Dakota Writing Project

by Lil Manthei, Takini School

This experience certainly rewrote my definition of what it means to be rural. For me, rural has always been the vast West River prairie and the seemingly endless fields of corn and beans that cover East River, South Dakota. At this conference, I was introduced to other areas of this country that are just as rural as my sacred South Dakota. The mountains of West Virginia; the peninsula in Washington State; the farmlands of Ohio; the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Montana; Maine; and even the state of New York can claim rural status. Writing projects in these areas face many of the same issues that we deal with in South Dakota.

The issue of distance and time that is required of teachers to attend summer institutes. In South Dakota, some teachers have been required to travel distances of over 400 miles to attend an institute. Teachers that have families have found this to be difficult, if not at time impossible for them to accomplish. Other states also acknowledge this problem. In West Virginia, teachers would travel over two hours one way twice a month to attend a writing project function. This issue and others were addresses at one of the breakout sessions that I attended. The session was presented by members of the West Virginia Writing Project and Santee Wateree Project from South Carolina. Their solutions including combining student writing retreats along with teacher writing retreats. The teacher strand would include demonstrations. The South Carolina Project does a series of two-hour sessions monthly, beginning in January and ending in May. Their focus was on teacher inquiry.

Along with enlarging my sense of ruralness (new word: not yet in any dictionary but mine), I learned that the issue of poverty is characteristic of many of the areas represented at the Rural Sites Conference. The Puget Sound Writing Project in Washington state presented their annotated bibliography for teaching and working with students who live in some level of poverty. Given that two of the three highest poverty-level counties in the country are located in South Dakota, I feel that this annotated bibliography has a wealth of resources for educators throughout our state.

Other aspects of the journey to New Mexico included a trip to see the Acoma Pueblo and visit with a tour guide of the Pueblo who had attended Haskell Indian School with a friend of mine from Pine Ridge. We also took a tour of Sky City Elementary School, where the native language is integrated completely into a third-grade classroom. I also participated in a “walk, shop, and talk” trip through Old Town, where a sidewalk vendor told me the story of the day that he made a turquois cross that I purchased from him. It was a Palm Sunday, and he was watching parishioners entering and exiting the San Felipe Mission.

All-in-all, I was completely enchanted by the “land of enchantment” that is Arizona.

Revisioning Writing in Rural Landscapes

by Dixie Linn-Norberg, White River

In the closing session of the Rural Sites Conference, one of the questions Joyce Sheehey (High Plains WP) asked us to write about was how the conference had broadened our thinking about teaching and learning in rural schools.

I wrote, “Rural Sites has already provided me with a tremendous opportunity for professional growth that reflects in my classroom.” I was referring, in part, to the project that DWP Board member Lil Manthei and I had coordinated and carried out with White River freshmen and Takini freshmen and sophomores.

Using Nicenet, our students, who live about 125 miles apart and on different reservations, exchanged ideas about regional literature. We began the unit with an exercise in metaphor:

Who Am I?
“I am the skyhawk,” wrote a Takini student
“I am the medicine pole,” wrote another.
“I am the great-grandson of a pioneer,” wrote a White River student.
“I am all the colors of the rainbow,” wrote another.

The positive student response and excitement generated by this project impacted my notions about rural teaching and learning before the conference began. By the time we presented our project, “Using Technology to Expand the Rural Classroom,” those presumptions were already being revised, and I was eager to learn about other classroom projects and practices. I was only disappointed by the impossibility of attending all sessions.

Yet, a part of the growth I was referring to in response to Sheehey’s question during that closing session dealt with the reshaping of my perceptions by speakers such as keynote speaker Scott Richard Lyons. Lyons provided a statistical portrait of Native Americans in the US: 65% complete high school and only 9% graduate from college. Lyons spoke about life and his family on a northern Minnesota reservation. He spoke about poverty and other lasting effects of colonization before he challenged teachers to be “witnesses” to history regarding Native people and culture. As “public intellectuals,” Lyons says teachers can provide evidence and can “speak the truth” about what has happened and is happening in our world. He mentioned the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump and the patenting of wild rice. Lyons suggested several books throughout his address. They included, on the topic of white privilege, White Like Me and What’s the Matter with Kansas.

Later that day, Laurie Smith-Small Waisted Bear (Montana WP) provided teachers with several critical thinking activities designed to increase teacher awareness and sensitivity to the numbers and cultural history of indigenous students who pass through our classrooms. “Reframing the American Historical Narrative Through Indigenous Ways of Seeing” offered participants the “The Other Side of the (Indian Education) Story.” We were given a syllabus for this very full session.

Following a traditional Lakota introduction, Ms. Smith-Small Waisted Bear led us through an “Introductory Text-based Discussion” of the article, “Willing to be Disturbed.” We used a double-entry organizer to “take a line for a walk”; then we shared our responses with others at our table. This was followed by a nine-minute “Writing Marathon.” We wrote to these questions: What is an American? How does this country tell its story, i.e., “the American narrative?” and “What is an American Indian?” We finished our marathon with a read-around.

The next activity was a “Gallery Walk.” We were given a rather limited amount of time to peruse a display of visual and written text. The items were displayed in groups; for instance, an Edward Curtis photo might be hung next to a collage of Indian mascot names. We selected one visual and one text from the display, then chose our format. We were encouraged to use a double-entry organizer or the “Say, Mean, Matters” handout to record our observations. Again, we ended the activity by sharing at our tables.

The final activity was “Critical Literacy: Taking a Closer Look.” We were asked to consider “the what,” “the how,” and “the why” when selecting examples of Native American literature.

Another session I attended within the Classroom Practice strand was “Can Writing Improve Reading? Yes!” by Sue Fischer of High Desert WP and Theresa Sweeney of South Coast WP. I was so impressed by both presenters and their success at teaching kindergarteners to write that I have copied the materials and sought out local primary teachers to share them with. Can kindergarteners write four sentence pieces about literature? Can they write persuasively?

Sue Fischer’s presentation, “Which Comes First—Writing or Reading? How Daily Journaling in a Kindergarten Classroom Enhanced Reading Skills” includes a section called “How We Did It (Reached Our Goal).” Here are three items pulled from a list of about twenty:

*We wrote in journals every day, from the first day of school.
*We modeled writing and reading every day, using a morning message.
*We helped children who needed help by writing their dictation for them until they were ready to write on their own.

Theresa Sweeney, South Coast WP, followed with “Good Writers Make Good Readers.” Her kindergarteners use organizers to summarize stories and then write from those organizers. Besides summarizing, students use other comprehension strategies such as drawing conclusions and inferring, predicting, and making connections. According to Ms. Sweeney, these strategies help good readers develop into good writers. Ms. Sweeney provided us with examples of student work, from kindergarten to third grade.

Reflecting on the conference and Sheehey’s question, I have concluded that the entire experience has transformed my perception of teaching and learning in rural schools. I am very appreciative of the opportunities I have been given through DWP. When I consider the progress that I have made as a teacher of writing since DWP 2005, I feel very humble and grateful. My students, of course, are the real winners.

by Sharon Olbertson, Kilian College

Lindsay Sorben, DWP board member, and I, (Sharon Olbertson), represented DWP at the annual National Writing Project Spring Meeting in Washington, D. C. on Mar. 29-30, 2007. Over 300 representatives from about 29 states were in attendance, probably one of the largest groups ever to attend this conference.

The kickoff meeting provided delegates with packets to deliver to the legislators, including flyers describing the impact and extent of the NWP over its recent history. In 2005-2006, 7,527 programs were conducted at NWP sites. The number of educators served was 137,018. Lindsay, math teacher that she is, calculated that roughly 24,000 students have been served by the Dakota Writing Project over its history. This figure seemed meaningful to each office that we visited. (A variable which she perhaps overlooked was the number of former students who are now in the classroom as teachers, continuing to use NWP materials!)

Since I had been particularly interesting in the “Effective Strategies to Improve Writing” published by the Alliance for Excellent Education, I included a summary of this report in the legislative folders, as well as some commentary on how this affects schools. Our legislators need to see that, 1) DWP pays attention to research, and 2) Research is telling us to do things differently. Too many people still think of writing the way it was presented when they were in school.

Our visits to the legislative offices were quite satisfying. Senator Johnson, continuing to recover from his stroke and surgery, was represented by one of his aides. Erin Barry is quite knowledgeable about the writing project as well as Senator Johnson’s strong support for the program. Trying to keep Senator Johnson’s paperwork to a minimum, his staff explained that he would not be signing the letter of intent this year, although his vocal support would continue.

Since the vote on Iraq spending was on the floor that morning, we did not expect to see our legislators at all. (Those who were to speak at the kickoff meeting were not able to be there.) We met with Senator Thune’s aide, a person new to subject, but eager to learn. She appeared impressed by the fact that NWP crosses all disciplines and grade levels. Though not on the agenda, she raised the issue of merit pay. We took the opportunity to describe to her how teachers could be affected by many uncontrolled variables, thus making it hard to discern where the actual “merit” lay.

In the middle of the conversation, Senator Thune returned to his office and visited with us for some time about the National Writing Project. Once again, we stressed the broad influence of the program. Senator Thune’s interest appeared genuine, so we are hopeful that he sees NWP as a student issue, rather than a political one.

As with the other visits, we did not expect to see Representative Herseth. In addition to the crucial vote in Congress, Ms. Herseth was to be married in two days! In past years, Ms. Herseth has shown herself to be an enthusiastic supporter of the writing project, and also very cognizant of writing issues. To our pleasant surprise, Ms. Herseth returned just as we were leaving—time enough for her to express her support for NWP.

In brief, we felt we had three very productive visits in our legislative offices.

The meetings on Friday began with the featured speaker’s topic of teachers and research. Her point was that little of the research on writing was actually getting into the hands of all teachers. I found myself agreeing, based upon my own experiences. While a full-time teacher, I certainly did not take the time I should have to keep up on research. Now that I am semi-retired, I read more of the research, but am not in a position to do much with it! That is why I summarized the “Effective Strategies” report and get it into as many teacher hands as I can.

I also attended roundtable discussions on reading in the content areas and nonfiction writing. What both of them had in common was their NWP approach of relying on the expertise of the teachers in attendance. While both presenters had materials to initiate conversation, they quickly became figures secondary to the topic at hand. Time flew by as attendees gave suggestions, asked for advice, shared success stories—all the things that teachers do when they get together. I shall paraphrase one insight that I found particularly meaningful (on NCLB or education in general): “When we put our faith in scores rather than the people in the classroom, we have lost sight of what it’s all about.”

With teachers helping teachers—indeed—that’s what it’s all about!

by Lindsay Sorben, DWP regional liaison

I left the Midwest on a chilly, drizzly March morning for Washington, D.C., packed for a week of Capitol-Hill-lobbying, cherry-blossom-viewing, Smithsonian-walking, and Metro-riding excitement. Delayed flights and terminal sprints got me to our nation’s capital in time for delayed baggage and shuttle-bus searching. Despite the mishaps of traveling, I sat in awe of the city in the back seat of the Super Shuttle van, admiring Roman architecture frosted with pink and white blossoms.

With Sharon Olbertson as my trusty cohort, I enveloped myself in the mission at hand, fully believing in what that mission was and how much of a difference we were going to make for the future of the National Writing Project and Dakota Writing Project. It began with a social (in the style of NWP) and our itinerary of the next two days. Mission: to win over South Dakota legislators and earn their signatures for renewed funding in 2008.

It was a busy day on Capitol Hill. Votes were being taken on the Iraq spending bill, and legislators were committed to various meetings. We knew that meeting with the legislators was going to be difficult.

First Stop: Senator Thune’s office. Sharon and I spoke with Mr. Thune’s education aide. We spoke of National Writing Project philosophy and practices. We also spoke of specific goals and concerns of South Dakota teachers. Fortunately, being a member of the DWP Board of Directors, I had just attended our annual planning retreat, which allowed me to share a few of our visions for the coming year. I explained the plans of using the Dakota Digital Network (DDN) to reach teachers across the state and “broadcast” four DWP teacher-consultants’ writing demonstrations. I expressed DWP’s intentions of being a service to the South Dakota Department of Education. Senator’s aid was diligent in her notes, assuring us that our efforts would be shared with him.

As we were about to leave, Senator Thune himself stepped into the meeting room! Much to the delight of both Sharon and me, we were able to give an abbreviated speech to Senator Thune. We knew he was a hard sell and a busy man. With an assured nod and grin, the Senator left us, and we soon left the aide. We knew that it was unlikely that he would support the Dakota Writing Project with his signature, as he had not done so in the past, but at this point, we were still hopeful.

Second Stop: Representative Herseth’s office. Once again we met with another education aide. This time it was a fellow South Dakotan, and we needed no extra explanation of our state’s geography and challenges because of that. Ms. Herseth has long been a supporter of the Dakota Writing Project, so we went into an easygoing meeting. The speech was simplified, knowing that we had her support. We did include our plans for the year, however, which left the aide excited about the possibilities.

Just as we were leaving her office, Representative Herseth walked through the door! We said a brief hello and wished her well on her wedding only two days later.

Third (and final) Stop: Senator Johnson’s office. We hoped that we would get the chance to meet with Mr. Johnson. Instead, we met with his long-time education aide to education, Erin. Senator Johnson has always supported the cause of NWP, but, unfortunately, his signature would probably not be on the list because of his medical condition and concerns. We were assured, however, that his support was still with us. It was a candid conversation, and Sharon and I left in good spirits, ready to experience D.C.

The challenges of getting to Washington, D.C. were long since forgotten while I walked the Mall and gazed at the cherry blossoms. Not since my year teaching in Japan had I seen such a display. Truly breathtaking!

Friday’s round-table discussions were enjoyable and enlightening. I sat in a session that addressed the concerns that many other sites shared with us: getting our name out there, assisting with the needs of teachers in our region, and continuing the purpose of NWP. Such great discussions and ideas came out of it! I am anxious to tell my fellow DWPers all about it!

My mission had concluded, but my adventure in D.C. had only begun. I took in the Cherry Blossom Festival, including the opening ceremonies. I attended a Smithsonian-sponsored concert kicking off their tribute to Japan and Japanese culture. I walked. I rode the metro. I ventured solo for a day in our nation’s capital. It was an amazing experience.

So I returned to the Midwest from 60- and 70-degree weather to a blustery 40-degree, rainy day, threatening snow and ice. Once again, I was delayed and reassigned a different flight; I missed that flight and was reassigned to a later flight. Unfortunately, my luggage was lost, somewhere between Chicago and Minneapolis. I am uncertain if I was more upset over leaving spring and coming back to winter, losing my belongings, or missing out on what I had left behind in Washington, D.C. I captured as best I could in pictures and words, but those days are only marked by the steps I took where history took place and continues to take place. It was just another NWP stamp in my passport of experiences. I look forward to the next page and next mission.

by Sharon Olbertson, Kilian College

Lindsay Sorben and I had completed our “official work” in Washington, D. C.: we had gone to each of our legislator’s offices and lobbied for their continued support of the National Writing Project; we had attended the NWP roundtable sessions about various writing topics. Now we were simply enjoying the many attractions the city had to offer.

As we rested on a park bench, inhaling the scent of the blossoming cherry trees, a fit but elderly gentleman strode close to our bench. I caught a brief glance of the red logo on his shirt—T-u-s-k– with the rest covered by his jacket. My mind immediately connected this to earlier images of our venture: a cluster of people with red blazers, a brief news clip on T.V., a Good Morning America story by Robin Roberts from many months ago.

“Sir!” I walked toward him. “Are you one of the Tuskegee airmen honored at the Capitol this morning?” He was somewhat taken aback by this total stranger reaching toward him, asking to shake his hand. “I want to thank you,” I explained, “for what you did for our country.”

What this man had done, as I remembered from Robin Roberts’ story about her pilot father, was to fly missions during WW II as a member of the Tuskegee Airmen. Things being what they were at that time in history, black pilots had their own, separate unit. These 800 men had done courageous things but had not been recognized for their valor.

Until that day—March 30, 2007—when several hundred survivors of that unit were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by the president of the United States, the son of another courageous pilot!

I babbled something about the privilege of meeting a genuine American hero. I shook his hand again. He showed us the medal—a gold disk that filled the entire palm of his hand! And then, Mr. Sam Broadaxe, with grace and humility, explained. “If there had been a debt to us that hadn’t been paid, it was paid today.”

The impact is still with me. Lindsay and I later realized that Mr. Broadax had to be in his 80s, but he looked and moved like a much younger man. I thought of all the Tuskegee airmen who went to their graves unnoticed, unappreciated. Not knowing anything about the deployment of units during WW II, I allowed myself to think that perhaps these airmen had helped protect a navy man like my own dad.

I don’t know what Mr. Broadaxe did when he returned from his military duties. I suspect that for 60 years after the war, he was probably just like my dad after the war—an ordinary man. But unlike my dad, this Congressional Medal of Honor recipient spent years in separate businesses, separate restaurants, separate washrooms, separate schools.

What a loss for our country to have overlooked/ignored/denied the heroes in our presence!

And THAT is the most significant memory I have of Washington, D.C., 2007!

by Krista Bruggeman, Lennox Public School

On a blustery day in November two small town girls from South Dakota—myself from Lennox, and my friend and fellow teacher-consultant Karen Rahn from Rutland, set out for a trip to Nashville, Tennessee. Our destination was not Opryland or the Country Music Hall of Fame, but instead the National Writing Project. We were both first-timers, virgins if you will, of the National Writing Project, and we had no idea what to expect. Would two South Dakota girls be worthy of this experience?

At the Marriot Convention Center, where the majority of the conference took place, there was a whirlwind of activity—excited chatter, hustle and bustle, tables of books and pamphlets, and plenty of eager teachers from all different places and backgrounds ready to get started. Karen and I went our separate ways in search of answers to our most important question—what could we do to help our writing project succeed? I am happy to report that all of my sessions—Developing Teacher-Consultants, Young Writer’s Projects and Rural Networking—provided valuable information, as well as new acquaintances! The great thing about educators is that you never have to worry about long bouts of awkward silence or strained conversation. No matter where a teacher is from, they have stories to tell, questions to ask and advice to give.

At the end of our first full day, Karen and I once again called a taxi to deliver us back to our motel. Throughout the day, when asked
where we were from, we often received the genuine surprised look and the comment of, “South Dakota, really?” The most priceless moment, however, came from out taxi driver. He casually asked where we were from, and when we replied, he turned around, flipped on the dome light, and checked us out like prize pigs at the local county fair. His first comment was, “I ain’t ever seen anyone from South Dakota before! I have to take a closer look!”

I assured him that we looked like everyone else, and that we did not have horns growing out of our heads. Taking the opportunity to get one over on him, I explained that the state of South Dakota does not often let us out due to decreasing population concerns, and that we wear tracking devices to ensure our return. After we finished teasing him a bit, he also inquired why we did not speak like the people in the movie Fargo. Once the geography lessons were finished, however, he was a fun, friendly guy who offered his services to us for the rest of the trip.

While I learned important information in my specific sessions, the general session, “Writing for a Change,” offered some of the most
fascinating information. For instance, there are currently 73,000 writing programs offered each year throughout the United States. In 2005 alone, over 3,000 teachers attended the summer institutes, meaning that 2.9% of the teaching force is touched by the National Writing Project in a single year. In the past five years, 48% more sites were added. An impact is being made by the National Writing Project in the field of education, and the message is being spread that writing is transformative, and the writing for real audiences makes communication much more powerful.

The most powerful speaker was Sheridan Blau. He was a passionate, funny and informative speaker that made everyone sit up and
take notice. He stated that the writing project transformed his career, and that he has found that writing is the best and most reliable tool for learning. Sharing writing and receiving that crucial feedback is a fundamental belief that he shared with our audience. He truly believes that writing cannot only make crucial changes for an individual, but for an entire community as well. Finally, he drove the point home of why the National Writing Project and all of the state projects are so fundamentally important: teachers are the best teachers of other teachers.

Overall, I found the experience to be extremely rewarding and informative. I returned to my classroom with renewed vigor to inspire more and better writing from my students, and to continue learning myself. Nashville was a fun place, and the people were incredibly hospitable. Don’t get me started on the food—it was fabulous, especially the seafood. While I did not have a lot of time to see the sights, I did experience some amazing rockabilly music in downtown Nashville. Also, I did make it over to the Opryland resort, newly decorated for Christmas, and it was beautiful to say the least. Two girls from South Dakota did survive Nashville, and more importantly, Nashville survived us! I am looking forward to next year’s adventure in New York City. I wonder what the cab drivers there will think?

Thoughts From NWP Meetings, Nashville, TN, November 2006

by Nancy Kampfe, Stevens School, Rapid City School District

I learned so many ways to improve our image and our status across the state that I almost don’t know where to begin. Key to this discussion is the question, How can we design our programs to maximize their impact and thereby set the stage for effective marketing of all DWP has to offer South Dakota’s teachers?

This program design with the marketing strategy built in is an intentional change in what we do to build impact and to market the Writing Project. Our reputation builds by what we do and how we do it. We were continually cautioned to avoid looking at numbers as the definition of “success” in Writing Project programs. The value of the program to those who participate is far more important because those people talk to other people, and interest in our programs will grow. Success depends on key people doing it the right way (following the NWP model), not on numbers. We were urged to always stick with the NWP Model – never to adapt ourselves so much that we lose site of our mission!

Summer Institutes are the mainstay of a writing project, and many sites have built in more ways to help TCs continue their affiliation with the WP and also continue their professional growth. One project sets up a Yahoo! Group for their SI participants, and the group continues after the Summer Institute. Other projects use the NWP blog during the SI, just as we do. Mississippi State WP uses the NWP blog in Summer Institute, requiring participants to post a draft of their professional piece to the blog within two weeks after the SI. Responses to/by writing group members are required about prompts that help them connect the piece to their own classroom practice.

Some projects require that a new TC lead some kind of project in their school in the year following their attendance at Summer Institute. Then the TC goes to another school to do a demonstration as inservice. The third step in the professional growth process is for the TC to write an NCTE proposal to present nationally. Other writing projects pair a veteran TC with a new TC, asking them to lead some kind of presentation or workshop.

To make such a requirement work, we might also consider holding an in-service session for Administrators of TCs with TC and administrator attending together. The session models how to advocate for the Writing Project in the school and gives examples of how the TC learns in the Summer Institute. Administrator and TC are also given the opportunity to discuss how the TCs expertise can be used in school in-service. The Vermont WP holds a two-day Administrators Writing Workshop with TCs presenting demonstrations as a variation of a study group. This is another good way to build administrative support for the Writing Project model.

The Denver WP holds a Summer Institute for SI Alums for one week, held at the same time as the regular Summer Institute. The project director emails alums to ask their assistance in mentoring SI participants with demonstrations. The Connecticut WP holds an advanced institute called “Revisiting the Summer Institute,” a four-day workshop that they write into their annual grant so they can pay attending teachers $50 a day. The institute refreshes teachers on the NWP model, and helps them develop curriculum as well as preparing them to do professional development work for the project.

The Kennesaw Mountain WP in West Virginia holds an Advanced Summer Institute that brings together teachers who have already completed an SI and who want to work on professional writing projects of their own. Affiliates who did their initial NWP work with another site are also welcome to attend the KMWP advanced program. Again, large numbers are not needed; only an interest in writing to share their expertise with the profession is required.

One Michigan WP holds a Three-Day Reunion Retreat in first week of August. The TC pays the cost of the retreat, usually held at some camping site, or possibly at a church camp. Day one, participants reconnect in a variety of ways, one being to write a letter to themselves: where I am, what I plan to do this year. The Project Director mails the letter to TCs in January when the doldrums hit, so they can revitalize themselves. On the second day, a guest author is invited. The TC’s administrator is invited on the final day; a mini-writing marathon is done, along with a “sharing celebration” so the administrator also gets to see what the SI helps teachers write. This writing celebration is held during the August reunion to help new TCs to bond with other TCs rather than only continuing the close-knit bond formed with SI participants during SI. What a wonderful way to begin a new school term!

Programs held throughout the school year are another way to provide continuing professional development for TCs, and these programs can also be a way to get non-Writing Project teachers interested in what we do. The Vermont WP offers “Saturday Special” workshops at the university site. They charge teachers $20 to attend—this is for TCs and those who have never been to SI. They provide breakfast snacks and lunch along with a variety of demonstrations about writing. They never hold a Saturday Special in September as teachers are too busy to attend, and they make a glitzy brochure to advertise the programs.

The Chicago WP holds Saturday Seminars, charging teachers $20 to attend, giving a $5 discount if you bring another teacher from your school. They run three concurrent sessions for one and a half hours, followed by a break, followed by three more one and one-half hour sessions. They have the same strands on each Saturday. (We could substitute any other grade level for the ones here). They advertise the program in advance and put pdf flyers on their website.

Saturday sessions would provide new as well as continuing TCs with professional development opportunities, either in attending or presenting sessions for other teachers.

The Upper Peninsula WP in Michigan also holds Saturday Sessions, from 9 am to noon, four times per semester. Participants write to a prompt, share student work, and do some problem-solving of classroom issues. These sessions are advertised beforehand in local newspapers. Dividing their state into sections (focused around where TCs live) helped the UPWP decide where to hold the sessions each time.

We might also consider dividing our state because we are so far apart from east to west. Holding the sessions in a different place each time would also open up opportunities for more teachers and for more TCs to help provide professional development to their colleagues.

Mississippi State WP formed six continuity areas for their mid-week sessions held at night. A TC leads the group, with the agenda decided by the group assembled or by the TC. Participants earn Continuing Education credit.

Northwest Inland WP in Idaho forms One Book One Community groups. With a bookstore willing to do it, the group can meet one night at the bookstore to look for a book to teach a literary element in your classroom. The bookstore gives a free book to each TC who attends and brings another person along.

It may be time for us in the DWP to take the Institute to the teachers, as the Oregon WP does. Oregon’s Satellite Institutes began as Open Institutes. Now they are four weeks in length and teachers get a stipend. Oregon holds three Satellite Institutes in sites around their state. One director of the OWP is in residence at the Satellite Institute for the first week to complete the necessary paperwork and for quality control in getting the institute off and running. Oregon holds pays a $1000 stipend to participants, and the two most enthusiastic TCs in the SI become co-directors of the next Satellite Institute. The Oregon WP got a Project Outreach grant to move their Summer Institute from LaGrande to Pendleton. Maine WP holds an Embedded Institute online during the school year, an idea that might also work across our miles here in South Dakota.

All these ideas demand time to come to fruition. Long-range planning and thinking into the future are needed as we think of more and better ways to help our TCs continue to develop professionally and to bring the Writing Project message to more teachers in South Dakota. If we take baby steps, go back, review and reflect, try and try again, I know we will be thrilled with the results.

by Krista Bruggeman, Lennox Public School

During my time at the National Writing Project in Nashville, Tennessee, I attended an informative and worthwhile session entitled,
“The Invitational Summer Institute: Developing Teacher-Consultants from Interviews to In-service” (apparently the name “Start to Finish: Creating Teacher-Consultants” was already taken). One of the most worthwhile parts of attending the National Writing Project Annual Meeting was meeting teachers from all over the United States who had a common goal, furthering their own writing projects and promoting writing across the curriculum, and just as important, shared common concerns with our own writing project. Teachers and leaders wanted support and information not only to keep their writing projects going but also to increase attendance and keep the momentum in high gear. One answer to this quandary is to create a pool of teacher-consultants each year.

We looked at overall formats from two different summer institutes that have been very successful in recruitment of teacher-consultants and making their name essentially a common word among teachers in their states and areas. The basic premise is promotion and recruitment. The key to this begins with implementing more professional writing during the institute and creating more professional development leaders. By drawing future leaders from the pool of summer institute participants, you can effectively organize a group and train them to succeed as future leaders for the following year and years to come.

Summer institutes begin with a screening process—for many institutes, including ours, that means a formal application and a
writing sample. The session leaders suggested going one step further by actually having a face-to-face interview with the applicants. Not only would this ensure that ever important element of diversity, but also ensure that the applicants are serious not only about their own writing but teaching writing to their students. A serious level of commitment should be demonstrated, and this interview is an excellent chance to stress to the applicant that their participation is expected to continue long after the summer institute is completed—through word of mouth, attending meetings throughout the year, and being available as a teacher-consultant.

The pre-institute, or boot camp as it was called by our leaders, is the next step in the process. Participants at the session, including myself from the Dakota Writing Project, agreed that this was a crucial time to develop trust and ease into writing. However, there are things that were recommended that perhaps many of us we’re not stressing enough. The leaders suggested that the boot camp last as perhaps longer than a day, for instance a weekend, and that several teacher demonstrations, given by former institute participants, take place during that time.

Not only should the participants participate in the demo, but they should be given a thorough breakdown of the process—in other words, how the lesson was developed, how it impacted students, and how it can be adapted. This prepares the participants to develop their own demo thoroughly, and also opens the doors for discussion over shared concerns in the classroom. Lastly, the participants should peruse and choose no less than two professional textbooks to discuss during the institute.

When the actual institute begins, participants should bring with them a list of concerns they have about teaching in their own classrooms. They should also have written a response letter that includes specific questions or concerns they might have concerning the demonstrations. The teacher-consultants who taught the lesson should also respond back to the participants. A list of shared concerns should be discussed in the early days of the institute—the days can be split into personal writing along with professional development. Large general issues should be then condensed into specific, concrete ideas and concerns that should be reflected on by the participants through writing and then shared discussion.

From the beginning, participants should create a portfolio of their work, both professional and personal. They should include reflections of the writing at the end of the portfolio that includes an explanation of how it spans the continuum. The institute itself should be led by two co-directors as well as two coaches, along with teacher-consultants. When the participants present a demo, they should be sure to model it after the boot camp demos. All participants should write a reflection that includes questions once again regarding the demo as well as any comments and concerns, and the demonstrating teacher should respond. Also, emphasis on professional writing should take place throughout. More than one theme can be experimented with, and a final finished product does not need to come at the end of the institute—instead, more of a work in progress.

This brings us to the final key for writing project success. Once again, the learning and progress doesn’t end in the summer. Various workshops, professional writing retreats and meetings should be set up throughout the school year to encourage further professional writing and training for the new teacher-consultants, selected at the end of the summer institute. They need to feel as if they are a part of something bigger than a workshop. These new teacher consultants become part of your public relations work when they pass the word on at their own schools and communities. Also, form committees to create a brochure that advertises the institute, constantly updated year to year to keep it fresh. Create a letter that goes out to administrators and heads of departments to get the word out that writing matters, and we’re here to help you teach writing more effectively.

A lot of excellent ideas were presented at this session, and I am excited to meet with our Dakota Writing Project Board to implement
these changes. While I learned a lot of new things we can do to improve our institute, I was also satisfied to know that we are doing many things right and that our concerns are not unique. Our combination of ambition, creativity and genuine belief that writing is the key to shaping the future for students will make our institute a success.

by Karen Rahn, Rutland Public School

A desire for change is what brought me to the Dakota Writing Project in the summer of 2006. I wanted to change how I taught writing, not because I had complaints or because someone in an upper office mandated it, but because I personally felt that I needed a change: an energy boost. I got that boost from DWP, and like a Writing Project junkie, I went to the NWP convention in Nashville looking for more of the same.

Meeting up again with fellow Writing Project participants from the summer was a grand thing. There was a positive energy in the air as I went into the sessions for the day.

The first session that I attended was “Inquiring into Teacher Demonstrations,” which was presented by the Northern California and Hudson Valley Writing Projects. As a Writing Project newbie, I found this session to be interesting because it talked about how other summer sessions are handled. It was evident that the overall model of “teachers teaching teachers” was the cornerstone of all institutes, but the way that the demonstrations are handled vary from site to site. The NCWP group talked about the importance of the coaching, and looking at student work in a global way. They spend quite a bit of time coaching teachers to look at student writing through a framework of “features,” writing down what the student can do. Much like the work we did with protocols this summer, the shared perspective with another colleague offered rich insight into the lessons.

The HVWP group took this idea a bit further by applying it to the demonstrations themselves. They felt that the demonstrations had become a form of “show and tell” of best work and left little room for true growth for the instructor. They changed the name of the demonstrations to “Teacher Inquiry Workshops” and shifted the focus to what could be learned through inquiry about a lesson. This format placed a greater emphasis on the post coaching and reflections with the presenter from the whole group. All participants wrote personal letters to the presenter, evaluating the lesson. The next day, the presenter was given time to come back to the group and share concerns and ideas which were addressed in the letters. This moved the lesson toward more scaffolding and percolating of ideas. This step made the post reflection a bigger part of an inquiry process, and therefore gave the whole lesson more depth.

Both groups spoke of the importance of face-to-face coaching sessions both before and after the lesson. They felt the best coaching sessions would have two teachers and a site director involved and would last approximately an hour. In this coaching session, focus would be placed on reciprocal learning, authentic questions, and looking at student work as part of the inquiry process.

At the end of this three-hour session, I felt reassured, knowing that sites were working to constantly monitor their own effectiveness as writing project institutes. I also felt saturated and ready for a lunch break. It was great to meet with other DWP’ers and debrief over an elegant lunch buffet at the Marriott restaurant. Yum!

After lunch I went to the Willis Center to attend a session on “Using Youth Writing Programs as Professional Development,” which began with a glimmer of promise, but quickly fizzled for me. It was evident that this session was focusing on writing with ELL students, which is a hot topic in much of our country, but as yet does not directly affect me in my small, rural school. The best parts of this session were being introduced to “Wiki Sticks” which we used to make shape poems, and looking at examples of student work coming from youth writing projects.

Someday, I will probably look back at information from this session, stored away in my “I’ve-heard-about-this-somewhere-before” portion of my brain, and realize that The Marshall Plan is a grant that I need to look into as I am working to increase diversity in my classroom while accommodating ELL students. In this case, “Writing for a Change” is a path still waiting to be taken.

Friday morning began with an old-fashioned, revival-style meetin’ feeling as the general session of the NWP Convention convened. At first it felt like a juxtaposition, mixing great writing intellectuals with the Minnie Pearl holler of “Howwwdeee!” but after a bit, I realized that it was no different than the Writing Project’s ideal of teachers teaching teachers: a down -home approach to obtaining lofty goals. Using statistics to buoy up our purpose in the political arena is a necessary thing, and quite impressive on a fraternal level as well. The statistics also showed that “Writing for a Change” is a positive change in the overall education of our students. During this general meeting I felt that I got a good overall view of what the Writing Project is accomplishing nationally. It felt good to see how far-reaching the project is, and how carefully the Project monitors itself to stay on that path.

The Friday afternoon session on Successful Site Networking was one in which I felt like I was in over my head. This site was definitely aimed at those people that are heading programs and keeping the big picture on path. It was at this point that I definitely felt like the lone leaf in the forest. When they talked of lobbying our state legislature for sums of money upward of a million dollars for individual writing projects, I felt like I was in a science fiction movie. I was out of my league. I am not a businessperson; I couldn’t even sell Girl Scout Cookies, so I found myself tuning out. I hope that we have good people with business sense that can go to bat for our program and keep the project afloat, but I doubt it will be me.

Saturday was spent at the NCTE site and then sightseeing, followed by my trip home on Sunday. This, you would think, would be the end of the NWP experience, but no! I had the most enjoyable trip from Nashville to Chicago talking with Cathie English of the Nebraska Writing Project! She really got me thinking about how I teach my research writing and also reaffirmed my decision to change directions in my freshman composition class. It was an unexpected and rich ending to the convention. I would like the opportunity to go again next year!

Why choice is valuable

by Karen Rahn, Rutland Public School

A simple vocabulary assignment with my juniors opened my eyes to the value of choice in the classroom, and I have been experimenting with this idea ever since. I was giving yet another long list of vocabulary words for the class to learn and then be tested on in a few days, the usual, predictable lesson, which allowed me to have a grade for the grade book. The students and I had come to look at these vocabulary lessons as a necessary drudgery that we just had to endure, like swallowing a foul-tasting medicine. I thought, okay. let’s shake this up just a bit, and told the kids that I only wanted to test them over 15 of the 30 words, and that they, as a class, would decide which words would be on the test. I told them to look through the words and pick what they, individually, thought first, and then they could compare lists and whatever the majority wanted would be it. The class woke up and began really looking at the list of words. Once we started putting the lists together for one master list, they had to make some choices due to “ties.” This was when I saw authentic cooperative learning take place over vocabulary words for the first time in that class. They actually discussed the words’ meanings and came up with a rationale for which words would be best to have on the list. We all felt better about the day’s lesson, and the test scores on the following Friday were much improved.

This experiment caused me to think back to my studies in Jim Fay and Foster Cline’s Discipline with Love and Logic, and even though this was not a discipline area, I was making connections with their discipline philosophy, using choice and my assignments. Part of their philosophy states that “Choices provide opportunities for children to hear that we trust their thinking abilities” (54), and in doing so, it builds self-confidence and a better relationship between teacher and student. It was clear to me that using choice in learning as well as discipline was something I wanted for my classroom.

Our lives and the lives of our students are filled with choice. How a choice is made depends on which need the chooser is addressing. William Glasser says in his book, Choice Theory in the Classroom, “We always choose to do what is most satisfying to us at the time.” (21) People make choices according to their needs, These needs, according to Glasser, can be summed up as five basic needs inherent to every individual: to survive, to belong, to gain power, to be free, and to have fun. (25)

What does this mean to us as teachers? According to Glasser, “The more students can fulfill their needs in your academic classes, the more they will apply themselves to what is to be learned” (33). Once students are applying themselves, the teacher is able to be more of a learning guide rather than the authoritarian figure or fireman-putting out fires in the classroom at every turn.

Jonathan C. Erwin, faculty member of The William Glasser Institute since 1995, draws heavily from Glasser’s Choice Theory in his book, The Classroom of Choice: Giving Students What They Need and Getting What You Want. He states that a teacher’s first job is to be a manager, and that means, “…first creating the conditions for students to be interested in learning or performing, and then providing the structures, strategies, and activities that will encourage quality learning and quality performance” (5).

Freedom to Choose

The first axiom of William Glasser’s Choice Theory is: The only person whose behavior we can control is our own. (Choice Theory) The teacher is a manager of the classroom and he/she cannot make a student do anything. Only the student can choose to do or not do the assignment that you, the teacher, have so lovingly and painstakingly created for him/her. The more a student is screaming, “You can’t make me” the more he/she is saying, “I need more choice/control in my life.”

Students often feel that they are being forced into their education; therefore, there is little buy-in. As Glasser pointed out, we all have a need for freedom, a feeling of being in control of at least some aspect of our lives. Giving choices allows students to feel that they have a say in the direction of their education. So how do we as teachers use this idea, this need, to our advantage? If students truly feel that they are being given actual, meaningful choices, their freedom needs are being addressed. They are much more apt to do the assignments that they are given a say in because, they chose them. The buy–in will more likely be there for them.

So does this mean that the student is taking over the classroom? In his book, Erwin says, “In the interests of maintaining an orderly learning environment, providing choices does not mean students have license to do or say anything they want” (16). He states that his main goal is to help “…create the conditions in a classroom so that teachers and students can meet their needs effectively without coming into conflict”(18). Faye and Cline also point out guidelines to this effect: “Always be sure to select choices that you like. Never provide one you like and one you don’t because the child will usually select the one that you don’t like” (55). This means opening yourself to broader possibilities; look for real choices and be willing to try something different. In doing so, you may find that you will be addressing your own need for fun through variety!

Implementing Choice

There are millions of ways that the teacher can offer choice in the classroom that address the needs of the students. The following is a lesson that I presented to the Dakota Writing Project as a demonstration in choice. It is an activity that could be adapted to many classes with a little creativity. While the following assignment encourages group work, it is also rich in individual choices. This lesson covers several of Glasser’s stated needs: belonging and a sense of power through group work, freedom to make choices, and fun with collaboration and technology.

Exploring Journalistic Writing

Much like the real newspaper world, this activity will be a combination of both group and individual work. You are encouraged to bounce ideas off each other and have fun with the possibilities, but remember that you are under a time restraint, and efficient group work will help you have the time you will need for the individual assignment.

1. Each group looks over the scavenger hunt picture list and makes a plan for getting the pictures they need. A minimum of five pictures will be needed, but you may get more if you wish. More pictures mean more choices, but no extra credit, so budget time wisely.
2. Take the pictures. Remember that at least one person from your group needs to be in the picture with the item. You have a maximum of twenty minutes for this part of the activity. If you finish sooner, then you have more time for the writing part of the activity.
3. Download pictures and choose a picture to write a news article about, one person per picture. Copy the picture file to your jump drive and take it to you computer to work with.
4. Each person needs to write his/her own story to go with the picture he/she chose. Include headline, story, picture, and caption.
5. Edit! You may work with your group on this part of the assignment also. Watch your deadline.
6. Meet your deadline for publication. If you finish with yours early, you may want to help others.

The real-world connection, time constraints, and handouts provide the necessary structure, while encouraging a quality product. Collaboration in the news world is a necessary survival skill; a reporter depends on others for ideas/leads, photography, and editing; hence, the authentic lesson is inherent.

Students quickly find creative ways of handling the assignment, and creativity takes over. They actually love sharing their stories and “publishing” them on the board for all to see. I don’t find myself dealing with the “Do I have to?” query or other complaints because they are engaged in working together and making choices. The buy-in comes quite naturally.

The Power of Choice

Choice shapes my classroom. The more I work choice into my lessons, the more I am convinced of its power. As I read books such as Erwin’s The Classroom of Choice and Glasser’s Choice Theory in the Classroom, I am even more confident in the directions that it has taken me, knowing that there is actual research behind what I stumbled onto in my vocabulary lesson so long ago.

Works Cited

“Choice Theory.” Home page of William Glasser Institute. 15 May 2006. William Glasser Institute. 29 Jun 2006 .

Erwin, Jonathan. The Classroom of Choice: Giving Students What They Need and Getting What You Want. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2004.

Fay, Jim, and Foster Cline. Discipline With Love and Logic Resource Guide. Golden, CO: The Love and Logic Press, 1997.

Glasser, William. Choice Theory in the Classroom. Revised. New York: HarperCollins, 1988.