This morning I posted Carol Burris’s essay about the Relay Graduate School of Education. Carol Burris is the principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, Long Island.
Many people wrote comments and discussed what they thought of Relay’s method of teaching as represented by a video embedded in Burris’s essay, taken from the Relay website.
I invited Carol to respond to the many comments, and this is what she wrote today:
My Answersheet blog on Relay opened up an interesting discussion on teaching and learning, both on that blog and on Diane’s blog. That is a good thing, and I am happy to enter the dialogue on this topic, although I certainly am not an expert. First, let me say that I am not critiquing the young woman in the video. She is merely showcasing the techniques Relay asked her to show. It is the techniques that are ineffective, not the young woman.
I learned to teach from a wonderful cooperating teacher, professional development by Madeline Hunter of UCLA and under the guidance of a great department chair who had a deep understanding of effective instruction based on Hunter’s work. Madeline based her wisdom on educational research, the observation of teachers and her own instruction. She believed deeply in the professionalism of teaching and was horrified when misguided administrators tried to turn good instruction into a check list. She would be appalled by what is happening today.
Her one “absolute” was that there are NO absolutes other than never humiliate a learner because learning shuts down. She said the only thing that every teacher had to do in every lesson was to think.
Now to the techniques in the lesson and why I consider them to not be effective techniques…
We know from cognitive science that it takes young students 5-7 seconds (teenagers 3-5 seconds) to retrieve information from long term memory and bring it to working memory. Without that wait/think time, many students cannot find the answer. Those seconds also increases the quality of responses of higher achieving students. The teacher does not give Omari sufficient think time, nor does she pose an open ended question for the rest of the class to think about. Hunter used to call that “naming the pigeon”…one student on the spot so no one else needs to think.
There is no learning happening for those students who are sending energy through their fingers. Although they are active, they are not engaging in active participation which requires that students be engaged in the learning. Learning happens in the mind of the learner, it is not poured into a passive pail. We know that not only from Hunter, but also from constructivist learning theory.
To connect covert to overt active participation and engage the minds of the learners the teacher could:
- ask students to think about one time they were ambitious
- jot down their response
- share with a partner (teacher walks and listens)
- share out so that the teacher can correct error.
That would take no more than 2 minutes to do. Remember, though, Hunter said each teacher must think. She may not want to spend the time because her learning objective is broader than that. She can (1) tell the class what the word means, and then ask them to give one example from their life of when they were ambitious (a few seconds). However, if she wants to engage the students in higher level thinking at the level of evaluation, (2) ask the students to decide if the character WAS ambitious, and back up their opinion with an example.
Or, she could differentiate and have some students work on 1 and others on 2.
Finally, although the narrator said that the problem was that the student did not understand the difference between a trait and a feeling, the teacher never clarified the difference. She might present examples of traits and feelings and have the class explain how the two differ. That would engage the students in analysis, which is on the higher level of Bloom’s as well. With good support, kids can do it. Complexity and difficulty are not the same. This would promote transfer, and she could come back to this theme throughout the book.
My overarching problem with the Relay videos is that they are most focused on keeping kids in line and low level learning than they are in teaching students to think deeply about content and develop academic discipline. The video does not show ‘rigorous discussion’. In my opinion it shows a behavioral management technique….Omari answer my questions because I will not stop until I get what I want from you.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
can everyone watch Ric Lavoie-F.A.T City? a must
Who would attend the Relay Graduate school, where is it located and are they an accredited institution?
It is disturbing if people are being trained to “teach” using these methods. How is it we could be going backwards in the 21st century?
They did receive accreditation as masters degree program. No university affiliation now. They exist in cyberspace, I believe. Their curriculum is delivered via modules. Your students must achieve certain test scores in order to receive a masters degree. They are funded by philanthropic donors who support charter schools.
Yes, and read here: http://www.relayschool.org/history/
All charter school buddies…group think by those who manage schools (Dacia Toll – Achievement First – Kopp’s spouse – KIPP) and/or create charter schools, but have probably either never taught themselves or taught for a few years and then became experts:
(it is getting a bit incestuous – they all travel in the same circles of thought). I wonder if there are any African Americans in these leadership positions and what they think of the regimented education the children of color are receiving in these schools.
Teacher U, the predecessor organization that led to the creation of RGSE, was launched in 2008 by school leaders and master teachers from three of the nation’s leading non-profit charter school management organizations (CMOs)—Uncommon Schools, Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), and Achievement First. Teacher U partnered with Hunter College’s Graduate School of Education at the City University of New York (CUNY) to develop Teacher U at Hunter College (TUHC), an innovative urban teacher training program incorporating the best teaching practices honed in the high-performing charter schools of Teacher U’s partner CMOs.
One wonders what how they define “master teacher”?
Board of Trustees
Norman Atkins (ex oficio), Co-Founder and President, Relay Graduate School of Education
David Levin, Co-Founder and Superintendent, KIPP NYC
Arthur Levine, President, The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation
Julie Mikuta, Partner, NewSchools Venture Fund
Larry Robbins (Chair), Founder and CEO, Glenview Capital Management
Evan Rudall, Chief Executive Officer, Uncommon Schools, Inc.
David Saltzman (Vice Chair and Treasurer), Executive Director, Robin Hood Foundation
Dacia Toll, Founder, Co-CEO & President, Achievement First
Carlos Watson, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs
Doesn’t it appear these are people who have done a very good job of creating high paying positions for themselves while pretending to care about the education of minority children?
It would be interesting to find out where they attended schools (elementary and high school) and where their children go to school.
Do the Kopp/Barth kids attend a KIPP charter school? Maybe they do..just wondering?
Anybody know?
You ask some great questions. Regimented learning with short answers and recall is considered rigorous by some “educators”. I’m sure Benjamin Bloom would disagree. I consider it the easiest of all types of questions being asked. But to some it shows learning and on tape when you show this to funders they probably believe the same thing.
I ‘ve also noticed the paucity of people of color in charters and leadership. Kaya Henderson in Washington, DC came from the TFA program and is good buds with Michelle Rhee. Perhaps you can email her to find out the answer. I wonder, but. DCPS has incorporated many of these techniques into their Teaching and Learning
framework and teacher evaluations.
I would venture to say that the children of some of these charter hustlers and executives are probably attending private schools. Wendy Kopp made a comment about public schools. It was something to the effect that her kids wouldn’t be attending a public school. Although I would love to see her reaction if her children were taught using these rigorous questioning and teaching techniques demonstrated in this video.
Now Master Teacher means different things to different people. Sure sounds good though. Sounds like a seal of approval .In DC you can be a principal if you have a school-based job, pass the SLLA exam/assessment, and have two (2) years experience. You don’t even have to teach anymore. We have Master Educators who go from school to school and conduct about 180 30 minute observations and post-observation conferences per year. One ME that was recently hired was mentored by a friend about 7 years ago when he first started. He has never been a department chair, served on any major committees, presented at any conference, or really served in an any administrative leadership position, yet he will decide the fate of 180 teachers. More power than some principals, yet without having the qualifications or licensing.
I watched the kindergarten video about transitions and counted only seven children. That much regimentation for such a small class. I’d be curious to see an RGSE video with 25 children as my son’s kindergarten class had.
Steven if you want to see a Kindergarten/First Grade class using these control techniques (though not from Relay — from Direct Instruction/Reading Mastery) look here:
The “Manage Behavior” part starts at 2:18. This is the favored form of instruction in many charter schools, and has many variations from Sopris West’s “ReadWell” (not quite as regimented and boring), and Voyager, the default program from Reading First that made some millions and millions of dollars before it flamed out in controversy and disgrace.
Its proponents claim it is THE silver bullet for teaching reading to at-risk children. It is quite common is special education settings. The students usually perform well on tests but there is no independent research that I have been able to locate over several years of looking that does any follow-up on how they fare in life outside of the testing bubble or if any of them even like reading at all.
The What Works Clearing House, which definitely swings towards the Relay/Teach Like a Champion school of teaching, also found little in the way of independent research that supports this methodology and that created a war within the deform movement in and of itself and causing the Direct Instruction people much chagrin.
Strangely there is no easily-accessed published information where the students are interviewed or asked to speak about what they think about this type of teaching despite the fact that it’s been around for near half a century and is championed in Texas and throughout the charter school movement.
What I find most disturbing is how the teachers talk about the children as if they are wild animals who must be tamed and controlled. Many of the children look extremely bored and distracted and like they’d rather be anywhere else but in that little regimented group. The proponents brook no criticism of their methodology and become very hostile if any doubt is expressed. The program is inviolable and any problems come from lack of fidelity in delivering the scripted curriculum, never from weaknesses or shortcomings within the program itself.
Having been a primary teacher in Title I schools for almost 20 years I can unequivocally say that I have tried this method, with fidelity, and had some success with some struggling readers. They still complained that the lessons were boring and too long even with their “success” and they showed little interest in reading after they successfully “broke the code”. I have, alternatively, been able to teach hundreds of at-risk students to read by building thoughtful, caring learning communities and engaging them in deep discussion and writing around texts.
Yes, there are major problems with some at-risk children in the school setting regarding behavior. My personal opinion is that, instead of instituting regimented, paramilitary, pre-prison like compliance to deal with those problems, school need to invest in teaching programs that help teachers, students, and their families learn to deal with their emotional problems and provide counseling, alternative learning settings, and in-school supports for these children. But that costs a lot of money and it far more easy and much cheaper to treat them like they are already part of the military or a prison population.
I saw that one as well. At the time, I imagined that this was just part of the class–that the others were engaged elsewhere. ???
Just watched the vimeo clip that Brian shared. I would find this an incredibly boring way to teach reading and I have taught hundreds of kids to read.
I do agree with a strong, consistent start from Day One. I am a very directive teacher. Over the years, I have figured out what works to keep kids on task and on target and what I need to do a great job teaching. Not gratuitous compliance, but effective compliance. My two rules: keep your eyes on me when I talk and teach, and keep silent while I talk and teach.
I just had to post this…The Texas GOP Platform has banned ‘critical thinking’ and ‘higher order thinking’ in public schools. The full fruitition of NCLB has blossomed…wonder when it will become a law? Prohibitions against thinking critically or scientifically comprise just one of 30 pages of the anti-Enlightenment thinking seen in the Texas GOP platform document.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinking-skills-in-texas-public-schools
We are once again in the Dark Ages.
Is Carol Burris putting us on? Is she not aware that Madelyn Hunter’s Essential Elements of Instruction is based on the research of Pavlov with cats and other animals? Whether this highly structured behavioral psychology method is based on Pavlov or Skinner is really beside the point; it is a method of control!
Hunter said in an article in “Learning Magazine” that “There is not a teacher who has not heard of Pavlov, but, yet, they (the teachers) refuse to us the method”. (Paraphrase that you can pull up). Let us explore the history of this method to some degree:
Dr. T. Bell, (USADOED) and Albert Shanker (AFT President) opened the Center for EssentialElements of Instruction at NAU in Flagstaff, AZ after the the “Nation At Risk” questionable report was issued. The purpose was to train teachers for merit pay using “The Essential Elements of Instruction” based on Pavlov’s research as was then implemented by Madelyn Hunter and various others throughout the USA and possibly the world…This was the great push to destroy public education, and more importantly bring all teachers and children under the highly structured method of behavior modification. Skinner’s method is a more modern version of this “animal training method”. Whether S-R or S-R-S, it makes little difference, because this devious control method is most effective when used on an innocent, unassuming, unknowing audience. Carol Burris must fall within that audience, or else she is “putting us on”.
I know nothing about the Relay School of Education,(I’ll look it up), but Burris appears to praise Madelyn Hunter without clearly understanding the research behind the method. This is typical of what is happening today in education and our country especially in the school-to-work schools i. e. schools of choice.
When I was first subjected, and subjected is the only word I can use, to a Skinner program of Mastery Learning titled “the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction” I raised my hand and asked “What is this method” (no answer during the workshop). I was told not to ask any questions or take any notes during the workshop. This really got my attention. I then asked the school district for the research because I was the parent representative for a Title I program and that was one of my duties while serving in this capacity. The research, when it finally arrived, was scant and appeared to have no sufficient research base other than Skinner. This was in 1978. This was a program that was approved by the USA DOE and was first approved in Salt Lake City, Utah, when Dr. T. Bell was the Superintendent. He was the Reagan appointee to the USDOE and he issued A Nation at Risk. It was funded with an almost seven hundred thousand dollar grant from the US DOE according their statements. The going rate for a grant to an individual was $25,000 at that time according to my research. I always wondered who really funded this grant???? There are many questions that need to be answered regarding restructuring our total educational system and privatizing, not only education, but others areas of our Republic.
statements. It was approved by the Joint Educational Review Panel as an educationsal program that works and then dissimenated throughout the USA through ERIC.
I am not putting you on. Yes, behavioral psychology was popular in the 1970s. But Madeline Hunter did not base her research on Pavlov’s dogs. I use her example (all a teacher must do in every lesson is to think” and her statement that there are no absolutes) to contrast her style with the proponents of data driven instruction. I met her, was impressed, did not always agree, but never doubted her genuine respect for teachers. She never spoke of Skinner, training cats or any of your other concerns.
I attended UCLA in the late 80’s when Madeline Hunter was still teaching. Yes, the 7 Step Lesson Plan was/is a direct instruction model, but as you state, Carol, I was taught to use the lesson plan model as a framework, not an absolute. All the UCLA teaching students were taught to constantly observe the students, monitor their grasp of the content, and then use that data to decide how to proceed with the lesson. Assertive Discipline was also big in the late 80’s; UCLA did NOT teach or advocate for Assertive Discipline. We were instead taught to use the structure and content of our lessons to keep students engaged.
When I first was hired in my current district, EEI was part of our training at new teacher workshops. It was a godsend–it really taught me to break the lesson down and to engage the students with clarity and purpose.
My principal (and mentor) and I had countless discussions on how to improve my then rudimentary lessons, but one important practice in the art of teaching that I gleaned from the EEI model is that lessons are never cut-and-dry, formulaic lists of required information, as one with little experience using EEI might believe. Instead, a lesson may have a continuous chain of mini lessons within its whole, with each concept connecting to the previous to build upon the thinking, and each concept worthy of its own time within the lesson.
Student-centered instruction is essential to engaging the learner, and the master teacher is always aware of his or her role and responsibility to the learning process. The master invariably monitors student learning by eliciting responses in various modes from all the students as often as possible making each response a personal effort of the child while maintaining a comfortable atmosphere where the student is not just “put on the spot.” Covert and overt responses can be executed in a myriad of ways. It’s up to the teacher to find creative ways for students to respond in a relevant way.
As the teacher monitors students, the teacher adjusts the lesson plan to guide the learning experience. The teacher isn’t simply eliciting a response using predictable tactics or making arbitrary connections to concepts as if ringing a bell to train a dog to salivate in expectation of being fed. In the quintessential Pavlovian model, one action (ringing the bell) has nothing to do with the other (expecting food) in terms of thought-connections. The connections that the teacher uses to guide the students through the learning process are relevant connections to the students and their lives.
In an EEI classroom, students are engaged in the concept and objective with many opportunities to solidify the learning. Making connections is key, which is illustrated by the use of anticipatory set and closure, but EEI is anything but predictable since the lessons are flexible enough to be adjusted and thus are tailored to the students at the time of the teaching.
I was unable to make corrections or complete this comment, so disregard all errors and incomplete statements please.
Many new teachers and those with a few days of training may want to copy this down. It will definetly come in handy. Thank you Carol.
To connect covert to overt active participation and engage the minds of the learners the teacher could:
ask students to think about one time they were ambitious
jot down their response
share with a partner (teacher walks and listens)
share out so that the teacher can correct error.
That would take no more than 2 minutes to do. Remember, though, Hunter said each teacher must think. She may not want to spend the time because her learning objective is broader than that. She can (1) tell the class what the word means, and then ask them to give one example from their life of when they were ambitious (a few seconds). However, if she wants to engage the students in higher level thinking at the level of evaluation, (2) ask the students to decide if the character WAS ambitious, and back up their opinion with an example.
Or, she could differentiate and have some students work on 1 and others on 2.
So Relay grants Masters. What a name. Until today I didn’t know that diploma mills still existed in the U.S. After viewing the video, I’ve come to the conclusion that I wasn’t watching a class being taught but one being trained. And what they may be training for? Why Jeopardy. The only thing missing is buzzers.
Or ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’…after all, you can phone a friend 🙂
And phoning a friend just “named another pigeon” leaving the rest of the kids off the hook.