*AJ Schiera

Journal 17
April 30, 2015
I haven't yet had an opportunity to reflect on my experience teaching the Urban
Education course in the first semester, and how it impacted my work as a school leader.
First some narration: I didn't fully get a chance to do what I wanted to do in the course.
I've taught Urban Education to high schoolers once before-- and built the course to help students
see themselves as experts on schooling, and to put their experiences with education in the context
of school and societal forces that often limit the possibilities for low income urban youth of
color. At Parkway, I designed the first unit to help position students as "syllabus consultants,"
reviewing various syllabi for university courses on urban education across the country in order
position them as experts on the experiences of students in urban education settings. (Seems like
a good plan.) However, as I only taught the course two days a week-- and two other days, the
students in my course were paying tuition for a dual enrollment Arcadia University sociolgy
course. Understandably, students were much more concerned about dedicating time and effort in
that class. Ultimately, I rearranged the course to one that facilitated student choice, rotating
between study hall, tutoring, conversations about college and college applications, and a round
table discussion about issues in urban education. (Well, as you know, flexibility is a habit of
mind all educators need, especially instructional leaders.) When not enough students elected to
lay for for (?) the second semester dual enrollment course, psychology, the course was cancelled.
I want to say that I recognize the limitations if comparing teaching one course two days a
week, when I intern two days a week, to the possibility of teaching one course five days a week
as a full-time principal or assistant principal. If I were a full time school leader, and wanted to
make good on my belief about also teaching a course, it might be one that I ought to co-teach, or
it might be important not to happen in my first few years in school leadership. (Both of these are
good/realistic observations. I have wanted to teach a course for the last 9 years, but
unfortunately, I havent been able to make it happen yet. I will not give up on this idea, but I
do realize that if/when it happens, itll be co-taught.) Nevertheless, I do strongly believe that it
was a valuable experience I would want to replicate down the line.
First, it has been an incredibly important way to built relationships with students in a
format other than as "the principal," and to gather a deep understanding of how students are
experiencing the academic and social dimensions of school. (I can appreciate this. As I have
mentioned to you many times before, I do not believe there is anything more important than
building positive relationships with students. This can be accomplished in a myriad of ways.)
Through the relationships I built with students, I was able to help navigate other school climate
issues (e.g., having a relationship with students to help them and their friends get to class on
time, or mediating conflicts that those teachers had with other students or with teachers).
Additionally, I could participate in conversations with teachers about what instructional
strategies work for particular students. (And trust me, the list goes on and on.) Those
relationships with students have gone a long way, academically and socially, in the work I have
done as a school leadership intern.

Secondly, it is potentially and important experience to draw in when having

conversations with staff about instruction. From my prior experiences as a teacher in
Philadelphia, I know the experience of assistant principals "regifting" district-created
professional development without thinking about teachers' experiences, and evaluating teachers'
pedagogy in informal and formal observations as "experts" when they have not taught for dozens
of years. (Good observation.) There's a dimension of tone and a dimension of experience in this
critique, but in both cases, the experience of continuing to teach allows an administrator to still
empathize with teachers. They can acknowledge that district-created PD presentations that make
it seem like some technique is a silver bullet reduces the complexity of the work teachers do.
And they can lush back against teachers who suggest that new approaches to teaching and
learning can't be learned, or don't work for "these" kids. Because I only taught two days per
week, I didn't leverage it too much at Parkway, but I do think that it's a valuable ability for an
administrator to talk about their instructional abilities, challenges, and growth alongside that of
teachers. (It certainly is. You can effectively do this whether you are only teaching two classes
a week or none. Your professional/expert credibility can and must be established in other
ways. Actively seek them out, and dont fail to recognize them wen they are right in front of
you.)
AJ,
I know that you are swamped, and I appreciate your serious efforts at reflection. But
at this time of year, when I am in the middle of end-of-year summatives, I am reminded of the
importance of communicating (i.e. teacher to administrator and vice versa) accurately.
Therefore, without trying to be too picayune, remember to always proofread your submissions.
This kind of accuracy will lend to the credibility you seek/need to engage in productive
professional conversations with your staff.