at once.” Because the principal sat in on so many teacher meetings, she was a keener observer of math teaching and learning when she visited classrooms.

        • Equity – One of the school’s goals was to close racial and economic achievement gaps, but the principal “resisted pervasive equity discourse,” say the authors – also the idea that black and brown students needed to “catch up” with their white and Asian peers. Instead, the principal “focused closely on students’ experiences and participation in classrooms” – and on all students’ opportunities after they graduated from the school. Bringing effective, rigorous instruction to every classroom was central to the principal’s equity philosophy. “It’s not fair,” she said, “that a child could have two different experiences because of the flip of a coin, you got this teacher and not that teacher.”

        • Student agency – “Our goal,” said the principal, “is to change kids’ outcomes in life by having them be thinkers, by having them be leaders of their own learning.” In classrooms, she watched for who was doing the intellectual heavy lifting – the teacher or the students. When a teacher said, “I wish you were in here five minutes ago when I was teaching,” the principal said that “teaching” was everything teachers were orchestrating that got kids talking to each other about their work and understanding math content and skills.

        • Teacher collaboration – The principal saw weekly 45-minute grade-level teams (during teachers’ common planning time) as the “unit of change,” the key “leverage point” for improving individual teachers’ effectiveness. The school’s math coach facilitated these meetings, guiding teachers as they talked about what had been most successful in their classrooms. The principal and coach watched for how well teachers were working together, and the principal reassigned teachers to different grade levels when team dynamics were not productive. Maximizing the potential of teams was also a key consideration when the school filled teaching vacancies.

        • Lesson study – Four to six times a year, each grade-level team, joined by special education and ELL teachers, participated in a full- or half-day “math lab” in which (facilitated by the math coach) they (a) unpacked new ideas about content, instruction, and student thinking; (b) collaboratively planned a short lesson; (c) taught the lesson in their classrooms; and (d) discussed their insights. The principal made a point of attending all teams’ math labs in the course of each year (24 in all), and saw these cycles as key to improving instructional planning and disrupting some teachers’ deficit ideas about what students were capable of doing mathematically.

        • Individual coaching – Every week, the principal and the math coach visited classrooms to gauge how teachers and students were making sense of the curriculum and provide feedback and support. The principal sat with students on the rug or checked in with them as they worked at their desks, asking about what they were learning and which problems they found easy and difficult. The principal and the coach followed up with teachers during and after visits, praising effective practices and problem-solving when students were struggling.

        • Teacher evaluation – The district’s system for evaluating teachers was incompatible with the principal’s desire to have conversations about teaching and learning throughout the year, setting goals and giving feedback from September through June. The principal also disagreed with the district’s practice of making each classroom visit evaluative. “I need to be spending my time with teachers learning and planning and reflecting and adjusting,” she said. She complied with the district’s requirements, but her main focus was on being in classrooms and team meetings every week, noticing how teachers were interpreting and implementing lesson plans, communicating with teacher teams about their insights and ideas, and fine-tuning teaching throughout the year.

        • Instructional leadership team – The ILT, consisting of the principal, assistant principal, and the math and literacy coaches, focused on how well teachers were implementing new practices, how successfully students were learning, and teacher interactions in grade-level teams. The leadership team made decisions about supporting individual teachers and teams and brainstormed ideas for the next round of math labs.

        • All-staff communication – The principal used e-mails, staff meetings, and schoolwide professional development sessions to deprivatize practice, spread effective ideas, and communicate a sense that “we are all learning this together.”

        • Storytelling – The principal encouraged teachers to tell her when lessons went especially well and send students to her (or the math coach) when they made a learning breakthrough. The principal often began staff meetings by sharing one or two of these stories, and frequently used metaphors to make important points: they were all in the same boat and needed to be rowing in the same direction; building a new mathematics system was fragile and vulnerable, like a house of cards; when sharing learning data that showed student progress, she stressed that students were on the road but had not yet arrived.

        • Buffering outside agendas – Once the school’s instructional vision was clear, the principal pushed back on district initiatives that would distract teachers from the path they were on. “Part of what I do,” she said, “which is my least favorite part of my job, is I say no all the time. ‘No, I’m sorry our teacher can’t go to that. No, I’m sorry, we can’t help you do that. No, I’m sorry, we can’t have another visit. No, we do not want that curriculum you bought because you think every elementary school needs it. No, I can’t even store it in my building because… that sends a message.’” 

 “Principal Leadership for Schoolwide Transformation of Elementary Mathematics Teaching: Why the Principal’s Conception of Teacher Learning Matters” by Elham Kazemi, Alison Fox Resnick, and Lynsey Gibbons in American Educational Research Journal, December 2022 (Vol. 59, #6, pp. 1051-1089); the authors can be reached at ekazemi@uw.edu, alison.resnick@colorado.edu and lgibbons@udel.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #964 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.