At the first organizational meeting of each seminar, held on March 6, 2001, the seminar leader distributed an annotated bibliography on the seminar subject and presented the syllabus of readings that he or she proposed that the seminar would consider. The Fellows described the individual curriculum units that they planned to develop. This afforded the members of each seminar an overview of the work they were undertaking together and the projects they would pursue individually. The bibliographies both introduced the seminar subject and guided Fellows as they began research on their curriculum units. One wrote, “I found the reading used as preparation for the class sessions to be lengthy, but incredibly interesting and from a wide variety of sources—case law, statutes, memoirs, academic papers.”

Another wrote:

The reading list was a wonderful, comprehensive overview of the subject and a valuable addition to my professional library. The readings were very thought provoking, expanding my understanding and knowledge of the subject. I have already shared articles from the seminar readings with colleagues and will continue to refer to and share these articles in the future.

A third Fellow wrote:

The seminar leader responded to a request to be introduced to specialized library materials by organizing a tour of the reference room at Sterling and a session in the computer classroom at the undergraduate library. The librarians were well prepared with show-and-tell reference materials and excellent handouts; the computer session was very informative and useful.

Some Fellows emphasized how demanding they found the work to be. One said:

My experience in this year’s seminar has been both exhilarating and frustrating. I have enjoyed my interactions with the Fellows, seminar leader, and staff. It was very helpful to receive feedback from the professor and the Fellows during the different phases involved in writing a unit. The frustration I encountered was in trying to see how all the pieces would fit in the process of developing my unit of study. The guidelines that were given and the professor’s guidance were very helpful, but I feel I did not take full advantage of this because I didn’t fully grasp the whole scope of what was entailed in writing this unit.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on "Race and Ethnicity in Contemporary American Art and Literature" (Left to right: Fellows Toni L. Tyler, Jon J. Moscartolo, Sandra K. Friday, Dina K. Secchiaroli, and Val-Jean Belton.)

Another said:

I was a bit daunted when we were assigned the task of building a model. At the time I felt that the assigned readings and the writing of the unit were enough of a workload without the addition of an extra project. I must say, however, that I found the model to be a rewarding task, which helped me to overcome a negative attitude toward certain kinds of hands-on activities.

The seminar leaders also commented on what they perceived to be the Fellows’ responses to the weekly readings. One said:

I’ve taught this material many times to graduate students; though they tend to be more analytically rigorous and precise than the Fellows, nonetheless the Fellows brought a richness of personal experience and a thoughtfulness and wisdom to discussion of these topics that I have often found lacking in graduate students, no matter how analytically smart.

A somewhat less satisfied seminar leader, with a very different topic, said:

Any expectation that Fellows would be informed and challenging soon narrowed to less than 40 percent of the group. The seminar was a joy to present to this minority of highly interested Fellows. Preparatory readings were distributed at the very first session yet about half of the Fellows went to the library to read the material and slightly more than half of the participants actually bought the only text identified for the seminar. All other books on the Bibliography were on library reserve. Often, web sites became substitute reading sources for several Fellows. Although encouraged to use web sites, they became crutches for last-minute information seekers exclusive of the base reading assignments.

Before the second seminar meeting all Fellows met individually with their seminar leader to discuss their projects. The Institute requires that Fellows schedule at least two such conferences as part of the unit writing process; many Fellows, however, meet more frequently with their seminar leader. At the end of the program, almost all Fellows (95 percent) said that they had ample opportunity to discuss their choice of readings with the seminar leader.

During the period that preceded the regular weekly meetings, Fellows continued their reading, both preparing for the upcoming seminar discussions and working toward a brief prospectus of what their final units would contain. At the second seminar meeting, on April 10, Fellows submitted this prospectus, presented their revised unit topics, and began to discuss the common readings. The regular weekly seminar meetings began on May 8; thereafter Fellows continued to develop their units in stages, with a first draft submitted on May 22. The weekly meetings of the seminars continued through July 17, with Fellows submitting the second draft of their units on July 3 and their completed units by July 31.

For several years, Fellows have been asked to submit the prospectus, together with a revised topic of the unit and a list of appropriate readings, at the time of the second seminar meeting. This allows them a full six weeks to write a first draft. The due date for the second draft is late enough to allow Fellows ample time to address the comments they received on the first draft from other Fellows and from the seminar leader. Some seminar leaders have urged that the revised topic, preliminary reading-list, and first draft be submitted somewhat later, and some have informally instituted yet another draft between the first and second drafts. Every year, too, some Fellows are concerned that the writing of the unit begins before they have entered well into the seminar topic, or that too much work must be done at the end of the school year, when they are heavily committed to their teaching. Nevertheless, a majority of the Fellows have been satisfied with this schedule. In 2001, 66 percent of the Fellows thought the unit writing deadlines occurred at the right time in relation to the school calendar.

The Institute attaches great importance to the process through which Fellows develop their curriculum units, and many Fellows commented upon the benefits derived from following this process. One wrote:

I was surprised by the complexity of writing a curriculum unit for the YNHTI. I had never written a curriculum unit before. I had written class plans and was somewhat put off by the insistence that class plans would be insufficient for the Institute’s purposes. I also found it difficult to let go of the idea that I should be writing to an audience of teachers who would be looking for help teaching this subject to their students. I was incredulous that the Institute didn’t want me to write about my previous experience. Rather the goal was to project what I would do to take my experience to the next level. Once I understood all this, I still had to write my unit three separate times. The good news is that I think my product is valuable. I wish I had understood all of this sooner. If I had, perhaps my final editing would have been finer than it is.

Another Fellow said: “We were required to present our prospectus as well as the first draft of our individual units. In this way we were able to get feedback from other members of the group. Sometimes suggestions were offered that other teachers were able to incorporate into their units.” And a third Fellow said: “Teachers worked together and crossed the span of our buildings and schools to become a network of learners and teachers. We ended up sharing books and resources for not only our units but also the classes we were currently teaching.”

At the conclusion of the seminars, most Fellows indicated that the program schedule (84 percent) and the guidelines for writing a unit (93 percent) had been useful to them to a great or moderate extent. This year 62 percent of the Fellows said they tried out the subject matter and 72 percent said they tried out the strategies of their units in their classroom. Of those who did, most Fellows (89 percent) said that this influenced what they included in the final units.

During the first two months of the program, which serve as a reading period, all Fellows also met together on Tuesday afternoons for a series of talks. These talks are designed to expose all Fellows to some of the work done in seminars other than their own, and to subjects and leaders of possible future seminars. Ordinarily, therefore, some current or prospective seminar leaders are included in this series, while some other faculty members are invited to speak on topics the school Representatives believe will be of particular interest to many Fellows. The talks given in 2001 were: “The History of Yale and New Haven in the Twentieth Century,” by Gaddis Smith, Larned Professor Emeritus of History; “Intelligence: Theories and Developmental Origins,” by Robert Schultz, Associate Professor, Yale Child Study Center; “Observing the Earth from Space,” by Ronald B. Smith, Professor of Geology and Geo-physics; “Bridges: Path, Symbol, and Function,” by Martin D. Gehner, Professor Emeritus of Architectural Engineering; and “Can Exposure to a Stressful Environment Cause Behavioral Changes Resembling ADHD? Evidence from Basic Research,” by Amy Arnsten, Associate Professor of Neurobiology.

Although the talks have recently met with more favorable response than was once the case, they remain somewhat controversial. One Fellow wrote: “Weaknesses in the Institute? Only one—the lectures are unnecessary, unendurable, a waste of time, poorly delivered, excruciating.” Another wrote: “A major weakness is the excessive number of large group lectures at the beginning. Most are unrelated to an individual teacher’s area of teaching or chosen seminar.” A third wrote: “Lectures still need to be more motivating and realistic to the children in the New Haven Public Schools. A survey should be given to all participants about what kinds of lectures they would like to see.” And a fourth Fellow wrote: “I think the talks should be dispersed throughout the months of April, May, and June.”

(image available in print form)

Gaddis Smith speaking on "The History of Yale and New Haven in the Twentieth Century."

This year as last year, however, most Fellows saw in the talks the purposes for which they were organized. They said that to a great or moderate extent the talks provided them intellectual stimulation (89 percent) and a sense of collegiality and common purpose among Fellows (83 percent). Three quarters (77 percent) said the talks were successful to a great or moderate extent in providing an overview of Fellows’ work in the seminars. A slightly larger proportion (81 percent) said that the Institute scheduled the right number of talks. One Fellow wrote: “I feel the lectures this year were very interesting. There were a wide variety of topics that covered subjects very relevant to the students of New Haven. The lectures provided the opportunity for all participants to get an overview of the seminars that other Fellows were attending. I feel this is an important part of the Institute.” Another wrote: “Although they were usually not related to the material I taught, I found them very interesting. I think they would be enhanced if a short annotated bibliography was distributed at each, so that teachers could investigate topics at later times.” And a third Fellow wrote: “The lecture series was stimulating and useful to me as a teacher in New Haven. The lectures on intelligence, the biochemistry of ADD, and the history of the relationship between Yale and New Haven were particularly valuable.”

Indeed, many Fellows reported that the talks prompted them, to a great or moderate extent, to read about their topics (51 percent), discuss the topics with their students (47 percent), and discuss the talks with other teachers (71 percent).

(image available in print form)

Fellows at one of the talks in the lecture series.

As in recent years, the Institute scheduled a session on curriculum unit writing, well before the regular meetings of the seminars began. Before starting on their curriculum units, the Fellows all need to understand the central role that the process of writing plays in Institute seminars. As part of their admissions folder, all Fellows had received Institute guidelines and mechanical specifications for preparing curriculum units, which outline the Institute writing process and the five steps for Fellows’ formulating, reformulating, and enlarging their individual units. On March 20, a panel of Coordinators first spoke to all the Fellows on these topics: “Checking and Using the Index and Guides,” “Addressing Your Audience and Narrowing Your Topic,” Following the Institute Process for Unit Development,” “Taking Advantage of Technology for Electronic Communications and Research,” “Preparing an Electronic Version of the Curriculum Unit,” and “Aligning Your Unit with School Plans and District Goals.” Then the Fellows were divided into seminar groups, where each Coordinator led a discussion of purposes and practices in writing Institute curriculum units. This afforded an opportunity for the first-time Fellows to learn about the guidelines and other aspects of curriculum unit writing from experienced Fellows. It also encouraged experienced Fellows to share that experience and allowed all to discuss how the completed volume of units might display a range of teaching strategies and contain a standard form of annotation. By leading these discussions, the Coordinators also identified themselves as being knowledgeable about the process of writing curriculum units, so that other Fellows might seek their advice.

At the Coordinators’ weekly meetings with the Director, which were held on the day after seminar meetings, they discussed the progress of each seminar and gained an overview of the program. In addition, the Coordinators met with the seminar leaders immediately before the program began to provide them with information about the teachers who had been accepted and to begin to define their role in assisting with the conduct of the seminars. Both seminar leaders and Fellows acknowledged in their evaluations the essential role of the Coordinators. Almost all Fellows (94 percent) agreed that the Coordinator had provided teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within the seminar. Fellows found the Coordinators to be helpful either a lot (93 percent) or a little (7 percent) in providing information about unit writing deadlines; helpful either a lot (85 percent) or a little (15 percent) in providing information about guidelines for unit writing; helpful either a lot (82 percent) or a little (l3 percent) in providing information about the use of University facilities; and helpful either a lot (75 percent) or a little (18 percent) in facilitating discussion of Fellows’ work in progress. Few Fellows found the Coordinators unhelpful in any respect.

To maintain current information on the program and to address any problems that arose, the Institute Director met monthly with the seminar leaders as a group. This also afforded the seminar leaders, two of whom were conducting an Institute seminar for the first time, an opportunity to talk with each other about their approaches to the seminar and experiences in it.

The seminars have always been regarded as the core collaborative experience of the Institute, and each year the Fellows’ comments about the seminars have been rich and positive. Again this year their comments were often very enthusiastic indeed. One said:

I enjoyed this seminar immensely. By engaging participants in critical thinking and hands-on writing, the seminar leader created a shared learning experience for all of us. He was also gracious in accepting our suggestions and recommendations for structuring seminar time and selecting materials. Added to this was his great store of knowledge about the subject. The seminar was very successful and the best one of the seven that I have participated in thus far.

Seminar leaders described their seminar in both specific and general terms. One said:

My expectations were based on my previous seminars, and they pretty much proved to be the case—a bright and interesting group of people who would coalesce into a collegial and mutually supportive class; a wide disparity between the best work and the least good; and lively discussion. The discussions were animated, usually on target, and marked by humor as well as insight. There was considerable similarity with comparably structured seminar work with Yale students, especially graduate students, with some Fellows less on top of the process and the direction in which the analysis was going. But the best of the Fellows performed comparably to good Yale graduate students.

Another said:

The seminars were conducted initially as wholly “intellectual” affairs. After a discussion of pending deadlines and work requirements, we would plunge into a discussion of the week’s materials, which would then occupy us for the remainder of the session. Once we hit the midway point in the seminar, however, we began each class with reports by 2-3 Fellows on their Curriculum Units. Over time, these reports tended to take greater bites out of our class discussions. I was torn between allowing the Fellows the scope to present their curriculum units as they felt best, and reining in overlong reports. In the end, we wound up with a little of both.

Although less often expressed than in some recent years, a continuing theme in some Fellows’ comments was the appreciation and understanding they gained of their own and other cultures as a result of what they read. One Fellow wrote:

An equally important component of the success of the seminar was the diverse group of teachers who participated in it; there were African American, Hispanic American, and Euro-American men and women who were deeply concerned about these issues of race and ethnicity.

Another Fellow wrote:

My curriculum unit entitled “Native American Culture in Crisis” may be incorporated into the survey course for either U. S. History I or U. S. History II that is required of all 10th and 11th graders. My unit offers suggestions for further study and interpretation of the history of Native American-U. S. government relations, as well as an overview of the present-day Indian reform movement.

The seminars also afford the Fellows an otherwise too rare opportunity to talk and work with other teachers across the artificial boundaries that often separate grade levels, schools, and disciplines. One Fellow wrote: “I thought that the mix of people also helped to make the discussions and classes very helpful. We had teachers from elementary to high school levels. Everyone made valuable suggestions about the units as we went through the seminar.”

Ever since the Institute’s inception, its participants and staff have sometimes been asked whether the co-professionalism among Yale faculty members and New Haven school teachers, for which the program is widely known, is authentic. The collegiality on which the Institute is founded is perhaps best illustrated by the mutual respect between Fellows and seminar leaders that the seminar experience engenders. One seminar leader, for example, said:

(image available in print form)

The seminar on "Bridges: Human Links and Innovations." (Left to right: seminar leader Martin D. Gehner; Fellows Liza L. Bowen, Creola Smith and Joseph H. Lewis.)

As always, I would stress the importance of collegiality, of mutual respect. A sense of humor is desirable, but should not detract from the fundamental seriousness of the seminar. If a Fellow seems not to be attending seriously enough to the class, or is tardy or absent excessively, it is important to stay in touch with the Coordinator, who plays an enforcement role, to gain an understanding of the nature of the problem. The seminars should be for discussion, not lecturing. It is good to build in some time at some points along the way for the Fellows to discuss pedagogical issues—how they intend to use their units in class. Former Fellows can be of great help in discussing issues openly in seminar.

In turn, Fellows expressed their respect for their Yale colleagues:

I also learned a lot from my seminar leader. His expertise and personality made this learning experience even better. If he were to lead another seminar on a different subject and I was able to use it, I would definitely take it.

Last year’s and this year’s Institute contain no differences for me. I have had two great and inspiring seminar leaders, who were skillful in the Socratic method of facilitation and direct-interactive strategies. What a positive experience! Our leader is insightful, extremely intelligent, and best of all, a good group leader in that he listens to all of our questions and patiently helps us with possible answers. His bibliographies were very useful, classroom discussions were at a high level intellectually, and his comments on my unit were very helpful.

The seminar leader’s knowledge of the content is inspiring and his method of teaching has made us better able to teach to our classes, and not only the material we covered. By his modeling of analysis, we can imitate that in the class on anything we teach.

Each Institute seminar must balance the complementary and inseparable but sometimes competing demands for studying the seminar topic and developing specific applications of that knowledge for school classrooms. The Fellows, coming from elementary, middle, and high schools, are obligated to develop curriculum units that have some demonstrable relation to the seminar topic, but they are free to work out curricula that enter territory not covered in detail by the seminar. The curriculum units, therefore, have a diversity of subject and approach that one would not expect in a regular university course on the seminar topic. As a result, discussions in the seminar, while doing justice to the common reading, can also range widely over substantive and pedagogical issues relating to the curriculum units. Some comments by seminar leaders and Fellows quoted earlier have already indicated that each seminar approaches these demands somewhat differently as seminar leaders strive to strike an appropriate balance.

In recent years the Institute has also encouraged Fellows to build into their curriculum units both subject matter and skills that are called for by the local curriculum framework—including a strong emphasis upon literacy—and the state Mastery and Academic Performance Tests. One Fellow said: “The focus of the city is literacy. A lot of literacy lessons can be drawn from my unit. There are three literacy lessons mentioned in my lesson plans.” Another said: “My curriculum unit will serve to enhance the third grade museum program developed by the Comprehensive Arts Program that has for a long time been a part of the third grade curriculum in our district.” And a third Fellow said:

Since so much of the school curricula is directed at the Connecticut Mastery Test, and a lot of that has to do with problem-solving, I can create a Writing Prompt that would have them explaining why, where, and how a bridge should be built in a given community. For Math, they can design a bridge noting the geometry (shape) and measurement (size/dimension) for an actual bridge they will build. Reading Comprehension sheets can easily be developed using the books from the students’ reading lists and the vocabulary words in the unit.

In the end, a sizable majority of this year’s Fellows (83 percent) said that there had been an appropriate balance in seminar between general study of the seminar subject and Fellows’ work in progress on their units. As one Fellow put it: “The most significant benefits of this seminar were the ability to discuss the subject matter in an academic sense while discussing how to approach teaching the subject matter in a similar and non-watered-down manner.”

After the curriculum units were completed in July, they were compiled in a volume for each seminar. In October the volumes were deposited in the libraries of all elementary middle, and high schools, so that New Haven teachers, whether or not they have been Fellows, might use them in their own teaching. As in the past, the Institute prepared a Guide to the new units, based on synopses by the authors and their recommendations of the grade levels and school courses to which their units apply.

The Institute is also updating the Index of all the 1348 units contained in the 149 volumes the Institute has published since its inception in 1978. The Index and Guide are deposited in all school libraries and distributed to the teachers who serve as Institute Representatives for the schools. A full set of the new curricular resources is provided to those school district administrators who have responsibility for curricula system-wide.

Maintaining a library set of units has proved most difficult in those schools that do not have a full-time librarian or, in some cases, even a library. In 1993-94, the Institute therefore sought to determine the best location for Institute material to be deposited in every New Haven school, and it has since continued to supply units missing from any collection, insofar as the volumes have been still in print. As described below, the Institute has also created an electronic version that makes its curricular resources more widely accessible.

As in past years, Fellows in 2001 spoke of the results of their Institute participation especially in terms of intellectual growth and renewal. Just as the opportunity to increase mastery of the subject one teaches was an important incentive for most Fellows (89 percent) to take part in the Institute, almost all (96 percent) said that they had gained knowledge of their subject and confidence to teach it by participating in their seminar. Only one Fellow disagreed with the statement that the seminar helped with intellectual and professional growth.

Many Fellows described the Institute experience as having increased their professional confidence and morale. Several of their comments follow:

The excitement ignited while preparing my unit is still as intense. That excitement I know will carry over into my classroom. My students will be the recipients of my exuberance. What I have learned will enable me to answer far more questions my students may have, and it will allow me to be far more creative in my planning. That will translate into more interesting and direct-interactive lessons for my students.

I believe that my curriculum unit will capture the attention of students normally not intrigued by the subject matter and will awaken in other students creative ideas for further research. I think it will make teaching more exciting both by providing a different approach and because of the thorough planning that went into developing the unit.

Being North African, I thought that working on African art would be easy. However, this was not the case. The more research I did, the more I found out how much I did not know, especially in regard to Black Africa. The work done for this unit has certainly increased my knowledge and makes me more confident in front of my students.

I especially feel more prepared to aid students in the creation of their own poetry related to the unit’s topics. Using various techniques for teaching poetry discussed in seminar should lead students to a clearer understanding of poetic elements which they may use in the development of their own poetry.

One aspect of my teaching that will certainly improve will be my teaching of writing. I believe that writing is as important a part of the history curriculum as it is of the English curriculum. Before writing this unit, I had not written extensively for a number of years. This experience has exercised my skills and renewed my feel for the writing process.

I noticed a change in my approach to my work during the last few months of last school year as I began to think about and develop my unit. As my thinking became clearer and my focus sharper, my interventions with students improved as a result. Now that the unit is completed and I will have detailed lesson plans to use in my work, I think my approach to teaching this subject will be much more organized, more coherent and deeper. The research that I conducted will have a positive influence on my work, not only with students but also in my consulting role with teachers, parents, and administrators. The wide reading I engaged in exposed me to a multiplicity of ideas, issues and approaches that have stimulated my thinking and made me a more flexible, better educated professional.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on "Art as Evidence: The Interpretation of Objects." (Left to right: Fellows Stephen P. Broker, Karen G. de Fur, Kristi Shanahan, Radouane Nasry, Gail G. Hall, Kathleen Ware, and Janna Ryon.)

Fellows spoke, too, of the access to Yale facilities they had gained from participation. From the Institute’s inception, all Fellows have been full members of the University community, listed in the directory of faculty and staff, and granted use of facilities and services across the campus. For most Fellows (85 percent) access to Yale’s academic facilities such as the library was an incentive for their participation, and 57 percent reported that membership in the Yale community had been greatly or moderately useful to them. One Fellow said: “It was exciting to be able to be at Yale and use your facilities. I am impressed with the resources available, the libraries, the number of documents available. I liked having access to all this. I loved the Sterling Library even though I did more of my research at the Art and Architecture Library.” Another said: “The Yale resources I made the most use of were the libraries and the Film Study Center, both of which were invaluable to me in writing my unit.”

Nor do Fellows see the results of the Institute as limited to their own classrooms, or even to teachers who have participated in the seminars. Almost all of them said that they plan to encourage or assist other teachers in using the unit they prepared; more than half said they planned to do so with three or more other teachers. As a group, the Fellows planned to encourage or assist a total of 251 other teachers. Fellows this year provided various accounts of the more extended influence the Institute has had, and will have, for themselves and their schools. Several Fellows wrote:

My institute participation should positively affect the school curricula. I will share my unit with other teachers and hopefully we will be able to team-teach at least part of the unit. It could also affect school curricula in other New Haven high schools as the unit will be available to other teachers, especially French teachers. French curricula are similar in each school and would be complemented by this unit.

My unit this year was developed with the philosophy of resource-based learning in mind. As a high school library media specialist, I teach as a member of a team. Either an individual lesson or longer research experience is planned collaboratively with a classroom teacher. I believe that American history teachers will see my work as a terrific foundation on which to develop the learning experiences and look forward to introducing teachers to these materials and activities. In addition I believe that the process by which I developed this unit can serve as a model for other topics in American history and other curriculum areas as well.

The area that I will teach, clothing as an expression of social and political attitudes of a culture, has not been given much attention, but I hope to introduce this unit in our department throughout the school system in New Haven and at all grade levels at a small scale in the beginning.

Since I am the science director for our middle school, I believe I will have direct involvement in developing the science curriculum. I will create an 8-week program that will directly involve all my research on my multiple intelligence curriculum.

Each year we are attentive to the responses of both first-time and veteran participants because we want a high proportion of New Haven teachers to become Fellows and we also want the Institute to become a regular part of Fellows’ professional lives. Both groups cite their own rewards. One first-time Fellow wrote:

This is my first year participating in the Institute. Yale continues to be a rarified environment in which I felt like something of a timid guest. The strength of the program is the depth of knowledge that the faculty brings to the subject matter. The weakness of the program is that most teachers in New Haven have too many students, not enough time, and not enough money. We are used to shorthand and shortcuts, and many of us are excellent jugglers. YNHTI requires us to slow down, think long, hard and deeply before we commit to paper.

Another Fellow wrote:

As this is my first year, I can’t comment on how it compares with other years, but I can say that I’m certain it is better than any staff development offered by New Haven or my other two employers. Its strengths are the caliber of the seminar leaders, the academic focus of the seminars, and its expectation of scholarly effort by the participants.

For returning Fellows, the rewards of participation do not diminish over time, because the experience becomes cumulative, and not repetitive or redundant. In fact, many teachers report that the benefits increase as one has more experience as a Fellow. One returning Fellow wrote:

This was my third year participating in the Institute. I also served as a representative for my school and as seminar coordinator. My participation was great for my curriculum. It also gave me a positive experience that I shared with some of my fellow teachers. I believe that sharing my experience gave a few colleagues the courage to participate. When participation increases in any school, the school’s curriculum can only be improved.

Another Fellow wrote: “After the fifth year of participation I could say that every seminar has been effective, and successful, enhancing our knowledge of how to learn, promoting the unification of special and general education programs.” And a third Fellow wrote:

I always look forward to teaching my curriculum units to my class. I am easily able to incorporate the unit activities into the third-grade reading/writing/language arts curriculum unit. In the actual teaching of the unit I get to see what really works and what doesn’t and I am then able to refine the unit for future use. As a result of my work with the Institute, I am able to teach my students about subject matter that is quite varied, including such topics as Ancient Egyptian civilization, Islamic art and architecture, Modern Latin American women, ancient mythology, and the art of Van Gogh, Picasso, Hopper, and Dali, to name a few.

Every year since 1990, when they became a regular part of the Institute, elementary school teachers have spoken of the advantages of the Institute for them specifically. This year one elementary school Fellow said: “The group mixture of elementary through high school teachers afforded an opportunity to see the different levels to which poetry could be expanded and used.” Another said:

This year’s Institute has proven to be both productive and stimulating for my teaching profession in the elementary classroom. Once again I am excited about having a fresh and new curriculum unit to present to my first grade students this coming school term. This year’s professor had a beautiful balance in asking teachers for outside class preparation. Many years I have felt totally overwhelmed with preparing a curriculum unit, outside class preparation, and all of the demands for teaching in my own classroom that are becoming more involved every year. Our professor was very sensitive in these areas and it was much appreciated.

Seminar leaders, too, speak of what they gain from participation. They not only appreciate their expanded involvement in public education and the University’s home community, they also find that there are often benefits accruing to their own scholarship and teaching. Presenting their experience is especially important because the Institute is often asked to explain the incentives and rewards for Yale faculty members who participate. One seminar leader this year said:

As always, I was invigorated by the interchange with the Fellows. It is especially interesting to try to figure out ways in which one’s expertise, which is primarily knowledge of the field but also of human and institutional resources, can be brought to bear on an actual teaching situation in secondary education. It is gratifying when one can suggest a classroom activity that the Fellow finds on target. There also is a public service component here. It is satisfying to explore a practical extension to the broader teaching profession of one’s work on the university level, and to have that contribution appreciated in salary.

Another said:

The seminars have always for me been an opportunity to extend and deepen my own acquaintance with material that I’ve not been able to teach in my regular courses. They have also provided me with many insights into the possible strategies for dealing with this material. I’ve often learned in this way from the Fellows. But most important for me, I think, has been the opportunity to work with serious adults in an educational context and focus with them on the difficulties inherent in ourselves and our tasks.

For the past eight years the Institute has admitted teams of at least three teachers from one school to a seminar with the expectation that the team members would work as a team. They would coordinate their curriculum units and work together during the school year, planning cross-grade and cross-department instruction and culminating school-wide activities, such as assembly programs, science fairs, or some kind of publication. Each team member, however, must write a unit that could be taught independently. This program, highly successful in several schools, has encouraged teachers who were previously reluctant to participate in seminars on an individual basis to apply to a seminar as part of a school team.

As we have noted, this year a team of Fellows from Beecher Elementary School enrolled in the seminar on “Reading and Writing Poetry” and focused their units upon the topic, “Using African American Poetry to Increase Knowledge and Pride.” Each unit targeted a more specific area: feelings, protest and pride, and family and tradition. All had a strong emphasis on developing student literacy through reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Members of the team have discussed their culminating assembly with their curriculum director, and have begun to meet on a regular basis to coordinate their activities and to plan the event, which will involve other staff members and parents. They hope to hold the event before the April vacation in 2002.

(image available in print form)

Fellow Geraldine M. Martin and students at her team's culminating activity at Beecher Elementary School.

The ultimate purpose of the Institute is to strengthen teaching in New Haven’s public schools and in this way to improve student learning throughout the schools. Contrary to what some would expect of a partnership involving Yale University, the Teachers Institute intends to serve students at all achievement and performance levels. Fellows often, in fact, write their units for students at more than one level. While most Fellows (88 percent) reported that their new curriculum units were designed for their “average” students, more than half (60 percent) reported that they were designed for their “advanced” students and almost three fourths (72 percent) also reported that they were designed for their “least advanced” students.

These excerpts from the plans of several Fellows illustrate the wide range of unit use in the schools.

This curriculum unit in bio-medical ethics will definitely impact my teaching, and the students I serve. Because my program deals with students bused into the building, there is not much chance that I will impact the curriculum at my school. The curriculum will be utilized in full, however, in my other program STOP@UNH (The Science and Technology Outreach Program at the University of New Haven). The program works with New Haven students in grades 7-12. I teach the Thinking Skills/English component. This unit allows me to actively engage students in issues that wrestle with morality and ethics, life vs. death, perseverance vs. surrender, and a multiplicity of other life struggles.

I plan to use my unit with the entire sixth grade at my school during science class. By doing this, our sixth grade science curriculum will improve tremendously. Presently, our sixth graders have not participated in the school-wide science fair and this unit will address that issue because I plan to teach bridge building from an inquiry method so that the students can develop the skills needed to complete a science fair project.

(image available in print form)

Fellow Dina K. Secchiaroli and her students at Sound School.

The curriculum developed is going to greatly benefit my students in understanding and appreciating art and art history. These are subjects that are very difficult for students who are blind or visually impaired. This curriculum addresses the problems that these students may encounter and will help provide the students with the skills to appreciate and enjoy art, art history, and art museums.

The most important effect that the curriculum unit will have on my school will be my last lesson plan, in which I intend to have an urban/suburban “poetry slam.” This “poetry slam” will incorporate students from East Haven High School with my students from Wilbur Cross. In other words, one group is primarily white while the other group is primarily Black and Hispanic. I did a creative writing program with these two groups last year, so I know something like this is possible but I did not know how to bring it to fruition. My Institute seminar gave me the perfect solution. Most people believe these two groups of kids have nothing in common, but they have poetry in common and rap music and the need and the desire for self-expression.

I intend to use materials and lessons that I prepared for my curriculum unit during the upcoming school year teaching 5th and 6th graders. In fact, I ran the Computer Lab at this year’s Gear Up (summer school) Program for New Haven Students grades 7, 8, and 9 at Gateway Community College. Although my curriculum unit was intended for 5th and 6th graders I modified the computer portion of it and used it during the summer session. The lessons were well organized, well received and extremely beneficial. The lessons enabled the students to look at math from a different angle. The students truly loved the lessons, and although they were being challenged they were having too much fun to complain.

To attempt to gauge the impact of this year’s units in New Haven classrooms, we asked Fellows about the number of students to whom they planned to teach their new unit, and on how many days. Fifty of the Fellows planned to teach their unit to 25 or more students; 28 of that group said that they would teach their unit to 50 or more students. The total number of students to be taught a unit by this year’s Fellows is 3,382. Chart 6 indicates the lengths of time the Fellows planned to teach their units. For all Fellows, the unit is a significant part of their teaching plans.

Fellows continue to be optimistic about the responses they anticipate receiving from their students to the material they had studied and developed in the Institute. Almost all of the Fellows responding agreed that, as a result of Institute participation, they have a higher expectation of their students’ ability to learn about the seminar subject. Almost half of the Fellows (45 percent) strongly agreed with that conclusion. We have already quoted some Fellows who spoke about how their own enthusiasm for a subject would motivate students, and how they planned to involve students more actively in classroom learning. Others said:

I am teaching a course entitled “Survey of French Art” in which I lead my students through several different types of art styles. It is a course taught in English, open to the entire school body. Thanks to my seminar leader, I have found an approach that I think will be exciting. We will compare some examples of “inner city” American art with French art. In doing so, we will analyze not only style and form, but subject matter and change in cultures.

The curriculum I have prepared is intended to boost the self-esteem of the children I teach and to familiarize them with the many struggles and accomplishments of African-American people. I do this through the use of quilts as a form of art and a means of storytelling. I introduce the children to the tradition of oral history in Africa and show how life in America demanded a more secretive form of communication for Africans. One of the ways they kept family histories and traditions alive was through the use of quilts. I place the heaviest emphasis on literacy through art because the third graders I teach are reluctant to read or write. I hope that by the selection of artists and their story quilts I will encourage the children to use quilting as a form of storytelling and thus provide them with a reason to read and write.

I believe that my students are going to be very engaged by my unit that deals with issues of exclusion and “being different” in children’s storybooks. The purpose of the unit is to expose at-risk teenagers to a genre of literature that many of them may have missed when they were children and to let them discover through researching articles on the internet the urgency of reading to young children. Not only will they read many children’s stories that address these issues and make numerous trips to the children’s department at the Public Library, but they will also make trips out to read to young children in New Haven and suburban schools, and, finally, they will write and illustrate their own children’s storybooks. These storybooks will be on display in our school.

We also asked Fellows who had participated in the Institute in prior years to report on student responses they had actually observed when teaching units they had previously developed in the Institute. Their comments were very much in the same vein. One Fellow said:

(image available in print form)

Fellow Sandra K. Friday and her student at Wilbur Cross Annex.

Having the Institute available has been invaluable in helping me to build a library of innovative curriculum units for my classes. For example, we have addressed cultural diversity issues through units that focus on the poetry and culture of Mexico and the family in China, and have explored the meaning of traditional Jewish holidays that become alive through literature, food, dances, and drama. Other units relate to themes on early pioneers, puppetry, and drama. I have discovered that non-interested students in the beginning of a project get caught up in the success of others and participate joyfully along with their peers. Sometimes, this is due to a collective effort such as making an animated movie in class or participating on stage through a rehearsed drama production or being filmed reading a piece of one’s own poetry with a puppet creation.

Another Fellow said:

The last unit I prepared has been the one I have used the most in class. It was also the one I ordered supplies for from the Institute. I wrote the unit on ways in which films could be used to get seniors knowledgeable about college through watching Spike Lee’s films like School Daze, Higher Learning by John Singleton, and a documentary on Morehouse College. I have used this curriculum for the last few years and I am grateful because it works. It is a great way to start the school year because it helps kids examine college life, and figure out what they want in a college, what questions to ask, and not feel quite so negative when it comes time to write that college essay!

Another Fellow said:

Last year I wrote my unit on the Harlem Renaissance, for at-risk high school students. The results were spectacular. With money from a grant from the New Haven Education Fund for materials and money for film and processing and books from the Institute, my students reproduced the most amazing artwork from the Renaissance. The teacher who team-taught with me, and I, took the students to Harlem to the Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture and to the Apollo Theatre. Forty pieces of art reproduced by the students were on exhibit in downtown New Haven along with a traveling exhibit of photos from the Smithsonian Institute, on the Civil Rights movement. We took our whole school downtown to see their art mounted with the art from the Smithsonian. It was a memorable day. We have photos and slides documenting the unit that took up one whole marking period. We can’t wait to do this unit again, making additions.

And yet another Fellow said:

I have participated in the Institute for the past four years, developing curriculum that I have used. Other teachers have also used the various curriculums within my department and have found them to be extremely helpful. In the summer of 1997 I developed a unit on the “Latino Experience.” I used this unit in the classroom and celebrated Latino experiences through food and music. In 1998 I developed a unit on “Civil Rights Through Film.” I have used many of the films to enhance my lessons on the Civil Rights Movement. In 1999 I developed a unit on the “New Immigrant Experience.” Every spring I coordinate a trip to Ellis Island. In 2000 I developed a unit on “Search and Seizure,” which I have used when teaching the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

We asked Fellows about the extent to which several features of the Institute had been useful to them. As shown in Chart 7 (reading again left to right from the most useful to the least useful), very few Fellows said that any aspect of the Institute had not been useful. In fact, except for the series of talks, membership in the university community, and computer assistance, each aspect of the Institute was regarded as useful to a great or moderate extent by three fourths of the Fellows or more. About half (56 percent) responded that favorably to the talks, about half (57 percent) to membership and more than two fifths (43 percent) to computer assistance. (The latter figure is no doubt misleadingly low, since the question did not take into consideration the mandatory assistance that occurs in every instance when the Institute checks the disks on which curriculum units are submitted and offers advice on correcting them.)

We asked seminar leaders to provide their overall conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Institute. One of them wrote: “I continue to be a fan of the Institute, with its emphasis on content, collegiality, and teacher initiative.” Another seminar leader wrote:

The strengths of the Institute are tangible: the way it expands the intellectual horizons of the Fellows; the way it helps bring “cutting edge” scholarship into the public school curriculum; the way it provides teachers with an opportunity to exchange ideas and advice among themselves; the way it energizes all those who participate in it. My concerns (I hesitate to call them criticisms) are two: that the Curriculum Units are too hit or miss by nature. I would love to see the Institute involved in curricular development in a more systematic manner. And I would like to see “the writing process” itself made the subject of Institute seminars. I think that the sorts of intensive instruction in the teaching of writing that goes on at a program like the Bread Loaf School of English should be folded into the Institute.

And a third seminar leader wrote:

The Institute, I’ve come to believe over the past twenty years, is a necessary link between the University and the community, and an important pilot project on the national scene. Its strengths are obvious: the encouragement, and the facilitating, of true professionalism in the body of teachers—offering them the chance for creative shaping of substantive curriculum, for sustained responsibility in their own organization, for deepening and extending their knowledge and their pedagogical repertoire. The chance for creativity is essential, but it may sometimes have led—or may seem to others to be likely to lead—to apparently eccentric or self-indulgent products. What the Institute now must cope with is the understandable national emphasis on testing and assessment. It probably must engage yet more directly and systematically the process by which even the most creative curriculum units, which are directed toward the acquisition of valuable knowledge and intellectual skills, can be clearly shaped—and can be seen to be shaped—in accord with district priorities and the public sense of what our national education ought to accomplish.

We also asked Fellows to provide their overall conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Institute. One Fellow wrote:

I have been an Institute participant before and find the strengths are on-going. The speakers are very knowledgeable in the areas of their presentation topic. They share their information in a commendable manner. It is a perk being able to have access to the libraries and the other facilities. Offering CEUs is very good. These are great drawing cards of the Institute. The only downside is that the honorarium is outdated. Teachers, especially new ones, are finding it difficult to participate because of conflicts with other mandatory programs. I find they are willing to become participants in the Institute but are just overwhelmed.

Another Fellow wrote:

The strengths of the Institute are many, and that’s why I am drawn, year after year, to reapply as a Fellow. It provides me with the intellectual stimulation I so crave after teaching young children all day. The lecture series presented an interesting mix of topics that I found informative and thought-provoking. Having Yale Library privileges was essential for this seminar as I found myself doing research not only at Sterling and Cross Campus but also at the Art Library. My professor was always very helpful in suggesting relevant sources, and both meetings I had with him served to help me get a clearer focus on my topic and explore the many directions I could take as I developed my unit. Our coordinator was excellent and she provided us with all necessary information both in class and through e-mail. She was very conscientious. I particularly enjoyed the camaraderie among the Fellows in my seminar. There were always lively discussions going on, and we were given ample opportunity to discuss our units in class. As far as I am concerned, there were not any weaknesses in my experience with the Institute this year.

Despite a range of specific complaints about scheduling and procedures, the Institute’s offerings were generally received with enthusiasm, and the results of its program were quite consistently praised.

In their evaluations, almost all the Fellows said they intended to participate (62 percent) or might participate (35 percent) in the Institute in one or more future years. Only two Fellows said they did not intend to participate in the future. One was intending to retire. The other wrote: “I wasn’t prepared for the tremendous time commitment that is required to participate in the Institute. Although I enjoyed my participation it was difficult to meet deadlines during the school year.” These proportions are very similar to those in 2000.

We should add that there are now 41 members of the administration of the New Haven Public Schools who have participated as Fellows of the Institute for periods of one to eighteen years. The increasing presence of former Fellows in positions ranging from Assistant Principal and Principal to Associate Superintendent has clearly rendered the Institute more visible and has encouraged other teachers to participate in this program.

From the Institute’s inception, Fellows have been full members of the Yale community with access to resources throughout the University. For several years the Institute has been exploring how computing can enhance its partnership, because computing overcomes the barriers of time and distance that can impede collaboration, and because it is a non-hierarchical form of communication and therefore consistent with the collegiality that is a tenet of the Institute’s approach.

In 1995 Fellows became eligible to purchase Yale computer accounts, and a number of Fellows have therefore had Internet access and e-mail provided in this way. Although this option remains available, the accounts can be held only for the period in which the teachers remain Fellows. The Institute therefore emphasizes now the assistance it can offer to Fellows in securing Internet access and setting up e-mail with providers who offer longer-term accounts. The Institute has often referred Fellows to the Internet Information Center, which serves the entire Yale community. During the past three years, however, the Institute has offered more direct assistance from its own office. Fellows are also able to use the facilities and assistance at the Yale Computer Centers.

Because of the benefits to the Fellows and to other teachers that result from having the curriculum units on-line, the Representatives had decided that, beginning in 1999, Fellows must submit their curriculum units and guide entries in electronic as well as printed form. They are asked to follow the Institute’s recommendations on word-processing software and hand in the disk version of their second draft directly to the Institute computer assistant (or to the seminar leader, if she or he chooses to perform this function), who checks them for formatting errors and readability. They are returned with a checklist that indicates any problems. This procedure, which sets the stage for a discussion with the computer assistant, ensures that the final version on disk will be free of those problems. This year, when any Fellow came in with a disk, the computer assistant spent at least five minutes at that point, going through the disk and showing the Fellow what needed to be fixed.

The electronic resources and services available to Fellows include many opportunities to learn about and use computing, regardless of previous experience and expertise. The Yale University Library sponsors a series of hands-on computer classes each semester on a variety of topics, including an overview of the Library’s online services, an introduction to Netscape, Internet search engines, and subject-specific Internet workshops. Classes take place in the Electronic Classroom in Cross Campus Library, and are free of charge.

In addition to such Workshops, and in addition to the mandatory assistance provided through the checking of all of the disks on which curriculum units would be submitted, a good number of the Fellows sought additional assistance. In 2001 Fellows received computer assistance on a variety of topics, which included getting started with computing, setting up an e-mail account, getting started on the Internet, using the Internet in research and teaching, using Institute resources on-line, and word-processing and file handling for the preparation of curriculum units. When meeting with the Institute computer assistant, most of them asked for help with basic word processing functions. Their greatest problem was converting their documents to files that could be read by Institute computers, which are equipped with MS Word 97. Fellows also had minor questions about paper-writing itself, including format and documentation.

Forty percent of the Fellows made use of assistance in person, 42 percent by phone, and 29 percent by e-mail. For 34 of the Fellows (57 percent) the availability of computer services was an incentive to their participation. Most Fellows who did not use the computer assistance said they did not need it because they had previously acquired computer skills, or because they had other resources at home or school. A few said they did not do so because of time constraints during the school year. Most who took advantage of the assistance, however, were full of praise for the expertise, the patience, and the persistence of the computer assistant and others whom they consulted.

Of the Fellows using the additional computer assistance, 8 found the assistants helpful in getting started with computing; 8 found them helpful in setting up e-mail and Internet access; 15 found them helpful in using the Institute’s curricular resources on-line; 19 found them helpful in using the Internet in research and teaching; and 21 found them helpful in word processing and file handling for the preparation of a curriculum unit. (See Chart 8.)

Electronic versions of the Institute’s publications are now available at its Web-site. The address is http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/. The full texts of almost all the units written between 1978 and 2001, plus an index and guide to these units, are thus available to teachers on-line. Information about the Institute (its brochures and most recent Annual Reports) is also available, as is the text of its periodical On Common Ground. To call attention to this resource, the Web location has also been advertised prominently on the cover of On Common Ground, which contains articles regarding school-university partnerships and is intended for a national audience.

The Institute has created a “guestbook” on its Web-site, in order to invite comments and suggestions from those who have visited the site. In recent years the site has been used by more and more people in many parts of this country and abroad—school teachers from both public and private schools (including Fellows from other Teachers Institutes in the National Demonstration Project), school and university administrators, parents, volunteers, university professors, high school students, graduate students, librarians, military personnel, home schoolers, local policy-makers, and others conducting research or having an interest in education. We estimate that, from its inauguration in June 1998 through December 2000, the Web-site was visited by 880,000 persons. We had noted a marked increase of activity during the last four months of 2000. Another 600,000 persons visited the Web-site during 2001, making an estimated total of 1,480,000. It is probable that this significant increase of activity will continue.

(image available in print form)

Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute Web-site located at http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/.

In 2001 we continued to hear from educators in a yet greater number of countries. A partial list would include the Philippines, Australia, Canada, India, Switzerland, Korea, Pakistan, Argentina, Malaysia, Scotland, Panama, Russia, China, Spain, Ethiopia, Italy, Thailand, Tanzania, Jamaica, and South Africa. Over the years our site has been linked at their request to several other Web-sites. This year we received a request from a middle school and a high school in Thorndale, Texas. Faculty members in Education Programs in Canada, California, and Wisconsin praised the units and recommended them to the teachers in their programs. An administrator from the University of California at Berkeley had suggested that teachers visit our Web-site during several of their teacher institutes. An institute in design at a university in Argentina was interested in exchanging information. An administrator from Harvard found the Web-site “very helpful.” One from the University of California at Santa Barbara requested information about how to work with this Institute. A college teacher in Connecticut trying to develop a partnership with an alternative high school found the Web-site very helpful. A university teacher in Cleveland, working to develop a partnership with the Cleveland Municipal School District, was excited to learn about the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. And a university teacher in Australia said: “We need much more of this kind of work!”

From the very large number of other guestbook entries from graduate students, public and private school teachers, and school administrators, it is evident that the curriculum units written in New Haven have been of great value to many teachers of a variety of subjects. A school administrator in New Hampshire said: “Outstanding resources for teachers!” A graduate student in Arizona said: “Best Web-site dedicated to multicultural education.” A teacher in Arkansas said: “With sites like this there is NO EXCUSE for the non-teaching of these issues in our public education system.” A teacher from Wisconsin said: “As a health educator in diabetes and first year medical students who is transitioning to teaching in the public schools, this site has helped me to appreciate how to integrate literature into the curriculum on a variety of topics.” And a teacher in Washington said: “Thank you for all the work you’ve done and continue to do.”

In 1996 the Institute undertook with the New Haven Public Schools a new program designed to broaden and deepen its efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in the schools. It offered several elementary, middle, and high schools the opportunity to establish an Institute Center for Curriculum and Professional Development within their buildings. Five such Centers were established in 1996. Over the next four years the Institute has articulated and refined the concept of the Centers, prepared policies and procedures for them, and designed, constructed, and delivered special furnishings to them.

The Institute aims to situate the Centers around the city, targeting the larger schools, so that the majority of New Haven teachers will have a Center at their school or at a school near them. During most of 2001, eleven Centers were in operation. They are located at two elementary schools (L. W. Beecher and Davis Street Magnet), one K-8 school (East Rock Global Studies Magnet), three middle schools (Fair Haven, Jackie Robinson, and Roberto Clemente), and five high schools (Cooperative Arts and Humanities, Hill Regional Career Magnet, Hillhouse, Wilbur Cross, and Sound Magnet). During this year several of the high school Centers have continued to be challenged by school renovations and construction. Our current emphasis is on developing the high school Centers, which are being supported by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations. For that reason the Summer Academy, described below, focused this year upon preparation for the high school curriculum. Previous Academies had focused upon elementary and middle school.

These Centers are not permanent installations but must be annually renewed. A Center may remain in a school so long as the school has a need and a desire for it, but it can then be moved to another school. Moving Centers from school to school increases the citywide exposure to the Institute. The Steering Committee, which makes these decisions, has developed criteria for targeting sites. A suitable site must be of sufficient size, with a critical mass of participants and a sufficient leadership. It must be able to rely upon a favorably disposed school administration and an appropriate school plan, and it must be located in such a position that the majority of the New Haven teachers will have a Center at their school or a near-by school.

The Institute and the New Haven Public Schools view the establishment of Institute Centers as a vital component of curriculum reform efforts system-wide. The Centers carry out school-based plans and address the District’s “Kids First” goals, which call for more site-based management, improvement of curriculum and instruction, greater staff development, increased parental involvement, and improved physical condition of schools. The Centers directly address the first three of these goals and provide new opportunities with respect to the last two. They attempt to create in schools a place that will be conducive to the kinds of conversations teachers have with each other and with their Yale colleagues in Institute seminars. They are intended to increase the visibility and use of Institute resources and include teachers who have not before been Institute Fellows. They disseminate Institute-developed curriculum units more widely, and help the teachers to learn how to use curriculum units that are on-line, explore computing as a means of collaboration, and apply the Institute’s principles in new ways within the school environment itself.

The Centers therefore operate from attractive and properly equipped rooms in the schools themselves, containing special furnishings designed by Kent Bloomer, Professor of Architectural Design at Yale, who has led two Institute seminars. Bloomer has designed for each Center two pieces of furniture that will remind the users that a Center is a way of bringing teachers together, and that it is a function of the mutual presence of Yale in the schools and the schools in Yale. Combining utility and symbolism, these pieces have a solidity and elegance in harmony with the tradition of design at Yale University, and an evident durability suggestive of the Institute itself. One piece is a round table, with a hole in the middle, which provides the “center” about which eight people can sit. The center of the table is filled with a circular design, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute logo multiplied as a continuous fret, which is done in tile and set in cast metal for permanence. The second piece is a very high bookcase, designed to hold volumes of the curriculum units and other Institute materials, with hand-plated inlay work across the top that carries the same continuous fret depicting the Institute logo. A banner continues the logo of the fret into the room.

Each Center also contains at least one computer with a high-speed modem so that the teachers have easy access to the Institute’s Web site. As noted in the Annual Report for 2000, the Institute has upgraded the computer operating systems at the older Centers to Windows NT. The computers delivered to the newer Centers have this system pre-installed. The Institute also inventoried all Institute resources in the Centers—curriculum units, center manuals, books, videos, etc.—and replenished them when possible. All of the high school Centers have now received new and more powerful computers.

(image available in print form)

Institute Center for Curriculum and Professional Development in Wilber Cross High School.

Schools interested in becoming a Center site must apply to the Institute’s Steering Committee. An application, which requires the involvement of the school’s principal and management team, must contain an Academic Plan for the calendar year, describing how the teachers in the Center will take full advantage of Institute resources while working on school plans that address the goals of the District. If a school is selected as a Center site, its Academic Plan must be updated and renewed each year.

Schools selected as Center sites become eligible to receive special resources and incentives from the Institute. These incentives, which are outlined in the Center manual, assist with the Center’s development as well as the implementation of its Academic Plan. The Centers or Institute Fellows at Center schools may apply for mini-grants from the Institute to implement approved aspects of their Center Academic Plan. During 2001 the Centers continued to be supported by a second grant for high school Centers from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, received in 1999.

The Centers document their activities through periodic reports. The Steering Committee has established a Coordinating Team at each Center, and a Center Coordinator exercises leadership within that Team. A member of the Steering Committee (at the same school level) is assigned to work with each Center’s Coordinating Team. The members of the Coordinating Team share responsibilities for leading certain efforts within the Center, including documentation. They complete the required reports and are encouraged to document their Center’s work in a variety of ways, including video and audio tapes, photographs, and minutes of meetings.

(image available in print form)

Institute Center for Curriculum and Professional Development in East Rock Global Studies Magnet School.

During the spring semester three very different meetings provided detailed communication among the Steering Committee and the various Centers. The sequence began with a meeting of the Steering Committee and the Center Coordinators. There followed for the Center Coordinating Teams an after-school Forum on Exemplary Practices and Plans, which enabled lively discussion among the teachers and staff members and fuller exchange of ideas among the Centers. Finally, a Retreat enabled the Centers to give more in-depth reports on their successes and problems and to share written material and hold workshops where teachers might learn from one another about curriculum planning in one school that might be used in another. It also provided an opportunity for exploration of additional ways for Centers to work together on alignment of Institute-developed curriculum units with district standards and goals and on mentoring first-year and other new teachers.

For the Forum on Exemplary Center Practices and plans, held on April 5, 2001, each Center selected a topic to highlight and share with colleagues from other Centers. Joseph H. Lewis, East Rock Global Studies Magnet School, spoke on “Enhancing Global Studies through the Center”; Peter N. Herndon and Sheldon A. Ayers, Cooperative Arts and Humanities High School, on “Planning Black History Month Using Center Resources”; Waltrina D. Kirkland-Mullins, Davis Street Magnet School, on “Holding On: Continuing Work with Curriculum Units”; Mary E. Jones, Roberto Clemente Middle School, on “Forging More Collaboration Among a Diverse Staff”; Val-Jean Belton, James T. Hillhouse High School, on “Starting Over: A Center in Progress”; Gail Hall, Wilbur Cross High School, on “Running a Center from the Library Media Center”; Anthony Solli, Hill Regional Career Magnet High School, on “Using a Center for Teacher Recruitment”; and Jean E. Sutherland, L. W. Beecher Elementary School, on “Recovering from Transfers.” There was also discussion of possible uses of the new Reference Lists that show the relationship of many Institute-developed curriculum units to school curricula and academic standards.

The Retreat on June 15-16 began with a working dinner on Friday evening, at which James R. Vivian gave some remarks on “Following Through on Connections between Institute Resources and District Priorities,” a topic discussed at the last Retreat; Peter N. Herndon and Jean E. Sutherland gave previews of the Institute Reference Lists for High Schools and Elementary Schools; and Carolyn N. Kinder gave a charge to the group about “Disseminating the Lists.” Each dinner table group then discussed Center accomplishments since the November Retreat and the process of Reference List dissemination, and then reported to the session at large. The all-day session on Saturday then focused in two workshops on the Reference List for Elementary School Grades and the Reference List for High School Grades. Reports to the session as a whole and general discussion followed.

An important effort by the Centers was the Summer Academy, the sixth year in which the New Haven Public Schools and the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute have collaborated to offer a two-week summer session for New Haven students. For four of those six years, the Academy enrolled students from grades three through twelve; in one year an Academy for students in grade five going into grade six was held at East Rock Magnet School. This year’s Academy, which ran from July 23 to August 3, primarily targeted eighth grade middle school students who were about to move on to high school. It was expected that this experience would support their transition in the fall. A few students leaving ninth grade were also included, since another goal was to help prepare students for the Connecticut Academic Performance Test administered to ninth graders in the spring. Held at the Cooperative Arts and Humanities Magnet High School, the Academy enrolled 30 students from fifteen different schools. Since Coop is a regional magnet school, students came from six different towns outside the city.

(image available in print form)

Associate Superintendent of New Haven Public Schools Verdell M. Roberts at the Retreat for Institute Center Leaders.

The project director, a teacher at Coop, was assisted by two co-directors, one an assistant principal at Sheridan Middle School and the other a grade four teacher at L. W. Beecher Elementary School. This year’s program aimed to improve student literacy through a curriculum that focused on subject matter relating to law and architecture. All students participated in both classes. The law class was led by two high school teachers who had taught the subject in other settings; the architecture class was also led by two high school teachers, one in English/history and one in visual arts. Each course was developed by Academy teachers using Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute units written by other New Haven teachers. In the law course three units and in the architecture course seven units were consulted, none of them written by the Academy teachers. The project clearly demonstrated once again the adaptability of units, or selected portions of units, to classroom situations different from those taught by the authors. This is a point that we have emphasized several times in this Annual Report because many people continue to assume erroneously that curriculum units, whether written in New Haven or at other sites, could be of value only to their authors.

(image available in print form)

Students and Teachers in the Summer Academy on an educational visit to the New Haven Colony Historical Society.

Although the Academy did not draw its faculty or students from as many Center schools as had been hoped, it was a successful instance of Center collaboration. Those teachers involved planned to follow through with the Summer Academy by continuing to work with Academy students and by introducing Academy themes in their courses. Three of them have received mini-grants that will assist them in carrying out this purpose.

Teachers in the Centers may also receive mini-grants to expand Institute curriculum units and relate them further to school themes and district goals. Mini-grants awarded this year include: a project for elementary school children on school violence that involved three teachers; a project for adolescents on cardiac health; a project for high school students on acoustics; an interdisciplinary project for high school that would relate opera, musical theater, and literary form; a high school project relating art instruction to the history of pre-Columbian cultures; and a high school project on the architecture and history of New Haven.

The Institute seeks not only to institutionalize the Centers’ work in New Haven but also to integrate the Center concept in its work with demonstration sites in other cities. Again this year, the New Haven teachers on the implementation team for the National Demonstration Project were either Steering Committee members or Coordinators for the Center in their own school.

From June through August the Institute identified and approached the 61 teachers who would serve during the 2001-2002 school year as the 22 Representatives and 39 Contacts for their schools. During 2000-2001, fifty teachers had served in these ways, 19 as Representatives and 31 as Contacts. Representatives were selected according to recommendations of the teachers who served as seminar Coordinators and conversations they had with persons who had served as Representatives in the past, with other Institute Fellows, and with some school principals. Because the Coordinators had become acquainted with all current Fellows, this mode of selection assures that all Fellows receive consideration for leadership positions. Because the Representatives who had served in 2000-2001 were widely regarded as effective, we sought a high degree of continuity of Representatives.

In 2000-2001 the Representatives and Contacts were well distributed across New Haven schools, with 19 (38 percent) representing elementary schools, 8 (16 percent) representing K-8 schools, 7 (14 percent) representing middle schools, 3 (6 percent) representing transitional schools, and 13 (26 percent) representing high schools. For 2001-2002, there was a rather similar distribution, with 24 (40 percent) representing elementary schools, 9 (15 percent) representing K-8 schools, 12 (19 percent) representing middle schools, 5 (9 percent) representing transitional schools, and 11 (18 percent) representing high schools. Whether or not they had a Representative, all schools had one or more Contacts to serve as a conduit for information to and from the Institute throughout the school year. (Some Contacts served more than one school.) Of the Representatives and Contacts, 31 percent were Black Non-Hispanic, 60 percent were White, and 6 percent were Hispanic. Representatives attend meetings every other week from September to March. They receive an honorarium for this work and agree in advance to participate in the program they are planning, whereas Contacts perform many of the same functions but are not required to participate in bi-weekly meetings or to commit themselves to Institute participation. Through the Representatives and Contacts, the Institute ensures that all teachers throughout the school district may have an effective voice in shaping a program of curricular and staff development in which they will then have the opportunity to take part.

(image available in print form)

School Representatives meeting. (Clockwise from front left: Representatives Sean Grifin, Mary Elizabeth Jones, Jennifer Chisholm, Gwendolyn Robinson, Jean E. Sutherland, Joanne R. Pompano, Kate Sturtz, Diana T. Otto, Robert P. Echter, Kristi Shanahan, Dina K. Secchiaroli, Francine C. Coss, Jacqueline E. Porter, Joseph H. Lewis, and Raymond W. Brooks; and Director James R. Vivian.)

The first meeting of the Representatives for the new school year was scheduled for September 11, 2001. Because of the tragic events of that date, the meeting was not held, and indeed the Representatives got together for the first time on September 25, at the Institute’s reception for Representatives and Contacts. After that meeting, at which they discussed plans for 2001-2002, the Representatives met twice monthly with the Director. The attack on the World Trade Center shaped to some degree the nature of their conversations and led to the establishment of several seminars of topical importance. Between meetings, the Representatives communicate by phone and through school visits with the Contacts for whom they serve as liaison to the Representatives’ committee. In these ways, their meetings compile information from, and distribute information to, teachers throughout the New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools.

By the end of December the Representatives had approved the following five seminars for 2002: “The Middle East in Film and Literature” (Ellen Lust-Okar, Assistant Professor of Political Science); “Survival Stories” (Amy Hungerford, Assistant Professor of English and American Studies); “War and Peace in the Twentieth Century” (Bruce Russett, Professor of Political Science); “Environmental Health” (John Wargo, Associate Professor of Environmental Risk Analysis and Policy, and Associate Professor of Political Science); and “Biology and History of Ethnic Violence and Sexual Oppression” (Robert Wyman, Professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology). In January 2002 a sixth seminar would be approved: “The Craft of Writing” (Thomas R. Whitaker, Frederick W. Hilles Professor Emeritus of English).

Twenty-four years ago, when the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute was created out of the History Project, the Director and a half-time administrative assistant were allowed to use the History offices in the Hall of Graduate Studies. When A. Bartlett Giamatti became President of the University, he wanted to find a place where administrative programs in the Humanities could be together. He therefore established, in the former Trinity Church Parish Hall that the University had purchased, the Whitney Center for the Humanities. That seemed a fitting place for the Teachers Institute, which became one of the original occupants of the Center.

As the Institute staff grew over the years, especially with the inauguration of the National Demonstration Project, that space became inadequate to house its operations. Looking ahead toward what would be required for the continuing Yale National Initiative, the Institute saw the need to move to an office space that could house a staff that would continue to grow. It also needed to place many historical records in the Yale archives and to find off-site storage for its file of earlier publications, which could than be recalled as needed to replenish sets in the schools.

(image available in print form)

View of the New Haven Green and Yale University from the new Institute offices at 195 Church Street.

The new quarters on the eleventh floor of 195 Church Street are both spacious and appropriate. Overlooking both the Yale campus and the New Haven Green, those quarters recall the Institute logo, which represents Yale as a field of blue and New Haven as a field of green. New furniture was delivered in August; the staff moved in September; files were moved in November; and the final delivery of Institute property occurred in December. At that time, Institute files were placed in the Yale archives, and Institute publications were sent to off-site storage. The academic functions of the Teachers Institute—its seminars and talks, and some other meetings—will continue, as always, to take place on the Yale University campus.

Steering Committee

The Steering Committee, composed of school teachers who have played leading roles in the Institute at various times since its inception, has responsibility for long-range planning and the implementation of pilot and other new activities of the Institute. Members of the Steering Committee are selected by the Institute Director. A Steering Committee member must be—and must intend to continue as—a teacher in one of New Haven’s public schools. By agreeing to serve as a Steering Committee member, a teacher accepts the following responsibilities. Each member:

1. Exerts leadership and participates actively in one or more of the following areas: establishment and development of Institute Centers for Professional and Curriculum Development in specific schools; preparation of system-wide curricula drawing on Institute curriculum units; development and use of electronic resources and communications; planning and conduct of after-school, Saturday, and summer Academies for teaching Institute units to New Haven students; conduct of interdisciplinary or inter-grade teamwork in specific schools; and organization and provision of technical assistance to Teacher Institute demonstration sites in other cities.

2. Attends and comes prepared to meetings twice monthly and takes professional days when needed to carry out these responsibilities.

3. Participates as an Institute Fellow in the spring and summer following selection as a Steering Committee member.

During 2001 the Steering Committee consisted of Jean E. Sutherland, Peter N. Herndon, Carolyn N. Kinder, and Dina K. Secchiaroli. The Steering Committee operates as teacher leaders for each sphere of Teachers Institute work. It has also assumed responsibility for leadership and assessment of the Centers, and this provided its main work for 2001. It dealt with the documentation of Center use and activity, the relations with the school district and with principals, the awarding of eight mini-grants to advance Academic Plans in the high school Centers, and the process of renewing Institute Centers and establishing new ones. In the spring it conducted a meeting with Center Coordinators and planned the Forum for the Centers and the Retreat for Center Leaders. It began to consider how, without continuing grant support, the Centers could become more systemic and self-sustaining.

(image available in print form)

Steering Committee meeting. (Clockwise from left: Steering Committee members Carolyn N. Kinder, Dina K. Secchiaroli, Jean E. Sutherland, Director James R. Vivian, and Peter N. Herndon.)

The Steering Committee also handled the preliminary planning for the Summer Academy, and it helped to plan the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute’s participation in the Third Annual Conference of the National Demonstration Project on October 19-20. Late in the year it undertook a re-examination of the Institute’s leadership structure. It considered expanding the teacher leadership to include the Steering Committee, Implementation Team, Anniversary Planning Committee, and Contacts. It also re-examined the other leadership roles that had existed, in their relationship to each other. In doing so, it also rethought the positions that should exist within each Center school.

The Steering Committee also followed through concerning the new Reference Lists that show the relationship of many Institute-developed curriculum units to school curricula and academic standards. It conferred with the Associate Superintendent concerning communications with principals, arranged presentations to staff developers and library-media specialists, and arranged for presentations at the curriculum meetings attended by those teachers working within each subject-matter area.

Yale faculty members advise and assist the Institute through the University Advisory Council and its Executive Committee, both appointed by the Yale President. (For members of these bodies, see Appendix.) The Advisory Council guides the general direction of the program and acts as a course-of-study committee so that the Institute can certify Fellows’ work to institutions where they may be pursuing advanced degrees. The Council also advises the Yale President on the Institute and, more generally, on matters concerning the University’s involvement with the schools locally and with public elementary and secondary education nationally.

The University Advisory Council meets once each year; the Executive Committee ordinarily meets twice or more each semester. The co-chairs of the Council meet and communicate frequently with the Director between meetings. Members of the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee meet jointly from time to time to share information about their respective activities and to explore appropriate ways of working together. During 2001 Mary E. Miller and then Roberto González Echevarría became co-chairs of the Executive Committee, and Robin W. Winks joined the Executive Committee.

During 2001 the Executive Committee met in March, September, and October. At the March meeting James Vivian announced that the current and former co-chairs, acting in the stead of the Executive Committee as the Institute’s course-of-study committee, had formally approved the Institute’s offerings for 2001. The Executive Committee proceeded to plan the spring meeting of the University Advisory Council with President Levin. At the September meeting the Executive Committee helped to plan the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute’s participation in the Third Annual Conference of the National Demonstration Project. A Search Committee, composed of current and former Co-chairs, is beginning to discuss individuals who have applied or been referred for the positions of Associate Director and Assistant Director. At the October meeting, the Executive Committee discussed the results of the Third Annual Conference and the plans for a continuing National Initiative.

(image available in print form)

Meeting of the Executive Committee of the University Advisory Council. (Left to right: Thomas R. Whitaker, Rogers M. Smith, Mary E. Miller, Jules D. Prown, and Director James R. Vivian.)

On April 4 the full University Advisory Council held its eighth annual meeting with President Levin. Co-chair Rogers M. Smith opened the meeting by welcoming the members and announcing that, beginning in this second semester, Mary E. Miller had assumed a position as co-chair, replacing Sabatino Sofia. Mary E. Miller then set forth briefly the purpose of the meeting: to consider certain questions about the organizational structure, during the next phase of the Institute’s national initiative, of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and a proposed national association of Teachers Institutes.

Director James R. Vivian then described the successful balancing during the past year of the demands of the Institute’s local and national commitments. He summarized the seminars offered during 2000 and the range of teachers who participated. He outlined the planning that began last fall for the 2002 program, noting that the Teachers Representatives were able to devise offerings that encompassed the great majority of interests and needs expressed by the prospective applicants. He listed the six seminars now being offered, and summarized the range of schools from which the participants come. He also noted that the Institute’s offerings in the Humanities are supported by income from its endowment, whereas the seminars in the sciences are supported by a new two-year grant from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation and in part also by funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Grant to Yale. This is a short-term remedy for the Institute’s long-term need for secure funding for its work in the sciences. He observed that the greater-than-usual participation of high school teachers is attributable largely to the special initiative undertaken through the Institute Centers for Curriculum and Professional Development in high schools, which has been made possible by a two-year grant from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations.

(image available in print form)

University Advisory Council meeting, April 2001. (Clockwise from front center: Margaret A. Farley, Traugott Lawler, Rogers M. Smith, Richard C. Levin, Werner P. Wolf, Sabatino Sofia, Jules D. Prown, Frederick L. Holmes, Kurt W. Zilm, Jock M. Reynolds, Gary L. Haller, Ian Shapiro, James R. Vivian, Mary E. Miller, Thomas R. Whitaker, Howard R. Lamar, and Robert J. Wyman.)

Vivian then summarized the accomplishments of the national initiative. He was now guardedly optimistic that each of the four new Teachers Institutes will be self-sustaining after the ending of the support provided through the grant from the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest fund. He described the new fourteen-year, $63.8 million initiative that had been developed during the past year, which is designed to help sustain the existing Institutes including our own, and create a network of similar Institutes in states across the nation. The proposal envisions that, during the first two years, the four new Teachers Institutes will intensify their efforts, conduct research to document their effectiveness, and discover how to have the most important systemic effects within their districts, regions, or states. The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, while conducting similar research, will establish a national association of Teachers Institutes, which will assist in the expansion of the network of Teachers Institutes. It may also be able during these first two years to establish one or two additional Institutes at nationally important sites. (For more complete details, see below, “The Continuing National Initiative.”)

Thomas R. Whitaker expanded on Vivian’s report, emphasizing the Executive Committee’s earlier development of a Draft Proposal for the establishment over a twelve-year period of 27-45 new Institutes in many states. That Draft Proposal, which was shared with President Levin, was then the basis for discussions on November 28, 2000, by the National Advisory Committee and a meeting of University and School District Administrators from the National Demonstration Project with President Levin (as has been reported in the Annual Report for 2000). Whitaker summarized the suggestions made by members of the National Advisory Committee about the kinds of preliminary work that should probably be carried out before launching upon this ambitious plan. It was urged that the Proposal be modified to include a two-year preparation phase, during which all five of the existing Teachers Institutes would be engaged in a process of consolidation, intensification, and preparation. Each new Institute would engage in research on its own kinds of effectiveness and investigate the best ways to have systemic effects within its city, state, or region. At the same time, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute would engage in similar research into its own accomplishments, would reflect on what it has learned during the National Demonstration Project, and would gear up for work on the next major effort. Additional advice was now being sought from the University Advisory Council about that modified Proposal.

(image available in print form)

University Advisory Council meeting, April 2001. (Left to right: Rogers M. Smith, Richard C. Levin, Murray J. Biggs, Werner P. Wolf, Sabatino Sofia.)

Rogers M. Smith presented for discussion this question: In the next phase of the Institute’s national initiative, what should be the organizational structure of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute and the national association of Teachers Institutes? He presented three options: 1) Administer the next phase and the National Association as a program within the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute; 2) create in New Haven a relatively autonomous office for the national association, with the local Institute as a separate activity administered by a Director or Deputy Director; or 3) look for some national educational body that might serve as a partner in this initiative.

Mary E. Miller then presented a second question, inextricable from the first: Should the new phase and the national association both be led by Yale and Yale people, or should the national association be an independent body with the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute as one member?

James Vivian listed possible national partners, noting that their attractiveness would depend on their constituency and those in charge at any moment. President Levin saw no advantage in finding a partner. He thought that, if we obtained funds for the grant, we could support the necessary staff. Another member added that any national partner would have its own agenda, and we should take that possibility off the table. There was soon a consensus in support of this position.

In discussing the possibility of an autonomous national association, it was noted that there would continue to be problems of “quality control” in a “franchising operation.” President Levin warned that our partners understandably would like to contribute to the effort, and we should capitalize on that desire when possible. He thought we should be open to adaptations, for some might be better adapted to their contexts than the original model. He urged that Yale be a leader in this project but be prepared to use the initiatives of others. Indeed, he said, Yale must be a major presence in any initiative supported by a grant to Yale.

Several members then suggested a Yale National Project that would bring into being a National Association of which the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute would be a member. There emerged a consensus for a separate office for this National Project in New Haven, with it remaining a Yale-led project at least for the foreseeable future. President Levin said that we should not pre-commit to the size of the structure until we see what the funding might be. If the funding could be found, he said, a separate building for a national project office, and appropriate administrative staff, could be provided. As the meeting was being adjourned, he called to James Vivian’s attention as a possible strategy the structure through which the Yale-New Haven Hospital carried out its expansion to several other cities. The corporation in charge of that expansion and the Yale-New Haven Hospital have a single director, and the two entities have strongly allied deputy directors.

Local Program Documentation and Evaluation

Many evaluations of the Teachers Institute demonstrate that it assists schools in specific ways, and that the results are cumulative. (See especially A Progress Report on Surveys Administered to New Haven Teachers, 1982-1990 [New Haven: Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, 1992].) In the fall of 2001, the Institute updated its ongoing study of New Haven teachers who have been Fellows. This study notes the proportion of eligible teachers from each New Haven school and department who have participated, the number of times Fellows have completed the program, and whether Fellows have remained in teaching in New Haven. It showed that, of the 503 surviving New Haven teachers who have completed the program successfully at least once between 1978 and 1999, almost half (48 percent) are currently teaching in New Haven. An additional 42 (8 percent) have assumed full-time administrative posts in the school system. Thus more than half (56 percent) of all surviving Fellows since 1978 are currently working in New Haven Public Schools. These statistics are particularly encouraging because of the Institute’s determination to involve individuals who will continue to serve students in our urban school district. As we noted earlier, the increasing presence of former Fellows in administrative positions has rendered the Institute more visible and has encouraged other teachers to participate in its program.

As Table 2 (above) shows, a considerable number of current elementary school teachers in New Haven (13 percent) have completed successfully at least one year of the Institute. (Elementary school teachers were first admitted in 1990.) As Table 3 (below) shows, 33 percent of New Haven high school teachers of subjects in the humanities and sciences, 30 percent of transitional school teachers, and 28 percent of middle school teachers have also done so. A number of teachers have participated for two to twenty-one years. Of those Fellows still teaching in New Haven 40 percent have participated in the Institute once, 30 percent either two or three times, and 30 percent between four and twelve times. On the other hand, of those Institute Fellows who have left the New Haven school system, 50 percent completed the program only once, and 34 percent took part two or three times. Only 36 Fellows who have left (16 percent) completed the program four or more times. Thus the Institute’s cumulative influence in the New Haven school system and its likely effects upon retaining teachers are indicated by the fact that it has worked in the most sustained way with those who have chosen to remain in teaching in the New Haven Public Schools.

In 1996 members of the National Advisory Committee suggested that the Institute engage in fuller documentation of its work beyond the seminars themselves, and of the wider effects of its program in the school system. They believed they were hearing from teachers and staff about many valuable results of the Institute’s work that should be documented in forms that could be made more widely available. The Institute is therefore now documenting more fully the work of teams in the schools, the activities of the Centers and Academies, and the development of electronic resources. This documentation has been summarized in earlier sections of this report.

In addition to their worldwide circulation in electronic form, the curriculum units, the current guide to the units, and the cumulative index to the units are given annual circulation in print. They are supplied to current Fellows and Seminar Leaders, and to New Haven Public School supervisors and administrators, and are deposited in all school libraries in the New Haven district. They remain in print so that sets in the schools can be restocked when necessary.

The Annual Report is itself a massive compilation of information and statistics drawn from a variety of sources, including the questionnaires completed by Fellows and seminar leaders, the tracking of all previous Fellows, statistics pertaining to the New Haven Public Schools, demographic analyses, minutes of meetings, reports from the Centers, reports from the new Institutes in the National Demonstration Project, reports to funders, and so forth. The work that provides material for its preparation extends over the entire year. The Annual Report is available online at the Institute’s Web-site.