Contents of section:
|
This seminar considered the ethical implications and different legal regulations of new scientific developments and current conduct in contemporary medical practice. The curriculum units prepared by the Fellows grew from these explorations. The seminar considered the arguments for and against recognition of a “right to die” (either by refusing life-prolonging medical treatment or by directly hastening death through physician-assisted suicide) of mentally competent patients, or by surrogates on behalf of mentally incompetent patients, or by parents on behalf of seriously ill infants. It considered the ethical status of adults and children with physical or mental disabilities, including the existence of a social obligation to provide them with special protections and services. Jacqueline Porter’s unit on the right to die deals with this topic. The seminar discussed new possibilities for genetic manipulations, for the use of reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, and for organ transplantation. Jimmy-Lee Moore’s unit on the genome, Stephanie Shteirman’s unit on science writing, and Grayce Storey’s unit on organ and tissue donors focus on these issues. The seminar then discussed organizational changes in the delivery of medical care such as the increased prevalence of managed care and increased budgetary pressures for rationing of medical care in ways that are inconsistent with the health needs or wishes of individual patients, and the special risks of such practices for the elderly and members of minority groups. Carolyn Fiorillo’s unit addresses many of these questions. (image available in print form) The seminar on "Medicine, Ethics, and Law." (Seminar leader Robert A. Burt.) Finally, the seminar considered current practices and past abuses in biomedical research, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and considered the effectiveness of possible remedies to guard against the repetition of such abuses. Martha Staehili’s unit focuses on a crucial aspect of this topic—the capacity of individuals to make informed choices to protect their own health—through a specific exploration of tobacco use. Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “How Right are Patients’ Rights?” by Carolyn E. Fiorillo (Health, Biology, and Ethics, grades 9-12); “The Genome: Controversy for All Times,” by Jimmy-Lee Moore (Critical Thinking, Science, English, and Debate, grades 8-12); “The Connection Between Medicine, Ethics, and Law: The Right to Die,” by Jacqueline Porter (Social Studies and Science, grades 6-8; “Science Writing for the Masses: A Primer,” by Stephanie Shteirman (Journalism/English and Biology/Science, grades 9-12); “Making Choices About Tobacco Use,” by Martha R. Staehili (Social Studies, English, Health, and Civics, grades 8-10); and “Organ and Tissue Donors,” by Grayce P. Storey (Ethics, grades 9-12, Biology and General Science, grade 9, Life Science, grades 7-8, and Health, grades 7-11). |
This seminar considered the ethical implications and different legal regulations of new scientific developments and current conduct in contemporary medical practice. |
|
This seminar was mainly a workshop in the reading and writing of poetry. It aimed to enrich and deepen the understanding of many kinds of poems, and it explored ways in which one can express one’s own experiences, dreams, frustrations, desires, and responses to the world in the languages of poetry. It approached the reading and writing of poetry as aspects of a single process, asking how poems work, how they marshal their strategies and impress themselves upon their readers—and how one can open a bit wider the gates of conscious and unconscious creativity. The common reading included Robert Pinsky and Maggie Dietz, eds., Americans’ Favorite Poems: The Favorite Poem Project Anthology; Pablo Neruda, Full Woman, Fleshly Apple, Hot Moon: Selected Poems, translated by Stephen Mitchell; and two books by Kenneth Koch—Wishes, Lies, and Dreams: Teaching Children to Write Poetry and Making Your Own Days: The Pleasures of Reading and Writing Poetry. Some members of the seminar also consulted another book by Koch: Rose, Where Did You Get That Red?: Teaching Great Poetry to Children. The curriculum units apply some of the seminar’s discoveries to a variety of classroom situations—and, as the teachers make clear, each unit contains some strategies or material that might be used at almost any grade-level. Geraldine Martin, Stephanie Zogby, and Jean Sutherland—members of a team from Beecher Elementary School—developed correlated units on African American poetry, to be taught in the first, second, and fourth grades, focusing on the family and on a history of struggle. Pamela Tonge wrote a unit for sixth grade on using poetic expression to enhance reading and writing. Two teachers developed units for use in after-school or Saturday programs. Rebecca Hickey has planned a workshop for students from the sixth to eighth grades in which the writing of poetry will provide practice in thinking and learning. And Julie Reinshagen has planned a writing workshop for students (especially in bilingual courses) from the ninth to the twelfth grades, emphasizing development of their social and emotional responses and their literacy skills, and culminating in the reading and writing of poetry. (image available in print form) The seminar on "Reading and Writing Poetry." (From left to right: Fellows Stephanie Zogby, Geraldine M. Martin, Jean E. Sutherland; seminar leader Thomas R. Whitaker; Fellows Susan A. Santovasi, Deborah E. Hare, Yel Hannon E. Brayton, Judith J. Katz, Julie A. Reinshagen, and Pamela J. Tonge.) |
The seminar approached the reading and writing of poetry as aspects of a single process, asking how poems work, how they marshal their strategies and impress themselves upon their readers—and how one can open a bit wider the gates of conscious and unconscious creativity. |
|
Two teachers have developed units for senior English courses, both focusing to some extent on the links between music and poetry. Susan Santovasi will lead the students in a Women’s Literature course from popular songs to more traditional poetry by women. Deborah Hare will incorporate rap music and twentieth-century poetry in a more widely ranging senior course that also includes journals, drama, and film. Two teachers have developed units for high-school creative writing courses. Judith Katz will immerse her students in the reading and writing of Haiku. And Yel Hannon Brayton will emphasize the poet’s eye, the sense of wonder, and the craft through which vision may be distilled in a variety of forms. Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, include: “African American Poetry: Miss Wednesday and Friends Take Us on a Journey of Feelings and Friendship,” by Geraldine Martin (Reading/Language Arts, grade 1); “African American Poetry: Family and Traditions,” by Stephanie Zogby (Reading/Language Arts, grade 2); “African American Poetry: Songs of Protest and Pride,” by Jean Sutherland (Language Arts [Reading, Writing, Speaking], Social Studies [African American History], and Social Development, grades 3-6); “Using Personal Poetic Expression to Enhance Reading and Writing,” by Pamela J. Tonge (Middle School Reading, grade 6); “Weaving Words: Poetry for Everyday,” by Rebecca J. Hickey (Language Arts, grades 6-8); “The Poet Within: A Workshop Series,” by Julie Reinshagen (English, grades 7-10, and Enrichment/Remediation, grades 7-12); “The Poetry We Sing: A Woman’s Perspective,” by Susan Santovasi (English, grades 10-12); “Poems, Prayers, Promises, and Possibilities: the Music of Poetry,” by Deborah Hare (English, grade 12); “Haiku: An Introduction to Writing and Discussing Poetic Form,” by Judith Katz (Creative Writing, grades 7-12); and “The Poet’s Eye,” by Yel Hannon Brayton (Creative Writing, grades 9-12). |
Having worked with teachers in their respective schools during the preceding months, the Institute Representatives met on January 2 to receive for distribution in all schools copies of the Institute application form, brochure, and descriptions of the seminars to be offered. At this meeting a general presentation of the subjects of the seminars ensured that all Representatives could explain to their colleagues the purpose of each seminar. On January 9 the Institute held an open house for prospective applicants where any teacher might learn more about the planned seminars from the Representatives and from the seminar leaders, who attended and conducted discussions in small groups with interested teachers. This year’s open house had the best attendance ever—by seminar leaders and teachers. Perhaps one-third to one-half of the some 60 teachers had never been Institute Fellows. One seminar leader said: “I was much impressed by the teachers who came up to speak with me at the open house—lots of different fields and levels, varied areas of interest, and some good preliminary ideas about units. If the actual enrollment reflects the same qualities, my seminar will be off to a good start.” |
This year’s open house had the best attendance ever—by seminar leaders and teachers. Perhaps one-third to one-half of some 60 teachers had never been Institute Fellows. |
|
On January 16 the Representatives met to discuss their progress in working with prospective applicants and to hand in their own completed applications. The final deadline for teachers applying to the Institute was January 23. This date was selected so that teachers would apply in advance of the February school vacation. The office would then have the vacation period to process application materials, and the review of applications could be completed during February to provide the earliest possible notification to teachers who were accepted. There are four principal criteria for teachers to be eligible for consideration as Fellows: • The applicant must be a current New Haven school teacher who will be teaching in New Haven also during the school year following Institute participation. For some years it has been the policy of the Institute to allow no more than twelve teachers to enroll in any seminar. The small size of the seminars is necessary both for the collegiality of the Institute experience and for the individual attention that each teacher’s work in progress receives from the seminar leader and from other teachers in the seminar. During the planning process 103 teachers expressed definite interest in participating in one of the seminars to be offered. Of those teachers, 52 were from high schools, one from a transitional school, 23 from middle schools, 14 from elementary schools, and 13 from K-8 schools. By the application deadline, the Institute Representatives, assisted by the school Contacts, had obtained applications from 71 elementary, middle, K-8, and high school teachers in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. The individual application form calls for the interested teachers to specify the subjects and grade levels they teach, the course or courses in which they plan to introduce the material they study in the Institute, and their willingness to meet each of the Institute’s requirements for full participation. The applicants also write a brief essay describing why they wish to participate in the seminar to which they are applying, and how the curriculum unit they plan to write will assist them in their own teaching. Writing this essay is, in effect, their first step in formulating a curriculum unit through which they will bring the material they study from the seminar into their own teaching. (image available in print form) Application Review Meeting. (Left to right: Seminar Coordinators Karen G. de Fur and Dina K. Secchiaroli.) The team application form requires the interested teachers to demonstrate how the team envisions working together in inter-grade and/or interdisciplinary ways and must outline plans for a culminating activity in the school. Teams may receive preference during the admissions process, and are required to submit a final report on their work together during the following school year. If a team is not admitted as such, however, the members of the team may be admitted to the program as individual Fellows. And the Institute encourages such Fellows to work as informal teams in their schools. The applications were then reviewed by three groups: seminar leaders, school principals, and seminar Coordinators. The seminar leaders examined the applications for their relationship to the seminar subject. This afforded each seminar leader the opportunity, as well, to tailor or enlarge the bibliography for the seminar so that it would address the specific interests of the teachers who are accepted. At the same time, the applications were reviewed in the applicant’s own school, in keeping with the decentralizing of administrative functions and decision-making in the school district. The Institute’s Representative for each school contacted the school principal or the principal’s designee, who is asked to review each teacher’s application. The intention is to increase awareness within each school of the projects that teachers wish to pursue in Institute seminars, to afford an opportunity for the principal and other educational leaders to examine the relationship between teachers’ applications and school plans, and to increase the likelihood that the teachers will have a course assignment in which they can use their curriculum unit. In this review, the following questions are posed: Is the applicant’s proposal consistent with, and significant for, the curricula and academic plans for your school? When this procedure was introduced in 1998, Reginald Mayo, Superintendent of the New Haven Public Schools, had written to all prin-cipals: “We believe this is a highly promising way for ensuring that the assistance that the Institute provides to individual teachers and to teams of teachers has the best prospects for advancing each school’s academic plans.” This process informs the consideration of each application, provides each applicant pertinent feedback, and often provides a significant opportunity for Institute Representatives to talk with their principals about the Institute. |
The applicant must also show that the seminar and the curriculum unit are directly related to school courses that he or she will teach. The applications were then reviewed by three groups: seminar leaders, school principals, and seminar Coordinators. |
|
Because it is very important that principals appreciate the nature and the importance of the curriculum units that teachers in their school will be designing, we include here some excerpts from their comments on the Fellows’ applications: This seminar is consistent with our curriculum and academic plans for our school. Teaching students to think in a critical, analytical and creative way is a skill that will be utilized for many years to come. |
"This seminar is consistent with our curriculum and academic plans for our school." —School Principal
|
|
As educators we are constantly looking for ways to improve students’ learning. Improved teaching strategies are critical in this type of mission. When students achieve—and especially special education students—it improves self-esteem and their chances for success in life. Also, when teachers search for ways to become more effective in their instructional approaches and share them with colleagues it is not only professional, it is productive for student achievement. |
|
|
It will beautifully complement the Comprehensive Arts Program already in place but with an added plus of a strong emphasis on building literacy skills. We need to do everything we can to instill the habit of reading in our students. This is a most worthy unit! Introducing beginning language students to poetry may make the language more interesting to our students. If the introduction of poetry leads to success for students, it will motivate them to try harder. |
"We need to do everything we can to instill the habit of reading in our students. This is a most worthy unit!" —School Principal
|
|
It is a well-known fact that young people often find it difficult if not impossible to concentrate on the rigors of school due to personal problems and emotional difficulties. This proposal is an important step in helping young people and their families deal with the problems in a positive way. This teacher’s previous work in this area has shown excellent results. Additional work will continue to benefit all of his students and his art program. |
|
|
It is a hands-on project—our students receive a huge benefit from this kind of assignment. I look forward to the development of this unit by a librarian and would like to see us use it as a springboard in building our collection of poetry books. As in the past, the Institute formed a group of teachers who served as Coordinators to assist with the organization and smooth operation of the seminars. The Director, with the assistance of the Steering Committee, selects these Coordinators from the group of Representatives who had earlier helped to plan the program of seminars. The Steering Committee is now routinely involved in thinking about teacher leadership and identifying the positions for which individual teachers are most qualified. There is one Coordinator in each seminar. They act as a liaison between the seminars and a Coordinators’ committee to facilitate the exchange of information and to provide teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within each seminar. A seminar Coordinator must be, and must intend to continue as, a full-time teacher in one of New Haven’s public schools. A Coordinator accepts the following responsibilities: |
As in the past, the Institute formed a group of teachers who served as Coordinators to assist with the organization and smooth operation of the seminars. |
|
(image available in print form) Seminar Coordinators Meeting. (Left to right: Coordinators Karen G. de Fur, Dina K. Secchiaroli, Jacqueline E. Porter, Jean E. Sutherland, Joseph H. Lewis, and Francine C. Coss.) 1. To work with school Representatives at the conclusion of the application process, to serve on an admissions committee to consider proposals for curriculum development submitted by teachers applying to become Fellows, and to make recommendations to the Director about whom to accept as Fellows. |
|
|
When the seminars began, each Coordinator would participate as a Fellow in a different seminar. At this earlier point they served as an admissions committee. They met after school on January 31 to conduct a first reading and discussion of the applications to their respective seminars. They then contacted all teachers whose applications needed to be clarified or amplified. On February 7 the Coordinators met again for a full day, by taking professional leave, for their final consideration of the applications and their decisions. During their review, the Coordinators considered the findings of the school administrators and seminar leaders and made recommendations to the Director about which teachers the Institute should accept. By these means, the Institute seeks to ensure that all Fellows participate in seminars that are consistent with their interests and applicable in the courses they teach. The Institute accepted as Fellows 71 New Haven teachers, 47 in the humanities and 24 in the sciences. Two teams of teachers were admitted with the expectation that team members would coordinate their curriculum units and work together during the school year, planning cross-grade and cross-department instruction and school-wide activities. Only one of those teams, however, carried its plans to a conclusion in the seminar. A meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators was held on February 27 to discuss the admissions process just completed, and to review the seminar and unit writing process and the policies and procedures of the Institute. (image available in print form) Joint meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators. (Clockwise left to right: Director James R. Vivian; Coordinator Jean E. Sutherland; seminar leader Thomas R. Whitaker; Coordinators Dina K. Secchiaroli, Jacqueline E. Porter, and Joseph H. Lewis; seminar leaders Bryan J. Wolf, Martin D. Gehner, and seminar assistant Walter Gilliam; and Coordinator Francine C. Coss.) Consistent with the Institute’s aim to serve the largest possible proportion of all New Haven teachers, 33 (or 46 percent) of the teachers accepted in 2001 were participating in the Institute for the first time. Of these first-time Fellows, 22 were in the humanities and 11 were in the sciences. More than one fifth of all the Fellows accepted (22 percent) were Black, nearly three quarters (72 percent) were White, and 7 percent were Hispanic. |
A meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators was held to discuss the admissions process and to review the seminar and unit writing process and the policies and procedures of the Institute. |
|
Fellows came from 7 of the 8 high schools, 4 of the 6 middle schools, 3 of the 6 K-8 schools, and one of the 4 transitional schools. Of the 22 elementary schools, 8 had teachers participating. The Institute first admitted elementary school teachers in 1990; this year 14 (20 percent) of all Fellows were elementary school teachers. Eighteen (25 percent) were middle or K-8 school teachers, and 38 (54 percent) were high school teachers. Four schools had five or more Fellows; 10 schools had three or more. Overall, about 31 percent of the Fellows were 41-50 years old; 30 percent were younger and 40 percent were older. As Chart 2 shows, about one fifth of the Fellows (19 percent) had four or fewer years of total experience in teaching. The Institute attracted a slightly higher proportion (21 percent) of teachers with 20 or more years of total experience in teaching. More than one third (37 percent) of the Fellows, however, had four or fewer years of experience teaching in the New Haven school system. Illustrative of the need for the professional development that the Institute provides, over half (56 percent) of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position four or fewer years; more than three quarters (77 percent) have taught in their present position for nine years or less. Thus, even though 67 percent of the Fellows have 10 or more years of total teaching experience, over half have four or fewer years of experience in their present position. These figures help to explain why many teachers say they need to develop their knowledge in subjects that they have been recently reassigned to teach, or curricular materials for students of a different age or background from those they have taught before. (image available in print form) The seminar on "Race and Ethnicity in Contemporary American Art and Literature" (Left to right: Fellows Dina K. Secchiaroli, Val-Jean Belton, and Abie L. Quiñones-Benitez.) |
Over half of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position four or fewer years. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moreover, as in past years—and as is the case in the school system generally—many of the 2001 Fellows did not major in college or graduate school in the subjects they currently teach. As Chart 3 shows, in no field except special education did all Fellows teaching a subject have a graduate or undergraduate degree in that subject. In five fields—bilingual education/ESOL, chemistry, earth science, physics, and social studies—no Fellows had a graduate or undergraduate degree in a field they taught. Of the Fellows teaching in the field of English, less than two fifths had an undergraduate or graduate degree. Of those teaching in the field of general science, only one sixth had so much as an undergraduate degree. (Chart 3 available in print form) |
Many of the 2001 Fellows did not major in college or graduate school in the subjects they currently teach. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chart 4 shows the subjects Fellows taught in the 2000-2001 year of their Institute participation. Overall, more than three fifths (64 percent) of Fellows in the humanities (as compared with 53 percent in 2000) and over three quarters (78 percent) of Fellows in the sciences (as compared with 71 percent in 2000) had not majored either in college or in graduate school in one or more of the subjects they taught in that year. (Chart 4 available in print form) Understandably, therefore, when the 2001 Fellows were asked about the incentives that attracted them to participate in the Institute, they responded (as Chart 5 shows, reading left to right from the most to the least important) that the most important incentives were the opportunities to develop materials to motivate their students (95 percent), to exercise intellectual independence (93 percent), to increase their mastery of the subjects they teach (89 percent), and to develop curricula to fit their needs (88 percent). Indeed, incentives that might be imagined to be important for teachers with access to Yale University—credit in a degree program and access to Yale athletic facilities—were much less important for Fellows in the Teachers Institute. (Chart 5 available in print form) As past Institute studies have shown, Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haven teachers. So, for example, this year’s Fellows continue to reflect the gender and ethnicity of all New Haven teachers, though there are great disparities overall between the ethnic and racial characteristics of New Haven teachers and those of their students. (See Table 1 below.) Similarly, the Yale faculty members who have led Institute seminars generally reflect the wider faculty at Yale. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ethnicity and Gender of Participants
|
Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haven teachers. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||