In the past, I believed that all that students should do in a project based learning class is project work. Every day the class should work on the project and build the next part. They will critique and tinker. This has been my way for a long time. Generally the students experience success, but I wondered what might be missing. I remember talking with students at exhibition who, based on their products, had completed the project. Surprisingly, when I asked them about their work they were not able to well describe what they had done. Specifically, they could not explain the purpose behind choices they had made for their product. After some pushing, one student said "we built it this way because you said it would be better!"

While project-based learning naturally develops student competence in skills and tasks, comprehension requires intentional discussion-based work that allows students to construct and articulate their own understanding of the underlying process and principles. I took these conversations as evidence that they had not been constructing meaning for themselves and creating a product from that meaning, they had merely been tweaking my product plan and largely relying on my example. I believe that if they had completed a product based on their own understanding of the principles involved I would see greater differentiation in the end result. So then I had a question: How do I develop comprehension and competence together? In order to develop something in the brains of my students, I had to look closely at how the brain develops itself.

Neurons, and the connections between them, are the foundation of consciousness and memory. As connections develop, memories and associations are stored. Collections of synapses (the connections between neurons) that signal together frequently become more efficient in their signaling, like a path through the woods being established over time by thousands of footprints. Synapses that fire together wire together. Thus, in order to build comprehension, which is memory and ability wrapped up in one, the associated synapse cluster needs to fire again and again and again. The challenge is in giving learners a reason to build comprehension clusters together with competence clusters, not just one or the other. Think of how difficult tying a shoelace is for kindergarteners. They need lots of focus and practice to build the connections in their brains as they repeat the shoelace tying action again and again. Eventually, they will be able to tie their shoelaces while watching tv, having a conversation, or driving a car because the synapses required to tie their laces are so well built and efficient. This is an example of a competence cluster that is very strong, but is it also a comprehension cluster? To find out, ask yourself "why do I use this knot rather than another?". If, like me, you tie the same knot that you were taught, then you probably have competence without comprehension as far as shoelaces are concerned.

My hypothesis is that by having students build long term and detailed projects, I was not providing them the opportunity to build and fire the appropriate 'comprehension' synapse clusters for the content of my class. They were solving problems and planning and building all the time, just not constructing meaning, not building bridges in their minds between their product and the concepts from which that product was designed. So how to guide them to build those connections?

If we are going to build something then we should strive to build the best version of that thing. The same is true for comprehension clusters. Generally speaking, the more connections involved in a cluster, the more detailed and long lasting it is, like a spiderweb anchored to hundreds of points in a larger tree. Additionally, the more complex a cluster and the more connections involved, the more permanent that cluster will be. Therefore, more complex ideas that pass through the brain are more likely to be formed into the longer lasting structure of the brain. In practical terms this means that rote memorization of a list of vocabulary terms will be less effectively integrated into the brain than an engaging discussion about the concepts in which those terms are used because memorization of a list is simpler than having a conversation about what that list signifies.  

Therefore, one strategy to use in order to build complex and long term comprehension clusters in the brains of my students is to have them dig in to conversations about the concepts that we are trying to understand. One step further, if I do not guide the discussion, they will be the required to build the structure of the discussion as well, learning to prioritize and sort sub concepts. 

This might sound like a lot to ask, but sitting in a circle and talking about things that are interesting and important is one of the most human activities that we can partake in. Evolutionary pressure selected ancestors of ours who were more skilled at sharing and discussing complex ideas with their peers by nature of their improved problem solving ability and greater knowledge base. From these circles grew a culture of knowledge sharing. Other organisms are learning how to live in the world for the first time, but we humans are able to get advice from others who have been here before, and those of our ancestors who were best able to exploit information gained from their peers were naturally selected to be the base of our species.

Talking in circles is to humans as chasing mice is to cats; it's in our nature. We're built for this. 

So that's what we do now in class. Each week we work for four days and talk for the fifth. I pick a pair of articles, one a scientific journal and one a more narrative work, that both speak about the same concept that I want students to dig in to. The phrasing of dig in is deliberate here; it speaks to more than just discuss, more than understand, but to mine, to explore, to feel. I typically dispense the articles on Tuesday or Wednesday so that the students can read on their down time during the week. Discussions are often on Monday.

Any format of group discussion that is student-led will do, but I particularly enjoy Spiderweb Discussions, which you can read more about through the work of Alexis Wiggins. In brief, it is a circle discussion based on a text in which the teacher is completely removed and only serves to give feedback on the ability of the circle to converse productively. I observe my students, individually and through peer encouragement, consistently construct comprehension when they answer questions like "how does this article relate to our project?", and say "this reminds me of a previous discussion we had where.". These comprehension clusters are fired and wired together much more regularly and with more complexity in these discussions than in previous versions of my class and the results are exciting. One thing I've noticed is that students more regularly will engage me in conversations about the project and it's subject without being asked to. For example, a group of kids came into my room before class to discuss ideas for exhibition of the project and we talked over different options, all because they initiated.  I can see that they own this project as much or more than I do, which I credit to their increased comprehension of the work and it's principles. I look forward to this semesters exhibition; I'll ask my students "why did you build it like this?" or "why this pattern and not another?" and be able to enjoy seeing the new connections that their brains have made. 

I have a bag of dice in my classroom. There's probably 50 dice in a blue velvet pouch with a drawstring that wait in the closet for some down time or a decision that has to be made. The drawstring doesn't hold the bag closed very well, so every time I take it out, it seems, the opening of the bag will burp out 5 or 10 dice. They immediately spatter out of sight on the linoleum floors and I have to chase them down like a freshman losing at beer pong. 

In the bag, they are ordered. In terms of the universe, it's incredibly unlikely that they would be bundled together and in a container. It is much more likely that they would spread out in a chaotic way, distributed throughout the world. Indeed someday the bag will break or deteriorate and the dice will begin to move toward their most likely arrangement: far apart from each other, chaotically distant. Highly entropic. 

Organizations begin, usually, in states on low entropy. Everything clustered and associated. Organized. Slowly though, things spread out and the scope increases. The original function and purpose of the organization is amended, expanded. Eventually you might have a hard time figuring out what this organization does when standing on the outside. 

I remember when Apple made 2 things: computers and iPods. There was one computer and one iPod, with small variations in storage or color. Today, Apple makes hardware (laptops, screens, iPhones, watches) and software (Maps, Safari, multiple operating systems) and maintains services (iCloud, music streaming, health monitoring). At one time, you could clearly see that Apple was a technology company. Today? It's not so simple to encompass the function and purpose of the company in a short description. 

Is that wrong or bad? Not necessarily, but it is different for 2 important people. Imagine the difference as a new hire. When someone joins a company with low entropy it's easy to gauge whether or not they are contributing to the overall organization. In this situation, new hires feel connected to the organization overall and a part of the team. With a broader scope and high entropy new hires cannot as easily see how their role contributes to the whole. This can lead to situations where different departments never have a reason to collaborate or interact because they serve unrelated functions within the group. 

The other person to whom this matters is the administrator or manager. In places with low entropy it is easy to see what should be prioritized and what can be set aside. Most or all decisions can be based on serving the purpose of the organization rather than preferences, style, or individual needs. Compare that to managing a broad and amorphous organization with high entropy. Different managers might disagree about similar decisions because there are multiple purposes that they are trying to fulfill. Managers will recognize that decisions must be based on something objective, so this is when metrics come in and tracking of employee performance is critical. Managers are much more strict about timeliness and adherence to policy because these are easily tracked and can be used as a basis for choices rather then referring to the unfocused purpose of the company. 

---

Enough avoidance. Of course I'm speaking about schools, and my school in particular. It's my belief that HTH started as a low entropy organization with a clear purpose, stated in 5 values (Personalization, Adult World Connection, Common Intellectual Principles, Teachers as Designers, Access and Challenge for All Students). From these values one could ask of different paths or choices "Does this serve to personalize a course for students? Does this give teachers more control over the design of the school?" and act. I remember being hired as a new teacher and being advised to always ask "Will this make the project better?". I was also told that if I wasn't giving students worksheets, tests or homework then I was probably doing ok. From those two simple guidelines I had the agency to make choices for myself and use my autonomy to improve every semester. 

Let's compare that to now. In my experience, every new teacher will believe that the purpose of the school is something different. One entropic idea that has become incorporated into our identity is that we are meant to counteract racial, social and economic injustices. That's not to say that we should counteract those injustices as a result of progressive, project based education, but actually to explicitly counter those ideas with whatever method of teaching one likes. Units on identity and prejudices abound. Our mission statement is 3 paragraphs long and separate from our statement of purpose. 

Here's my question: if schools cut out all the bullshit (accessory goals and scope) and focus solely on what remains, would they still have a school?

I've finished my Master's degree. Below is my presentation of what I have learned in this program.

Implications for myself: 
1. Artifacts
   My Foundations project
2. Significant Growth
   Assertiveness cultivated
   Balance of rebellion <---> compliance

​​   Non Violent Communication
   Identifying emotions and expressing them as leadership practice
3. Looking Ahead
   Work as new teacher support. Goal: all teachers plan and facilitate a high quality project every semester
   Middleman of privilege


​
​

Implications for my school:
1. Research
   Online resource ---> Apprenticeship model
2. What did I learn?
    The answer was within me all along

​    Our current process does not serve my aim
3. Priorities
    A school should arrive at commonly held standards of excellence for a project*
    You *must* teach thru projects
4. Implications
   Mentorship program should become an apprenticeship program for new staff
   New teachers are unlikely to plan and facilitate a high quality project in the first year under current conditions





​
​
Implications for Sector:
- Schools should be clear about what their priorities are.   

- How do we measure teacher success?

(Grad school version)
Does our school currently provide a clear and unambiguous directive to teach exclusively through projects?
​
What would be the impact of a clear and unambiguous directive to teach exclusively through projects in a school?



(Real Talk)
How much push back would we get if all teachers were required to 
1. do their own project first, documenting the process
2. guide students to follow their process starting on day one and not stop until they finish
3. complete a reflection project as evaluation



How might we clearly articulate our values and principles for what teachers do with their students? 
Here's how our school currently does:
https://www.hightechhigh.org/about/


What are my blind spots for an apprenticeship approach?
​

*4 years later revisit at the end*

One condition for deeper learning that I've focused on recently is Authenticity. I wasnt to be sure that communication with students about the grades and progress is authentic and rooted in something real. The longer I teach the more I realize how artificial grades and assessments can be. I wanted to try something that would be more grounded in student experience and character rather than being directly tied to their work. Below is a summary of what I'm working on.
​

The main idea of this prototype grading style is to be rapid and ongoing. I learned that the more often I could communicate with students, the better. This is especially true at distance. I worked to create a grading system that ultimately would be used weekly.

Below is a sample of an email that I send out to students weekly.

I use a Google Spreadsheet to keep all their information organized and do my grading, then automate sending them a weekly update. The class gets the chance to give me feedback or offer changes before I post their weekly grade to Powerschool (our grading system)
​

Upon showing this to peers, I heard 2 main components of feedback. First there is the issue of giving students a grade based on my subjective interpretation of their character or behavior during a week. This could be problematic and I might be enacting some oppressive patterns with my class. The second portion of feedback was that this grading method is not tied to checkpoints within the project or classwork. 

On the first point I both agree and disagree. In my experience testing this method, many students take the opportunity to write me back and tell me why they deserve a different score. I am careful in the language of the email to not use deficit language and encourage revision. I could go further with this. Also, the categories that I am evaluating came from me, and I was the one who defined success in each area. In the future, it would be better to work with students at the beginning of the semester to choose categories and write out what a 3, 4 and 5 look like for each.

For the second point I would like to refine my categories to be more explicit. To me, high effort (one of my categories) involves having all work in on time and high creation (a second category) involves doing high quality work on assignments. As I define these areas with students, I can be more clear about this.

​In the future, I will co-create 1 or more of the categories with the students as a kind of norm setting task at the beginning of class and define expectations for each with them as well. This should reflect not only what I see as being valuable but their view too.

I would also like to include a function where students set a goal for the next week. They might choose one category and pick a score they would like for the next week and include ideas about how to reach or hold that goal. In setting a goal and describing what they want to do to achieve it I would be pulling in more elements of student centered evaluations and involving them more deeply in the process. 

Santos, J. (2020). Supporting Latinx Students in Rigorous Learning Environments (Unpublished master's thesis). High Tech High GSE.

17 September 2024

This was a step in the right direction. As I've learned more, I have a better sense of what to look for and what evidence there is when students are learning. It's easily summarized: If students are doing the project, then they will be learning. 

Therefore, I now grade based on Engagement and Timeliness. Students need to be engaged with the project work (doing the project) and work in a timely way (communicating well, turning things in on time, being on time for class tasks). This is all based on the assumption that students are always learning and that they just need to point their attention to the subject of my class in order to learn about that subject. 

Another big learning point for me was to make these grades qualitative, rather than quantitative. I am recording the quality of their engagement, but it's not cumulative. That means that if they have a few bad weeks, the grade will come down, but they can recover by changing the quality of their engagement. 

The best part about grading by engagement and timeliness is what happens when students ask about how to get a good grade on an individual assignment. I get to tell them "it's not graded! None of these assignments are graded!". I tell them how to complete it so that they'll enjoy themselves more and so that they'll learn more which is the whole point of all this anyway isn't it.

This school year, I'm beginning work on my masters degree in educational leadership. The first course in that program has just finished, and I thought I'd include two papers that I wrote for the class here. 

The first is one I wrote in response to and article by Sarah Fine, where I discuss what I see as my next steps in developing PBL and helping it shed it's oppressive history. I read new educational theory as part of the pre-work for this class, and this paper helped me get my thoughts in order. 

The second paper was my final paper for the class, where I summarize what I learned and how the class had developed my thinking. At the end of this course, we were tasked with a self assessment, something that I have never done before, but that I enjoyed and will probably adapt to use with my own class. 

For teachers that are beginning to teach at a distance using videoconferencing tools (like me), my major takeaways from this learning were these:
1. Use small groups/breakouts as much as is appropriate. The best learning happens in small discussions. You may apply accountability techniques for what happens in the breakout room, but don't jump in unannounced, let the kids have some responsibility for doing the work,
2. Ask your class what they want to learn. If possible, only teach them things that they ask about. A good place to start it to give them something to do in your subject area and then see what questions they have about doing the work. This is much better then telling them everything you think they will need to know.
3. Related to #2, student voice and experience should lead as much as possible. Teaching to student questions is one way to do this. Negotiating about videoconference etiquette is another. By centering everything on the student experience you will avoid becoming the teacher you hated in school and motivated you to become a teacher yourself.

This is a phrase that I heard a couple times when visiting teachers would ask about my most recent project, Lakeview. While the kids are working, my complete prototype is hanging on the wall behind them. I use it a lot to show the class how I put something together or what size hole I drilled or whatever. While some might see imitation and copying as a problem, I see it as an essential part of learning.

One of the compromises I make as an educator is grading assignments. I really like all the other stuff that comes with teaching, but grading is something that wears me down and seems to be my least favorite part of the job. Usually I structure my classes so that I have the smallest amount of grading possible or so that grading is as easy as possible. I've noticed 2 effects of this on the students. First, they get the message that detail is not important. If their teacher is just going to breeze over it, then there's no need to be super careful or take too much pride in what they do. Second, their work is not important. If their teacher, who may be the only person to see this, doesn't give it much attention, then what's the point?

So I changed things this semester.
​

I hear this often. Project teachers at this time of the year are usually very absorbed with planning their exhibitions. Issues and snags appear and they must react quickly to try and display all of the student work. They must make a lot of decisions and it's exhausting. There is not enough room to do all of this and also plan out a project for the next semester, even though a quality project takes a lot of time to plan. It is a cycle of decision fatigue

​

Sometimes when planning projects, it is easy to lose focus of what the class will be doing the whole time that you've set aside for this work. What will the day to day tasks be? For a project to be successful, it is necessary that students start with experience before moving on. Good projects also involve multiple drafts and revisions. The best projects will turn your classroom into a kind of cycling museum, with new stuff going up and being replaced and showing what the class is working on. All projects should end in a final deliverable or final product that the students are proud of. How can you be sure that you are doing all this and that your project is aiming for greatness? Make sure you have a First Friday Deliverable.

​

​Earlier in my teaching I used to think that in PBL we were intentionally withholding information. It felt like we were asking students to discover concepts and skills that were well established in academics and I didn't like the dynamic that it created. My perspective has changed since then and thought I'd share.

So you are trying PBL, and you need your class to learn how to do something that is complex, like writing a comic book or building a glider. How do you scaffold all the skills that go into that task? How can you individualize the learning for each of your students? In short, you need to let them try it first, then fill in the holes over time. Here are my suggested steps for doing that. I'll give examples for a few different types of projects.

In the past I've had a hard time adding content to my projects. They usually involve skills, like woodworking and CAD, but not easy content pieces that I could point to to say "look what we've learned". I think that this is for 2 reasons: first is that my projects didn't require very much content. to build furniture for your school doesn't really require much knowledge of physics so it doesn't come up. In fact, for the Making Space project I finished the project early so that I could go back and fill in the holes for the students with more content. The second reason is because I never asked my students what they wanted to learn. 

Part of what draws me to PBL is the removal of the fluff around teaching. When I'm showing students how to make something the class structure is focused and intentional. I give a lesson in the moment because the class needs to know it to finish this part of the deliverable. Where I've fallen short in the past is picking deliverable that require both content and skills.

With Along for the Glide , the class need both content knowledge and skills to complete the objectives for each unit. Built a kite that flies, build a glider with a high glide ratio, these require building skills and knowledge of aeronautical physics. But with such a huge topic it's hard to know what to start with. So, I asked the class. Once they had had a chance to build a kite and try flying it, I had each of my students write down 3 questions on a card and turn it in at the end of the day. I combed through these for commonalities and found 3 overall questions:

- What makes a kite fly?
- What makes a kite not wobble when it flies?
- How do you fly a kite?

The answer to all these questions gets us into topics of lift and drag and balanced forces etc. And the set up for these lessons is really authentic: "Ok class I had a lot of questions last week about how to make your kites more stable in flight so I'm going to give you some ideas." or "Some of you were really able to get you kites up high last week, so I'm going to have us share some thoughts on what might make the difference when actually getting a kite into the air."

Instead of positioning myself as only the deliverer of knowledge but a part of the collaboration, these lessons are way more fun for me and engaging for the class and bring everyone in, which is the whole point.

A big question to be sure. In my practice I don't give tests or quizzes. I find these to be inauthentic assessments of what students have learned and what's more they cater to a certain type of learner. Lately I've been tweaking an assignment that serves as an assessment, reflection, and documentation of what the student has been learning in a given amount of time. I call it the T.I.L. (Things I Learned)

This week, as part of the Pendulum Project Prototype I asked all the students to give a presentation regarding their experiences and plans for future paintings. To communicate my expectations for the presentations I planned to show them an example presentation and give them a model to work from. While this has worked in the past I wanted to try something that I heard from a colleague. The three level grading system.

The three level grading system is something that I saw while browsing Mike Amarillo's blog, another HTH teacher in Chula Vista. I saw that he had these descriptions of different "levels" of student work for presentations. Through a few emails he told me about the system that he uses. What I liked about it was that it clearly described expectations for student work in 3 levels of completion. 

For example I used this for our presentations today as follows.

Basic Presentation: Key information included. All group members speak. Clear delivery
Advanced Presentation: Basic and diagram showing variable effect is high quality and well organized.
Challenge Presentation: Advanced and group shows expert knowledge by including calculations, answering audience questions, posing meaningful questions for themselves, etc.

After I gave my example presentation I had a discussion with the class where we categorized my work as Basic, Advanced, or Challenge. We talked about why it fit as one or another. In reality what I was doing was critique as a lesson, but what was different was that my expectations had already been outlined and so we were able to get specific very quickly.

I spend a ton of time planning out time with my students and making plans for projects. There's a cycle of Idea --> Predict --> Observe --> Improve. Because I have had a lot of  practice with this pattern it comes pretty naturally to me. Lately I have been recognizing that being able to go through these steps is a skill as much as writing, building or public speaking so I have tried to give students chances to practice the cycle of ideas. 

Lots of times I will notice students get distracted or off task when something had gone unexpectedly. Their measurements were wrong or they forgot to add something important. My interpretation is that they are skipping the Predict step and not getting into the Improve step. By not making predictions they don't see potential conflicts or issues in their idea and my not being practiced in making improvements they see their first failure as the end of the process and don't continue to try new things. To be the most help to the class I've been trying to give them lots of opportunities to practice and develop these skills.

The above quote is attributed to Dr. Ross Greene (as are the rest in this post), a clinical child psychologist who has been trying to help teachers and parents understand what they see as misbehavior from their children or students. The first thing that I like about the quote is that he expands the idea to all human beings. Something that I've learned while teaching is that it's no use at all treating my students like some subset of humans that have different dreams and desires and needs than myself. 
This quote is in reference to the explanations traditionally given as to why people misbehave. If one believes that those who exhibit difficult behavior are doing so because they are manipulative or coercive or something then you will view them in a more negative light. However if one believes that everyone wants to do well, and that misbehavior is better explained as a lack of the skills to do well than there is an inherent sense of compassion. This is a much better place to start and a more helpful way to address the behavior than a negative place.

As above, the things that I'm learning about when I learn about my students are applicable to the rest of humans. The above quote is true of myself. I can remember times when I let people down, made an offensive joke, or embarrassed myself. In none of these situations was I trying to look bad, I just made a mistake or misread the situation. I must believe that the same is true of my students. People do well if they can. In this perspective misbehavior is nothing malicious but a lack of ability or skill to do the right thing. Greene says that from this perspective ones role is no longer trying to make a difficult person do the right thing but figuring out what's getting in that person's way and helping them get rid of it. This is a much more collaborative and compassionate perspective and the one I prefer to take.

From the perspective described above one becomes a partner in problem solving with the person that you are trying to help. This is already vastly preferred to being the teacher trying to make a student do what you want. As someone who is empathetic and compassionate and involved in helping solve a problem I feel way more engaged and helpful than if I'm telling someone why they're wrong or doing the wrong thing. 

At the beginning of this semester I was looking for ways to improve in my teaching practice. I had had a fairly successful experience with my previous class though I hadn't collected much feedback from the class except for at the very end. I was asking a colleague how to know that I was doing a good job throughout the semester. What were some small metrics that I could keep track of that would indicate whether or not I was facilitating a good experience for my students? Among the advice I received then, one nugget of knowledge stood out and I have been thinking about it ever since. They said "Make sure everyone feels like they can be heard." 

To address this I set out to try a technique called the "whip around". It's pretty straightforward and will get every student to respond to a question and helps get thoughts moving. 

What: Start with a question that can be answered with a brief 1 or 2 word answer. These can be answers on a scale or yes/no responses among others. In this case I asked everyone to rate their sense of preparedness for exhibition, from 1 to 10. 
Why: When I learned about this technique it was justified as a way to give everyone space to have their voice heard in the classroom. It's a low stakes, short response, and nobody needs to fight for attention. When I used this I told the group that it was important for everyone to hear the range of answers in how prepared we were so that they wouldn't feel bad about feeling behind, since there are others in the same situation.
How: Set up here is easy. The whole class is present, distractions away, and ready to listen. Give them the prompt and the scale. Before they responded I asked them to turn to the person next to them and discuss what their number would be. This is just another way to help people who might not feel comfortable sharing aloud plan out their response. Once they have a chance to chat for a minute, start going around with everyone just giving their number without a justification or explanation. 

The value of this technique for me was in the follow up. Leading a reflective discussion was a great time in both classes, and I noticed a higher participation rate in this discussion than previously. Because they had all discussed their answers previously they seemed to speak up more. I asked the group to estimate the average preparedness based off of everyone's answers. I asked if they were surprised by group's answers or not. 

To help everyone feel like they are able to be heard is a challenge. As a teacher or facilitator it isn't enough to ask good questions or keep everyone on time. One needs also to build in places where everyone is given a space to speak and create a culture of inclusivity. Activities like the above are helping me develop in this part of my teaching career. Like other aspects of teaching I've come pretty far and still have a long ways to go.

I can't remember to whom it is attributed, but I heard a great quote recently. "The only teachers are models and reflection." This quote gave voice to my convictions about PBL education. Everything I ask students to do needs a model, and an effective way to measure their growth is through their reflection. 

In terms of social emotional learning, reflection is useful for building a sense of self-awareness too. Leading students to be reflective and examine their work and motivations helps to foster presence of mind in the future. Reflection can become a frequent act, occurring throughout a project or experience, until it becomes something like consciousness and presence of mind. 

Honestly this is a goal for myself. Last semester while working through student reflections, I commented to a colleague that the students were more reflective that I had been in college, and that I hadn't been reflective at all during high school. "I just wasn't a reflective person in high school" I said. 

"That's because nobody asked you to be" they replied.

Earlier in the semester I presented my students with a list of behaviors of learners. The list included things like "uses materials appropriately", "follows schedules" and "problem solves". We reviewed and critiqued the list as a way to be reflective about the class. 

In reflecting on that lesson I realized that a few of the behaviors listed had anything to do with Social Emotional Learning, but those not explicitly. I wondered if I was building a culture that promoted empathetic learning and emotional management, but more broadly whether or not our school held those values for both staff and students. 

This week I had conversations with colleagues centered mostly around conflict resolution. I asked them who they spoke with on campus when they felt frustrated or proud or needed help developing a relationship with a colleague. Mostly I discovered an informal network of supportive coworkers and not someone with a specific role related to SEL development.

Our school environment is built around what I have recognized as some tenants of SEL, such as decision making and self-management, though I haven't found structures which emphasize or promote things like social awareness or relationship skills. As a result our staff and student body are well able to work unsupervised and manage their time, though there is inconsistency in self awareness and relationship. Before one can develop a skill it must be named, so perhaps there should be one within our community who makes those skills which we can improve obvious and clear. 

As a staff we do not deliberately spend time developing SEL skills. Its hard to say how this effects us because I generally feel that our staff is amiable and cooperative, though SEL is more than that. If we were to model for our students what it is like to collaborate and work from a place of developed social emotional ability, I wonder what changes might happen in our student body.

The following is a reflection on what it's like to use critique as a lesson format. I wanted to improve the quality of the writing in reflections that my students were writing, so I decided to show them examples of high quality writing and have them critique it.
​

Ever since I was exposed to the Launch, Explore, Summarize model of lesson planning I have been using it for just about everything. Whenever I need to deliver information to the class I try to collect it into those categories because I have had such success with it. This lesson was delivered in LES format and so I have chose to discuss each phase in this post.