SFUSD VAPA Itinerant Teacher’s Concerns: An Open Letter to SFUSD (March 2017)
Below is a letter written by Joseph Churchill and myself, representing SFUSD VAPA Itinerant Teachers, and our concerns regarding the way our program is being used at many sites — specifically as it relates to “Release Teaching” for Grade Level Collaboration (GLC) — an approach slated to become the norm moving forward.
I’ve had the good fortune to work with incredibly supportive communities - the last two years, phenomenally so! However I’m well aware that both I, and my situation, are unique.
This letter represents concerns brought forth repeatedly by itinerant teaching artists struggling to provide a quality arts education for their students.
Well used Grade Level Collaboration time is, from my perspective, invaluable for both students & teachers - with, I believe, much research existing to back this up. Based on my experiences though, it almost always takes place at the expense of whatever’s being taught during it’s time (whether it’s PE, Library, or any branch of the Arts).
There is an inverse correlation between the number of free & reduced lunches a school qualifies for (i.e. the number of students a school serves, who are living in poverty), and a school’s API (Academic Performance Index). Struggling schools - schools with lower API’s (within our district, formerly referred to as “Zone Schools”) have been mandated to implement GLC within the curricular day, and generally use the Arts, PE, and Libraries, or whatever / whomever is available, to cover classes during this time. Principals also, I believe, in an attempt to retain strong, highly qualified teachers, want to be able to to offer this time, in addition to personal prep time - as a means to attract, and / or retain a strong faculty; And in the midst of a Nation-Wide teacher shortage, understandably so.
The problem is that’s it’s precisely in these schools - schools in which both student safety and success is even more highly dependent, and I believe correlated to, the presence of a strong classroom teacher - that this model is being implemented — leaving arts providers to struggle not only with providing quality arts education experiences to students who have historically been deprived thereof, but also to ensure their safety without the support of the classroom teacher - a critical (and usually the only) individual who’s had the opportunity to cultivate positive, efficacious relationships with students, over time, and understands their individual needs, as well as the unique needs and dynamic of their classroom community. While “Release for GLC” is well intentioned, no doubt, it leads to already underserved students being further underserved — deprived not only of a safe class period, but also of a quality arts education experience.
Addendum: I was reflecting on what I wrote, with a friend, who helped me realize that I posed a problem without proposing any viable alternatives / solutions. Below are some post brainstorming possibilities (:-)
Instead of leaving the room for collaboration, teachers could stay in the room - in students’ direct line of sight - and collaborate on their laptops via Skype or a Google Hang Out.
While arts instruction is taking place, teachers can work on individual, pre-collaboration work, and collaborate together in physical space, at a different time.
We could build a panopticon style structure in which teachers can collaborate in a central room that overlooks multiple classrooms; Students would know that their teachers are “watching”, and teachers could still meet, uninterrupted, unless their presence was requested / required for support.
We could add 1 paid hour onto the contractual day, during which teachers could collaborate as a grade level.
Hmm... I’ll keep thinking....more soon...
The purpose of this letter is to voice concerns around the way VAPA Arts Generalist Programs are being used at many school sites this year, and from what we have heard, this is becoming the model for next year as well, with many more schools planning this way. Many sites are beginning to see Arts Programing, with VAPA Itinerant teachers, as a way to meet common planning goals and create release times for classroom teachers. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is that this model supports grade level planning for teachers, at the expense of quality arts instruction, and safe learning environments – both central tenants of the Arts Education Master Plan.
The VAPA Arts Generalist program - an integral part of SFUSD’s AEMP, and Vision 2025 – envision our schools as the classrooms, and San Francisco as the campus. With this in mind, the VAPA Generalist Program, and staff at each school site, should ideally be working together as a team to educate our students - using all and each of our talents to create safe, creative, and joyful learning experiences. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like everyone has the same vision.
The way the VAPA Itinerant Arts Program is being implemented at many school sites around the city should be concerning to anyone who cares about the education of our children. Particularly when the arts are being used as a means for schools to fulfill common planning time, or release time obligations – because it takes place at the expense of a quality arts education.
Using the VAPA art program to create common planning time prioritizes planning time for the regular classroom teachers, while diminishing the value of the Arts programs at the school, and can often create divisive atmospheres, with educators competing for time and priority. Under this model, the VAPA arts program becomes a means to an end, rather than enrichment.
Itinerant Specialist teachers already face the challenge of building community at sites where they only have the opportunity to work one or two days a week. Isolation often becomes the norm in these situations. Building community should be encouraged, because it takes a village to educate a child. But how does one build community when working in isolation? Or when it feels like our entire purpose is to release classroom teachers – the most crucial component to ensuring a safe, productive, and creative classroom community – for grade level planning time.
Hectic Schedules. Hectic schedules without reasonable transition times to move from one class to another and set up/ breakdown our mobile classrooms, leads to using less materials and therefore, often, less in-depth arts instruction. Art teachers who are teaching without an art classroom can’t teach art using materials that require cleanup; With everything on a cart, or in a bag, these teachers need a minimum of 15 minutes to clean up materials and move from one classroom to another, setup, and then begin instruction -- the success of which is highly dependent on the organization of the classroom teacher, and their support.
Relationships. Art teachers who only visit once a week don’t have the same opportunities to build relationship with students, and understand their unique social and emotional needs. This can lead to students with special needs receiving improper or inadequate accommodations, and lead to learning environments that are physically & emotionally unsafe – as behavior issues often escalate when students are left with teachers they’re unfamiliar with. All of this leads to unsafe learning environments at worst, and lost learning time at best.
Planning Out The Year. With the pressure to meet release, or common planning time needs, school sites are creating master schedules that use Arts classes as the primary way to release classroom teachers. Itinerant Arts Teachers are left out of this planning process, and therefore their valuable input is not included. This leads to overloading these once-a-week teachers with too many classes, and not enough time to prepare for the number of students they see a day. It also leads to insufficient time to clean up, move from one class to another, and then set up materials in preparation for the next class.
Release For GLC. Big-picture-wise, schools are using three Itinerant programs together to release teachers for up to 135 minutes, so they can meet for grade level collaboration (GLC). While of high value in one capacity, it results in students being herded between three different classrooms for 3 different activities led by Itinerant teachers without their regular classroom teachers present. There are no transitions, or cleanup times, in this format because the Itinerant Teacher must hand one group off while picking up another. This often, depending on the school’s population, leads to an Itinerant Teacher seeing more than a hundred students per day, and having to prepare to teach up to 6 grade levels (PK – 5th), with no preparation time. We feel that preparation time should reflect the number of students taught, as well as the number of different grade levels that need to be prepared for.
We believe that the arts education experiences that schools are offering their students can be improved, along with a school’s culture and climate, by valuing Arts providers contributions to the community – in both philosophy and practice – which can only be achieved through a team effort; We believe it begins with the Principal, and scheduling, and the Classroom Teachers’ physical presence, and support; Our hope is that this will result in the Arts being truly integrated into the curriculum of a classroom, and the culture of a site. We also hope this will result in reasonable and supportive working conditions for VAPA Itinerant Arts Teachers, regardless of where they’re placed.
Joseph Churchill & Jakey Toor
Representing SFUSD VAPA Itinerant Teachers
*My gratitude for permission to post.
A Dialogue With UESF Regarding “Release”
What Is The Primary Purpose Of This Time?
Why Release Doesn’t Work Well: One Itinerant Teacher’s Perspective
Jakey’s Rubric of Classroom Teacher Support
