Feedback Please!

As teachers, we often find ourselves isolated in our own small kingdom with little feedback about how we are doing.  We may be observed once or twice a year by an administrator whom we expect and prepare for, but often that is our only source of observation.  I know that personally, I try not to change the way I teach as I really do value honest feedback  The temptation is there especially as I know this might be the only chance I have, but I do my best to be myself.  These visits are by necessity infrequent due to the sheer number of teachers to be observed by a limited number of administrators.  This means that a quick snapshot of our skills is there, but it not really something that can be considered a learning tool.  It can be very difficult to recognize ruts or deficiencies we have slipped into if we only view our teaching through our own filter.  Something more is needed, including a willingness to listen.  Andy Vasily wrote a blog post about our readiness for feedback at http://www.pyppewithandy.com/pyp-pe-blog/thought-of-the-day-saturday-july-26th-2014, and we have decided we are ready.

At our site, the three of us have decided to work together to spend some time throughout this coming year in each others' classrooms.  Our goal is not to make each other feel good with surface level observations.  We are trying to identify things that we each do that are great, but more importantly things that are not up to par or can be improved.  We all have those areas that we could be doing better, but it can be hard to identify them on our own.  The purpose of this exercise is to see our weaknesses in order to improve them.  The three of us have worked together now for six years, and have developed a strong friendship over this time.  This can make being honest easier, as we have a foundation that can support the potential pain a real and open assessment can create.  It can also make things a little more difficult, as we are truly invested in each other and would not purposefully hurt each others' feelings.  However, the benefits truly outweigh the temporary discomfort.

Our game plan is the following:

1. Observe each other early in the year - giving up two planning period twice a semester is do-able.  It is inconvenient, but does not need to be a regular occurrence to be effective. 
2. Meet together as quickly after the observation as possible to go over impressions while they are fresh -  For us, this will need to be before or after school, or possibly during our lunch time
3. Repeat for each teacher until we have each met - This needs to be done early enough that changes can be made before the next observation
4. Observe each other towards the end of the semester - Observing early in the year, and then midway through allows us to make changes between meetings.  The 2nd quarter observation will allow us to hear how our changes have addressed the gap and where improvements are still needed.  What a wonderful chance for insight!
5. Repeat during the Spring semester, looking at changed areas, and watching for other areas of need.

A bonus we will experience in this process is that we also get to share our best teaching practices with each other.  This is something that does not happen at all sites.  There are some progressive schools who have put an emphasis on peer observations, but this is the exception rather than the norm.  Tremendous value exists in the ability to see others and their methodology but few of us get to draw upon this wealth of experience and expertise.  If your site does not build in peer review time, that doesn't mean you have to miss out on the benefits!  Find peers whom you work well with and whom you admire, and get out of your classroom and into their world!

How Can I Help Others Catch My Vision?

Bringing innovation to education has the potential to be a daunting process.  You have to have an idea that is do-able, you have a lot of work to re-tool lessons and instruction, and you have those that don't understand why you feel the need to change things.  We have personally seen what happens when we do not address concerns and communicate well up front, and have learned tremendous lessons from it.  For our new change we have begun to be proactive rather than reactive with our peers.

First we developed the idea as fully as possible between the three of us, to ensure that we had our "talking points" and that we were able to share a clear, well-thought out vision.  This is extremely important as the lack of preparation can cause outsiders to think that the idea lacks merit, not because it is bad, but because someone who stumbles over their words and thoughts does not inspire confidence.  Look at the process of business proposals for a real-world example.  If you want to pitch a business idea to investors you had better come prepared.  No one wants to invest (money, time, etc.) in something that has not been well planned, has gaps in thinking, and appears to be an idea that just popped into your head.

The next step was to determine who our shareholders would be.  We focused on disciplines that might see an overlap in our course, as well as potential supporters and detractors.  In order to be successful in starting our new course, the department chairs will first listen to our idea and determine whether they will support it.  If they do not, we are dead in the water.  This is such a great idea that we are not willing to leave it to chance and our enthusiasm alone.  We needed to start dialogues with people ahead of time.

We started with overlap issues, meeting with those teachers whose subjects would be utilized in our course to discuss our ideas, acknowledge that there may be some commonalities, and seek to supplement each program rather than creating a competitive environment.  This allowed any concerns or issues to be addressed immediately, to prevent any feelings of competitiveness from causing distrust or animosity between staff members.  By having a clear idea of where we wanted to go, we were able to share actual information, not just theoretical ideas.  Advanced preparation is a huge benefit.  This open communication also prevented feelings of being undercut, but instead created a resource by acknowledging their expertise and respecting it.

For supporters, we first looked at teachers who were working to improve their own programs and were open to change.  We identified their strengths, and looked for ways to bring them into our vision.  This allows other teachers to have an investment in our program, and helps to bring their strengths in to support us.  Each person we talked to was very enthusiastic about our idea, and very willing to share their information and help us incorporate it into our course.  They were also excited about the ability to have our course support theirs and visa-versa.  This is cross-curricular collaboration at its best, and has created a supportive base for our class.

The last group we worked with were those who had a history for being cautious about change.  These are teachers who have usually been in the school for many years, and feel a very strong attachment to every program.  For this potentially difficult group, we took a lesson we learned from a local university professor who modeled dealing with reluctant staff.  We began by explaining our course, why we felt the need for this course, and then turned the tables and asked them to share any concerns they had about the idea.  It allowed us to look at their concerns ahead of time, and gave us plenty of time to ensure that we were addressing these concerns in both our course design as well as our presentations.  This wasn't done with the idea of manipulation.  We were not trying to minimize them, but identify what might cause them to feel they could not support us.  It was done to determine potential problems ahead of time so that they can be addressed, because this group of teachers does usually have the success of the school in mind.  By taking teachers who normally struggle with change and bringing them into the planning portion, we allowed them to share in the process and gain a sense of involvement that they would not have otherwise, as well as identify issues we may not have seen ourselves and work to eliminate them.

Good communication with peers, as well as a well thought out plan of action can help to take an idea from the drawing board to the classroom with a lot of support, and very little push-back.

"I Have A Great Idea, Why Do I Need You?"

Being an innovator naturally seems to invite criticism.  I know I personally have had the experience of being very excited about a new idea for chemistry labs, only to be told "You go ahead and do it, and if it works, maybe I will too".  Quite a wet blanket on an idea I thought had a ton of potential.  I went ahead with my ideas, and even though the other teacher never bought into it, I had the satisfaction of seeing my students engaged, and my assessment results soar.  This was a ideal scenario, as it only effected one science topic, and was not large enough to bring in outsider opinions.  These outside opinions can sink a wonderful idea due to the lack of understanding about the vision and need.

Our current situation involved our entire school due to it's potential impact on student success.  Our misstep was introducing a new way to "do" science (all four basic sciences as semester-long classes) without ensuring others understood.  We thought the idea would be embraced, as it very closely mirrored what was already occurring in our International Baccalaureate program successfully.  This turned out to be an assumption that hurt us.  We have spent two years trying to regain ground with our opposition, working to help them see the value in our change.  It has extended from the staff to the parents, bringing criticism from multiple directions.  We learned a lot during this process, the most important lesson being the need for "branding".

Branding is the ability to allow others to see your idea, and associate credibility to it.  This was sadly missing in our first attempt at innovating our science department.  It wasn't intentional, it was simply that we had no experience with bringing change and didn't expect problems.  We are getting ready to introduce a very radical course to our department chairs, and then to our board of education this fall, and we need both groups' approval to continue.  We are taking the lessons learned during the course modification to try and address issues and concerns ahead of time.  Our idea is to bring the ability to students to solve problems using science.  It will not be a "chemistry" or "biology" class, but a blend of the sciences and other disciplines, allowing more of a real world scenario.  It is very different from the concept of isolated courses, and potentially can bring a lot of push-back to those that do not see the value or need for cross-curricular instruction.  Our job will be to help them see our vision as well as the need for this course, to communicate well, and to allow our research and experience to help provide the credibility to make this course successful and meaningful.   A great program can be sunk due to lack of communication.  This nearly happened to our initial course change, and we will not allow miscommunication or lack of understanding to derail an idea that can have tremendous impact on our students.  So yes, even though you are not teaching the course, We Need You!

Increasing Cross-Curricular Learning

We believe it is time to begin moving away from segmented, compartmentalized learning to an educational system that more resembles real life.  For too many years students have been taught that subjects are isolated from each other.  This does not mean that they never use math in a class other than a math class, but there is very little understanding that an equation using 'x' that you learn in an algebra class is the same equation as one you use in chemistry, just with a different variable.  The astonishment on their faces when this is pointed out to them is, well, astonishing.  Students learn history in biology, math, english, art and other classes, but are not directed back to that class actually called 'history'.  Interaction between the subjects just isn't occurring.

Problem-Based, and to a lesser extent, project-based learning is a way to begin allowing students to utilize knowledge from a variety of disciplines to identify and issue and answer its' dilemma.   In his article, "Deeper Learning:Why Cross-Curricular Teaching is Essential", Ben Johnson discusses this very issue.  His idea that students must have this interconnectedness to fully develop a passion for learning is one that the three of us have felt as well.  This article is focused lightly on the benefits of linking topics, and spends the rest of its' focus showing ways that teachers can begin to bring this idea into their classroom.  We agree that it does not need to be a school-wide referendum before working with another teacher or teachers to see where overlap can occur.  A pair of teachers can begin the process, and have it be meaningful in their classroom.  A great example Mr. Johnson uses is the alignment of history and english.  How much more effective is the discussion of a piece of literature when students are gaining the understanding of the world that was in existence during its' writing, and visa versa. 

There is definitely a new and different mindset that must occur when teaching collaboratively.  It may mean adjusting the way a topic is taught, or the order it is taught in.  It may cause a different approach for the explanation than the way a teacher is comfortable with.  This change will impact the amount of time necessary for lesson planning.  The results when this process is done well can be astonishing.  What if our students are learning not simply because we tell them they must, but because they are so invested in a thought or idea they simply cannot restrain themselves.  Education must make the change to become relevant to our students.  PBL's are a way to help do this, supporting and encouraging cross-curricular instruction in a real and applicable way.

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/cross-curricular-teaching-deeper-learning-ben-johnson

How PBL's Can Impact Learning

Continuing the theme of the benefit of PBL's in the classroom, I recently read an article by Andrew Miller in Edutopia (Student Designed Learning) that offers insight into the benefits of adding these projects in such a way that students drive their own education with guidance and support from the teacher.  One of the most striking parts of the article is an idea we have already mentioned, the importance of  cross-curricular application.  Our current educational set-up is one that compartmentalizes so  much of what our students learn.  This gives them the very wrong impression that English is separate from Math, which is separate from History which is separate from Science.  They begin to see the world as finite, concrete chunks of information, when reality is exactly the opposite.  Innovation occurs as people look across the boundaries of learning and combine things in different ways.  Our hope in our own classroom is to break down the walls between disciplines, and allow students to see that the world is a wider, more connected place than they thought.

Another idea Mr. Miller discusses is allowing students to determine the standards being covered for themselves.  This too is an idea we have decided was worthy of implementation.  Standards are there to guide teachers so that they are covering the same material, ensuring that students from any school have been exposed to the same basic ideas, making movement between schools much easier.  I know that in our school, standards are the domain of the teacher.  Students may be aware that they exist and that they are important, but few know or care anything about them beyond that.  By putting students in charge of researching the standards and linking them to their PBL's, they take ownership of their knowledge.  As high schoolers', students are beginning to leave pedagogy (learning focused on children) and move towards andragogy (instruction geared towards adults).  A large difference between the two learning styles is the point where the REASON behind the request to learn is as important as the end result.  "Why" is a question that is frequently heard in the high school classroom, as students struggle with understanding how information is relevant to them.  Allowing students to research the standards, combined with real-world problems and situations gives them that reason.  A student may not see why they need to learn about genetics until it is linked to a real-life situation, where an understanding can lead to a real solution.

Although PBL's in the format suggested by Mr. Miller seem a difficult transition to make, the benefits toward student understanding is definitely there.  When students have buy-in, they are much more willing to not only learn the topics we ask, but often will go outside of the box and learn more than we hoped for.  As they link this information to real-life, it becomes relevant, and therefore a part of their knowledge base, not simply a list of terms and formulas and dates to remember for a test, and then forget.

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/personalized-pbl-student-designed-learning-andrew-miller

What Exactly Is Innovation?

The term "Innovation" is a hot one in education right now.  These buzzwords occur frequently, and often change just as frequently.  However, this is one term that we feel has the potential to have a huge impact on where we go as educators.  We are hopeful that this becomes the word that people in years to come look back on as the start of an educational revolution.

So what exactly is innovation?  I did an internet search of the phrase "innovation in education", and the search engine came back with 205,000,000 hits.  "innovation" by itself had 122,000,00, and "innovation in business" had 120,000,000.  I believe that there is a reason that adding the term "in education" almost doubles the results;  teachers across the globe are recognizing the need for this in some fashion, in our classrooms.

According to Merriam-Webster online, the definition of innovation is something created for the first time through the use of the imagination.  The US Department of Education has an article "What Do We Mean By "Innovation'" (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html) that relates this term to education.  They classify innovation into a variety of categories such as curriculum, teacher recruiting, and overall school organization.  These are things that change the way we do the business of education.  They are improvements based on the creativity and passion of a group or individual.  The Flipped Classroom is one innovation that has become popular over recent years, allowing more one-on-one time with students by having at least some lectures viewed at home via PODcasts.  The huge downside of innovation is that it is not a tried-and-true method.  There is usually little to no experiential data to support it.  Districts that require evidence-based teaching are not going to embrace innovation easily.  This lack of history makes sense, as innovation by it's very nature is new.  Another form of innovation could be extending the school day beyond what is required, or changing the curriculum a class or site uses compared to the rest of the district.  So it seems that innovation can apply to a large variety of ideas, depending on who is defining it.

So how are Niki, Kristi and I personally labeling innovation?  To us, the innovation we are looking at is under the heading of curriculum.  We are looking at how we are educating our students and what we are teaching them about science specifically.  As we began truly reflecting on the feelings of dissatisfaction that had crept into our teaching, it became apparent that we were not unhappy with the actual teaching, but rather the WAY we were teaching.  Presenting science as compartmentalized, with seemingly unrelated topics was not lining up with our ideals.  While fundamentals and foundations are important for every discipline, we felt that we had become mired in them.  We were missing out on current events and issues, which in science, are huge.  How can we teach students the relevance of science in their lives when they never get a chance to use it?

This feeling of "missing the bar" is what has led us on this journey, this adventure to find out how our ideal classroom looks and figure out how to get there.  For us, it is all about removing the barriers between science and non-science disciplines so that students can begin to see that learning is not compartmentalized, but overlapping.  We want to show students that what they are studying is relevant to their lives.  That without these foundational pieces of knowledge, their future would be a dimly lit candle compared to the brightly shining light it could be.  How many of our bright but unmotivated students could we reach if they only saw how what they are learning impacts them, and if we then gave them the chance to apply their knowledge in a meaningful way?  This is our vision of innovation in the classroom.

Why Does High School Fail Our Innovators?

Participating in a district grant this year was the catalyst to what we hope will be a major shift in the way we present education to our students.  The book we studied was Tony Wagner's "Creating Innovators", which was both inspiring and deflating.  Inspiring because it shows that innovation occurs in so many ways.  It isn't a cookie cutter process which gives anyone the ability to be innovative.  So what was the deflating part?  Throughout the interviews of innovators, it became painfully apparent to us that education, something that we have poured our hearts and souls into, was not a part of what inspired the subjects.  There was no mention of that high school teacher who helped them find their passion or that one class that they took that forever changed the way they thought.  Instead, it was individual study, or a mentor outside of the classroom who helped them in their journey.  Discouraging!  The three of us have (had?) visions of making a difference.  Of inspiring students to a love of science.  Of being someone who helped a future visionary.  Not for our own benefit or self-puffery, but because WE have such a passion for what we teach!

Today on Twitter  I read the following KQED blog about extreme learners;  those who pursue learning with a passion.  So many of those who felt truly impassioned about a topic were not only disenchanted with high school, seeing it as something to get through before getting to the "real" stuff, but many of them left.  Well before graduation.  Why is it that high school is still stuck in the "one size fits all" century?  What has really changed from the early days in the classroom, with the teacher in front of the room imparting knowledge someone else feels is important?  Now, we realize that many teachers out there are doing a fantastic job with what they have.  That there are real innovations occurring.  That in some classrooms, students ARE being given that drive to learn and pursue.  And that is truly awesome!  But it is not happening enough.  It is the exception, rather than the rule.  It isn't that foundations are unnecessary.  Of course our citizens should be able to read, write, do calculations.  They need to have an understanding of our history.  They should grasp how our society works, civics, and interpersonal relationships that are all taught in school, usually with the question "Why do we need to know this?" thrown out here and there.  Basics are important!  But what if we can move beyond the basics?  Towards helping students see the relevance of what they are learning?  Towards giving students the opportunity to pursue an idea or thought that only they may be asking?  Why has the educational system become so rigid?  That is what our Innovation Adventures is all about.  Challenging the status quo, and learning about how to effectively make changes in our own classrooms, one child at a time.

http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/07/what-makes-an-extreme-learner/

How Do You Handle Resistance to Change?

People often struggle with change, especially, it seems, in the realm of education.  The largest concern we faced was How can students be successful in college with only a semester of "place subject here"?  When we rolled out our ideas, we thought others would easily catch our vision.  We didn't expect the push-back we received.  This came in two different forms:  fellow teachers and parents.  Each groups’ issues stem from concerns about the new method, and could have been alleviated by us had we fully appreciated what we were asking them to trust us with. 

The first group, fellow staff members, felt we were not preparing students properly in the sciences.  They had concerns that students were not being given the foundation they would need to be successful in later science courses.  They didn't see that the individual class was no longer the focus, but the entire spectrum of courses was the big picture as we pushed to create a functional application of the science knowledge they gained.  Due to our inexperience with program changes we did not anticipate ahead of time the issues others would have.  The experience of creating a course that teaches innovation and how to bring the pieces of the puzzle together to solve real problems has allowed us to take an idea and talk to various members of our staff to determine what issues they might have with the process.  This prep work gives us the opportunity to make sure that we address these issues, both within the program development as well as in our discussion about the course.  If we had done this originally, we would not still be explaining our thoughts about this process.

Our parents were an unexpected source of resistance as well.  We have a very involved parent population, which allows for some wonderful opportunities of support.  The downside is that, once again, our communication to these parents was sadly lacking.  This created an atmosphere of distrust about whether their child's teacher has their best interest at heart.  If we had talked to members of the parent organization ahead of time, and shared with them our ideas, we could have utilized them as a resource, allowing them to express their concerns so we could properly address them.

Our vision for the science department is to begin to move away from only compartmentalized chunks of seemingly unrelated topics towards the ability to allow cross-curricular learning.  Where students use the four semester foundation to inter-relate and apply their knowledge in the quest to answer bigger questions.  We believe that this intersection is where passions are ignited, and true learning can occur.  It isn't our idea that caused the problems, it was our inability to explain our thoughts, as well as allow others to catch the vision.

The world of education suffers from inertia.  As a whole, we tend to move along the same path as those who come before.  We may have new ideas that we use personally, but as an entity, there doesn't seem to be much change.  It is rather like turning the Titanic.  Gears may be shifted, wheels may be turned, but it will be quite a while before a new heading is followed.  The passengers on the ship had no idea that there was a reason for the change.  A very BIG reason in that case!  They responded with annoyance and confusion.  There wasn't time to have complete disclosure at that time.  We in education have our own iceberg to watch out for.  The good news is that we can fully include our shareholders in the process.  Allowing them time to question and absorb our changing needs in education helps to turn them from adversaries to supporters.  But we need to start the dialogue!

Foundations for Innovation

In our desire to make science education have an impact even in high school, Kristi, Niki and I along with our department, have taken a look at what students would need to make the transition from content to application.  A solid foundation in science was the biggest need.  As our school is also an International Baccalaureate school, where our middle years program (9th and 10th grade) see a semester of Earth Science, Biology, Physics and Chemistry and then choose which of our diploma years (11th and 12th grade) courses to "specialize" in, we had a working, proven model for our idea.  Having all of our students take a semester of each of the four sciences gives them that foundation we were looking for.  Now, we know that you cannot call a semester of any science complete, but it gives students a solid base to build on. 

This format allows students in their 11th and 12th grade years to decide where to go in the sciences.  We have Forensics which has a very heavy emphasis on biology, especially genetics, while allowing science to intersect as they pursue how science and detective work align, Analytical Chemistry which gives students both a stepping stone to AP Chemistry, and allows them to have a much stronger focus on lab techniques and write-up skills, we offer environmental science as either a traditional or AP class, two levels of AP Physics, Astronomy, Anatomy and Physiology; and a course called Practical Science and Engineering which is a project-based course running the gamut of creating ropes to building bridges or programming robots on a course.  Our belief is that because students have had a "taste" of each science, they can pursue additional courses that build on something they enjoyed.

We have experienced the normal trials of a new program, with mid-semester adjustments, as well as restructuring between one semester to the next to address issues, concerns, or ideas we have.  This is the normal process all teachers go through, but we have the added benefit of a change occurring within a couple of months rather than the next year.  Although it may appear that a semester of science does not allow standards to be met, we have worked hard in choosing our topics to ensure that we have met the Colorado State Standards in each of our courses.  Biology meets all standards but genetics which are covered in the Forensics course.  Earth Science is completed by our Astronomy semester long course.  Both Physics and Chemistry combine to cover the Physical Science standards, and the additional courses supplement and support them.  In this manner, we are able to not only address each standard, but build upon them to do more than a cursory overview.

Students who have no interest in a particular science were able to learn the important fundamentals, gain skills in solving problems and terminology, and then move on to the next science which might be of more interest.  The feedback we have from the learners has been positive so far.  We are looking forward to seeing how this new system allows our students to transition from rote-learning to application and problem-based learning.  This encourages them to focus and build on their scientific interests rather than force them into a year-long class that may be outside of their interest.  This ability of the student to concentrate on his or her interest is the underlying framework that will allow us to bring change to our current system and innovation into the classroom.

What's the big deal about PBL's anyway?

Our quest for changing the way we teach led us to the idea of Project and Problem Based Learning (PBL's).  The difference is that projects have a known outcome while problems do not.  With projects it is more about the journey for students than the outcome.  There will be no real surprises here.  A problem on the other hand is something that is a current issue.  Both the path and the solution itself are unknowns.  Both have their place in the educational classroom, and have value.  You more frequently see the project type, as they are "safer" and easier to set up.  This journey of transformation is being supported everywhere I look.  Just last month, in an Edutopia article called "Innovation Education:  Making Room For What Ifs" by Suzie Boss addressed this idea.

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/innovative-ed-what-if-thinking-making-room-suzie-boss

In the article, Ms. Boss takes a look at another science teacher, Rich Lehrer, who has asked the same questions, and is moving in the same direction as us.  This is an idea that is picking up steam across the country, as it allows students to answer the "why do we need to know this" question for themselves.  The beauty of this process is that these can be as narrow or as large as you want (or have time for!), making them fit the needs of teachers of any discipline, in any location.  We were able to observe some classes at Northglenn High School in Northglenn, Colorado where they have whole-heartedly embarked on a mission to include practical application of knowledge in all content areas.  These pbl's are coordinated between the departments so students are not overwhelmed with too many at a time, and designed to address local issues that affect the kids and their families.  Although Mr. Lehrer's idea evolved in an outside of the classroom club format, these projects can help supplement learning in the classroom.

This coming year, we have decided to pursue a problem based question that is applicable to our area.  "What is the impact of heavy metals due to mining in our water"?  Our first year chemistry students will be going on a field trip to an active mine, already armed with the concepts they need to know to ask questions and get information.  They are then going to talk to a water education specialist from our local utility company to talk about both how they test for the presence of these metals, and how they remove them. Students will then compile research about how the ecological area is impacted by these metals, and begin to look at potential mitigation methods.  With the mine being only an hour and a half away, and above our reservoirs, this is a problem with impact.

One of the issues we have with science is that we separate and segregate the sciences.  Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry, and Physics.  And while this separation works for basic content, in the real world, science does not have borders.  This is one of the most effective parts of PBL's.  It allows for the cross-curricular learning that we miss out in with traditional courses.  For our upcoming problem, students will need to know the chemistry, of course, but they will also need to know some earth science concepts as they understand why mining occurs the way it does and how the water cycle perpetuates the problem, as well as biological science principles as they deal with the impact on the environment.  THIS is what ignites passion.  THIS is science.

Who We Are and Why We Are Here

Hello!  Thank you for reading the first post describing the journey three teachers are taking to transform the way we teach.  We are Heather, Kristi and Niki, and we teach high school science in Colorado Springs.    Between the three of us we have 25 years in education, and for years we have been dissatisfied with the "one size fits all", "prep for the test" mentality that we have so often been forced to have.  Maybe because we teach in a subject where innovations and changes occur almost daily, but having to teach the same material each year, changed only by the activities and the wording we use has left a huge gap in our satisfaction with how we are preparing students for the future.  Where is the excitement?  How can we motivate and inspire our students when all we are doing is learning foundational content?  No wonder our students constantly ask "why do we have to learn this?" and "when am I ever going to use this in my life?"  Due to standards and tests, there just never seems to be enough time to cover the new and relevant changes occurring in science.  Now, before you roll your eyes, we do know that these foundations are critical to being able to actually DO something with science.  There has to be an understanding of the basics before anything can be done in science.  However, it's the using of these concepts that ignites passion.  We will be looking at articles supporting our ideas and thoughts to share, as well as descriptions of our successes and failures.  We hope you will follow us through our journey!