The Program In New Haven


Annual Report 1998 Table of Contents | Brochures and Reports

Contents of section:


The Seminars and Curriculum Units

From its inception, a tenet of the Institute’s approach has been to determine its offerings annually in response to the needs for further preparation and curriculum development that the teachers themselves identify. In 1998 this process, which is described later in the report, resulted in the Institute’s organizing seven seminars, five in the humanities and two in the sciences. 

With support from endowment revenues and additional discretionary funds provided by President Richard C. Levin for Yale University, the Institute offered in 1998 the following five seminars in the humanities: 

“The Use and Abuse of History in Film and Video,”
led by Robert D. Johnston, Assistant Professor of History 

“Cultures and their Myths,”
led by Traugott Lawler, Professor of English 

“Art and Artifacts: The Cultural Meaning of Objects,”
led by Jules D. Prown, Paul Mellon Professor of the History of Art 

“American Political Thought,”
led by Rogers M. Smith, Alfred Cowles Professor of Government 

“Reading Across the Cultures,”
led by Thomas R. Whitaker, Frederick W. Hilles
Professor Emeritus of English 

With support from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Institute offered in 1998 the following two seminars in the sciences: 

“Selected Topics in Contemporary Astronomy and Space Science,”
led by Sabatino Sofia, Professor and Chairman of Astronomy 

“The Population Explosion,”
led by Robert Wyman, Professor of Biology 

The following overviews of the work in the seminars are based on the descriptions circulated in advance by the seminar leaders and the Guide to Curriculum Units, 1998. Each Fellow has prepared a curriculum unit that she or he will use in a specific classroom. Each Fellow has also been asked to indicate the subjects and grade levels for which other teachers might find the curriculum unit to be appropriate. These are indicated parenthetically here for each unit. 




 


The Institute’s approach has been to determine its offerings in response to the needs the teachers themselves identify. 
The Use and Abuse of History in Film and Video

This seminar was designed to give teachers an introduction to the larger philosophical issues that the relationship between film and history presents, as well as to familiarize them with some of the most important historical films, focusing on their teaching potential in the classroom. Films included a PBS documentary on Martha Ballard, the Hollywood extravaganza “Pocahontas,” and films dealing with African-American history: “Amistad,” “Eyes on the Prize,” and “Malcolm X,” which was paired with a reading of The Autobiography of Malcolm X. With the help of Robert Rosenstone’s Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History, the seminar discussed general theoretical questions about history and film. The seminar agreed that academic history and film history are complementary but need to be evaluated on different epistemological grounds. It also recognized that effective teaching requires engagement in the never-ending dialogue that is the genuine meaning of history, rather than a continuous barrage 
of facts. 

A team of four teachers from L. W. Beecher Elementary School, Jean Sutherland, Geraldine Martin, Felicia R. McKinnon, and Jean Gallogly, who teach grades 1, 2, and 3, prepared related units for a project designed to help students use film to examine major movements in American history. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “The Use and Abuse of History in Film and Video.” (Clockwise from top right: seminar leader Robert Johnston, Fellows Burton Saxon, Joan Rapczynski, Geraldine M. Martin, Felicia R. McKinnon, Jean E. Sutherland, Jean C. Gallogly, Sloan E. Williams III, Jeanette R. Rogers, Barbara W. Winters, and Yolanda G. Jones.) 

The curriculum units written in the seminar, with their recommended uses, included: “Films about the Fifties: Teenagers, Identity, Authority, and Choice” by Alan K. Frishman (U.S. History and Sociology and Film, grades 10-12); “Herstory: Women Portrayed in Film” by Jean Gallogly (Literature and Social Studies, grades 1-3); “Slavery of Africans in the Americas: Resistance to Enslavement” by Yolanda G. Jones (Social Studies, grades 6-8); “Mr. Friday and Friends: A Prospectus of Early Pioneer Life Through Film” by Geraldine Martin (Reading/Language Arts, grade 1); “A Film and Literature Study of the African-American Migration” by Felicia R. McKinnon (Reading/Language Arts and Social Studies, grades 2-8); “The Civil Rights Movement Through Film” by Joan Rapczynski (U.S. History, grades 11-12); “Heroes and Villains of the Rain Forest: Latin American History Through Film” by Jeannette Rogers (Spanish and American History, grades 7-12); “Teaching Ethnicity and Race Through Films” by Burt Saxon (Ethnicity and Race and Multicultural Studies, grades 7-12); “Discrimination and the Struggle for Equality: African-Americans in Professional Baseball: A Reflection of the Civil Rights Movement” by Jean Sutherland (Social Studies, Reading/Language Arts, and Social Development, grades 3-8); “Teaching Music through its Relationship to History: with the Use of Film, Video and the Specious Present” by Sloan E. Williams III (Music and Music History, grades K-12); “Parenting in the Movies: Examining Responsibilities in Modern American Films” by Barbara W. Winters (Parenting, grades 9-12). 



 
 
 
 
 
 


The seminar recognized that effective teaching requires engagement in the never-ending dialogue that is the genuine meaning of history. 
Cultures and their Myths

This seminar started with theoretical matters related to mythology and then moved through Norse, Egyptian, African, Native American, and Indian mythologies. Works included Hesiod’s Theogony, Snorri Sturleson’s Prose Edda, George Hart’s Egyptian Myths, the Blackfoot Indian story “The Orphan Boy and the Elk Dog,” an ancient tale from India called “The Parade of Ants,” and many more. 

The curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “From Atum-Ra to Horus—Using Egyptian Myths of Gods and Goddesses as Springboards to Increased Literacy” by Christine Elmore (Reading and Language Arts, grades K-5); “Native American Myths: Creation to Death” by Marcia L. Gereneser (Literature and Social Studies, grade 4); “African Myths and What They Teach” by Roberta Mazzucco (Literature and Social Studies, grades 2-5); “Three African Trickster Myths/Tales: Primary Style” by Linda Frederick-Malanson (Language Arts, Social Studies, and Reading Extension, grades K-4); “Universal Myths and Symbols: Animal Creatures and Creation” by Pedro Mendia-Landa (Integrated Social Studies, Language Arts, Science, Social Development, grades 1-3); “Hercules the Hero: Understanding the Myth” by Christine Y. House (Language Arts, grades 3-5); “Mythology: Trickster Tales” by Joseph O’Keefe (Language Arts, Reading and Social Studies, grade 6); “Discovering Persephone” by Michelle Sepólveda (Drama, grades 7-8); “Writing through Myths” by John Macauley Oliver (English, Mythology and Writing, grades 9-12). 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “Cultures and Their Myths.” (From left to right: Fellow John Mac Oliver; seminar leader Traugott Lawler; and Fellow Linda F. Malanson.) 



This seminar moved through Norse, Egyptian, African, Native American, and Indian mythologies. 
Art and Artifacts: The Cultural Meaning of Objects

This seminar focused on close analysis of things, a non-verbal way to learn about other cultures. Objects included were a silver teapot of around 1800, a pre-Revolutionary desk and bookcase, a painting by Winslow Homer, a depression era photograph by Walker Evans, a building, maps of New Haven, and clothing. Each Fellow also examined a single object that was related in some way to his or her curriculum unit. Reflecting the interests of the New Haven school population, the curriculum units dealt frequently but not exclusively with African, Hispanic and Native American cultures. 

An informal team of two teachers from Davis Street Elementary School, Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins and Jeanne Z. Lawrence, prepared related units for a cross-cultural project on masks and mask-making. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “Art and Artifacts: the Cultural Meaning of Objects.” (Clockwise from left: seminar leader Jules D. Prown; and Fellows Sheldon A. Ayers, Jeanne Z. Lawrence, Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins, Stephen P. Broker, Anthony F. Magaraci, Peter N. Herndon, Luis A. Recalde, and Victor J. Leger.) 

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “Shang Bronzes: A Window Into Ancient Chinese Culture” by Sheldon A. Ayers (Ancient History, grades 9-10); “African Art and Aesthetics” by Val-Jean Belton (Art, grades 9-12); “Technological Change in a Coastal New England Village, 1790-1990: The Duck Creek Harbor Site, Wellfleet, Massachusetts” by Stephen P. Broker (Environmental Science, Biology and American History, grades 10-12); “The Tainos of Puerto Rico: Rediscovering Borinquen” by Elsa María Calderón (Spanish for Spanish Speakers, Spanish for Hispanics, Spanish 4 Honors and Spanish 5, grades 9-12); “Mohandas Gandhi: The Art of Nonviolence” by Peter N. Herndon (World History, World Cultures, Contemporary Issues and U.S. History, grades 9-12); “Common Ground: Masks From a Cultural Perspective” by Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins (Social Studies and Language Arts, grades 1-2); “Masks and the Stories Behind Them,” by Jeanne Z. Lawrence (Social Studies, grades K-5); “The Environmental Adaptation of the Native American Indian” by Victor Leger (Art and Social Studies, grades 4-12); “Art and Warfare: The Warrior Role in Greek Society” by Anthony F. Magaraci II (Social Studies and Ancient Civilizations, grades 7-10); “Artifacts: Bringing the Past Back to Life—the Mexican Case” by Luis A. Recalde (Social Studies, grades 5-8). 



 
 
 


This seminar focused on close analysis of things, a non-verbal way to learn about other cultures. 
American Political Thought

This seminar read primary texts in American political thought from Tom Paine’s “Common Sense” in 1776 through very recent writings on the economy, race, gender and religion by figures like Charles Murray, Robert Reich, Shelby Steele and Ralph Reed. It examinedwell-known works like the Federalist Papers, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, William Graham Sumner’s Social Darwinist writings, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” It also read sometimes forgotten writings like the correspondence between Catherine Beecher and Angelina Grimke; the defenses of white supremacy by Henry Grady and Josiah Strong; and the black nationalism of Malcolm X. The seminar concentrated on three themes: Why have America at all? Who should be a full member? How should its basic economic and political institutions be organized? 

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “Democracy in Action” by Mary Stewart (Social Studies, Literature, Art and Writing, grades K-4); “‘We, the People’: New Voices in the Constitutional Debates” by Sophie Bell (Social Studies, U.S. History and Civics, grades 7-12); “Drama and Destiny” by Yel Hannon Brayton (Theatre and Creative Writing, grade 8); “The Great Depression and the New Deal” by Joyce Bryant (Social Studies and History, grade 8); “Who Gets to Invent and How Do Inventors Change Our Lives” by Jeanne Kimberley Chandler (Social Studies, grades 2-6); “Letters to an Unborn Patriot” by June Gold (American History and Writing, grades 6-8); “Land is the Basis of All Independence” by Gary Highsmith (Social Studies, American Government, American History and Black History, grades 7-12); American Political Thought: Minority Influence” by Mary Elizabeth Jones (Mathematics and Social Studies, grades 6-8); “Changing Times Here and Now” by Cynthia H. Roberts (History, grades 9-12); “Lessons in Drama: Learning About American Political Thought” by Paul Edward Turtola (Drama and Social Studies, grades 8-12). 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “American Political Thought.” (Clockwise from left: seminar leader Rogers M. Smith, Fellows Sophie R. Bell, June Gold, Mary E. Jones, Mary Stewart, Jeanne K. Chaudler, Mary E. Brayton, Paul E. Turtola, and Joyce Bryant.) 


Reading Across the Cultures

This seminar engaged contemporary American writing by authors from several ethnic and racial groups: Latino, African-American, Native American, Jewish, and Asian American. Reading included Sandra Cisneros’ The House on Mango Street; short fiction, essays, and poetry from Harold Augenbraum’s and Margarite Fernandos Olimos’ The Latino Reader; Gloria Naylor’s The Women of Brewster Place, Louise Erdrich’s Love Medicine; Bernard Malamud’s The Assistant, and Maxine Hong Kingston’s Tripmaster Monkey: His Fake Book. The seminar also read in two works that exemplify certain of the challenges of inhabiting a multicultural community: Gary Snyder’s No Nature and Jonathan Kozol’s Amazing Grace. For historical background, it read chapters in Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. The seminar paid attention to the distinctive aspects of minority cultures but also, and more importantly, to matters that seemed to underlie or transcend any ethnic or racial orientation: similar social and psychological problems, a common tool-kit of artistic strategies, and complementary visions of the larger national community. The multi-ethnic constitution of the seminar itself also made its meetings an adventure in the subject being studied. 

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “Who’s Who in America? Multicultural Achievers A to Z: Past and Present” by Kathleen Ware (Social Studies and Multicultural Education, grade K); “Multicultural Discovery When Reading Poetry and Stories for the Elementary Grades” by Yolanda U. Trapp (Social Studies, ESL and Language Arts, grades K-4); “Travel Through Children’s Literature Into the Lives of the People of Our Nation” by Nancy Taylor Skolozdra (Social Studies and Reading, grades 3-5); “Favored Holidays of Children Outside of the USA” by Gwendolyn Robinson (Math/Measurement, Language/Editing, Earth Science, Health and Nature, grades 3-6) “Literature for Every Child” by Carolyn S. Williams (Social Studies, Literature and Reading Instruction, grades 4-6); “Learning to Respect Differences through Cultural Diversity in Literature: Teaching Acceptance” by Carol S. Heidecker (Reading/Language Arts, grades 5-8); “The Clock Tower on Grand Avenue: A Cultural Reading Adventure” by Sequella H. Coleman (Reading, Language Arts and English, grades 5-8); “Celebrating Diversity Through the Study of Nine American Holidays” by Bonnie Bielen Osborne (Social Studies, English and Special Education, grades 6-12); “Becoming a ‘Gringo’: Immigrants, Language Learning and Acculturation” by Genoveva T. Palmieri (Social Studies, History, Multicultural Studies and Language, grades 11-12); “Other Voices—Latino and Chicano Literature and Identity in America” by George Peterman (English/Language Arts, grade 12). 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “Reading Across the Cultures.” (Clockwise from left: Fellows Carolyn S. Williams, Nancy T. Skolozdra, and Gwendolyn Robinson; seminar leader Thomas R. Whitaker; and Fellows Carol S. Heidecker and Sequella H. Coleman.) 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


The multi-ethnic constitution of the seminar itself also made its meetings an adventure in the subject being studied. 
Selected Topics in Contemporary Astronomy and Space Science

This seminar discussed the principal concepts of contemporary Astronomy and then developed special topics by using techniques and concepts consistent with the scientific method and current astronomical knowledge. Participants made use of readings in textbooks and semi-technical journals such as Scientific American, Physics Today, Astronomy, and Sky and Telescope. Because most of the Fellows were teaching students with special needs, who have difficulty in grasping abstract concepts and may not be able to follow complex instructions, most of the curriculum units covered topics related to the solar system, including the moon and the earth as astronomical objects. All the Fellows were careful in discussing the various laws of nature which guide our understanding of phenomena. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “Selected Topics in Contemporary Astronomy and Space Science.” (Clockwise from front left: seminar leader Sabatino Sofia; Fellows Susan L. Norwood, G. Casey Cassidy, Anthony Thompson, Joanne R. Pompano, Sheila Martin-Corbin, Sandra Friday, and Saundra P. Stephenson.) 

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “Out-of-this-World Experiments” by G. Casey Cassidy (Science, Computer Studies and English, grades 7-8); “The Plausibility of Interstellar Communication and Related Phenomena Depicted in Science Fiction Literature and Movies” by Sandra K. Friday (English, grades 9-12); “The Sun” by John K. Grammatico (Science, Language Arts, Art, History and Math, grades 1-3); “Practical Illustrations of Astronomical Concepts Relating to the Solar System” by Sheila Martin-Corbin (Science, Math and Language Arts, grade 8); “Fly Me to the Moon” by Susan L. Norwood (Science, grade 4); “Exploring the Moon—A Curriculum Adapted for Use with the Visually-Impaired,” by Joanne R. Pompano (Astronomy, Special Education and Visually-Impaired, grades 4-6); “Life on Earth and Beyond, Our Search for Answers” by Judy Puglisi (Astronomy, grades 6-12); “Beyond Planet Earth” by Lucia Rafala (Science, Literature/Language and Math, grades K-3, Special Education); “Where Are We in the Milky Way” by Saundra P. Stephenson (Science and Mathematics, grades 8-12); “Astronomy and Your Place in the World” by Anthony Byron Thompson (Science and Physical Science, grades 7-12). 



 


This seminar discussed the principal concepts of contemporary Astronomy. 
The Population Explosion

This seminar dealt with both the heartening and heartbreaking aspects of population growth. It studied how progress in combatting disease and infant mortality ushered in the era of population growth, and also how overpopulation has caused human and environmental misery. For the future, the seminar looked at the technological and economic advances that may allow us to keep up with, and even improve, the lot of an increasing population. Seminar participants read a story about a child servant in Malaya who is accused of murder, a biography of an Egyptian adolescent going through her awakening as a person, descriptions from Brazil, India and China of mothers forced by poverty to sacrifice their children, people on mud islands in Bangladesh that are periodically washed away by the monsoons, and subsistence farmers in Madagascar who are chipping away at some of the last tropical forests. The seminar argued all the “hot button” issues of the current American war over “values”: families, sexuality, teenage pregnancy, contraception, abortion and the status of women. This topic allowed the Fellows to discuss some of the most serious and complex problems facing humanity today. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “The Population Explosion.” (Clockwise from left: Fellows Stephen Beasley-Murray, Richard R. MacMahon, Anne M. Kavanagh, and Eddie B. Rose, Jr.; seminar leader Robert Wyman.) 

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, included: “The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences” by Carolyn N. Kinder (Social Studies and Science, grades 5-8); “Population Needs vs. Population Deeds” by Raymond Brooks (Science and Earth Science, grade 8); “The World Population Explosion” by Eddie Rose; “Evolution, Population and Humans” by Richard R. MacMahon (Honors Biology and Advanced Biology, grades 9-12); “Culture, Crisis and Population Explosion: A Deweyan Approach in the Classroom” by Stephen Beasley-Murray (Biological Sciences and Biology/Social Sciences, grades 9-12); “Pandemic Pet Population: The Reproductive Responsibility of Pet Owners” by Francine C. Coss (Language Arts, Science and Technology, grades K-5); “Life in 2010” by Maureen Taylor-French (Earth Science, grades 8-9); “There’s More to Sex Education Than AIDS Prevention” by Mickey Kavanagh (Social Development, grade 9). 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


This seminar dealt with both the heartening and heartbreaking aspects of population growth. 
The Process of Determining the Seminar Topics

Between October and December 1997, the teachers who served as Institute Representatives and Contacts for their colleagues had canvassed other teachers throughout New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools to determine the topics they wanted Institute seminars to address in 1998. (Please see Appendix for lists of teacher leaders.) The Representatives met together twice monthly and communicated individually with the school contacts with whom they were responsible for staying in close touch. The Director of the Institute then recruited Yale faculty members who were qualified and willing to lead seminars that engaged the desired topics. Their specific proposals were then considered and approved by the Representatives. 

In their evaluations, the 1998 Fellows indicated that the Institute Representative for their school had been helpful in many ways: by maintaining frequent contact with them, asking for their views on seminar subjects for the following year, encouraging and assisting them to apply to the Institute, and promoting the use of Institute-developed curriculum units. (Chart 1, reading from left to right, moves from the more helpful to the less helpful activities of the Representatives.) As a result, two-thirds (68 percent) of all Fellows said in the end that they had, while the program was being planned, sufficient opportunity to suggest possible topics for seminars. There is slightly less satisfaction with these arrangements than reported last year (74 percent). 

(Chart 1 available in print form)



 


Two-thirds of all Fellows said they had sufficient opportunity to suggest possible topics for seminars. 
The Fellows’ Application and Admissions Process

Having worked with teachers in their respective schools during the preceding months, the Institute Representatives met on January 5 to receive for distribution in all schools copies of the Institute application form, brochure, and descriptions of the seminars to be offered. At this meeting a general presentation of the subjects of the seminars ensured that all Represenatives could explain to their colleagues the purpose of each seminar. 

On January 13 the Institute held an open house for prospective applicants where any teacher might learn more about the planned seminars from the Representatives and from the seminar leaders, who attended and conducted discussions in small groups with interested teachers. 

On January 20, the Representatives met to discuss their progress in working with prospective applicants and to hand in their own completed applications. The final application deadline for teachers applying to the Institute was January 27. This date was selected so that teachers would apply in advance of the February school vacation. The office would then have the vacation period to process application materials, and the review of applications could be completed during February to provide the earliest possible notification to teachers who were accepted. 

There are four principal criteria for teachers to be eligible for consideration as Fellows: 

1. The applicant must be a current New Haven public school teacher who will be teaching in New Haven also during the school year following Institute participation. 

2. The applicant must agree to participate fully in the program by attending and coming prepared to all scheduled meetings and by completing research and meeting due dates in the preparation of a curriculum unit. 

3. The teacher must demonstrate in the application that his or her specific interests are directly related to the seminar as it has been described by the seminar leader. 

4. The applicant must also show that the seminar and the curriculum unit that he or she proposes to write are directly related to school courses that he or she will teach in the coming school year. 

For some years it has been the policy of the Institute to allow no more than twelve teachers to enroll in any seminar. The small size of the seminars is necessary both for the collegiality of the Institute experience and for the individual attention that each teacher’s work in progress receives from the seminar leader and from other teachers in the seminar. 

During the planning process, 145 teachers expressed interest in participating in one of the seminars to be offered (10 percent more than expressed interest last year). Of those teachers, 47 were from high schools, 8 from transitional schools, 41 from middle schools, and 49 from elementary schools. By the application deadline, the Institute Representatives, assisted by the school Contacts, had obtained applications from 92 elementary, middle, and high school teachers in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences, almost as many as the record number in 1997. According to the Representatives the extraordinarily high demand for seminars over the past three years may be attributed in some measure to the frequent mention of the Institute by the school administration and to the desire of a good many teachers to apply as members of teams. 

The individual application form calls for the interested teachers to specify the subjects and grade levels they teach, the course or courses in which they plan to introduce the material they study in the Institute, and their willingness to meet each of the Institute’s requirements for full participation. The applicants also write a brief essay describing why they wish to participate in the seminar to which they are applying, and how the curriculum unit they plan to write will assist them in their own teaching. Writing this essay is, in effect, their first step in formulating a curriculum unit through which they will bring the material they study from the seminar into their own teaching. 

(picture available in print form)

Representatives meeting. (Left to right: Val-Jean Belton and Sequella H. Coleman.) 

The team application form requires the interested teachers to demonstrate how the team envisions working together in intergrade and/or interdisciplinary ways and must outline plans for a culminating activity in the school. Teams may receive preference during the admissions process, and are required to submit a final report on their work together during the following school year. If a team is not admitted as such, however, the members of the team may be admitted to the program as individual Fellows. The Institute encourages such Fellows to work as informal teams in their schools. 

The applications were then reviewed by three groups: seminar leaders, school principals, and seminar Coordinators. The seminar leaders examined the applications for their relationship to the seminar subject. This afforded each seminar leader the opportunity, as well, to tailor or enlarge the bibliography for the seminar so that it would address the specific interests of the teachers who are accepted. 

At the same time, the applications were reviewed in the applicant’s own school, in keeping with plans to decentralize administrative functions and decision making within the school district. The Institute’s Representative for each school contacted the school principal to determine who should be involved in this building-level review. The intention is to increase awareness within each school of the projects that teachers wish to pursue in Institute seminars and to afford an opportunity for the principal and other educational leaders to examine the relationship between teachers’ applications and school plans. As Reginald Mayo, Superintendent of the New Haven Public Schools, wrote to all principals on January 21, 1998: “We believe this is a highly promising way for ensuring that the assistance that the Institute provides to individual teachers and to teams of teachers has the best prospects for advancing each school’s academic plans.” This process informs the consideration of each application, provides each applicant pertinent feedback, and often provides a significant opportunity for Institute Representatives to talk with their principals about the Institute. 

The Public Schools’ supervisors were then given an opportunity to examine the applications of the teachers they supervise to determine whether or not each proposal is consistent with, and significant for, the teacher’s own development and for school curricula generally. 

As in the past, the Institute formed a group of teachers who served as Coordinators to assist with the organization and smooth operation of the seminars. These Coordinators were drawn from the group of Representatives who had earlier helped to plan the program of seminars. When the seminars began, each Coordinator would participate as a Fellow in a different seminar, and they would meet together weekly with the Director. At this earlier point they served as an admissions committee. They met after school on February 5 to conduct a first reading and discussion of the applications to their respective seminars. They then contacted all teachers whose applications needed to be clarified or amplified. On February 12 the Coordinators met again for a full day, by taking professional leave, for their final consideration of and decisions on the applications. 

During their review, the Coordinators considered the findings of the school administrators and seminar leaders and made recommendations to the Director about which teachers the Institute should accept. By these means, the Institute seeks to ensure that all Fellows participate in seminars that are consistent with their interests and applicable in the courses they teach. A meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators was held on February 26 to discuss the admissions process just completed, and to review the seminar and unit writing process and the policies and procedures of the Institute. On February 27 the Institute accepted as Fellows 84 New Haven teachers (as in 1997, the largest number in a seventeen-year period), 60 in the humanities and 24 in the sciences. (Four of the seven seminars were oversubscribed.) Once again a team of teachers from a given school was admitted with the expectation that team members would coordinate their curriculum units and work together during the school year, planning cross-grade and cross-department instruction and school-wide activities. 

Consistent with the Institute’s aim to serve the largest possible proportion of all New Haven teachers, 23 (or 28 percent) of the teachers accepted in 1998 were participating in the Institute for the first time. Of these first-time Fellows, 16 were in the humanities and 7 were in the sciences. About one-third (32 percent) were Black, slightly less than two-thirds (63 percent) were White, and 4 percent were Hispanic. 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


The small size of the seminars is necessary for the collegiality of the Institute experience. 

 
 
 
 
 
 


The extraordinarily high demand for seminars may be attributed to the frequent mention of the Institute by the school administration. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“We believe this is a highly promising way for ensuring that the assistance that the Institute provides has the best prospects for advancing each school’s academic plans.” 
—Reginald R. Mayo 
The Fellows Who Were Accepted

Fellows came from 6 of the 8 high schools, 8 of the 9 middle schools, and 2 of the 5 transitional schools. Of the 27 elementary schools, 13 had teachers participating. The Institute first admitted elementary school teachers in 1990; this year 28 (33 percent) of all Fellows were elementary school teachers. Twenty-eight percent were middle school teachers, and 34 percent were high school teachers. In one case, a team of Fellows from a given school took part together in a seminar. Four schools had five or more Fellows; thirteen schools had three or more. Overall, about 33 percent of the Fellows were 41-50 years old; 35 percent were younger and 31 percent were older. 

As Chart 2 shows, almost one-fifth of the Fellows (19 percent) had four or fewer years of total experience in teaching. The Institute attracted a slightly higher proportion (23 percent) of teachers with 20 or more years of total experience in teaching. One-third (34 percent) of the Fellows, however, had four or fewer years of experience teaching in the New Haven school system. Illustrative of the need for the professional development that the Institute provides, more than half (54 percent) of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position four or fewer years; more than three-quarters (77 percent) have taught in their present position for nine years or less. Thus, even though 62 percent of the Fellows have 10 or more years total teaching experience, more than half have four or fewer years experience in their present position. These figures help to explain why many teachers say they need to develop their knowledge in subjects that they have been recently reassigned to teach, or curricular materials for students of a different age or background from those they have taught before. 

(Chart 2 available in print form)

Moreover, as in past years—and as is the case in the school system generally—many of the 1998 Fellows did not major in college or graduate school in the subjects they currently teach. As Chart 3 shows, in no field did all Fellows teaching a subject have a graduate or undergraduate degree in that subject. In some fields, notably bilingual education, chemistry, general science, and physics, no Fellows had a graduate or undergraduate degree in a field they taught. Of the Fellows teaching in the field of English, fewer than half had an undergraduate or graduate degree. Of those teaching in the field of social studies, fewer than one fourth had so much as an undergraduate degree. 

(Chart 3 available in print form)

Chart 4 shows the subjects Fellows taught in the 1997-1998 year of their Institute participation. Overall, more than two-thirds (69 percent) of Fellows in the humanities and more than four-fifths (82 percent) of Fellows in the sciences had not majored either in college or in graduate school in one or more of the subjects they taught in that year. 

(Chart 4 available in print form)

Understandably, therefore, when the 1998 Fellows were asked about the incentives that attracted them to participate in the Institute, they responded (as Chart 5 shows, reading left to right from the most important to the least important) that the most important incentives were the opportunities to increase their mastery in the subjects they teach (67 percent), to exercise intellectual independence (65 percent), and to develop curricula to fit their needs (68 percent) and materials to motivate their students (67 percent). Indeed, incentives that might be imagined to be important for teachers with access to Yale University—credit in a degree program and access to Yale athletic facilities—were notably unimportant for Fellows in the Teachers Institute. 

(Chart 5 available in print form)

As past Institute studies have shown, Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haven teachers. So, for example, this year’s Fellows continue to reflect the gender and ethnicity of all New Haven teachers, though there are great disparities overall between the ethnic and racial characteristics of New Haven teachers and those of their students. (See Table 1 on Page 22.) Similarly, the Yale faculty members who have led Institute seminars generally reflect the wider faculty at Yale. 



 
 


Many teachers say they need to develop their knowledge in subjects that they have been recently reassigned to teach, or curricular materials for students of a different age or background from those they have taught before. 


More than half have four or fewer years experience in their present position. 

 


More than two-thirds of Fellows in the humanities and more than four-fifths of Fellows in the sciences had not majored in one or more of the subjects they taught. 


The most important incentives were the opportunities to increase their mastery in the subjects they teach, to exercise intellectual independence, and to develop curricula to fit their needs and materials to motivate their students. 
Activities for Fellows

At the first organizational meeting of each seminar, held on March 5, 1998, the seminar leader distributed an annotated bibliography on the seminar subject and presented the syllabus of readings that he or she proposed the seminar would consider. The Fellows described the individual curriculum units that they planned to develop. This afforded the members of each seminar an overview of the work they were undertaking together and the projects they would pursue individually. The bibliographies both introduced the seminar subject and guided Fellows as they began research on their curriculum units. One wrote, “The seminar leader provided a vast array of expertise, provided a very good bibliography and was very helpful in his guidance.” Another wrote, “The material covered during our weekly meetings was not only quite interesting, but each topic seemed to be related closely to one or more of the units written by the participants.” A third said, “The assigned readings were wonderful exposures to various cultural practices and beliefs and to thoughts about diversity in our society.” 

Table 1
Ethnicity and Gender of Participants

White
Black
Hispanic
Other
non-Hispanic
non-Hispanic
All
Male
Female
All
Male
Female
All
Male
Female
All
Male
Female
Institute Fellows, 1998
63%
21%
43%
32%
9%
24%
4%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Institute Fellows, 1978-98
67%
21%
46%
28%
6%
22%
4%
1%
3%
1%
0%
1%
New Haven Public School Teachers, 1998
69%
21%
48%
21%
4%
17%
9%
2%
7%
1%
0%
1%
New Haven Public School Students, 1998
13%
7%
6%
57%
29%
28%
28%
14%
14%
2%
1%
1%
Institute Coordinators, 1998
29%
0%
29%
57%
0%
57%
14%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Steering Committee, 1998
67%
33%
33%
33%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Representatives and Contacts, 1998
50%
15%
35%
38%
8%
30%
10%
3%
7%
2%
0%
2%
Institute Seminar Leaders, 1998
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Institute Seminar Leaders, 1978-98
84%
70%
14%
9%
9%
0%
6%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Yale Faculty, 1998 (includes tenured and term ladder faculty)
89%
68%
21%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
7%
5%
2%

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

In contrast, some Fellows emphasized how demanding they found the reading to be. One said, “At times the required reading was more time-consuming than necessary. I found the workload overwhelming at times, especially at the end of the year.” Another said, “The seminar did present a challenge to some in regards to the extensive reading. Personally for me, I thoroughly enjoy reading, and the required books were of great interest to me, so I did not find it a hard task on the whole.” 

The seminar leaders also commented on what they perceived to be the Fellows’ responses to the weekly readings. One said: “I thought the Fellows would be generally conscientious but that there might be problems of insufficient reading. Those expectations were to some degree realized, though in fact more teachers did a good job of getting through all or most of the readings than I anticipated.” 

Before the second seminar meeting all Fellows met individually with their seminar leader to discuss their projects. The Institute requires that Fellows schedule at least two such conferences as part of the unit writing process; many Fellows, however, meet more frequently with their seminar leader. At the end of the program, most Fellows (87 percent) said that they had ample opportunity to discuss their choice of readings with the seminar leader. 

One seminar leader said: “Some of the individual discussions were rather mechanical. Most, however, were good, absorbing, productive discussions of the units, issues in the seminar, issues in teaching. The individual meetings are time-consuming but very valuable to me, and I hope they are also valuable to the teachers.” Another said, “As usual, I went to people’s schools to see them. I loved being in the schools, seeing people’s classrooms and often their students.” 

Fellows also commented on the value of the individual meetings. One said: “The seminar leader was more than willing to discuss the curriculum unit one-on-one outside of the seminar and was most helpful in the writing process through editorial comments, discussions, and support.” Another said: “I was very appreciative when our seminar leader visited my classroom. The last time I remember a college faculty member visiting my classroom was when I was student teaching eons ago.” A third Fellow said: 

Our seminar leader was sensitive and caring in giving of his time both in and out of class. I especially liked the fact that he was interested in our grade level classes and wanted to know how the material that was presented could be used in our individual classes. Also, the fact that he is interested in coming to our school for our final production that is given by our team is both encouraging and supportive of our individual efforts. 
(picture available in print form)

Fellow Eddie B. Rose and seminar leader Robert Wyman. 

During the period that preceded the regular weekly meetings, Fellows continued their reading, both preparing for the upcoming seminar discussions and working toward a brief prospectus of what their final units would contain. At the second seminar meeting, on April 7, Fellows submitted this prospectus, presented their revised unit topics, and began to discuss the common readings. The regular weekly seminar meetings began on May 5; thereafter Fellows continued to develop their units in stages, with a first draft submitted on May 19. The weekly meetings of the seminars continued through July 14, with Fellows submitting the second draft of their units on July 7 and their completed units by July 31. 

For several years, Fellows have been asked to submit the prospectus, together with a revised topic of the unit and a list of appropriate readings, at the time of the second seminar meeting. This allows them a full six weeks to write a first draft. The due date for the second draft is late enough to allow Fellows ample time to address the comments they received on the first draft from other Fellows and from the seminar leader. Although some seminar leaders have urged that the revised topic, preliminary reading-list, and first draft be submitted somewhat later, and some have informally instituted yet another draft between the first and second drafts, a high proportion of Fellows have been satisfied with this schedule. In 1998, 73 percent of the Fellows thought the unit writing deadlines occurred at the right time in relation to the school calendar. 

The Institute attaches great importance to the process through which Fellows develop their curriculum units, and many Fellows commented in their evaluations upon the benefits derived from following this process. One wrote: “I found the seminar leader’s comments on my unit drafts to be insightful and extremely helpful.” Another wrote: “The editing in the first draft was exhaustive and there was much positive direction in the seminar leader’s comments.” A third wrote: “Our shared works in process were perhaps the most enlightening part of the process. We read the first drafts of three other people. The work was divided by similar topics and teaching areas. At the next session we had discussion, comments and tips for each other that seemed to be appreciated by all.” At the conclusion of the seminars, most Fellows indicated that the program schedule (90 percent) and the guidelines for writing a unit (92 percent) had been useful to them to a great or moderate extent. 

This year 66 percent of the Fellows said they tried out the subject matter and 71 percent said they tried out the strategies of their units in their classroom. Of those Fellows who did, most (72 percent) said that this influenced what they included in the final units. One wrote, “My students will definitely enjoy learning about the myths of the Native Americans. They have already demonstrated this during the ’98 semester.” 

During the first two months of the program, which serve as a reading period, all Fellows also met together on Tuesday afternoons for a series of talks. Ordinarily, at least some current or prospective seminar leaders are included in this series, while some other faculty members are invited to speak on topics the school Representatives believe will be of particular interest to many Fellows. In 1998 the Representatives decided that all five talks should be given by either current or prospective seminar leaders. In this way all Fellows could listen to either an overview or an example of the work their colleagues are pursuing in other seminars, while learning as well about seminars in which they might want to participate in a future year. The talks given in 1998 were: “Reconstructing the Ancient Mayan Murals at Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico,” by Mary E. Miller, Professor and Chair of History of Art; “The Chemistry of Oxygen Production by Plants,” by Gary Brudvig, Professor of Chemistry; “The Population Explosion,” by Robert J. Wyman, Professor of Biology; “America’s Racial Future: ‘The Fate of the Third Reconstruction,’” by Rogers M. Smith, Professor of Political Science; and “Race and Masculinity—Danny Glover,” by Hazel Carby, Professor and Chair of African and African-American Studies. 

Although the talks have recently met with more favorable response than was once the case, they remain somewhat controversial. Some felt, as one Fellow wrote: “The Institute invited guest speakers whose topics had minimal correlation with the seminar topic I signed up for. Many of the speakers were interesting and informative, but I do not believe all of these lectures should have been mandatory.” 

Most Fellows, however, saw in the talks the purposes for which they were organized. They said that to a great or moderate extent the talks provided them intellectual stimulation (94 percent) and a sense of collegiality and common purpose among Fellows (76 percent). Two-thirds (69 percent) said the talks were successful in providing an overview of Fellows’ work in the seminars. Three-quarters (78 percent) said that the Institute scheduled the right number of talks. One Fellow wrote: “I feel that the strength of the Institute is the fact that we are exposed in the talks and seminars to faculty members who are excellent in their fields. Knowledge is imparted to us in different ways.” Another wrote: “I thought the talks were incredibly great—really engrossing, impressive in their grasp of the subject at hand, and several were seriously thought-provoking.” 

(picture available in print form)

Hazel Carby giving her 1998 talk on “Race and Masculinity—Danny Glover.” 

Many Fellows reported that the talks prompted them to read about their topics (47 percent), discuss the topics with their students (47 percent), and discuss the talks with other teachers (75 percent). 

As in recent years, the Institute scheduled a session on curriculum unit writing on March 17, well before the regular meetings of the seminars began. Before starting on their curriculum units, the Fellows all need to understand the central role that the process of writing plays in Institute seminars. As part of their admissions folder, all Fellows had received Institute guidelines and mechanical specifications for preparing curriculum units, which outline the Institute writing process and the five steps for Fellows’ formulating, reformulating, and enlarging their individual units. During the session on curriculum unit writing, a panel of Coordinators first spoke briefly to all the Fellows about following the Institute process for unit development, considering one’s audience, using a computer to write a unit and put it online, using the computer assistance the Institute and Yale University provide, and working together with other Fellows in writing and using units. Then the Fellows were divided into seminar groups, where each Coordinator led a discussion of purposes and practices in writing Institute curriculum units. This afforded an opportunity for the first-time Fellows to learn about the guidelines and other aspects of curriculum unit writing from experienced Fellows. At the same time, it encouraged experienced Fellows to share that experience, and it allowed all to discuss how the completed volume of units might display a range of teaching strategies and contain a standard form of annotation. By leading these discussions, the Coordinators also identified themselves as being knowledgeable about the process of writing curriculum units, so that other Fellows might seek their advice. 

At the Coordinators’ weekly meetings with the Director, which were held on the day after seminar meetings, they discussed the progress of each seminar and gained an overview of the program. In addition, the Coordinators met with the seminar leaders immediately before the program began to provide them with information about the teachers who had been accepted and to begin to define their role in assisting with the conduct of the seminars. Both seminar leaders and Fellows acknowledged in their evaluations the essential role of the Coordinators. Most Fellows (89 percent) agreed that the Coordinator had provided teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within the seminar. Almost all Fellows said the Coordinators helped them by facilitating discussion of Fellows’ work in progress (92 percent), and by providing information about guidelines and deadlines for unit writing (97 percent) and about use of University facilities (95 percent). Few Fellows found the Coordinators unhelpful in any respect. 

To maintain current information on the program and to address any problems that arose, the Institute Director met monthly with the seminar leaders as a group. This also afforded the seminar leaders, two of whom were conducting an Institute seminar for the first time, an opportunity to talk with each other about their approaches to the seminar and experiences in it. 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haven teachers. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“The assigned readings were wonderful exposures to various cultural practices and beliefs and to thoughts about diversity in our society.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 


“I was very appreciative when our seminar leader visited my classroom. The last time I remember a college faculty member visiting my classroom was when I was student teaching eons ago.”
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“Our shared works in process were perhaps the most enlightening part of the process.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“I thought the talks were really engrossing, impressive in their grasp of the subject at hand.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Most Fellows agreed that the Coordinator had provided teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within the seminar. 

 
Rewards for Fellows

The seminars have always been regarded as the core collaborative experience of the Institute, and each year the Fellows’ comments about the seminars have been rich and positive. This year the Fellows often were very enthusiastic indeed. One said: 

My experience this year was a good one. First, there was my relationship with my colleagues. There were four Fellows I had known in other capacities but not from taking a seminar with them, so I particularly enjoyed the opportunity to discuss matters relating to the seminar topic and to teaching with them. Similarly, I gained from discussions with my elementary school colleagues, admiring their ability to translate complex issues into teachable and understandable forms. Second, there was the seminar leader. Quickly, he showed himself to be a natural, gauging just the right amount of work and artfully weaving discussions of our units in progress into our broader discussions. The materials he chose were both useful and thought provoking. He encouraged us to use the Internet and e-mail for research, and most of us did. 
Another Fellow said: 
This year’s Institute seminar was very demanding but quite rewarding. Under the guidance of our seminar leader, we were assigned a diversity of literature to read. He kept the discussions lively and stimulating. He was well organized and he provided ample opportunities for the Fellows to meet with him while writing their unit. No previous Institute seminar leader I’ve encountered has surpassed the help he offered in the writing of my curriculum unit. 
Seminar leaders described their seminar in general terms. One said: 
I was almost completely enthusiastic about the conduct of the seminars. The teachers had no problems with my shifting the main burden of the discussion to them, and in fact they thrived on that format, fortunately recognizing my pedagogical purpose. The discussions were so lively that I often had trouble reining in participants when time was “up.” 
Another said: 
Rather than me having to drag commentary out of the participants, I, instead, had to constantly cut off debate and restrict the flow of ideas to only the most central ones. The time always went much too fast and we always had to stop in the middle of some intense discussion. It was a pleasure to have adults in the seminar. The discussion flowed even better than it did in seminars on a similar topic with Yale undergraduates. 
A theme in Fellows’ comments this year, as in many past years, was the appreciation and understanding they gained of their own and other cultures as a result of what they read and the interaction they had with Fellows of different backgrounds. One Fellow wrote: “The ethnic backgrounds of the participants were a plus for this seminar because each was able to serve as a cultural resource during discussions. The exchange that took place within the seminar, as well as outside, was most useful to me in relating to teachers of different subject areas and grade levels.” Another wrote: “We all came from different ethnic and age groups and educational disciplines; the different perspectives made for lively discussions.” 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “American Political Thought.” (Clockwise from left: Fellows Mary E. Brayton, Paul E. Turtola, and Joyce Bryant; seminar leader Rogers M. Smith.) 

Ever since the Institute’s inception, its participants and staff have sometimes been asked whether the co-professionalism among Yale faculty members and New Haven school teachers, for which the program is widely known, is authentic. The collegiality on which the Institute is founded is perhaps best illustrated by the mutual respect between Fellows and seminar leaders that the seminar experience engenders. Comments made this year, including some already cited above, are representative: 

My respect for the teachers deepened after almost every week of the seminar. Their dedication and energy to the seminar, and to teaching in general, came through quite forcefully and was very impressive. The Institute is an absolutely superb partnership between teachers and scholars. 

Being very bright, several teachers had constructed for themselves strong and complex theories in their areas of interest. Since these were teachers with many years of experience, their theories had also been gestating over years. What the teachers lacked, however, was a community of scholars to criticize their constructs and offer alternative visions. The seminar to some degree, and my personal interactions with each teacher to a greater degree, served to provide that questioning environment. This is education in its highest form. As academics, the Yale faculty is accustomed to the luxury of critical debate. I found it very gratifying to be able to provide some of the excitement and contention of this debate for these Fellows. 

In turn, Fellows expressed their respect for their Yale colleagues. One Fellow said, “Our seminar leader was extraordinary. Every single seminar was fascinating, stimulating and informative. I cannot speak highly enough of him.” Another said: 
Our seminar leader’s tutelage made this year’s Institute an exciting and thought-provoking experience. His kind manner and great generosity—in terms of his availability for conferencing outside the classroom—his thoughtful critiques, and the incredible breath of knowledge that he shared with us made for user-friendly, easy-access learning. 
As some Fellows have already noted, the seminars afford them an otherwise too rare opportunity to talk and work with other teachers across the artificial boundaries that often separate grade levels, schools, and disciplines. Many Fellows this year spoke of the value of the Institute for them in these respects. One said: “The group itself was a key ingredient in the seminar’s success. Providing a balance of elementary, middle and high school teachers, the members brought a positive variety of knowledge, experience, and perspective which provided a stimulating balance. Each willingly carried a responsibility for the seminar’s success.” 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“The discussion flowed even better than it did in seminars on a similar topic with Yale undergraduates.” 
—Seminar Leader 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“My respect for the teachers deepened after almost every week of the seminar.” —Seminar Leader 
Relating Seminar Topics to Curriculum Units

Each Institute seminar must balance the complementary and inseparable but sometimes competing demands for studying the seminar topic and developing specific applications of that knowledge for school classrooms. The Fellows, coming from elementary, middle, and high schools, are obligated to develop curriculum units that have some demonstrable relation to the seminar topic, but they are free to work out curricula that enter territory not covered in detail by the seminar. The curriculum units, therefore, have a diversity of subject and approach that one would not expect in a regular university course on the seminar topic. As a result, discussions in the seminar, while doing justice to the common reading, can also range widely over substantive and pedagogical issues relating to the curriculum units. Some comments by seminar leaders and Fellows quoted earlier have already indicated that each seminar approaches these demands somewhat differently as seminar leaders strive to strike an appropriate balance. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “Art and Artifacts: the Cultural Meaning of Objects.” (Fellows Anthony F. Magaraci and Sheldon A. Ayers.) 

In recent years the Institute has also encouraged Fellows to build into their curriculum units both subject matter and skills that are called for by the local curriculum framework and the state Mastery Test. The various strategies for incorporating such elements in what may be quite individual and innovative units can provide stimulating discussion among the Fellows in a seminar. 

In the end, a sizable majority of this year’s Fellows (78 percent) said that there had been an appropriate balance in seminar between general study of the seminar subject and Fellows’ work in progress on their units. As one Fellow put it: “There was a good balance between discussion of the seminar topic and individual topics. We were each given two opportunities to speak formally to the entire group.” For a few others, more time spent discussing work in progress would have been beneficial. One wrote, “I would have appreciated more class time for working on the unit. I am suggesting that the seminar classes focus more on the writing of the units than on the seminar subject.” 

After the curriculum units were completed in July, they were compiled in a volume for each seminar, and in October the volumes were deposited in the libraries of all elementary middle, and high schools, so that New Haven teachers, whether or not they have been Fellows, might use them in their own teaching. As in the past, the Institute prepared a Guide to the new units, based on synopses by the authors and their recommendations of the grade levels and school courses to which their units apply. 

The Institute also updated the Index of all the 1,172 units contained in the 129 volumes the Institute has published since its inception in 1978. The Index and Guide, too, were deposited in all school libraries and distributed to the teachers who serve as Institute Representatives for the schools. A full set of the new curricular resources was provided to those school district administrators who have responsibility for curricula system-wide. At the same time, the Representatives conducted an inventory to ascertain whether each middle and high school has a complete set of all 129 volumes of units and whether all elementary schools have each of the volumes that their teachers believe are applicable at those grade levels. 

Maintaining a library set of units has proved most difficult in those schools that do not have a full-time librarian or, in some cases, even a library. In 1993-94, the Institute therefore sought to determine the best location for Institute material to be deposited in every New Haven school, and it has since continued to supply units missing from any collection, insofar as the volumes have been still in print. As described below, the Institute has also created an electronic version that makes its curricular resources more widely accessible. 



 


The curriculum units have a diversity of subject and approach that one would not expect in a regular university course on the seminar topic. 

 
 


The Institute has also encouraged Fellows to build into their curriculum units both subject matter and skills that are called for by the local curriculum framework and the state Mastery Test. 
Results for the Participants

As in past years, Fellows in 1998 spoke of the results of their Institute participation especially in terms of intellectual growth and renewal. Just as the opportunity to increase mastery of the subject one teaches was an important incentive for most Fellows (67 percent) to take part in the Institute, almost all (93 percent) said that they had gained knowledge of their subject and confidence to teach it by participating in their seminar. Only two Fellows differed with the statement that the seminar helped with intellectual and professional growth. 

Many Fellows described the Institute experience as having increased their professional confidence and morale. One Fellow said: “After participating in the Teachers Institute I have been re-energized, motivated, and ready to teach next school year. I am more open to experimenting with different methods of teaching. I realize that I have been teaching from a very narrow perspective.” Another said, “The Institute is invaluable in helping me to develop new and stimulating material for the teaching profession each year. Creative teaching is highly motivating to me and helps to keep me excited about bringing new learning experiences to my students.” 

Fellows spoke, too, of the access to Yale facilities they had gained from participation. From the Institute’s inception, all Fellows have been full members of the University community, listed in the directory of faculty and staff, and granted use of facilities and services across the campus. For most Fellows (60 percent) access to Yale’s academic facilities such as the library was an incentive for their participation, and 60 percent reported that membership in the Yale community had been greatly or moderately useful to them. 

(picture available in print form)

The seminar on “The Population Explosion.” (Left to right: seminar leader Robert Wyman and Fellow Michael Golia.) 

One Fellow said, “My class field trip to the CCL Computer Classroom was a tremendous success, and it brought forth a genuine enthusiasm from my middle school students, especially as they were allowed to walk through the Old Campus, drill the undergraduate tour guide with questions, and have lunch at one of the dining halls.” Another Fellow said that the Institute had introduced “some wonderful resources at Yale—Yale Art Museum, Map Reading Room in the Main Library, Yale Film Archive, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute Web site, etc.—which can be key ingredients for multidisciplinary projects.” 

Nor do Fellows see the results of the Institute as limited to their own classrooms, or even to teachers who have participated in the seminars. Almost all said that they plan to encourage and assist other teachers in using the unit they prepared; two-fifths said they planned to do so with four or more other teachers. Fellows this year provided various accounts of the more extended influence the Institute has had, and will have, for themselves and their schools. Several Fellows wrote: 

At my high school, curriculum is being written within the various departments. The document for parenting is now being constructed. I expect that the framework will include a review of the subject in various periods of American history, as well as a strong suggestion to use film and video to present role models in action. I will also include among the resources the wide range of units written by previous Fellows that could easily be included in lesson plans for the classroom. I predict that my curriculum unit will have effect in two other areas—in particular and among the teachers of parenting in the system. 

The school will be able to use my unit without fear of getting away from the Mastery Tests objectives. I designed this unit to assist the average teacher looking for an interesting topic that targets the standard Mastery skills. The grades I wanted to affect are third through sixth. Modifications, if needed, may be made by the teacher using this unit. 

This curriculum was developed for students in 4-6 grades who are attending regular and special education programs. In addition, it is adapted to assist visually impaired and blind students in accessing the materials and information necessary to work on this topic. It is hoped that the adaptations suggested will also help teachers understand how future science lessons can be modified for students with visual impairments. 

Each year we are attentive to the responses of both first-time and veteran participants because we want a high proportion of New Haven teachers to become Fellows and we also want the Institute to become a regular part of Fellows’ professional lives. Both groups cite their own rewards. One first-time Fellow wrote: “The Institute possessed many strengths. Its greatest strengths were the people in charge at the seminar level.” Another wrote: “I enjoyed being able to have access to various computer labs across the Yale campus.” And another said: “I think a major strength of the program is giving teachers the opportunity to have control over what they teach. It makes me feel proud of myself to teach something that I worked on creating. It allows me to teach 4th grade reading while integrating an interesting, informative piece of literature.” 

For returning Fellows, the rewards of participation do not diminish over time, because the experience becomes cumulative, and not repetitive or redundant. In fact, a good many teachers report that the benefits increase as one has more experience as a Fellow. One returning Fellow wrote: 

Four years ago, I could not have imagined the impact that the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute would have on my view and ways of teaching. A parent of one of my students informed me that their child sent a letter to the Superintendent of Schools praising the method of teaching that was unique and inspiring. She talked about how history and music were presented together, which seemed to help her learn music in a more effective manner. In my General Music Class I was able for the first time to have students play in a symphonic ensemble. This was also the result of the teaching academic skills through music approach developed at the Institute. 
Another Fellow wrote: 
When I began teaching in the New Haven schools in 1993, I questioned my ability to connect with my inner city students. I felt out of touch with today’s modern urban student, and I felt uncomfortable when having to take on the task of providing students with my knowledge. I had little experience with teaching diversity, never having had the chance to coexist in a school setting with people of different races and religions. Over five years I have picked up a valuable discipline, and have figured out a way to deal with today’s students. As long as I approach this “teaching challenge” as one in which I am its biggest student, then I can feel comfortable teaching anything to just about anybody. I have found that as long as I concentrate on learning, I can teach. 
As in every year since 1990, when they became a regular part of the Institute, elementary school teachers spoke this year of the particular advantages of the Institute for them specifically. One said: “My previous participation gave me the opportunity to enhance certain areas of the elementary curriculum. I was able to provide teachers with information and resources that were useful in creating an interesting unit.” Another said: 
Last year my curriculum unit was used to bring Language Arts to life. During the course of the year, children were exposed to a wealth of children’s literature regarding African and African-American culture. Storytelling was shared on an intergrade level: related activities were conducted with all Grade 1. Journal writing was emphasized and students had an opportunity to create their own stories and share them with classmates across the grade. 
(picture available in print form)

Seminar leader Sabatino Sofia. 

Seminar leaders, too, speak of what they gain from participation. They not only appreciate their expanded involvement in public education and the University’s home community; they also find that there are often benefits accruing to their own scholarship and teaching. Presenting their experience is especially important because the Institute is often asked to explain the incentives and rewards for Yale faculty members who participate. Several seminar leaders this year said: 

Leading an Institute seminar truly recharged my teaching batteries. I had a series of incidents with bratty undergraduates in the spring, and the Fellows helped restore my usual cheerful teaching self with their respect and their humility. They know why they want to be there and what they wish to learn, and I felt much more so than usual that my teaching made a real difference. 
There is value in getting outside of the insularity of the Yale classroom experience. It is good to have contact with teachers who operate under very different conditions and yet share with us the common goal of education, the transmission of information, values, and methodologies. There was a particular benefit this year in having contact with faculty and teachers from outside of Yale and New Haven. 

It is extremely valuable to me to get a first-hand sense of what public school teachers are like, what their challenges, aims, and experiences are in teaching, what they know and don’t know. I learn a lot about contemporary education as well as different perspectives on issues I frequently teach. Then, when I teach those materials with Yale students I have new ways to highlight what’s significant and exciting about the materials. I also benefit from seeing the different ways they adapt the themes in their curriculum units, sometimes in ways I can use in my own teaching. This year I also learned from them about how to use the World Wide Web better. 


 
 
 


“I am more open to experimenting with different methods of teaching. I realize that I have been teaching from a very narrow perspective.”
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Almost all said that they plan to encourage and assist other teachers in using the unit they prepared. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“Over five years I have picked up a valuable discipline, and have figured out a way to deal with today’s students.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“Leading an Institute seminar truly recharged my teaching batteries.”
—Seminar Leader 


“It is good to have contact with teachers who operate under very different conditions and yet share with us the common goal of education.” 
—Institute Fellow 
Teams of Fellows

For the past five years the Institute has admitted teams of four teachers from one school to a seminar with the expectation that the team members would coordinate the curriculum units they wrote and work together during the school year, planning cross-grade and cross-department instruction and school-wide activities. This program, highly successful in several schools, has encouraged teachers who were previously reluctant to participate in seminars on an individual basis to apply to a seminar as part of a school team. 

(picture available in print form)

Students in the team’s culminating assembly at Beecher Elementary School. 

In 1998, a Fellows team from L. W. Beecher Elementary school once again participated in the Institute. Members of the team were enrolled in the seminar on “The Use and Abuse of History in Film and Video.” The team’s related units dealt with the film portrayal of the roles of women in American history, the nature of early pioneer life, the African-American migration, and African-Americans in professional baseball. It is the responsibility of a team to shape its curriculum units so that they lead to some shared culminating activity. As in previous years at Beecher Elementary, the use of the curriculum units in individual classrooms led to a presentation in the spring that involved the entire school, bringing in administration, support staff, and parents. 

One team-member said: 

This is my fourth year of being part of a teacher’s team in the Institute. For both my students and myself this has been a most rewarding experience. Collaboration has helped to enrich the learning process. It has helped to bring unity to our school staff whereby teachers, secretaries, custodians, etc., see a need for a working relationship and comradeship while in school and out of school. 

 
 
 
 
 
 


“Collaboration has helped to bring unity to our school staff.” 
—Institute Fellow 
Benefits for Students

The ultimate purpose of the Institute is not only to strengthen teaching in New Haven’s public schools, but also in this way to improve student learning throughout the schools. The Institute intends to serve students at all achievement and performance levels. Fellows often write their units for students at more than one level. In fact, Fellows reported that they designed their new curriculum unit for their “least advanced” students (57 percent) as frequently as they reported that they designed their unit for their “advanced” students (62 percent). 

(picture available in print form)

Fellow Sequella H. Coleman and her students at Fair Haven Middle School. 

These excerpts from the plans of several Fellows illustrate the wide range of unit use in the schools. 

I would like to use my unit to help my students experience different types of stories and to improve our social studies program. I hope to read a lot of myths from all cultures during the school year. I would like to do my unit during Black History month and combine the literature with the study of Africa. 

My unit will enrich our language arts (reading, writing, speaking, listening), mathematics, social studies and comparison work. 

If embraced and implemented by fellow sixth-grade social studies, mathematics, science and literature teachers, all sixth-grade students will be immersed and exposed to mythology and opportunities to practice literacy. 

(picture available in print form)

Fellow Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins and her student in the Davis Street Magnet School Center for Curricular and Professional Development. 

I intend to follow through in completing my unit with at least three separate classes of students from the start of the school year. I anticipate having the three classes share with the rest of the school their projects created in my art class by the end of the year. 
The unit I have written will offer students a variety of approaches to this topic through mythology, philosophy, history, and creative dramatics, therefore bolstering their understanding of what they will be learning in their social studies classes. The unit fits our school plan as well with regard to its interdisciplinary focus. 

Teaching mathematics concepts in conjunction with the entire curriculum helps students to better appreciate and understand mathematics. 

I have been team teaching with math, science, and social studies teachers for the past three years. As an English teacher I continue to learn the art of combining disciplines. 

My curriculum unit was developed for a course which does not presently have a published New Haven Public Schools curriculum, and it will be useful in the development this year of such a curriculum document. 

(picture available in print form)

Fellow Paul E. Turtola and his students at the Fair Haven Middle School. 

To attempt to gauge the impact of this year’s units in New Haven classrooms, we asked Fellows about the number of students to whom they planned to teach their new unit, and on how many days. Sixty-two of the Fellows planned to teach their unit to more than 25 students; 30 of that group said that they would teach their unit to 50 or more students. The total number of students to be taught a unit by this year’s Fellows is 4,068. Chart 6 indicates the length of time the Fellows planned to teach the unit. For all Fellows, the unit is a significant part of their teaching plans. 

(Chart 6 available in print form)

Fellows continue to be optimistic about the responses they anticipate receiving from their students to the material they had studied and developed in the Institute. Most Fellows this year (77 percent) agreed that, as a result of Institute participation, they have a higher expectation of their students’ ability to learn about the seminar subject. More than one-third of the Fellows (35 percent) strongly agreed with that conclusion. Fellows spoke about how their own enthusiasm for a subject would motivate students, and how they planned to involve students more actively in classroom learning. One Fellow said: 

My curriculum unit will be incorporated into the United States History II course that is required of all eleventh graders. In my past years of teaching U. S. History, one of my goals was to make history come alive and be exciting for my students. I have always found visual materials to be a successful teaching strategy. My seminar reinforced and validated my belief in the importance of films. 
Another Fellow said: 
My enthusiasm springs from the fact that I have invested so much time and energy into creating my curriculum unit and feel very satisfied with its final form. Also, the content—Egyptian mythology—holds great appeal for children and I think that it will be an effective springboard for teaching literacy skills to my young students. 
We also asked Fellows who had participated in the Institute in prior years to report on student responses they had actually observed when teaching units they had previously developed in the Institute. Their comments were very much in the same vein. One said: “I noticed that the response from students was different when they found that I had written the unit with them in mind. They asked specific questions about the information and for clarification about any part of the assignment.” Another Fellow said: 
I have found that while I may not repeat a whole unit each year I sometimes take parts of units and reuse them. I have used part of a unit on architecture while teaching about the culture of different countries. A few years ago I did a poetry unit and I still try to use parts of it to introduce poetry to my students. Being in the Institute has also influenced what others in my grade teach. The students seem to enjoy the units. They go beyond any textbook and provide topics that the children really get involved in. 
A third Fellow offered a succinct summary of the values discovered in teaching previous units: “For my students: integrated curriculum to meet individual needs, more enthusiasm, improved peer relations, improved self-awareness and achievement in academic as well as social areas.” 

(picture available in print form)

Fellow Sequella H. Coleman and her student at Fair Haven Middle School. 



 
 
 
 
 
 


“All sixth-grade students will be exposed to mythology and opportunities to practice literacy.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Most Fellows have a higher expectation of their students’ ability to learn about the seminar subject. 

 
 
 
 
 
 


“For my students: integrated curriculum to meet individual needs, more enthusiasm, improved peer relations, improved self-awareness and achievement in academic as well as social areas.” —Institute Fellow 
Participants’ Conclusions Overall

We asked Fellows about the extent to which several features of the Institute had been useful to them. As shown in Chart 7 (reading again left to right from the most useful to the least useful), very few Fellows said that any aspect of the Institute had not been useful. In fact, except for the lecture series, membership in the Yale community, and computer assistance, each aspect of the Institute was regarded as useful, to a great or moderate extent, by three-fourths of the Fellows or more. More than half responded that favorably to the lecture series (59 percent) and to membership in the Yale community (60 percent). 

(Chart 7 available in print form)

One seminar leader reached the following conclusions about the Institute this year: 

Our work has limits: it cannot hope to improve teaching enough to overcome the difficulties of schools and students plagued by limited resources and terribly difficult working/living conditions. But it simply cannot be denied that the seminars increase the teachers’ knowledge, help build new networks among them and with us, and improve morale and profes sionalism. I have come increasingly to think that eventually this kind of relationship between universities and public school systems must become the norm, with universities becoming working partners in public education much more than they ever have been. It can’t happen soon enough. 
We also asked Fellows to provide their overall conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Institute. One comment summed up a frequent balance of views: “The strengths were the people who participated, both from Yale and from New Haven Public Schools. The only areas I would mention for improvement are logistical, and perhaps beyond the Institute’s ability to change.” In general, the content of the Institute’s offerings was received with enthusiasm, and the results of its program were consistently praised. 

In their evaluations, almost all the Fellows said they intended to participate (77 percent) or might participate (16 percent) in the Institute in one or more future years. At least four of the five teachers who do not intend to participate are no longer eligible because they have assumed administrative positions or have left the school system. Indeed, there are now 35 members of the administration of the New Haven Public Schools who have participated as Fellows of the Institute for periods of one to seventeen years. The increasing presence of former Fellows in positions ranging from Assistant Principal and Principal to Assistant Superintendent has clearly rendered the Institute more visible and has encouraged other teachers to participate in this program. 



 


“This kind of relationship between universities and public school systems must become the norm. It can’t happen soon enough.” 
—Seminar Leader 

 
 


The increasing presence of former Fellows in positions ranging from Assistant Principal and Principal to Assistant Superintendent has clearly rendered the Institute more visible. 
Electronic Resources and Assistance

From the Institute’s inception, Fellows have been full members of the Yale community with access to resources throughout the University. For several years the Institute has been exploring how computing can enhance its partnership, because computing overcomes the barriers of time and distance that can impede collaboration, and because it is a non-hierarchical form of communication and therefore consistent with the collegiality that is a tenet of the Institute’s approach. 

In 1995, Fellows became eligible to purchase Yale computer accounts, and a number of Fellows now have Internet access provided in this way. The Institute has also engaged several undergraduate and graduate students to serve as computer assistants to the Fellows, a role modeled to some extent on that of the computer assistants in the Yale undergraduate residential colleges. Computer assistants were available Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Institute’s computer support center. Increasingly, however, the Institute has referred Fellows to the Internet Information Center, which serves the entire Yale community. The Yale University Library also sponsors a series of hands-on computer classes each semester on a variety of topics, including an overview of the Library’s online services, an introduction to Netscape, Internet search engines, and subject-specific Internet workshops. These classes, which are free of charge, take place in the Electronic Classroom at the Cross Campus Library. 

The electronic resources and services available to Fellows therefore include many opportunities to learn about and use computing, regardless of previous experience and expertise. In 1998 Fellows received computer assistance on a variety of topics, which included getting started with computing, setting up a PPP/e-mail account, getting started on the Internet, using the Internet in research and teaching, using Institute resources online, and word processing and file handling for the preparation of curriculum units. The Institute has also established an online forum for teachers who are Institute Fellows or who have access to an Institute Center to discuss Institute-related topics and to help each other with computing problems. Discussion on the electronic forum goes on over an e-mail list: any message sent to the list is sent to anyone who subscribes to the list, creating a kind of group discussion. 

In 1998, even more than in the previous year, Fellows were strongly urged to submit their curriculum units on disk. They were asked to hand in this disk version directly to an Institute computer assistant, who checked them for formatting errors and readability. A record 97% of the Fellows (all but three individuals) turned their units in on disk, and this checking procedure facilitated the process of putting them online. Almost all followed our recommendations on word processing software, which simplifies converting their units for the web site. Because of the benefits to the Fellows and to other teachers that result from having the curriculum units online, the Representatives decided that in 1999 all curriculum units must be handed in on disk. 

Almost half of this year’s Fellows (49 percent) took at least some advantage of the computer assistance available to them through the Institute or through Yale University. Most who sought help did so in person (45 percent of all Fellows), some by phone (37 percent), and some by e-mail (25 percent). For 38 of the Fellows (58 percent) the availability of computer services was an incentive to their participation. 

Most Fellows who did not use the computer assistance said they did not need it because of their own previously acquired competence, or because of the availability of resources at home or at school. A few said they did not do so because of time constraints during the school year, or parking problems. One Fellow claimed, “My computer skills are so retarded I did not want to frustrate the instructors.” Those who took advantage of the assistance, however, were full of praise for the expertise, the patience, and the persistence of those at the Institute and at Yale’s Internet Information Center whom they consulted. 

One Fellow said, “I would rather do without adequate parking than without their services. They are invaluable to people like me.” Another said, “The computer assistants called around campus and found someone to help salvage the information on my disk once they realized they weren’t able to help me. Thanks, this has been a wonderful experience for me.” 

Overall, of the Fellows who used the computer assistance offered them, all but three (5 percent) said the assistants were helpful in getting started with computing. Those who consulted the assistants also found them to be helpful in setting up e-mail and Internet access (16 percent), in using the Internet in research and teaching (35 percent), in word processing and file handling for the preparation of a curriculum unit (32 percent), and in using the Institute’s curricular resources online (29 percent). (See Chart 8.) 

(Chart 8 available in print form)

Nine staff developers from the New Haven Public Schools, none of whom had been Institute Fellows, also attended a computer workshop in the Electronic Classroom, where they were provided with materials relating to the Fellows program and the Institute Centers. It is hoped that these staff developers might spread this information to other schools where the Institute Centers are not currently based. 

The Institute has now concluded, however, that with computer assistance more amply available on campus than in earlier years, and with a much larger proportion of the Fellows already computer-literate, its own direct assistance in this area has become less necessary. Perhaps one Fellow may here speak for many: “I did not use the computer assistance available because assistance was provided in prior years, so none was needed. Thank you for the generous assistance of prior years!” 

Electronic versions of the Institute’s publications are now available at its web site. The address is http//www.yale.edu/ynhti. The full texts of all 1,172 units written between 1978 and 1998, plus an index and guide to these units, are thus available to teachers online. Also available are the full text of the New Haven Public Schools’ recently adopted framework of curriculum standards, information about the Institute (its brochures and most recent Annual Reports), and the text of its periodical On Common Ground. To call attention to this resource, the web location has also been advertised prominently on the cover of On Common Ground, which contains articles regarding school-university partnerships and is intended for a national audience. 

(image available in print form)

Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute web page located at http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/. 

The Institute has created a “guestbook” on its web site, in order to invite comments and suggestions from those who have visited the site. In recent years the site has been used by an increasing number of people, in this country and abroad. From the many guestbook entries, it is evident that the curriculum units written in New Haven have already been of great use to other teachers. For example, a high school English teacher from Watertown, NY, wrote: “This is one of the most useful sites I have ever used.” A junior high school teacher from Bountiful, UT, wrote that one of the lesson plans on middle school drama was mentioned in their state-wide e-mail newsletter. A current graduate student in Forest Hill, MD, wrote: “I have found this web site extremely helpful in completing a graduate level course in Curriculum and Instruction. . . .  Thanks for modeling a wonderful cooperative learning style!” A college librarian in Boston wrote: “We are developing online materials for our teachers-in-training, and will be pointing to your site. I’ve looked at it a little this morning, and am quite impressed, by the content but also the site itself.” A teacher from McKinleyville, CA, said, “This is one of the best web sites for teachers that I have found. . . . Have sent it to at least a hundred colleagues.” 

A middle and high school English teacher from Seoul, Korea, wrote: “This is fantastic.” A teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, wrote: “I have no access to public libraries and resources—your site is extremely useful to me as I try to write an entirely new curriculum for the school where I am currently teaching!” And a teacher from Münster, Germany, wrote: “I really enjoy reading the publications of the Teachers Institute. They are so very interesting and help me to get new insights into various topics and teaching methods. I simply haven’t found anything better on the Internet yet.” 



 
 
 
 
 


The Institute has been exploring how computing can enhance its partnership. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Almost half of this year’s Fellows took at least some advantage of the computer assistance available to them. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“I did not use the computer assistance available because assistance was provided in prior years, so none was needed.” 
—Institute Fellow 

 


“This is one of the best web sites for teachers that I have found. . . . Have sent it to at least a hundred colleagues.” —California Teacher 
Institute Centers for Professional and Curricular Development

In 1996 the Institute undertook with the New Haven Public Schools a new program designed to broaden and deepen its efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in the schools. It offered several elementary, middle, and high schools the opportunity to establish an Institute Center for Professional and Curricular Development within their buildings. Five such Centers were established in 1996. In 1997 two more Centers were opened. In 1998 two Centers were not renewed and two new Centers were opened. Centers are now located at seven schools: two elementary schools (L. W. Beecher and Davis Street Magnet), three middle schools (Roberto Clemente, Fair Haven, and Jackie Robinson), and two high schools (Career High School and Cooperative Arts and Humanities High School). Planning is underway for three more Centers in the near future, at Edgewood Elementary School, Wilbur Cross High School, and East Rock Global Studies Magnet School. 

Funding is now available to support twelve Centers. These Centers are not permanent installations and must be annually renewed. A Center may remain in a school so long as the school has a need and a desire for it, but it can then be moved to another school. Moving Centers from school to school increases the citywide exposure to the Institute. The Steering Committee, which makes these decisions, has developed criteria for targeting sites. A suitable site must be of sufficient size, with a critical mass of participants and a sufficient leadership. It must be able to rely upon a favorably disposed school administration and an appropriate school plan, and it must be located in such a position that the majority of the New Haven teachers will have a Center at their school or a nearby school. 

The Institute and the New Haven Public Schools view the establishment of Institute Centers as a vital component of curriculum reform efforts system-wide. The Centers carry out school-based plans and address the District’s “Kids First” goals, which call for more site-based management, improvement of curriculum and instruction, greater staff development, increased parental involvement, and improved physical condition of schools. The Centers directly address the first three of these goals and provide new opportunities with respect to the last two. They attempt to create in schools a place that will be conducive to the kinds of conversations teachers have with each other and with their Yale colleagues in Institute seminars. They are intended to increase the visibility and use of Institute resources and include teachers who have not yet been Institute Fellows. They disseminate Institute-developed curriculum units more widely, and help the teachers learn how to use curriculum units that are online, explore computing as a means of collaboration, and apply the Institute’s principles in new ways within the school environment itself. 

(picture available in print form)

Career High School Center for Curricular and Professional Development. 

The Centers therefore operate from attractive and properly equipped rooms in the schools themselves, containing special furnishings designed by Kent Bloomer, Professor of Architectural Design at Yale, who has led two Institute seminars. Bloomer has designed for each Center two pieces of furniture that will remind the users that a Center is a way of bringing teachers together, and that it is a function of the mutual presence of Yale in the schools and the schools in Yale. Combining utility and symbolism, these pieces have a solidity and elegance in harmony with the tradition of design at Yale University, and an evident durability suggestive of the Institute itself. One piece is a round table, with a hole in the middle, which provides the “center” about which eight people can sit. The center of the table is filled with a circular design, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute logo multiplied as a continuous fret, which is done in tile and set in cast metal for permanence. The second piece is a very high bookcase, designed to hold volumes of the curriculum units and other Institute materials, with hand-plated inlay work across the top that carries the same continuous fret depicting the Institute logo. A banner continues the logo of the fret into the room. Each Center will also contain at least one computer with a high-speed modem so that the teachers have easy access to the Institute’s web site. 

Interested schools must apply to the Institute’s Steering Committee to become a Center site. An application, which requires the involvement of the school’s principal and management team, must contain an Academic Plan for the calendar year, describing how the teachers in the Center will take full advantage of Institute resources while working on school plans that address the goals of the District. If a school is selected as a Center site, its Academic Plan must be updated and renewed each year. 

Schools selected as Center sites become eligible to receive special resources and incentives from the Institute. These incentives, which are outlined in the Center booklet, assist with the Center’s development as well as the implementation of its Academic Plan. The Centers or Institute Fellows at Center schools may apply for mini-grants from the Institute to implement approved aspects of their Center Academic Plan. During 1998 the Centers were supported by grants received in 1995 from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation and the Arthur Vining Davis Foundation (for high school Centers) and in 1997 from the Jessie Ball duPont Fund (for new Centers). 

The Institute has developed a standard format (Center logs) for all Centers to use in documenting activities. In previous years Center Coordinators met monthly with the Institute’s Director to review the activities of Centers and report on progress. In 1998 the Steering Committee decided to establish collaborative leadership at each Center, so that responsibility would be more widely shared and continuity could be more easily assured. The members of the Coordinating Team share responsibilities for leading certain efforts within the Center, including documentation. Team members complete the required mid-year and end-of-year reports and are encouraged to document their Center’s work in a variety of ways, including video and audio tapes, photographs, and minutes of meetings. 

At the request of Center Coordinating Teams, the monthly meetings with Center Coordinators were replaced in 1998 by two Forums on Exemplary Practices and Plans. A lively discussion among the teachers and staff members occurred at each Forum, with many details about plans and practices being exchanged. 

The Forum held on April 8 considered a variety of topics, with presentations by Center leaders on activities at their schools. Peter Herndon and Tony Magaraci spoke on Collaborative Leadership of Centers, Francine Coss on Computing and Electronic Resources, Sloane Williams and Tony Magaraci on Interdisciplinary Planning, Sequella Coleman on Curriculum Development Activities, Alan Frishman and Carolyn Kinder on Academies and Other Work Directly with Students, and Jean Sutherland on Integrating Center Activities. 

(picture available in print form)

Institute Forum on Exemplary Practices and Plans (From left: Fellows Alan K. Frishman, Peter N. Herndon, and Anthony F. Magaraci.) 

At the Forum held on December 15, 1998, some of the same topics were continued, but there were also presentations by Sheldon Ayers on attracting teachers to the Center, Jean Sutherland on using formal teams, Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins on using informal teams, Francine Coss on identifying units related to school courses for K-8 teachers, and Mary Stewart on K-8 interdisciplinary thematic units. 

We mention here some of the accomplishments and plans at specific Centers during 1998. At Beecher Elementary School, teams of teachers have taken an Institute seminar every year since 1995, and the planning for and presentation of the culminating activity continues to involve a great number of Beecher teachers, students, administrators, support staff, and parents. In 1997-98, a team of teachers attended Robert D. Johnston’s seminar on the “Use and Abuse of History in Film and Video” and then worked with their students toward a culminating program held on April 17, which was attended by about four hundred people. A mini-grant was awarded to a first-grade teacher at Beecher for the development of a play, “Queen Esther,” a project that grew out of a unit on traditional Jewish holidays that was part of an earlier team effort. At Beecher another team of three teachers received a mini-grant from the Institute in summer 1998 to identify, classify, and summarize Institute-developed curriculum units that could be used by elementary teachers not only in their own school, but also by teachers throughout the district. The team hopes to complete this ambitious project in summer 1999, and results will be made available to all teachers at New Haven elementary schools, whether or not those schools have an Institute Center. In January the entire faculty of Beecher Elementary School also attended a computer workshop in the Electronic Classroom of the Cross Campus Library. 

At Fair Haven Middle School, the goal established by the new Center last year was to adapt Institute curriculum units to curricular areas identified as important by the school’s new “curriculum map,” which emphasizes teamwork and integration across disciplines. Fair Haven’s teachers have made good use of the Center this year to meet and develop new curriculum based on Institute units. On May 7, 1998, twenty-one students from Fair Haven attended a two-and-a-half hour computer workshop in the Electronic Classroom, where they were introduced to doing research on the World Wide Web. The school’s 1999 Academic plan is to use Institute resources to prepare curricular units that align Fair Haven’s curriculum with the school’s and district’s literacy goals. 

At Davis Street Magnet School, following the Beecher example, two of the teachers enrolled as an informal team in Jules D. Prown’s seminar, “Arts and Artifacts: The Cultural Meaning of Objects,” and coordinated studies of Native American and African-American cultures that involved mask-making. When they taught their curriculum units, all of the second-grade classes were brought in, along with the first-grade class. The art teacher and music instructor also worked closely with the project, and several teachers in the fourth and fifth-grades expressed an interest in developing it with their students in the next school year. The Institute’s web site was also demonstrated at a workshop during April at this school. In 1999 Davis hopes to extend use of the Center to teachers from neighboring schools. 

At Jackie Robinson Middle School, two fifth-grade teachers and one seventh-grade teacher designed and planned an extended day program from October 1997 to May 1998. The goal was to help improve students’ learning by using curriculum units that were related to the Curriculum Framework document. The teachers used parts of curriculum units to work with students on their reading and writing, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. As a result, members of the School Planning and Management Team designed a ten-day summer program for fifth-grade students to continue their work on their literacy skills. A summer academy was also planned for eighth-graders who would be attending Hillhouse High School but was cancelled because of renovations at Hillhouse. 

(picture available in print form)

Fellow Jeanne Z. Lawrence with her student in the Davis Street Magnet School Institute Center for Curricular and Professional Development. 

At Cooperative Arts and Humanities High School the focus of the Center was upon interdisciplinary work in the arts, humanities, history, and mathematics. In April the Institute’s web site was demonstrated in a workshop at this school. Coop faculty received a grant to plan during summer 1998 a number of activities: a week-long Open House demonstrating selected curriculum units; Multi-Cultural Days with a series of events involving several academic and arts departments; a formal assessment process; and the identification of African-American and Latin American units for history teachers to integrate into their World Cultures course, including student projects that would enable art teachers and history teachers to work together in this course. A school-wide “Hispanic Cultures Week” was held in November, 1998. Institute curriculum units were part of the planning for classroom activities, which featured Latin American cultures, histories, foods, literature, inventions, and scientific discoveries. The Multi-Cultural Days will also include “Renaissance Days” and “African-American Celebration Days,” and a celebration on an Asian or Native American theme in the spring of 1999. Mini-grants were awarded to Coop teachers for efforts to identify and use Institute units on writing biography and for the development by arts and academic faculty members of interdisciplinary curricula. A team from academic areas and the arts met regularly through the fall to identify existing curriculum units that integrate arts and academics and develop ways to support teachers’ efforts to use these units. The entire staff has also benefited from interdisciplinary seminars held during the fall of 1998 at the Yale Repertory Theatre, the Yale Art Gallery, the British Art Center, and the Peabody Museum. 

At Edgewood Magnet School, a new Center will support the continued use of Institute curriculum units as primary resources for teacher-based research and curriculum writing. As part of the process of planning the Center, teachers from Edgewood were brought to the Electronic Classroom for a workshop on the use of computers. Though only two teachers at this school have been Fellows, all teachers are now consulting Institute units and using the Center collaboratively to plan curricula for a new program, “What if . . . Dual Perspectives on History.” A group of twelve Edgewood teachers and their assistant principal used Yale’s Electronic Classroom to research Institute curriculum units online for this program. Based on Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, it will give students the opportunity to explore, through literature, dance, drama, storytelling, music, and writing, different cultures that have experienced a radical event that changed history. The goal of “Dual Perspectives on History” is to improve students’ ability to understand, appreciate, and celebrate cultural difference and improve their critical thinking skills. 

At East Rock Global Studies Magnet School, a new Center being planned hopes to offer after-school workshops for teachers and Saturday Academies for students, parents, and community members. Although there was no large-scale Summer Academy in 1998, the curriculum developed for the 1997 Summer Academy has been refined and is being used in classrooms and extended day programs in several schools. 

The planned Center at Wilbur Cross High School is located in one of New Haven’s two comprehensive high schools, which has a large faculty, most of whom have not been Institute Fellows. There is a need here for teacher professional development. The goal of this Center for 1999 is to introduce the teaching staff to Institute resources and to give them opportunities to research, write, and implement curriculum based on those resources and geared to the interests, abilities, and needs of their students. Members of Wilbur Cross’s Coordinating Team are beginning a two-year process of assessing areas where teachers’ interests intersect with Institute curriculum units. In the fall of 1999, a member of the Coordinating Team plans to interview each special education teacher and then research and print appropriate units. Interviews with all science teachers will follow. As a first step, the Center at Wilbur Cross will conduct workshops, department by department, to ensure that every teacher is familiar with Institute resources they might use in their teaching. 



 


In Centers, teachers use Institute resources to implement school plans that address district goals. 

 
 
 
 
 


The Institute and the New Haven Public Schools view the establishment of Institute Centers as a vital component of curriculum reform efforts system-wide

 
 
 
 
 


A Center is a way of bringing teachers together, and a function of the mutual presence of Yale in the schools and the schools in Yale. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


A lively discussion among the teachers occurred at each Forum, with many details about plans and practices being exchanged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


The goal established by the new Center last year was to adapt Institute curriculum units to curricular areas identified as important by the school’s new “curriculum map.” 

 
 
 
 
 


The goal was to help improve students’ learning by using curriculum units that were related to the Curriculum Framework document. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


A new Center will support the continued use of Institute curriculum units as primary resources for teacher-based research and curriculum writing. 
Preparation for the Program in 1999

From June through August the Institute identified and approached the 60 teachers who would serve during the 1998-1999 school year as the 20 Representatives and 40 Contacts for their schools. (70 teachers had served in these ways during 1997-1998.) Representatives were selected according to recommendations of the teachers who served as seminar Coordinators and conversations they had with persons who had served as Representatives in the past, with other Institute Fellows, and with some school principals. Because the Representatives who served in 1997-1998 were widely regarded as effective, we sought a high degree of continuity of Representatives. 

In 1997-1998, the Representatives and Contacts were well distributed across New Haven schools with 33 (47 percent) representing elementary schools, 17 (24 percent) representing middle schools, 15 (21 percent) representing high schools, and 5 (7 percent) representing transitional schools. For 1998-1999, there was a rather similar distribution, with 26 (43 percent) representing elementary schools, 15 (25 percent) representing middle schools, 15 (25 percent) representing high schools, and 4 (7 percent) representing transitional schools. Whether or not they had a Representative, all schools had one or more Contacts to serve as a conduit for information to and from the Institute throughout the school year. Representatives attend meetings every other week from September to March, receive an honorarium for this work, and agree in advance to participate in the program they are planning. Contacts perform many of the same functions but are not required to participate in biweekly meetings or to commit themselves to Institute participation. Through the Representatives and Contacts, the Institute ensures that all teachers throughout the school district may have an effective voice in shaping a program of curricular and staff development in which they will then have the opportunity to take part. 

(picture available in print form)

School Representatives meeting. (Left to right: Fellows Luis A. Recalde, Mary Stewart, and Susan L. Norwood.) 

The Representatives held their first meeting of the new school year on September 22, 1998, and thereafter met twice monthly with the Director. On September 29, the Institute held a reception for Representatives and Contacts, so that they might become better acquainted with one another and might discuss plans for 1998-1999. That meeting set the stage for another productive year of their work together. Between meetings, the Representatives communicate by phone and through school visits with the Contacts for whom they serve as liaison to the Representatives’ committee. In these ways, their meetings compile information from, and distribute information to, teachers throughout the New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools. 

By the end of December the Representatives had approved the following seven seminars for 1999: Laura M. Green, Assistant Professor of English, “Women’s Voices in Fiction”; J. Michael McBride, Professor of Chemistry, “How Do You Know? The Experimental Basis for Chemical Knowledge”; Mary Miller, Vincent J. Scully Professor of History of Art, “Art and Identity in Mexico, from the Olmec to Modern Times”; Rogers M. Smith, Professor of Political Science, “Immigration and American Life”; John P. Wargo, Associate Professor of Environmental Risk Analysis and Policy, “Human-Environmental Relations”; Robert G. Wheeler, Harold Hodgkinson Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science, “Electronics in the 20th Century”; and Robin W. Winks, Randolph W. Townsend, Jr., Professor of History, “Detective Fiction: Its Use as Literature and as History.” 



 
 
 
 


Through the Representatives and Contacts, the Institute ensures that all teachers throughout the school district may have an effective voice in shaping a program in which they will have the opportunity to take part. 
Local Advisory Groups

Steering Committee

The Steering Committee, composed of school teachers who have played leading roles in the Institute at various times since its inception, has responsibility for long-range planning and the implementation of pilot and other new activities of the Institute. Members of the Steering Committee are selected by the Institute Director. A Steering Committee member must be—and must intend to continue as—a teacher in one of New Haven’s public schools. By agreeing to serve as a Steering Committee member, a teacher accepts the following responsibilities. Each member: 

1. Exerts leadership and participates actively in one or more of the following areas: establishment and development of Institute Centers for Professional and Curriculum Development in specific schools; preparation of system-wide curricula drawing on Institute curriculum units; development and use of electronic resources and communications; planning and conduct of after-school, Saturday, and summer Academies for teaching Institute units to New Haven students; conduct of interdisciplinary or intergrade teamwork in specific schools; and organization and provision of technical assistance to Teacher Institute demonstration sites in other cities. 

2. Attends and comes prepared to meetings twice monthly and takes professional days when needed to carry out these responsibilities. 

3. Participates as an Institute Fellow in the spring and summer following selection as a Steering Committee member. 

During the first half of 1998 the Steering Committee consisted of Peter N. Herndon, Carolyn N. Kinder, and Jean E. Sutherland. At mid-year, when Kinder moved to an administrative position, Pedro Mendia and Mary Stewart joined the committee. The Steering Committee constituted itself as teacher leaders for each sphere of Teachers Institute work. It also assumed responsibility for leadership of the Centers. It decided that Centers should have Coordinating Teams rather than individual Coordinators. It dealt with the documentation of Center use and activity, the relations with the school district and with principals, and the strategy for locating the next three Centers. It considered applications to renew or establish Institute Centers, and it planned the two Forums for the Centers that were held in April and December. It also took on the important responsibility of reviewing teacher leadership across the board—reviewing all former Fellows to identify leadership potential for specific roles. 

The Steering Committee provided very important assistance in planning and carrying out the July Intensive for those sites awarded planning grants in the National Demonstration Project. It served as an admissions committee for the National Seminars and as contacts with the National Fellows before arrival; and it met with the National Steering Committee in July. It also assisted in planning the January 1999 orientation for those sites awarded Implementation Grants. It canvassed teachers at the demonstration sites for their seminar choices for the July Intensive and planned for topics to cover in the January Orientation Session and for teachers to present those topics. 



 


The Steering Committee has responsibility for long-range planning. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


The Steering Committee provided important assistance in planning the July Intensive for sites in the National Demonstration Project. 
University Advisory Council

Yale faculty members advise and assist the Institute through the University Advisory Council and its Executive Committee, both appointed by the Yale President. The Advisory Council guides the general direction of the program and acts as a course-of-study committee so that the Institute can certify Fellows’ work to institutions where they may be pursuing advanced degrees. The Council also advises the Yale President on the Institute and, more generally, on matters concerning the University’s involvement with the schools locally and with public elementary and secondary education nationally. 

The University Advisory Council meets once each year; the Executive Committee meets twice or more each semester. The co-chairs of the Council meet and communicate frequently with the Director between meetings. Members of the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee meet jointly from time to time to share information about their respective activities and to explore appropriate ways of working together. 

(picture available in print form)

University Advisory Council meeting. (From left: Richard C. Levin, Sabatino Sofia, H. Catherine W. Skinner, Traugott Lawler, Gary L. Haller, Brigitte Peucker, Bryan J. Wolf, Rogers M. Smith, Robert A. Burt, Jules D. Prown, James R. Vivian, Thomas R. Whitaker, Gilbert M. Joseph, Jon Butler, Mary E. Miller, and Patricia Pessar.) 

During 1998 the Executive Committee met in February, April, May, October, and December. These meetings concerned priorities and plans for the Institute’s work locally and nationally. The following issues received most attention: a continuing effort with the assistance of the Yale President to complete an adequate endowment for the Institute; strategies for building an adequate science endowment for the Institute; and the establishment of the National Demonstration Project. The Executive Committee also approved the Institute seminars for 1998. The Executive Committee also spent a good deal of time thinking about appropriate new members for the University Advisory Council. 

(picture available in print form)

President Emeritus Howard R. Lamar and President Richard C. Levin at the University Advisory Council meeting. 

On April 22, the full University Advisory Council held its fifth annual meeting with President Levin. The 5-year terms of the members are staggered; but because at this time many initial 5-year terms had expired, more new members were added than usual. The new members are: Bruce D. Alexander, ex officio; Scott B. Bennett, ex officio; Murray Biggs; Edward S. Cooke, Jr.; Shelia de Bretteville; Margot Fassler; Susan Hockfield, ex officio; Frederic L. Holmes; J. Michael McBride; Leon B. Plantinga; Jock Reynolds, ex officio; Deborah G. Thomas; Gerald E. Thomas; Robert J. Wyman; Michael E . Zeller; and Kurt W. Zilm. 

Co-chair Jules D. Prown opened the meeting by welcoming the members and saying that, after a brief Director’s report on the progress of the Institute in New Haven and the establishment of the National Demonstration Project, the meeting would focus on two topics: a report by Thomas R. Whitaker on the Request for Proposals that had been mailed to twenty-nine colleges and universities representing fourteen potential demonstration sites and on the planning grants to be awarded in 1998 to five or six sites; and an Executive Committee report offered by Jules D. Prown on financial planning for continuing the New Haven Institute at an undiminished level. 

James R. Vivian, in reporting on the progress of the Institute in New Haven, summarized the placing of the Institute’s resources on the Internet, the renewal of four Centers for Professional and Curricular Development and the opening of three new Centers, the conducting of the third summer Academy, and the continuing high interest by teachers in the Institute’s core program of seminars and curriculum unit development. (These matters are set forth in greater detail in the Annual Report for 1997.) He also summarized the planning grant awarded in 1997 by the DeWitt Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund that allowed the Institute to examine the feasibility of, and develop criteria for, a four-year National Demonstration Project. He reported that the Fund had announced on March 24 that they were awarding Yale $2.5 million to carry out the project. He emphasized the Institute’s concern that the National Demonstration Project should strengthen, not lessen, its effectiveness in New Haven. He also outlined the process now underway through which certain institutions would receive Planning Grants for the National Demonstration Project. (These matters are set forth in greater detail in the second part of the Annual Report for 1998.) “In short,” he said, “after twenty years in operation, the Institute has completed a six-year phase of intensifying its efforts in New Haven and is now on the threshold of a four-year project to demonstrate how its approach may be adapted to establish similarly effective university-school partnerships in other cities.” 

(picture available in print form)

University Advisory Council meeting. (From left: Jon Butler, Mary E. Miller, and Patricia Pessar.) 

Thomas R. Whitaker then presented the Request for Proposals for demonstration sites. He noted that this document was recently presented to the National Advisory Committee, which had expressed pleasure in the progress being made and had discussed most fully the question of how to select the appropriate sites. He then invited the Council’s advice for the National Panel, which will be making these recommendations. Discussion focused on the costs and potential benefits to the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, and on the outcomes to be demonstrated by any selected sites. 

Jules D. Prown then reported for the Executive Committee concerning its recent meeting with President Levin on fund-raising and the need for maintaining seven seminars in the local program. These questions received vigorous discussion from members of the Council, who affirmed the importance of maintaining at least seven seminars each year and offered a number of suggestions for seeking funding from corporations in the area. 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


“After twenty years in operation, the Institute has completed a six-year phase of intensifying its efforts in New Haven and is now on the threshold of a four-year project to demonstrate how its approach may be adapted to establish similarly effective university-school partnerships in other cities.”
—James R. Vivian 
Local Program Documentation and Evaluation

Many evaluations of the Teachers Institute demonstrate that it assists schools in specific ways, and that the results are cumulative. (See especially A Progress Report on Surveys Administered to New Haven Teachers, 1982-1990 [New Haven: Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, 1992].) In the fall of 1998, the Institute updated its ongoing study of New Haven teachers who have been Fellows in terms of the proportion of eligible teachers from each New Haven school and department who have participated, the number of times Fellows have completed the program, and whether Fellows have remained in teaching in New Haven. This study showed that, of the 407 New Haven teachers who have completed the program successfully at least once between 1978 and 1998, three-fifths (61%) are currently teaching in New Haven. An additional thirty-five (8%) have assumed full-time administrative posts in the school system. Thus more than two-thirds (69%) of all Fellows since 1978 are currently working in New Haven Public Schools. These statistics are particularly encouraging because of the Institute’s determination to involve individuals who will continue to serve students in our urban school district. As we noted earlier, the increasing presence of former Fellows in administrative positions has rendered the Institute more visible and has encouraged other teachers to participate in its program. 

Table 2
Institute Fellows as a Percentage of Eligible 
New Haven Elementary School Teachers

Kindergarten 
5%
Grade 1
11%
Grade 2
9%
Grade 3
13%
Grade 4
15%
Grade 5
19%
Total K - 5*
15%

*Includes non-graded arts and special education teachers and 
librarians and curriculum coordinators. 


As Table 2 shows, a considerable number of current elementary school teachers (15 percent) have completed successfully at least one year of the Institute. (Elementary school teachers were first admitted in 1990.) As Table 3 shows, 35 percent of New Haven high school teachers of subjects in the humanities and sciences, 22 percent of transitional school teachers, and 34 percent of middle school teachers have also done so. A number of teachers have participated for two to nineteen years. Of those Fellows still teaching in New Haven 35 percent have participated in the Institute once, 36 percent either two or three times, and 29 percent between four and twelve times. On the other hand, of those Institute Fellows who have left the New Haven school system, 58 percent completed the program only once, and 30 percent took part two or three times. Only nineteen Fellows who have left (12 percent) completed the program four or more times. Thus, the Institute’s cumulative influence in the New Haven school system and its likely effects upon retaining teachers are indicated by the fact that it has worked in the most sustained way with those who have chosen to remain teaching in New Haven Public Schools. 

Table 3
Institute Fellows as a Percentage of Eligible 
New Haven Secondary School Teachers

Middle Schools High Schools Transitional Centers Overall
English
45%
35%
0%
37%
History
33%
35%
0%
31%
Language
18%
24%
0%
21%
Arts
39%
29%
0%
35%
Math
17%
30%
40%
26%
Science
50%
27%
20%
34%
Grade 5*
4%
n/a
n/a
4%
Grade 6
17%
n/a
n/a
17%
Grade 7
27%
n/a
n/a
27%
Grade 8
27%
n/a
n/a
27%
Total**
34%
35%
22%
34%
*Grade 5 teachers are included here only for middle schools; grade 5 teachers in elementary schools are reported in Table 2.
**Includes teachers of interdisciplinary and other subjects. 
n/a = not applicable 

In 1996 members of the National Advisory Committee suggested that the Institute engage in fuller documentation of its work beyond the seminars themselves, and of the wider effects of its program in the school system. They believed they were hearing from teachers and staff about many valuable results of the Institute’s work that should be documented in forms that could be made more widely available. The Institute is therefore now documenting more fully the work of teams in the schools, the activities of the Centers and Academies, and the development of electronic resources. This documentation has been summarized in earlier sections of this report.


 
 
 


More than two-thirds of all Fellows since 1978 are currently working in New Haven Public Schools. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


The Institute has worked in the most sustained way with those who have chosen to remain in teaching in the New Haven Public Schools. 
to the top of Local Program Documentation and Evaluation | to the top of the Program in New Haven

© 1999 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

© 2014 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute
Terms of Use Contact YNHTI