This blog is about 3 stories.

1. The start-up year for a very different sort of Graduate School of Education. It's a tiny subset of...
2. ...The much larger, national effort to transform teaching and teachers. That is a big subset of...
3. ...A multi-kajillion-dollar effort to improve the ludicrous odds (7% or so) of a poor kid ever getting a college diploma.

Teacher Pipeline for Blended Learning Schools

Posted: October 31st, 2012 | Author: | | 2 Comments »

Hi folks,

Typically this blog has a few new readers a week. It used to be most of my readers were teachers I knew personally. Plus my mom and dad.

Now there are more folks I don’t know. So: hello.

I work on a few different things.

a. Match Education has 2 charter schools. We’re trying to get kids to learn a lot and become college ready.

b. We also want to find ways to make it easier for teachers to succeed. One way we do that is vying to expand our model of high-dosage math tutoring.

c. We also operate a small teacher prep program; our grads then go to work at similar charter or turnaround schools.

Match is not trying to become a charter school chain, or CMO. We’re more R&D. We try new stuff. If it fails, we try something else. If it works, we try to share that know-how with others.

* * *

I’m working on something new. With a history teacher named Ray. It’s a “blended learning” school. Called Match Next. We’re mostly in spit-balling stage. It’s fun.

One goal of Match Next is to make teachers’ lives easier. After all, one knock on the current No Excuses model is: exhausting for teachers and principals alike. Fair critique. Many of the teachers I know, whether in traditional high-poverty schools or charters, tend to put their kids to bed and then get back on their laptops, or (younger teacher version) tend to go to the gym in early evening and watch some TV, then back to work before bed.

I even have fantasies of Match Next “locking in” a teacher maximum workday by taking away laptops and cell phones at 5pm, allowing the tutor corps to continue laboring with kids, while the teachers go home and have guilt-free family time. Many of my ideas don’t quite work out, but who knows. Maybe this one will.

Anyway, Ray has been learning a lot from other blended-learning schools, since he’s part of a cohort of new schools funded by a group called Next Gen. Ray writes:

At the conference I just attended, principals at blended learning schools described the following hiring challenge.

They want experienced teachers who know what they’re doing. Not newbies.

But they also want:

a. Unusually flexible teachers who actually enjoy rolling with the punches, because they assume the school will change rapidly in its first few years. I.e., this isn’t for everyone: many great teachers crave familiarity, because structure allows them to focus on 1-to-1 kid interaction, and not reinventing whole school process and schedule.

b. Teachers comfortable dialing way back on the teaching-25-kids-at-once….which can be hard if you’re quite good precisely at doing just that.

c. A very specific version of team player….one that specifically excludes people who THINK of themselves as team players….in that they are unfailingly helpful to colleagues, cordial/productive in department meetings, but love the autonomy of the individual classroom, and in particular the autonomy of controlling curriculum.

Hmm. I’ll be interested to see who turn into the star teachers of these blended learning schools. Are they the same folks who were great teachers in other environments? Or does a blending learning model give some folks a chance to shine, in a way they wouldn’t in a traditional school?

Ray adds another nugget, this one about technical training:

First, many of these schools are not searching for teachers with impressive technical skills. They figure it’s easy to learn. Second, I was intrigued at the TINY amount of summer technical training these schools provide to teachers. The common summer story was this. An ed-tech vendor provides “required” training. The teachers found it HORRIBLY long. So a school might send a single teacher or leader to a 4-hour training, then condense it into TEN minutes. Another school described how their tech/product training declined from 2 weeks to 2 days.

Instead, the narrative was — you can’t easily replicate real kid-use in a summer faculty training. So summer training is best kept as low as possible. Better to sprinkle training (problem-solving) sessions throughout the year.


2 Comments on “Teacher Pipeline for Blended Learning Schools”

  1. 1: Becca said at 1:31 pm on November 6th, 2012:

    Hello! I’m a Brandeis senior applying to MTR for next year. I’m really excited about your program, both as a school and as a model for teacher training. Any tips on the application process? How many people do you expect to admit for next year? FYI, I am interested in secondary science, especially physics.

  2. 2: mathteacher said at 10:47 pm on November 7th, 2012:

    Um, the post above seems a little off topic. Not the greatest impression for a job applicant to make. But anyway…

    I would caution you about the “fast training” model. We launched cloud computing this summer and it was a major disaster. To some extent, the provider was not really ready to handle our needs (though they said they were). On the other hand, our tech team did not really understand the system as well as they should have either. On top of that (and here is how it pertains), the amount of training was negligible. I was pretty much told point blank that we were all smart people and should be able to figure it out on our own. Those of us who were willing to go out on a limb and fiddle around with it didn’t freak out nearly as much, but most people were clearly thrown for a loop. Our system got completely overloaded, paralyzing us, and then people started to make mistakes which lost thousands of files at a time. In addition, old files and curricular materials appeared to be lost from the get-go. Countless hours of teacher work time were lost just as the year was ramping up and confidence in the new system took a nosedive. I think many of the problems would have improved if they had stopped other PD work and given over a couple of hours to a step by step training where we all had to have our laptops there rather than a 10 minute drive-by training which produced no results.

    Long story short, I would be wary of letting most people (even smart people) figure out crucial tech on their own.


Leave a Reply