[etni] More on Hots
- From: James Backer <drjamesbacker@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Greetings, all!
I was very interested in reading the responses to my reflections about the HOTS
course. They have helped put things into perspective.
First of all, I was very glad to hear that the online course was successfully
structured and presented. As a distance instructor at various graduate schools
in the US and as a hybrid instructor in my high school in Israel, I'm very
pleased to hear about other teachers' positive experiences.
Most probably, the disorganized nature of my particular hybrid HOTS course was
due to the change in instructors mid-stream. This may have led to the confusion
in the folders and discussion fora. Nevertheless, I would like to thank both
of them for doing the best they could with the material and a bunch of
teachers who were, and continue to be, very wary about the implications of the
HOTS program.
In particular, I would like to thank the instructors for allowing us to discuss
and criticize (usually constructively) the HOTS program. It was obvious that
our feedback, as well as feedback from other HOTS courses, was indeed delivered
to the MOE. The changes in some of the points in the HOTS program may well have
been a result of our feedback. This of course, created changes in mid-stream,
which then caused confusion and more anxiety. I guess you can't have it both
ways. We have to recognize the fact that the MOE was listening and positively
reacted to *some* of our criticisms.
I would like to thank the members of the ETNI list for pointing out some of the
changes that did not get back to us - or perhaps I missed it when the
instructor told us about them. In particular, I learned about the dropping of
the "personal response" section from ETNI and not the course.
Make no mistake, HOTS have been around a long time and have been used by
teachers who continued to teach literature, although it did not appear on the
Bagrut, and probably by most teachers in other sub-topics of teaching English.
HOTS are incredibly important, but naming them and forcing the kids to do
meta-cognitive routines about HOTS seems to be a massive waste of time. Time is
one of the key resources we don't have enough of to really do our jobs the way
we want.
As Ruth pointed out, below, this is one of the key problems in the whole HOTS
program. We don't have the time, so to do the program correctly, we will be
once again donating our own time to supplement our official work time. We are
already subsidizing the MOE by doing unpaid extra work with the Projects and
the taping of materials for students with the appropriate accommodations. Now
we will be subsidizing the MOE even more by following the very rigid
requirements of the HOTS program and allowing the MOE to pay less for proctors
and correctors for Modules D and F as a result of our extra work. Where are the
F***ing unions? Isn't their protection in this type of problem what we pay our
dues for?
Unfortunately, I am teaching in the US at the moment and won't be able to go to
the meeting at ETAI. Please, please, please, get the Irgun representative to
understand the situation. Up until now, it has been obvious that they have been
working on only part of the problem.
One of the main problems with the HOTS program, once you get past the time
issue, is its rigidity. The official HOTS package of key components and all
stages of the chosen methodology does not have to be thrown at every piece of
literature that we do. In addition, there are some requirements that make no
sense at all. The demand that the two HOTS used for a short story and the three
HOTS used for the play/novel must be taught with the same methodology is very
silly indeed. The content should lead the teacher and students to the relevant
HOTS, in the relevant way to use them. And why only two and three HOTS? There
are plenty of pieces of literature that cry out for using more. The HOTS
program, as presented, is forcing us to squeeze the literature into
pre-existing molds that often don't suit the material.
This is what I meant when I used the term "gobbly-gook." The rigidity of the
HOTS program, as currently presented, and the silliness surrounding the
nomenclature is "gobbly-gook."
As for Constructivist classrooms, I'm all for it. We have to reject what Freire
termed "The Banking Model of Education," in which the teachers are seen as
tellers in a bank, making periodic deposits of knowledge into the accounts
(minds) of the students. (Sounds like traditional education, doesn't it?) This
desire to move away from the Banking Model and to Constructivism is foiled by
the HOTS program in at least two ways. First, the rigidity of the requirements
doesn't allow the students the needed flexibility to freely construct their own
mental models of the content material (See Piaget and Vygotsky). Second, the
HOTS program, as currently presented, eats up so much time, that there's none
left over for real Constructivist activities.
In conclusion, long live HOTS; but not in the rigid, unpaid for program that is
currently being demanded. The MOE has been responsive to our constructive
criticism up to a point, but it has to deal with the key issues of rigidity and
time (including paying for that time). In addition, the unions have to truly
understand our problems with the HOTS program, as currently presented, and
protect our interests as hard working, but underpaid, professionals.
Finally, my apologies to the hard working elementary and middle school
teachers. I had been told that many schools had mis-understood the not-so-New
Curriculum and stopped teaching grammar. If this is not the case in your school
then please accept my apologies. Nevertheless, for the various reasons
mentioned, the level of grammar of the incoming 10th graders is very, very low.
Jimmy
----- Original Message -----
From: Ruthi - rsheffer@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: HOTS
Joan writes:"Is it complicated? Yes. Do we have enough hours? No. Am I
nervous for next
year? Absolutely. How will I manage the project as well? Haven't got a
clue."
With all due respect ,Joan isnt this the main problem? Isn't that what we
are all complaining about. I am happy the course was well-structured and
that you enjoyed learning about the HOTS. But many of us are more concerned
about how we are going to cope in an already overloaded work situation WITH
NO EXTRA COMPENSATION for all our hard work.
Ruth
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
or - http://www.etni.org.il **
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » [etni] More on Hots - James Backer