Attempting to carry on a conversation with the teachers of William Penn Middle School about their curriculum is, in a word, difficult. The curriculum of both academic and special area teachers is generally not something that is seen as an issue. The statewide testing scores for the school are good enough to keep them in the safe area, as far as government benchmarks go, and the teachers are at the liberty of their own best judgment as to how to go about presenting what is in the curriculum to the students. When trying to decide is there was anything worth inquiring about, I found myself drawn, not to the curriculum, but to the possibility of having “too much of a good thing.” The good thing is when a teacher finds a way of teaching that they believe works, and then exploiting it by using it in abundance and never changing it.
In the beginning of the school year Larry Ricci, the principle of William Penn Middle School, presented the past year’s statewide test scores. In his presentation, when he reached a score that had gone down significantly he would briefly mention the need for improvement in that area. His encouragement sounded something like, “we’ve got to keep an eye on those scores” or “let’s really try to improve on this area this year.” There was no immediate need to jump on the teachers of that department and criticize them for poor teaching, or deeply examine why the scores were dropping. Simply bringing attention to these scores, and the need for improvement, motivated everyone (especially with his use of “we”) to help the students. Working together, as a whole, is more effective than putting full responsibility on one or two teachers.
I was reminded of this in a conversation with Mr. Ricci three weeks later when we were speaking of the issues of curriculum. I asked Mr. Ricci what his reaction was to lowered test scores in relation to curriculum. Did he keep a watchful eye out for those departments which were suffering, and insist on a stricter adherence to the curriculum? His response was no, saying, “If the essential understandings of the material are there, then that’s the least that he can hope for.” Elaborating he said, “It’s too easy for teachers to get “stuck.” Going into teaching can be a terminal job, and if somebody doesn’t encourage you to keep changing, well then you’ll do it the same way year after year. We want to be on the cutting edge.” Knowing the nurturing character of Mr. Ricci, and his tendency to favor constructive learning and a student centered classroom, his response did neither surprised me, nor struck me as odd.
Mr. Ricci’s presentation in the beginning of the year was one of three, and the shortest of all. In the two days that we had for workshops, Mr. Ricci and the assistant principle presented the teachers with problem solving activities, which corresponded with many of the tenets of critical pedagogy that I have been taught. Mr. Ricci’s vision for the school as “cutting edge” is not a far cry away from where they presently are.