[etni] More on Hots

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: