This is a site to discuss better education for all, so here is a discussion about teaching.
As faithful readers know, we have had a discussion here about the Relay Graduate School of Education and its methods. It trains teachers for charter schools. See here and here and here and here.
Carol Corbett Burris objected to its narrow pedagogy. I objected to the very fact that it is a “graduate school of education” since its faculty includes no scholars, it teaches nothing other than classroom management and data analysis, it offers no courses in the foundations of education, nothing about cognitive psychology or sociology or economics or history, just one way to teach. To my way of thinking, Relay is a teaching program, not a graduate school of education. I would like to hear someone from Relay explain on what grounds they call themselves a “graduate school of education” without scholars or a curriculum. They are more akin to a trade school for charter teachers.
But I digress.
Perhaps you will enjoy the discussion.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on Abelardo Garcia Jr's Blog and commented:
I wonder what will be considered highly effective teaching if someone likes the way this so called graduate school of education prepares its teachers. Mind blowing really. Follow the links Dr. Ravitch has in the original article to this reblog to see what I mean.
“Mind blowing really.” Yep that is why the comedian Lewis Black states “I took LSD when I was younger to prepare myself for these times”.
To be clear, I’m not endorsing Relay, just pointing out that Burris’ sweeping condemnations – and their subsequent endorsements from other commentators – weren’t really justified on the basis of the evidence she provided. I know virtually nothing about Relay. But as far as I can tell, neither does anybody else offering an opinion.
OK, this is what I think. I read the exchange between the two, and I feel inclined to agree with Ms. Burris. So if I develop a signal, call it a “support signal”, teach it to my students, ask them to use it whenever I elict input from one of their classmates, and say “This makes the whole class become engaged”…then in the eyes of central office administrators, I should be labeled as a very effective teacher…Really? By having the kids wiggle the fingers? Put them to their temples if they agree? Ms. Burris makes a very valid point, where is the higher order questioning? Where is the research basis to say that this is actually an example of a highly engaged classroom discussion? And where are the credentials of Relay to say that it is a “Graduate School of Education”? I see classroom management styles that Relay “graduates” may use in their classrooms. I have a set of signals also that I use in my classes, some of them to call for help, some to go to the restroom, etc. But I judge the engagement level of my kids by ASKING questions, by having them PARTICIPATE, by throwing a challenge to them, by GUIDING the discussion and promoting debate. I do not judge that my kids are “Engaged” just because they know how to use a “Signal that shows support”, I judge their engagement when they answer with a clear sentence that shows me that they are THINKING. And I also think that Relay must have realized that the video in question DOES NOT show a “Rigorous Classroom Discussion” because they changed the title of the video. If their claims of rigor and relevance are so good, so validated, then by all means, stick to your guns, Relay, showcase your teacher’s skills! Granted, I did see a couple of videos on the site that show how a teacher spends a few minutes using martial arts to “introduce” a math concept, and I liked them. But he also has the students taking notes, he is guiding the class. That concept is way different than “doing the finger waggle to send energy to a classmate”, and claim that by doing that, the students are engaged in “Rigorous Classroom Discussion”.
I think they are making it up as they go along because they don’t really have an established program….just a compilation of militarized charter techniques and the Lemov book. Imagine paying for this?
What an exaggeration when Bruno says there is ZERO evidence that foundations courses or a thesis help teachers be more successful. There is a whole field of practitioner inquiry that has amply demonstrated the value of teacher research in helping teachers improve their practice. What a phony! By the way, I only watched one Relay video and couldn’t even stomach it through to the end. Young students who could quickly generate a list of compound words were competing for a prize of a free snack. How is that exemplary practice by any stretch of the imagination?
It’s not!!
I didn’t actually say that. You will notice that there are names associated with each comment on the site, and that wasn’t my comment.
I have no affiliation whatever with Relay, and hadn’t even heard of them prior to Burris’ original piece. Not sure why anybody would assume otherwise.