Amy’s name is on the “Wall of Fame” in the History Department Offices at Grand Valley State University.  In the last semester of her senior year as a member of  the Honors College she was voted “Most Outstanding Social Studies Major” by the department’s faculty.  I was proud to accompany her and meet her family at the awards ceremony.  Amy was from the east side of the state originally but decided to stay on the west side of Michigan to pursue employment and she was hired by the Fruitport Public School District.  A few years later Amy was part of a large group of teachers from Ottawa and Muskegon Counties who participated in a “Teaching American History Grant” which featured workshops during the school year, as well as summer institutes over a period of years.  Amy was an active part of these meetings where she displayed the same characteristics of insight and energy which drew the Department’s accolades during her time as a student at GVSU.

On a snowy February day in 2008 I made my first visit to her classroom.  At that time Fruitport and many other area schools decided to use the trimester model in structuring their school year and day.  Amy was teaching World History to a mix of freshman and sophomore students.  When I walked into her classroom the first time I immediately noticed that she had the weekly class schedule and daily goals written on the whiteboard, a common characteristic for many teachers in Michigan and across the United States.  There was student work in the form of posters up on the classroom walls, along with some commercially produced posters.  Amy related that the school district had adopted a new policy this school year.  If a student maintained a grade of B or better that student would not have to take the cumulative final exam.  She announced to the class that day that there was an attendance appeals process and that exam waiver applications were available.  Later in the day Amy related a story to me about an “A” student who decided to stop working toward the end of last semester when she found out she did not have to do anything to maintain her grade.  That student became a behavior problem and Amy had to have her removed from the class. The class cheered her removal (Amy, f.n., p.8, 2008).  The final exams were collaboratively constructed by the faculty at Fruitport.  Amy said that working through hundreds of questions to find commonality amongst the teachers on staff was “interesting”. She commented that the test generator that came with the textbook had many questions that went beyond the more general Michigan standards and its benchmarks. In some cases, she had modified the questions to match the standards (Amy, f.n., p.5, 2008).

At this point in the class Amy directed the students in making corrections to their homework.  They used colored pencils to show the difference between their original work and their corrections.  The homework focused on the Chinese Communist Revolution.  Amy discussed the peasant support for Mao and made comparisons and contrasts between the Russian and Chinese Revolutions.  During this discussion Amy sounded confident and well-grounded in her content knowledge. The students seemed engaged in their corrections. After the homework was collected Amy explained to me that she makes a quick check and assigns points for the fact that the work is completed, while checking that the students graded it and really corrected it.  She had over 40 assignments posted in last marking period for this class.

Next Amy had the students do a photo interpretation of the Tiananmen Square Revolt. What did the photos say and what did that image mean to them?  Amy brought in the students’ prior knowledge from “readings from a while ago.”  The students showed signs that they remembered what she was talking about.  At that point Amy did some “telescoping” from the 1940s to the present time, something that the new state standards asked teachers to do.  Later Amy told me that her department had not done any serious curriculum alignment to the new standards but that work was planned for the next summer.

Amy moved on to a slide show presentation on the history of the Philippines using her computer tied to a classroom projector.  She prompted the students to add extra notes and draw pictures on the side of the Power Point notes she handed out if those illustrations helped the students understand what they were learning.  At one point in her lecture she asked the students if they knew the meaning of “martial law” and no one knew.  In her later classes she did not ask her students for a definition.  I asked her about her change in strategy and she said she didn’t want to embarrass her students or waste their time if they didn’t know and that she used the first hour class as a guide to all the students’ background knowledge.

In a quickly paced discussion Amy moved on to talk about North and South Korea and Taiwan.  She stopped at this point in the lecture and asked her students who won the Chinese Revolution and they knew from the previous day’s lesson and last night’s homework that the Communists had been victorious.  Amy was adept at incorporating maps on her slides and using a laser pointer in order to draw attention to certain locations and features and make connections to the lecture.  In several places in her slideshow she typed in “Main Idea” in order to help her students comprehend the focal points of the lecture. This was not necessarily a direct connection to the new state standards but it certainly was a connection.

At this point in the lesson Amy had her students read and interpret a chart in a three to five-minute activity.  Amy told me later that she got the chart from the textbook.  During this activity she allowed for cooperative group learning.  She told me that she was not keen on group work during her college career, but it was a focus at her school and she seemed to see the sense in it now, in terms of student learning (Amy, f.n., p.3, 2008). The chart compared Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea in terms of their economic growth between 1986 and 2004.  The questions posed were: How did the economies change?  Was there constant growth for all three countries? The directions included using data from the chart to support the students’ answers.  Throughout the day in all her classes Amy made connections between this chart activity and standard economic issues like business “boom” and “bust” and the business cycle. She also asked what the difference was between the “Asian Tigers” (booming economies) and the under-developed Pacific Rim countries of the 1960s.  The students answered, “lack of industry and little trade” (Amy, f.n., p. 3, 2008).  After completing the explication of the chart Amy moved the class back into a small group activity.  In groups of 4 she had the students share what they learned from the slide show presentation.  The groups seated near me did a good job-sharing information and their ideas.  During this time Amy moved amongst the groups, answering and asking questions and probing their background knowledge.

Throughout the day Amy did a good job in task planning and class management.  There never seemed to be any “down time” and the students seemed to be focused and engaged in the lesson.  Every activity seemed well-timed and the students moved in and out of the various groups well.  Later Amy told me that faculty used a student survey to add the “Main Ideas” to the slide presentations.  The students admitted that they had trouble seeing the main ideas in their learning and acquisition of knowledge so the teachers responded and revised their presentations in request to the students’ needs.

Amy next moved the class to a map activity.  Using their chapter notes and the descriptions of the countries studied the students labeled the countries and then color-coded each country based on multiple sets of data.  Some countries would have multiple colors or dots.  Amy modeled this activity in each class so the students had an understanding of what to do.  Amy prompted the students to check their answers with her before they started coloring their maps.  This was an easy assessment for her to do in order to check for student understanding.  Before releasing the students to the activity Amy asked the class if they understood her directions and there were no questions.  As she walked around the room checking on student progress it was obvious that there were no problems with the instructions.

There were basically three different activities during this class period.   Amy did a good job throughout the day moving amongst the students’ desks during group work, checking for understanding and assisting students.  Amy gave her students good in-depth answers to their questions and it was apparent that she was up to date on current world events.  During the group activities the students had good exchanges of information and it seemed that the students were processing and applying their new knowledge to the questions Amy provided.  When Amy encountered an incorrect answer or deduction by a student she used the phrase or prompt, “re-think” in order to lead the student to the correct answer.  She made the process a positive one for the student instead of simply saying, “wrong answer” or “no.”  She prompted students’ thinking by giving hints, clues or asking other questions and by saying, “think about it first before answering” (Amy, f.n., p.4, 2008).

Toward the end of the class while discussing homework assignments with me, Amy explained that the school had two sets of textbooks, a classroom set and a “home” set for student use due to the fact that twice the publishing company had a faulty printing.  What a difference between this school and many of the schools I visited where the teachers considered themselves lucky to have even a classroom set of textbooks!

This year was the first time Fruitport used the trimester system.  The class periods were 75 minutes long, but with a “late start” day today classes were about an hour in length.  My school district in Kansas utilized “late start” days as teacher in-service or professional development days. With a few “late start” days thrown into the schedule the district could eliminate taking whole days out of the yearly schedule for P.D.

I asked Amy during the day how she felt about teaching the same class all day long.  She told me that she would prefer teaching the same class only twice a day.  As many teachers have related to me throughout my career, after teaching the same subject several times a day, they forget what they said from one class to the next, even with the benefit of prepared slideshows. Amy did admit, though that the slideshows, with the use of supplemental section of the slideshow print out, and good planning did take care of some of the problem.

Throughout the day Amy displayed a good sense of humor with her students.  At one point in a class one of the students said that Texas and China were the same size and Amy chided him, “no, they’re not” with a smile and then showed him the World map on her back wall in order to prove to him the size difference, while at the same time explaining that map projections may be off a little in size (as are all projections).

Amy’s Third Hour class had a higher than normal number of special needs students so this particular hour had a para-professional in the classroom who team taught with Amy.  It was obvious in her interactions with the students under her care that the para did not have the background knowledge and understanding of the slideshow that Amy did and in alleviating any potential problems with student learning Amy seamlessly stepped in and supported the para.  They seemed to have a good working relationship.

In contrast to the other classes that day this class seemed to be less engaged in the lesson.  Amy corrected their behavior with the comment that “this class has been too rowdy in the last five minutes” (Amy, f.n, p.8, 2008).  She explained to the class that they would not be allowed group work this hour due to lack of focus.  At that point the para took five of the students out of the class in order to work with them on the map activity.  The class immediately became quiet and engaged in their work, however this class did not get as far into the planned activities as the other two classes so they were assigned the unfinished work as homework.

Amy’s last class of the day followed a similar pattern to the other classes, except this class finished the same amount of work that the first two classes completed.  The students were attentive, were able to answer the questions that Amy posed and were able to work in the group activities with no behavioral problems.  Amy’s classes averaged in the low 20s throughout the day, with no class over 25 students.  I failed to ask her if class size was capped at the mid-20s.  I also did not ask her if she made allowances for the lack of progress in her third hour class in any other way than assigning homework for what they did not complete.  Many times, schools that have common assessments have common testing days and a set testing schedule like that causes problems when classes do not tightly adhere to the same teaching schedule.

Video Interview 2008

Defining Success, 2008

Amy’s definition for her own success in teaching compared to Abby’s.  Although she knew that she would be judged by how well her students performed on the state standardized tests, it was more important to her that her students understood the material and started to like history. She thought too many kids hated history.  Amy wanted her students to see how history connects to the present.  She thought if the students saw the connections they would be more interested in current events in the world and not be the student who said, “I don’t watch the news” (Amy, v.t., p.1, 2008).  I did hear that comment from one of her students, even though the student did say his father watched the news.  At that point I told Amy that my notes throughout the day showed that she made constant comparisons or cause and effect relationships between the time period and places she was teaching and what was happening in the world today.

She also pointed out where she thought she was failing.  She felt she needed to bring in more news articles, but was limited in that current events approach by the stress to cover content.  She felt she was able to inject more critical thinking opportunities with her upperclassmen and less with freshmen because the lower classes needed the background knowledge in order to set a base for higher level critical thinking.  She went back to her main focus of trying to get her students to like history and getting them to pay more attention to what was going on in the world.  She also set as a goal improving her students’ writing skills, citing her observation that many students use language more attuned to social media communications.

On a different level, Amy thought that successful teachers had to be able to “try new things and work with their colleagues in trying to develop new ideas by brainstorming and the willingness to take chances in improving their teaching and their students’ learning”.  She said that once in a while she had heart to heart conversations with her classes about her teaching and asked them what she might do better in helping them learn.  She admitted that whether it was collaborating with colleagues or asking students for feedback, there is some fear about taking criticism.  She said that as long as a teacher remembers that she works for her students it is easier to lay herself open to criticism.  The root goal, Amy maintained, was to get students to like history. If that goal was achieved then the students would feel comfortable learning and it would follow that they would do well on the standardized tests (Amy, v.t., p.2, 2008).

While Amy supported the idea that GVSU had prepared her well for her teaching career, she also had help from her family, who were all involved in education.  Like she said in 2008, “I knew what I was getting into when I went into education” (Amy, v.t., p.2, 2008).  Amy has since left her classroom and is now working as a Field Coordinator for Project BEST  at the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District.  I know many of my former students have told me that even with what amounts to a 5-year teacher preparation program at GVSU nothing prepares a teacher for their first few years in teaching nor for all of the complex issues that accompany the profession no matter how many years they have been teaching.  Amy did admit that she was well versed in the theories of classroom management but it took her two semester experiences in teacher-assisting and student teaching to really get an idea of how she might operate.  She was ‘handcuffed’ somewhat because one of her coordinating teachers had experience in elementary and not secondary teaching and Amy did not think “counting to three like this…” (she showed her hand with individual fingers going up) was going to work for high school students (Amy, v.t., p.2, 2008).

Content, 2008

Next I asked Amy what content areas she felt best prepared to teach when she left the university and she immediately answered, “The Holocaust” (Amy, v.t., p.3, 2008).  I was expecting an entire subject area so her answer took me somewhat aback. I followed up with a question concerning the gaps she perceived existed in her preparation and her response was that she felt an Honors’ history course in the Holocaust, plus the fact that she had contact with the information on other history courses, best prepared her for teaching that area in history.  Since Amy was a Social Studies major instead of a History major she did not have to take as many history courses as the History majors with teaching certification. On the other hand, her major granted her an RX (Social Studies) certification versus a CC certification which allowed Amy to teach more subjects and usually makes those teachers with the RX endorsement more employable (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/courses_taught_by_endorsement_523203_7.pdf, p. 6-7, accessed January, 16, 2018). In her time at Fruitport Amy taught U.S. History and Government and World History and she thought she would be teaching Economics in the near future.  She admitted that her weakest area was non-western World History, but at the time she went through GVSU’s program there was only a weak emphasis on those areas in World History.  In other words, it was more Western Civilizations than it was World History.

Strategies and Methods, 2008

In terms of teaching methods and strategies Amy felt GVSU prepared her well for the use of basic technology, for example, Power Point presentations, and she reinforced the idea that she had a decent theoretical background in classroom management.  Looking back, she was also glad that GVSU emphasized doing group work in classes because working with groups is a ‘real world’ skill and it was one teaching method that she did not appreciate as a student (Amy, v.t., p.4, 2008).  She admitted that she still needed to work on her ability in using differentiated instruction.  Her interpretation in 2008 was that differentiation was like preparing a different lesson plan for each student. She did do that for the special education students in her classes but it was more a lessening of an assignment, “do one instead of doing one through seven” (Amy, v.t., p.5, 2008) versus preparing an individualized lesson based on a student’s needs.  Her training in differentiated instruction up to that point in her career was more of an admonishment along the lines of, “you should do differentiated instruction”, but she did not receive specific examples or models on how to plan for this type of instruction without taking 12 hours to prepare for one class lesson based on every student’s needs and capabilities.  She admitted that she tends to ‘teach to the middle’, knowing that sometimes she loses both ends of her classes. Amy tried to use peer tutoring through mixed ability grouping, but she did not want to put the “really good student in the position of ‘now I have to pull these kids up and I could be doing extra stuff without them’” (Amy, v.t., p.6, 2008).  She also said it took a colleague at Fruitport to teach her that she need not grade every single thing every student does, but rather grade some things with the help of the students in class or simply spot check items in certain assignments.  Her first-year routine included going home at night and grading every item in every assignment every night at the tune of three hours an evening (Amy, v.t., p.6, 2008).  She honestly could not tell me if any course at GVSU mentioned how to survive grading or if she just forgot if that particular skill was mentioned.

Amy related that the history professors did a good job in helping her ‘think historically’ and that preparation helped her focus her students on causal relationships and critical thinking skills. In particular the SWS or Supplemental Writing Skills course work helped her with writing and posing critical thinking questions (Amy, v.t., p.6, 2008).  She told me that she took all four SWS courses that the History Department offered so she was unsure if the non-SWS courses shared the same critical thinking approach.  Part of the writing regimen provided for her was detailed feedback and she knew that feedback was time-intensive.  With high student class loads she was uncertain if all professors or teachers would be able to deal effectively with the grading time that essay-driven assessment with detailed feedback required.

Pearls of Wisdom, 2008

Amy’s first advice to future teachers was that no one knows everything and a teacher will never be able to predict what students may ask. Good teachers must be life-long learners. The best practice was an offer to look up the information together with the student and thereby model continual learning.  Next, she offered, “Don’t grade everything”.  There is much more to teaching and it is more fulfilling and a better use of a teacher’s time in preparing better lesson plans and planning new simulations. Find time to relax.  Get help from other teachers.  She benefitted from having a great group of colleagues in the Social Studies Department at Fruitport. They shared ideas and helped each other out (Amy, v.t., p.8, 2008). Amy went so far as to tell future teachers that if they found themselves in a school where the teachers in their department did not share and did not support each other, it was time to find another school.  That non-supportive, negative atmosphere would ruin a career.

The next time I contacted Amy concerning my research and the next round of visits and interviews something had changed.  In our communication she related that her career had reached a point where she needed a change.  Amy was unhappy with the state of teacher evaluations and the fact that due to a lack of state funding, the rising cost of health insurance and the negative changes in the teacher pension program (teachers would have to contribute more and, possibly, get less in return). (Note:  the State Supreme Court recently ruled that the changes in the teacher pension program by the state legislature were unconstitutional and the monies diverted and placed in escrow during the court battle would have to be returned to the pension fund Supreme Court ruling http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/RecentCourtOrders/17-18-Orders/154117-19.pdf accessed January 17, 2018. Mlive article: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/michigan_supreme_court_orders.html accessed January 17, 2018.) After researching other teaching and educational administrative positions Amy informed me that she took a position recently at the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District.

With that information as a backdrop when I contacted Amy in 2014 about returning for a day in her classroom and then recording an interview, she said that her busy schedule precluded a visit and an interview, but she did agree to send me her answers to my interview questions.

Defining Success, 2015

Amy’s definition of “success” in teaching had not changed much.  She still focused on critical thinking and her students’ ability to ask questions about what they were learning.  She agreed that the students should learn how to deal successfully with the state standards and her job was to help success engage with those standards.  Amy added that success depended on working effectively with colleagues as well as developing respect in the classroom to the point that behavioral problems were managed effectively. At this point in her career she stated that she had “evolved” from her time at GVSU.  She added to the basic content knowledge she received during her undergraduate years through travel programs and research.  She thought the university provided a good foundation for classroom management and how to structure a lesson.  An area of improvement would be to have more instruction on writing good tests and formative assessments that would be easier to grade and that those tests and assessments would provide good feedback to the teacher and the students (Amy, Dixon New Sabbatical Research Questions for 2015, p.1, 2015).

Challenges, 2015

In response to my question about the biggest challenges to her career she responded, “Besides politicians? :)” (Amy, Dixon New Sabbatical Research Questions for 2015, p.1, 2015).  At this point in her career she felt that the change in laws regarding education and negotiation were the result of lack of respect for public education by the general public and the government.  She felt fortunate that in her time at Fruitport she did not have huge overriding issues, but the decrease in her overall salary and benefits, a lack of dedication by some of her colleagues and an administration that was not consistent or overly competent frustrated her (Amy, Dixon New Sabbatical Research Questions for 2015, p.1, 2015).  She admitted that she almost left teaching a few years ago but she since had two good years in a row and that had changed her mind.

Dealing With Stress, 2015

A good support system made up from friends and school and her family members involved in education helped Amy deal with the challenges and stresses in her career.  It is good to have a group of people who work towards solutions to problems or at least allow you to vent your frustrations from time to time.  She has traveled widely and she runs for physical exercise and stress relief.  Reading is another escape that helped her unwind (Amy, questions, p.1-2, 2015).

Motivation, 2015

I asked all of the participants who were still in education how they stay motivated, now that they were several years into their teaching careers.  Amy replied that she saw motivation as part of her job.  Teachers are expected to be motivated because that is what they do.  They want their students to be successful and part of that drive to the best job for their students is to be motivated. The motivation involves being good at her job and having the respect of her colleagues and administrators (Amy, questions, p.2, 2015).

Changes in Strategies and Methods, 2015

One of the changes in Amy’s approach to teaching over time was the reduction in grading and that reduction saved her “much time and stress”.  She increased the speed of grading by quick checks and monitoring students as they worked.  She increased the amount of quick reviews and formative assessments throughout her units and in doing so she caught and corrected students’ misconceptions.  Amy said that students’ knowledge on the test became the most important and highest weight on grading. Reflecting back on her earlier comments, both in 2008 and in 2015 I think she made a pragmatic statement here.  Much of her focus was developing critical thinking skills, and just knowing information, while it helps informing and allowing for the development of critical thinking, does not appear to be an end in itself based on her statements.  She also changed her attitude on homework. She did not assign as much as she used to assign, in part because many students did not do it.  If she felt that work was important she made it an in-class assignment “so they can do it and do it well” (Amy, questions, p.2, 2015).  Another change to her teaching methods was to have students start the year or semester by choosing their own seating arrangements and then adjusting those arrangements based how well various students work with one another (Amy, questions, p.2, 2015).

Teaching Evaluations, 2015

Amy used multiple methods for assessing her students’ knowledge base and skills.  She definitely increased the amount of informal formative assessments in order to clear up misconceptions before the summative formal assessments.  The results of the formative assessments were shared by her Professional Learning Community so that those teachers might make changes in the questions on final exams and also in the methods and activities the teachers used in class (Amy, questions, p.2-3, 2015).  Amy did say that she reviewed her students’ test results in order to assess if some questions she devised were incorrectly worded, which might have led to incorrect answers. If she discerned that was so, she changed the wording.

She was quite frank about the lack of diagnostic help provided by the state standardized tests. She thought the timing of the tests during the year prevented using the results for any meaningful change in teaching and helping her students learn. She thought some questions on the state test were based on material that had not been taught by the time of the test.  In other words, the standards were not timed to deliver information necessary for student success on the high stakes test.

As far as her own evaluation by the administration, most of those evaluations happened through “drop-in” visits (short time in the classroom) by administrators and the feedback from these visits did little to improve her teaching. Toward the end of her time in her classroom, the district switched to the 5D Model of evaluation^[1]. She thought this model for teacher evaluation amounted to a checklist. In Amy’s words, “They scripted and coded everything that happened in the class, asked questions, and then sat down to discuss the results of their observation. I rarely found that these conversations moved my thinking forward or challenged me to look at classroom instruction in a new way. Overall, evaluations were positive but just did not help me improve my teaching” (Amy, email from 2015).

Mentoring, 2015

Like more than a few teachers in this study Amy was assigned a “mentor” that was not in her department. This person helped answer “logistical” questions but “provided little guidance when it came to teaching” (Amy, questions, p.3, 2015).  The school district provided new teacher meetings as well in her first year but neither those meetings nor the mentor had an impact on her teaching.  The most positive form of mentoring came from working with her department colleagues.  Whether it was sharing lesson ideas, materials and resources or providing guidance with classroom management or “navigating” the administration, “this informal mentoring has been invaluable” (Amy, questions, p.3, 2015).  New teachers need to know about attendance-taking, how, where and when to make copies, and school policies and that information can be relayed by a non-departmental mentor but that same information, placed in the context of a departmental mentor, who offers help with the full range of content background better serves the needs of new teachers.  I state this based on my years of experience in the classroom and comments from many of my past students, as well as colleagues in New York, Kansas, Michigan and from meeting with teachers at conferences around the United States.

Continuing Education, 2015

Like more than a few of my GVSU grads living near Grand Rapids Amy chose to take a Masters in Educational Leadership but with no idea that she would pursue an administrative position.  Part of her decision not to choose an administrative position was the lack of good role models in her school, but she did not lay the blame on the individuals themselves, but rather the fact that these administrators were “stretched too thin…with their responsibilities” (Amy, questions, p.3, 2015) This advanced degree allowed her to move on the salary schedule and maintain her certification.  There were, however, several continuing education programs and opportunities which Amy saw as very valuable. She was part of a group of teachers in Ottawa and Muskegon Counties who participated in the “Teaching American History” grant.  This grant was shaped around providing teachers with primary source material, deepened content knowledge and the methods to incorporate that content and those resources into their classrooms.  The grant work included workshops during the school year and a two-week summer institute.  Amy also participated in Gilder-Lehrman, National Endowment for the Humanities, Goethe-Institute and Foundation for Teaching Economics programs where she added to her content knowledge, lesson plan ideas and met other teachers from around the United States who had “a passion for teaching and also want(ed) to improve their classrooms”.  Amy said these programs helped to revitalize her teaching and go back to her classroom on a mission to do better every year (Amy, questions, p.3, 2015)

Pearls of Wisdom, 2015

Amy cautioned any students preparing to go into teaching that they need to know what has happened with pay and benefits.  For a long time in Michigan teachers did not have to worry about healthcare costs due to great insurance and the fact that even if the salary schedule started new teachers off on the low-end pay would steadily increase.  She cited the fact that some of the newer teachers at her school were making the same salary they did four years previously. Added to that teachers’ contributions to health care and pensions had increased significantly and therefore, overall, teachers were bringing home less money than they had before. No longer would there be that feeling of security for wages, healthcare and retirement that there used to be in Michigan (Amy, questions, p.4, 2015).