The Program for New Haven Teachers


Contents of section:

Annual Report 1996: Table of Contents | Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute


Beginning in the fall of 1995, the teachers who serve as the Institute Representatives and Contacts for their colleagues canvassed other teachers throughout New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools to determine the subjects they wanted Institute seminars to address in 1996. (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.

In their evaluations, the 1996 Fellows indicated, as Chart 1 shows, that the Institute Representative for their school had been helpful in numerous ways: by maintaining frequent contact with them, asking teachers for thei views on seminar subjects for the following year, encouraging and assisting teachers in the school to apply to the Institute, and promoting the use of Institute-developed curriculum units in the school.

Chart 1 : Institute Representative's Helpfulness to the 1996 Fellows
(chart available in print form)
As a result, almost three fifths (58 percent) of all Fellows said in the end that they had, while the program was being planned, sufficient opportunity to contribute possible topics for seminars. 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 teachers themselves identify. In 1996 this process resulted in the Institute organizing six seminars.

(picture avaiable in print form)
A tenet of the Institute's approach has been to determine its offerings in response to the needs teachers identify
Meeting of Institute Representatives. (Left to right: Fellows, Val-Jean Belton and Henry A. Rhodes)
With support from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Institute offered three seminars in the humanities:

"Multiculturalism and the Law,"led by Robert A. Burt, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Law

"Race and Representation in American Film,"
led by Charles Musser, Associate Professor of Film Studies and of American Studies

"Remaking America: Contemporary U.S. Immigration,"
led by Patricia R. Pessar, Associate Professor of American Studies and of Anthropology

With support from Pew and also from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Xerox Foundation, the Institute offered three seminars in the sciences:

"Environmental and Occupational Health: What We Know; How We Know; What We Can Do," led by Mark R. Cullen, M.D., Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Public Health

"Genetics in the 21st Century: Destiny, Chance or Choice,"led by Margretta R. Seashore, M.D., Professor of Genetics and of Pediatrics
"Outstanding Problems in Contemporary Astronomy and Cosmology,"
led by Sabatino Sofia, Professor and Chairman of Astronomy

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Content of the Seminars Offered

The following overviews of these seminars are based on the descriptions their leaders provided and the Institute circulated in advance.

Multiculturalism and the Law

The United States has a greater diversity than any other nation on earth--diversity in such matters as race, ethnicity, religion and even (with the possible exception of Israel) the proportion of its current population born in other countries. Nonetheless, during most of our national history, this country has understood itself to be "one nation" from our national motto adopted at our founding, e pluribus unum ("from many, one"), to the popular conception of a "melting pot" which was coined in response to the extraordinary influx of immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This unitary national self-conception is, however, very much contested today.


The United States has a greater diversity than any other nation on earth.
On race matters, many people are now questioning the assumptions that guided the civil rights campaign culminating in the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education and congressional enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s the assumptions that justice demanded the end of racial segregation in all aspects of American life, and that racial harmony would thereby be promoted. On religious matters, many people are now questioning the Jeffersonian conviction that there should be a rigid "wall of separation" between Church and State so that there sould be no religious qualifications for holding public office nor state support of any sort for religious practices; openly waged conflict between religious fundamentalists and others about the "moral content" of public school curricula is one contemporary indicator of this dispute. These conflicts on racial or religious issues are not new in this country; but there are also new forces pressing for recognition of diversity in areas which have previously been unimaginable-- most notably, regarding language usage (seeking to displace the once-dominant idea that English is our sole approved national language) and regarding sexual preference (seeking to displace the once-dominant idea that heterosexuality is the sole approved status). These claims are themselves vigorously contested.
(picture avaiable in print form)
The seminar on Multiculturalism and the Law. (Clockwise from left: Fellows Henry A. Rhodes, Carolyn C. Smith, Carolyn N. Kinder, and Donna L. Timmone; seminar leader Robert A. Burt; and Fellows Pamela M. Kelley, Marcella M. Flake, Medria J. Blue, Joyce Bryant, Rebecca S. Brown, Sandra L. Coleman, Sequella H. Coleman, and Gary Highsmith.)
The goal of this seminar was to explore the competing conceptions of "cultural unity" and "diversity" which are so passionately contested today. It focused particularly on ways that the law has been enlisted on one side or the other of this debate and considered such matters as (1) racial segregation in schools (exploring, for example, whether current proposals to retain the distinct racial identity of traditionally Black southern universities deserve different treatment from the Brown principle condemning all public school race segregation); (2) race-based affirmative action policies in employment, higher education or public contracts; (3) religiously based claims to control public school curriculum in such matters as the distribution of contraceptives or teaching about sexual preferences, as well as religious claims for exemptions from public education; (4) legal regulation of family matters such as trans-racial adoptions and marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treatment of immigrant populations within the U.S., including language controversies both in public school bilingual education programs and in general efforts to enact "English Only" as the official U.S. language; (6) issues of diversity in our criminal justice system in matters such as the role of race in jury selection and in criminal prosecutions such as drug offenses; (7) the proper role of race, religion or ethnicity in the construction of voting districts.
The goal was to explore the competing conceptions of "cultural unity" and "diversity."
As for the seminar materials, Fellows read judicial opinions and works by legal scholars and also materials that would enrich their understanding of the cultural issues that lie beneath these legal materials, such as Henry Louis Gates book Colored People, which recounts coming of age in racially segregated West Virginia; Harlon Dalton s book Racial Healing, which considers racial stereotypes and barriers to honest conversation between Blacks and Whites in this country; and Stephen Carter s book The Culture of Disbelief, which explores the proper role of religious commitment and practice in our public life.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Race and Representation in American Film

Motion pictures, one of the preeminent forms of mass entertainment and cultural representation in 20th Century America, have engaged questions of ethnicity and race, of cultural communities, and of interracial interactions on numerous levels. Classical Hollywood cinema (1915-1960) can be understood as participating in a conversation among European-American ethnic groups which had Representatives inside the industry and were also its targeted audiences in theaters. African Americans, Asians and other peoples of color were generally allowed only to overhear this discourse. However, alternative film making practices did spring up outside these structures, particularly within the African-American community where film makers such as Oscar Micheaux made feature films from a Black perspective.

(picture avaiable in print form)
The purpose was to have a conversation about race and the cinema
The seminar on Race and Representation in American Film. (Clockwise from left: Carol L. Penney, Synia Carroll-McQuillan, Deborah E. Hare, Christine Y. House, Jean E. Sutherland, Val-Jean Belton, Felicia R. McKinnon, Gerene L. Freeman, Ida L. Hickerson, Mary Ellen Brayton, Martha Savage, Steven F. Gray, and seminar leader Charles Musser.)
The conversation about race generated by the cinema changed significantly in the late 1960s with the rise of such documentary programs as Black Journal and Les Realidades, the popularity of Black exploitation films (Shaft and Sweet Sweetback s Badasssss Song) and Bruce Lee as the first Asian American star since the coming of sound. Today we are confronted with a New Black Cinema that has commercial support from Hollywood, an Asian-American cinema (Ang Lee, Wayne Wang), and a multiculturalism that includes the interracial romance of Disney Productions (The Jungle Book, Pocahontas) and the eclectic sports team fighting its way to victory, forging unity across gender and race (Mighty Ducks, The Big Green).

The purpose of this seminar was to have a conversation about race and the cinema, to gain some historical perspective on these issues, and to speculate on the implications of a new wave of films that in some respects seems a significant departure from past practice. What do they mean for us? How do these films impact our students? The hope was that some of these films would have classroom applications. But in any case, Fellows would gain some perspective on what their students see when they go to the movies. The seminar consisted of four clusters of three films each, selected from the following possible groupings.

1. Silent Cinema
a. The Cheat (Cecil B. DeMille, 1915)
b. Within Our Gates (Oscar Micheaux, 1919)
c. Body and Soul (Oscar Micheaux, 1925) with Paul Robeson
2. Hollywood Sound Film
a. Animal Crackers (Marx Brothers, 1930)
b. Imitation of Life (either John Stahl, 1934, or Douglas Sirk, 1959)
c. Green Pastures (William Keighley, 1936)
3. The 1960s
a. Nothing But a Man (Michael Roemer, 1964)
b. Sweet Sweetback s Badasssss Song (Melvin van Peebles, 1971)
c. Enter the Dragon (Robert Clouse, 1973) with Bruce Lee
4. Documentary
a. Inside Bedford-Stuyvesant (1968), Black Journal (William Greaves, 1968) etc.
b. Who Killed Vincent Chin (Chris Choy, 1989)
c. Hoop Dreams (Steve James, 1994)
5. Disney Films
a. Jungle Book (Wolfgang Reitherman, 1967)
b. Pocahontas (1995) or Angels in the Outfield (William Dear, 1994)
c. Mighty Ducks (Stephen Herek, 1992) or The Big Green (1995)
6. American Cinema in the Era of Multi-culturalism
a. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1988)
b. Menace II Society (the Hughes Brothers, 1993)
c. Mississippi Masala (Nair, 1989) or The Wedding Banquet (Ang Lee, 1994)
There was a range of readings to complement and inform these films. Participants were required to be familiar with Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915) before the seminar began.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Remaking America: Contemporary U.S. Immigration

The United States, that "permanently unfinished" society, has once again become a nation of immigrants. In this remaking of America, immigration restrictionists have grown fond of historian Arnold Toynbee s contention that, "The same elements that build up an institution eventually lead to its downfall." In this seminar, Fellows considered a range of controversial issues, such as whether immigrants are taking jobs away from native-born Americans; whether they place an unfair burden on public services; and whether American culture and society can accommodate the large numbers of "new" immigrants who have arrived since the mid-1960s.


The United States, that "permanently unfinished" society, has once again become a nation of immigrants.
(picture avaiable in print form)
The seminar on Remaking America: Contemporary U.S. Immigration. (Clockwise from left: Fellows Patricia M. Bissell, Daisy S. Catalan, Pedro Mendia, and Elsa M. Caldersn; seminar leader Patricia R. Pessar; and Fellows Jennifer A. Kennedy, Lillie Bagley, Bethania U. Hernandez, and Carol Viccione-Luce.)
While many Americans view immigrants as basically poor, huddled masses, there is actually tremendous variation in the education and skills that newcomers bring. Indeed, the most educated and the least educated groups in the United States today are immigrants. The seminar explored how this polarity both reflects differing historical contexts promoting out-migration and contributes to contrasting modes of socio-economic incorporation. While the number of new immigrants/refugees arriving in the U.S. over the last few decades has been unprecedented, the proportion of foreign-to-native born is moderate as compared to earlier periods in U.S. history and to the demographic situation in other industrial nations, such as Germany, France, and Canada. Where the contemporary situation in the U.S. is different, is in the ethnic and racial origins of the immigrant and refugee populations. The bulk of newcomers are "people of color" and, as the seminar explored, their very presence and "identity politics" contest the meanings, categories, and practices of race in contemporary U.S. society. Immigration restrictionists decry newcomers who allegedly refuse to assimilate and are thus, we are told, weakening the social and cultural fabric of American society. The seminar examined this contention as well as competing theories of the social and cultural incorporation of contemporary immigrants/refugees (e.g., assimilation, cultural pluralism, ethnic separatism, transnationalism).
The most educated and the least educated groups in the United States today are immigrants.
Major readings included Silvia Pedraza and Ruben Rumbaut, Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America (1996), Patricia Pessar, A Visa for a Dream: Dominicans in the United States (1996), and Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbaut, Immigrant America (1990).

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Environmental and Occupational Health: What We Know; How We Know; What We Can Do

The first half of this seminar focused on our current knowledge of how people get exposed to hazardous physical, chemical and biological hazards, how they induce changes in health, and how we study this relationship. This was the "basic science" component of the seminar and began with discussion about the physical and chemical aspects of human activity, especially in the workplace. The following questions were addressed: How are the various things around us manufactured? What hazrds are created in the process? The second challenge was to explore the fundamental principles underlying the interaction of the human body with these hazards. This drew in basics of biology and medicine and to some extent more physics and chemistry, developed to the level of sophistication consistent with the individual teacher s background and interest.

Once the seminar established the basic elements and definitions, and felt comfortable with the theory, Fellows explored the crucial issue of how scientists discover the relationship between these hazards and the effects they cause. While this demanded yet more scientific reasoning, the primary tools were logic and reasoning, as well as mathematics and statistics.
Fellows explored the crucial issue of how scientists discover the relationship between hazards and the effects they cause.
After the scientific basis for environmental and occupational diseases was developed, the seminar switched attention to the social issues of prevention and control. First, Fellows discussed how the organizations which create hazards must think and deal with them. What are the obligations of these corporations, and where do their true interests lie? How might we expect them to behave, and how close to that expectation is their actual behavior? What role could government play in modifying that behavior?
(picture avaiable in print form)
The seminar on Environmental and Occupational Health. (Left to right: Fellows John P. Crotty, Antonia M. Coughlin, Susan L. Norwood, and Alina Chrostek; seminar leader Mark R. Cullen; and Fellows Alan K. Frishman, Sheila M. Martin-Corbin, and Kelley N. Robinson.)
Next the seminar turned to that role of government, discussing both the history of environmental controls and current debates. Teachers were asked to role play positions as antithetical to their own as possible, to force everyone to perceive the multifaceted nature of almost every issue. To the fullest extent possible the outstanding issues of our time dioxin, Persian Gulf Syndrome, mercury and electromagnetic fields for example were chosen for seminar discussions.
Finally, all controversy aside, the seminar finished with the role of the individual. How do we protect ourselves from harm? What must we know? What are we to believe? What should we teach our children and when should we teach it? By this stage in the seminar, the teachers themselves were in a position to lead the discussion, as they prepared their final project plans.
The outstanding issues of our time were chosen for seminar discussions.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Genetics in the 21st Century: Destiny, Chance or Choice

The issues can be divided into three areas: what will be learned from the human genome project, how the information will be used, and how the public can be educated.

What is the genome project learning about our genes? Is there one "human genome?"

More than 100,000 human genes affect and control aspects of development, growth, disease, perhaps even personality and behavior. The structure of many genes has been defined, and we are learning how they work. The goal of constructing a map of the human genome is on the way to being met and ever more genes are being placed on this map. How does a genetic map work? The genome project is already finding some genetic surprises. Genes can change in structure in the process of being passed from parent to child. Sometimes whether or not a particular form of a gene expresses itself depends on whether it was inherited from the mother or the father.

How will genetic information be used? Who will be allowed to know what we each learn about our own genes?

Many examples of interesting and important issues raise such questions. Several genes predispose to the development of cancer. Should people be screened for these genes? Employers will want to know who is at risk for becoming sick and perhaps will want to discriminate against people based on that information. Society (that is, an informed public) will need to decide how this information will be used and who will have access to it. Parents may want the genetically perfect child, instead of just being concerned about recognized diseases. Will that kind of genetic engineering be possible or desirable? Will we be able to "fix" abnormal genes and cure genetic diseases?

(picture avaiable in print form)
The seminar on "Genetics in the 21st Century: Destiny, Chance, or Choice." (Clockwise from left: Fellows Joanne R. Pompano, Bonnie M. Osborne, Stephen Beasley-Murray, and Richard R. MacMahon; seminar leader Margretta R. Seashore; and Fellows Lesley E. Troppe, June M. Pellegrini, and Lucia Rafala.)
How can the public be educated about the new genetics?

The question is important on the individual level and the societal level. People will need to understand genes, how they work and how they affect health and development to make personal decisions about genetic testing and genetic treatments. Understanding the new genetics will help people to make good public policy decisions, examine laws, make new laws, and decide how public money will be spent on research and on public health. The sooner students learn about genetics in school, the better equipped they will be to use genetics in the 21st century. They may have to educate their parents! Computer programs, dramatizations, model building and learning to use electronic information sources were all employed in the seminar to make this learning easier and more fun.
The sooner students learn about genetics in school, the better equiped they will be to use genetics in the 21st century.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Outstanding Problems in Contemporary Astronomy and Cosmology

Astronomy in general, and Cosmology in particular, have undergone a revolutionary expansion in the past four decades. As a consequence, we currently have a firm grasp on the basic structural and dynamical properties both of the Universe as a whole, and of its individual constituents.

However, as we continue to explore the details of these properties of the Universe and its components, we sometimes come across inconsistencies and/or features that do not fit within the edifice of knowledge that we have slowly and carefully built up. Although these difficulties cause discomfort and unwelcome turmoil in the scientific community, they are not all bad, since they compel us to examine extreme possibilities that we would not consider otherwise. Thus, when one of these problems is eventually solved, it advances our understanding of nature further than what would be accomplished by more conservative research.

The original intent of the seminar was for Fellows to discuss some of the outstanding mysteries or controversies in contemporary Astronomy in general and Cosmology in particular: the problem of the missing solar neutrinos; the nature and distribution of dark matter in the Universe; the discordant determination of the age of the universe from different techniques, etc. In order to comprehend the basis of the various problems, the seminar began with a broad overview of the field of Astronomy to provide the context necessary to understand the nature of these controversies. Subsequently, the seminar format evolved towards extensive question, answer and discussion sessions.
The seminar focused on our current understanding of our place within the Solar System, of the Solar System's location within the Milky Way Galaxy, and some ideas about the origin of the Universe.
From these activities, it became clear that the present controversies in the field were too esoteric, both in terms of the interests and concerns of the Fellows, but especially with regard to the interests of their students. While many youngsters are curious about the Solar System, the achievements of space vehicles (both manned and unmanned), interstellar travel, and life in the Universe, they are not likely to be excited about the nature of "dark matter," or the discrepancy between the age of the oldest stars, and the Hubble age of the Universe. Similarly, educational requirements as stated in various state and national standards also center around the Solar System, scaling processes, Kepler s laws, and on terrestrial events related to Astronomy, such as the seasons and mass extinctions.
(picture avaiable in print form)
The seminar on "Outstanding Problems in Contemporary Astronomy and Cosmology." (Left to right: Fellows Lisa S. Alter, Victor J. Leger, Luis A. Recalde, Raymond W. Brooks, Stephen P. Broker, Holly S. Anthony, and seminar leader Sabatino Sofia.)
As reflected in all the curriculum units that emerged from the seminar, the seminar therefore focused on our current understanding of our place within the Solar System, of the Solar System s location within the Milky Way Galaxy, and some ideas about the origin of the Universe in terms of the currently accepted Big-Bang theory.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


The Fellow's Application and Admissions Process

Having worked with teachers in their respective schools during the preceding months, the Institute Representatives met on January 9 to receive for distribution in all schools copies of the Institute application form, brochure, and descriptions of the seminars being offered. At this meeting there was a general presentation on the subjects of the seminars to ensure that all Representatives could accurately explain to their colleagues the purpose of each seminar.

The following week 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 who conducted discussions in small groups with interested teachers. As one Fellow wrote about this process, "This program was a very positive experience for me, especially with the assistance I had all along the way with my school's Representative."

One week later, on January 23, 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 30. This date was selected so that teachers would apply in advance of the February school vacation; in this way the office would have the period of the vacation to process application materials for the upcoming review, and the review could be completed during February to provide earliest possible notification to the teachers who were accepted.
The applicant must show that the seminar and the curriculum unit are directly related to school courses that he or she will teach.
There are four principal criteria for teachers to be eligible for consideration as Fellows. First, the applicant must be a current New Haven school teacher who will be teaching in New Haven also during the school year following Institute participation. Second, the teacher 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 an individual curriculum unit. Third, 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. Fourth, 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.

In addition, beginning in 1990 we decided to place a firm limit of no more than twelve teachers in any seminar. We have believed that the small size of the seminars is indispensable 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. The extraordinary amount of interest in our 1996 offerings, however, led the Coordinators to reexamine this policy.

During the planning process 114 teachers expressed interest in participating in one of the seminars to be offered. By the application deadline, the Institute Representatives, assisted by the school Contacts, had obtained applications from 91 elementary, middle, and high school teachers in the humanities and in the sciences. This was a 65 percent increase in applicants over 1995.
There was a 65 percent increase in applicants over 1995.
The application form calls for each interested teacher 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 short essay is, in effect, their first step in the formulation of a curriculum unit through which they will bring the material they study from the seminar into their own teaching.

In the past, the application teachers submit have been reviewed by three groups: school supervisors, seminar leaders, and seminar Coordinators. The Public Schools subject supervisors are 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.

At the same time, the Institute seminar leaders examine the applications for their relationship to the seminar subject. This affords each seminar leader the opportunity, as well, to tailor or enlarge the bibliography for the seminar so that it will address the specific interests of the teachers who are accepted. By conducting their reviews in early February, the school administrators and seminar leaders are able to provide timely information about any problems they find in the applications.
For the first time, the applications were reviewed within the applicant's own school, in keeping with plans to decentralize decisions making within the school district.
This year, for the first time, the applications were reviewed also within the applicant s own school, in keeping with plans to decentralize administrative functions and decision making within the school district. In each case, the Institute s Representative for the school contacted the school principal to determine who should be involved in this building-level review. The intention was to increase awareness within each school of the projects individual teachers wished 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. In this way, the teacher professional and curriculum development the Institute provides might be connected more closely to the school s particular needs, as determined within each school. As New Haven Public Schools Superintendent Reginald Mayo wrote to principals, "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." Indeed, this was a valuable process. Not only did it inform the consideration of each application and provide each applicant pertinent feedback, but Institute Representatives also reported that, in many schools, it afforded a significant opportunity for them to talk with their principal about the Institute. It also gave principals and leadership teams direct information on the relationship between teachers projects and school plans.
As we have done 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. Each Coordinator participated as a Fellow in a different seminar, and they met together weekly with the director. They also served as an admissions committee. They met after school on February 6 to conduct a first reading and discussion of the applications to their respective seminars. They then contacted individually all teachers whose applications needed to be clarified or amplified. On February 15 the Coordinators met again for a full day, by taking professional leave, for their final consideration of and decisions on the applications. Because of the large number of applicants, the Coordinators had to schedule two additional, lengthy review sessions. After much discussion, they decided, for this year only, to increase the maximum size of the seminars from twelve to fifteen in order to accommodate as many of the applicants as possible.
"We believe this is a highly promising way for ensuring that the Institute provides to individual teachers has the best prospects for advancing each school's academic plans."
-Reginald Mayo

(picture avaiable in print form)
Jean E. Sutherland, Coordinator of the seminar on "Race and Representation in American Film."
During their application 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 school courses they teach. As a result, on March 1 the Institute accepted as Fellows 82 New Haven teachers the largest number in fifteen years 45 in the humanities and 37 in the sciences. Consistent with the Institute s aim to serve the largest possible proportin of all New Haven teachers, 37 (or 45 percent) of the teachers accepted in 1996 were participating in the Institute for the first time; 18 of these first-time Fellows were in the humanities and 19 were in the sciences. A few Fellows were early participants in the Institute who returned after an absence of numerous years. On April 29 the New Haven Board of Education recognized the Fellows at its regular meeting.
The Institute accepted as Fellows 82 New Haven teachers--the largest number in fifteen years.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


The Fellows Who Were Accepted

Fellows came from all but one middle and one high school; two-thirds of all elementary schools had teachers participating. The Institute first admitted elementary school teachers in 1990; this year two fifths (39 percent) of all Fellows were elementary school teachers. Almost one third (29 percent) were high school teachers and one third (32 percent) were middle school teachers. In three cases, teams of Fellows from a given school took part together in a seminar. Five schools had five or more Fellows; twelve schools had three or more. Thus the Institute s work this year was spread ever more widely throughout the school district, while at the same time it was concentrated more intensively in numerous schools. Overall, about half of the Fellows were 41-50 years old; 37 percent were younger and 12 percent were older. As one Fellow wrote,"Our seminar was composed of a very divergent group of people, ranging from kindergarten teachers to a Ph.D. teaching high school. We also had people who were teaching handicapped and severely retarded children."
As Chart 2 shows, one quarter of Fellows (23 percent) had four or fewer years total experience in teaching. The Institute attracted a similar proportion (21 percent) of teachers with 20 or more years total experience in teaching. More than a third (39 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, moreover, more than half (55 percent) of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position four or fewer years; four fifths (84 percent) have taught in their present position for nine years or less. Thus, even though half of the Fellows have 13 or more years total teaching experience, half have 6 or fewer years experience in their present position. This helps to explain why many teachers say they need to develop their knowledge in subjects they have been recently reassigned to teach, or curricular materials for students of a different age or background than the students they have taught before.
The Institute's work was spread more widely throughout the district, while at the same time it was concentrated more intensively in numerous schools.
(chart available in print form)
More than half of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position for four or fewer years.
Moreover, as in past years and as in the case in the school system generally many of the 1996 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 chemistry, earth science and physics, no Fellows had a graduate or undergraduate degree in a field they taught.
(chart available in print form)
Many of the 1996 Fellows did not major in college or graduate school in the subjects they currently teach.
Chart 4 shows the subjects Fellows taught in the 1995-1996 year of their Institute participation. Overall, three fifths (62 percent) of Fellows in the humanities and four fifths (82 percent) of Fellows in the sciences had not majored either in college or graduate school in one or more of the subjects they taught in 1995-1996.
(chart available in print form)
It is understandable, therefore, that 1996 Fellows, when asked about the incentives that attracted them to participate in the Institute, responded (as Chart 5 shows) that the most important incentives were the opportunities to increase their mastery in the subjects they teach (95 percent), to exercise intellectual independence (96 percent), and to develop curricula to fit their needs (100 percent) and materials to motivate their students (100 percent).
(chart available in print form)
Among the most important incentives were the opportunities to increase their mastery and to develop materials to motivate their students.
As past Institute studies have shown, Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haventeachers. So, for example, this year s Fellows, as Fellows before, reflect the gender and ethnicity of all New Haven teachers, though there are large disparities overall in the ethno-racial characteristics of New Haven teachers and their students. (See Table 1) Similarly, the Yale faculty members who have led Institute seminars generally reflect the wider faculty at Yale.
( table available in print form)

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Activities for Fellows

At the first organizational meeting of each seminar, held on March 5, 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 of the projects they would pursue individually. The bibliographies both introduced the seminar subject generally and guided Fellows as they began research on their curriculum units. As one wrote, "The selection of reference materials to read added richness and depth to the discussions about [the seminar subject]." Another said, "Our professor s bibliography included texts which were written clearly and were up-to-date so that they could be easily adapted to our lessons." Others said:
The readings were well-chosen and the length of assignments was fair. The selections exposed us to a variety of issues . . . .This was one seminar I looked forward to each week to discuss issues brought out in the readings; the amount of money spent on books was reasonable and each book was a worthwhile investment for me.

There were many required readings for the class, which I found to be interesting and informative. The lectures by our leader were good, and clarified the readings. The readings and lectures helped me to grow intellectually, and to write my unit.


The bibliographies introduced the seminar subject and guided Fellows as they began research on their curriculum units.
(picture available in print form)
"This was one seminar I looked forward to each week to discuss issues brought out in the readings."
-Institute Fellow
The seminar on "Race and Representation in American Film." (Fellow Val-Jean Belton)
In contrast, some Fellows stressed how demanding they found the reading to be. One wrote, I found that some of the readings piqued [my] interest while the sheer volume of expected readings disheartened me. Another said, It was difficult to keep up with the reading, due to my teaching job responsibilities, particularly strenuous at the end of the year.

The seminar leaders also commented on what they perceived were the Fellows responses to the weekly readings. One said:

Over the duration of the seminar it became clear to me that most of the teachers were reading the assignments carefully and critically. This was reflected in a movement away from distracting anecdotes, which often characterized the initial sessions, to powerful, informed discussions of contemporary social problems, such as racism and unemployment. Several of the Fellows informed me that they appreciated the bibliography I provided at the start of the course; it apparently guided their subsequent reading and research.
(picture available in print form)
"there was a movement to powerful, informed discussions of contemporary social problems, such as racism and unemployment."
-Seminar Leader
The seminar on "Multiculturalism and the Law." (Left to right: Fellows Rebecca S. Brown and Sandra L. Coleman.)
Before the second seminar meeting all Fellows also 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 (80 percent) said in the evaluation that they had ample opportunity to discuss their choice of readings with the seminar leader. Three seminar leaders commented on how they handled meetings:
Meetings were 30-45 minutes, discussion covered general areas, recommendations for reading, clarification of concepts they were confused or stuck on, and areas particular to their units. These meetings seemed just to be expected by all of us, and we just scheduled them.

I met with seminar members in person, typically in my office, and I also had long conversations on the phone. I met with or talked to the members at least two times, sometimes three or four. I usually initiated the meetings, though there were exceptions.

I met with most of the Fellows at least two or three times individually over the course of the Institute. I stayed after class most weeks for approximately one-half hour to discuss problems that individual Fellows were encountering. After the submission of the final draft several of the Fellows asked to revise and resubmit their work. I sent comments on these to their home addresses, and each Fellow met with me in my office prior to submitting his or her final unit.

efore the second seminar meeting all Fellows also 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 (80 percent) said in the evaluation that they had ample opportunity to discuss their choice of readings with the seminar leader. Three seminar leaders commented on how they handled meetings:
Meetings were 30-45 minutes, discussion covered general areas, recommendations for reading, clarification of concepts they were confused or stuck on, and areas particular to their units. These meetings seemed just to be expected by all of us, and we just scheduled them.

I met with seminar members in person, typically in my office, and I also had long conversations on the phone. I met with or talked to the members at least two times, sometimes three or four. I usually initiated the meetings, though there were exceptions.

I met with most of the Fellows at least two or three times individually over the course of the Institute. I stayed after class most weeks for approximately one-half hour to discuss problems that individual Fellows were encountering. After the submission of the final draft several of the Fellows asked to revise and resubmit their work. I sent comments on these to their home addresses, and each Fellow met with me in my office prior to submitting his or her final unit.


" My seminar leader met with us individually whenever we needed to discuss an interest or concer."
-Institute Fellow
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 9, Fellows submitted this prospectus, presented their revised unit topics, and began to discuss the common readings. The regular weekly seminar meetings began on May 7; thereafter Fellows continued to develop their units in stages, with a first draft submitted on May 21. The weekly meetings of the seminars continued through July 16, with Fellows submitting the second draft of their units on July 9 and their completed units by August 1.

In response to the comments of Fellows and seminar leaders participating in 1994, the schedule and steps for writing a curriculum unit were modified to place greater emphasis on the preparation and revision of the first draft of the unit. Many felt that the prospectus, previously required to be submitted in late April, had become somewhat redundant of the statement of revised unit topic due at the second seminar meeting held in early April. Beginning in 1995, Fellows were asked therefore to submit the prospectus, together with a revised topic of the unit and a list of appropriate readings, a the time of the second seminar meeting. Fellows then had a full six weeks to write a first draft. The due date for the second draft was also moved one week later into mid-July to allow Fellows more time to address the comments they received on that draft from other Fellows and from the seminar leader. These adjustments met with good response in 1995, and the great majority (87 percent) of the Fellows agreed that unit writing deadlines occurred at the right time in relation to the school calendar. The Representatives decided the Institute would therefore follow a similar schedule in 1996. Again this year, a high proportion of Fellows (78 percent) thought the writing deadlines occurred at the right time.

The Institute attaches great importance to the process through which Fellows develop their curriculum units, and many Fellows commented in their evaluations about the various benefits they derived from following this process. As one wrote, The deadlines, though sometimes difficult to meet, provided the necessary impetus to get the job done. At the conclusion of the seminars, most Fellows indicated that the program schedule (86 percent) and the guidelines for writing a unit (94 percent) had been useful to them to a great or moderate extent. As one Fellow wrote, "It was very helpful to have handouts with specific deadline dates, curriculum writing instructions, and information on available resources."

One of the reasons the Institute schedule overlaps the school year by three months is to provide Fellows an opportunity to try out with their own students the subject matter and strategies they are considering including in the curriculum units they are developing. As one Fellow wrote, "I began teaching part of my curriculum unit to my students at the end of the last school year, and I found the students very receptive." A second Fellow commented on this advantage the schedule affords:
This year will be especially rewarding because most of my unit lessons have been developed with many student-planned activities in mind. Having already road-tested certain lessons with this past year s class, I m sure that this unit will become one of our favorites for years to come.

Fellows try out with their own students the subject matter and strategies they are considering including in the curriculum units.
(picture available in print form)
Institute Fellow Luis A. Recalde teaching his students at Vincent E. Mauro Elementary School.
This year about three quarters of Fellows said they tried out the subject matter (70 percent) and the strategies (77 percent) of their units in their classroom. For those who did, most (80 percent) said this influenced what they included in their final unit.

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 that were held after school. As we have done in recent years, the Representatives decided to invite some current and prospective seminar leaders to deliver talks. In this way all Fellows 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 wish to participate in a future year. In addition, some faculty members are invited to speak on topics the school Representatives believe will be of particular interest to many Fellows. The talks that University faculty members gave were: "The Resurgence of Scientific Racism" by Rogers M. Smith, Professor of Political Science; "Genetics in the 21st Century" by Margretta R. Seashore, M.D., Professor of Genetics and of Pediatrics; "Contemporary Migration to the United States: Myth and Reality" by Patricia R. Pessar, Associate Professor of American Studies and of Anthropology; "As a Woman, As Myself: Gender and the Lyric Voice" by Marie Borroff, Sterling Professor Emeritus of English; and "Documentary Film/TV and the Rise of Multiculturalism, 1968-1975" by Charles Musser, Associate Professor of Film Studies and of American Studies.

(Picture available in print form)
In the talks Fellows listen to an overview or an example of the work their colleagues are pursuing in other seminars.
Margretta R. Seashore, M.D., giving her 1996 Institute talk on "Genetics in the 21st Century."
For the past four years, the talks have met with generally more favorable response than was the case in several prior years. They remai at times, however, controversial. Echoing comments from those earlier years, one Fellow wrote, "The talks were, for the most part, uninteresting and not related directly to my seminar topic. There were no Black presenters. This is my second year, and there were none last year either." Another said, "The weakness of the Institute is the lecture series at the beginning. Some of the lectures were interesting but others were very boring and had little to do with the seminar topic that I was involved in. I would have liked a lecture on the seminar topic I was involved in." 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 were successful in providing them intellectual stimulation (91 percent) and a sense of collegiality and common purpose among Fellows (77 percent). Two thirds (68 percent) said the talks were successful in providing an overview of Fellows work in the seminars. The great majority (85 percent) said the Institute scheduled the right number of talks this year. One Fellow wrote, I found the lecture series to be as interesting as in the past years. In other words, very interesting and informative. Others said:
I enjoyed many of the general discussions presented during the first portion of the Institute. I especially enjoyed the lecture entitled The Resurgence of Scientific Racism and wished that more time could have been allotted to the lecture.

I found the series of talks to be interesting and informative. As a result of several of the talks, I found myself reading more about the particular subject. In this way, the Institute strengthened my resolve to be a life-long learner.

The series of speakers was fine. I was much impressed with what was said at the talks, the following discussions and the follow-up in the seminars. At first, I questioned the need to participate in the talks segment of the program. Although many of the discussions were enlightening, I didn t quite understand how they fit in with [my seminar]. After, however, actually attending and actively participating in each talk segment, I appreciated them. I found it fascinating to learn of similar mind sets and differing views and philosophies embraced by my colleagues and Yale professors. The talks opened doors for engaging dialogue, developing relationships, and bringing to light areas often overlooked.


The talks were successful in providing intellectual stimulation and a sense of collegiality and common purpose among Fellows.
(picture available in print form)
"The talks opened doors for engaging dialogue, developing relationships, and bringing to light areas often overlooked"
-Institute Fellow
The 1996 Institute talk on "Genetics in the 21st Century."
As we have also done in recent years, the Institute scheduled a session on curriculum unit writing on April 30, a week before the regular meetings of the seminars began. At the beginning of the program, as part of their admissions folder, all Fellows 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. The discussion on April 30 had two main purposes. First, all the Fellows met together for a general session during which a panel of Coordinators spoke briefly about following the Institute process for unit development, considering one s audience, using a computer to write a unit and put it on-line, using the computer assistance the Institute provides, and Fellows working together in writing and using units. Second, we divided all the Fellows into seminar groups, where each Coordinator led a discussion of purposes and practices in writing Institute curriculum units. This afforded an opportunity for the numerous first-time Fellows to learn about the guidelines and other aspects of curriculum unit writing from experienced Fellows. At the same time, it encouraged Fellows who have participated before to share their experience, and it allowed all the Fellows to discuss how the completed volume of units might display a range of diverse teaching strategies and contain a standard form of annotation. By leading these discussions, the Coordinators also identified themselves as being knowledgeable about the requirements for, and approaches to, writing curriculum units, so that other Fellows might seek their advice as they continued developing their individual units during the remaining months of the program.
This afforded an opportunity for the numerous first-time Fellows to learn about curriculum unit writing from experienced Fellows.
(picture available in print form)
Teachers Institute computer assistant Ken Stern demonstrating the Institute Web site to Soraya Potter and Fellow Ida L. Hickerson, at the Cross Campus Library.
As described in more detail in the section on Program Development, the Institute for the second time this year offered computer assistance to the Fellows. For two thirds of Fellows (67 percent) the availability of computer services through the Institute was an incentive to their participation. These services were provided by Yale students working for the Institute and included help with the following: getting started with computing; word-processing and file handling for the preparation of curriculum units; setting up e-mail and access to the Internet; using Institute curricular resources on-line; and using the Internet in research and teaching. Help was provided by e-mail, on the telephone, and in person. Fellows could meet with computer assistants by making an appointment in advance to come to a small computer facility the Institute established adjacent to its main office. A majority of this year s Fellows (58 percent) took advantage of this assistance, at least to some extent. Most who sought the computer assistants help did so in person (46 percent of all Fellows). Some Fellows sought advice by phone (28 percent) or by e-mail (10 percent). Some Fellows who did not use the computer explained why. One wrote,"I did not use the computer assistance because I had no need to. I have my own computer and am computer literate." Another said, "I did not use the computer assistance for various reasons. I think that having computer assistance is a great idea. However, between work, research, and family responsibilities, it was difficult for me to set aside extra time to use the resources." One who made time to work with the computer assistants said, "I did use the computer assistance because I needed help using the Internet and I do not yet own a computer." Others wrote of their advantages of the assistance they received:
The computer assistance was valuable to me because it was a learning experience. I did not know what was available and the staff was most helpful. I will certainly use the network in the future. The resources were valuable to my unit.

The two computer assistants patiently helped us access the Internet and also they guided us how to access the completed curriculum units previously submitted to the Institute.

I was glad the computer assistance was available. I was starting from ground zero. I used the Institute computer assistance to get started and went back for a second session.

I found the computer assistance to be very helpful. I had no knowledge or experience on using the Internet and needed basic instruction in connecting and working with the software needed. I found the technicians to be very helpful. They explained in detail the steps I needed to take to set up and use the account. In addition, they helped me solve a problem with my modem. They were able to quickly diagnose the problem and come up with a solution. They provided information both over the phone and in person at the Computer Center. They returned all my calls promptly. They were pleasant, knowledgeable, very patient, and able to explain things in terms that were easily understood by individuals with limited computer skills.


"The two computer assistants patiently helped us access the Internet and guided us how to access completed curriculum units."
-Institute Fellow
Overall, of the Fellows who said they used the computer assistance offered them, all but three (87 percent) said the assistants were helpful to them in getting started with computing. Fellows who consulted the assistants found them also to be helpful in setting up e-mail and internet access (67 percent), in using the Internet in research and teaching (88 percent), in word processing and file handling for the preparation of a curriculum unit (71 percent), and in using the Institute s curricular resources on-line (85 percent).
"They were able to explain things in terms that were easily understood by individuals with limited computer skills."
-Institute Fellow
(chart available in print form)
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 information about the teachers who had been accepted and to begin to define, in practical terms, what their role would be in assisting with the conduct of the seminars.
Both the seminar leaders and Fellows acknowledged in their evaluations the essential role of the Coordinators. In the final evaluations, most Fellows (87 percent) agreed with the statement that the Coordinator had provided teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within the seminar. Overall, almost all Fellows said the Coordinators helped them by facilitating discussion of Fellows work in progress (90 percent), and by providing information about guidelines and deadlines for unit writing (99 percent) and about use of University facilities (97 percent). Few Fellows found the Coordinators unhelpful in any respect. As two Fellows wrote:
Our seminar Coordinator did a fine job of maintaining contact with Fellows, serving as a connection between seminar leader and all Fellows, keeping us informed of Institute requirements and responsibilities, helping to maintain lively discussions in seminar. The Coordinator was highly supportive of the Fellows.

The Coordinator kept in regular contact with me and was always available to answer questions about anything about the Institute.

For one Fellow, the Coordinator s and other Fellows supportive assistance was apparently crucial:
If it wasn t for my seminar Coordinator, other members of our team, and a wonderful friend who s been doing the Institute for the last several years, I probably would ve given up. However, because of their support, I persevered and I must say that my experience was more enjoyable than I initially anticipated.
The Coordinators role also assists the seminar leader and helps to remove the leader from a hierarchical relationship to the Fellows. As one seminar leader said, I greatly enjoyed collaborating with my seminar Coordinator who was highly professional and supportive.

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, four of whom were conducting an Institute seminar for the first time, an opportunity to talk with each other about their approaches to, and experiences in, their seminar.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Rewards for Fellows

The seminars have always been regarded as the core collaborative experience of the Institute, and Fellows comments about the seminars are invariably rich and positive. In a typical statement one Fellow said:
The seminar was an excellent group. Our readings and discussions were timely, relevant and very enlightening. The topics were pertinent to all our curricula and experiences, as well as our future classroom needs. The guest lecturers added a personal touch and an additional perspective to the readings.
(picture available in print form)
"Our seminar was very interactive. A real group spirit developed within the first meetings."
-Seminar Leader
The seminar on "Genetics in the 21st Century." (Left to right: Fellows Stephen Beasley-Murray, Richard R. MacMahon, and seminar leader Margretta R. Seashore.)
Seminar leaders described their seminar in general terms:
The format of the seminar started with a couple of introductory lectures followed by extensive question and answer and discussion sessions. I found this format useful in that it allowed me to focus on the Fellows needs and interests rather than on my own ideas of what is interesting and important.

Our seminar was very interactive. Most Fellows contributed ideas and tried to balance general questions with ones specific to their units. Some were more comfortable in the group than others in the beginning, but a real group spirit developed within the first few meetings.

The seminars generally revolved around an in-depth discussion of the readings and some brief, supplemental lecturing. I very carefully selected readings that would generate debate and structured the course so that our ability to discuss issues in an informed manner would evolve throughout. In contrast to my Yale seminars, occasionally Fellows went off on tangents an I had to attempt to redirect the discussion. On the other hand, I enjoyed discussing . . . matters with adults who often expressed more passion and compassion than my Yale undergraduates, who are often loathe to lose their cool in front of their peers.

I have enjoyed my previous seminar experiences, but this session was a particular delight. More than in my previous seminars, this subject matter was more vividly personal for each of the Fellows because of their powerful views about and experiences of racial discrimination in our society, and they and I both felt more confident about their independent authority and knowledge compared to mine. Thus we had wide-ranging and rich discussions in the seminar which were illuminating and educational for me and, I believe, for the Fellows too.

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. As one Fellow wrote, "Our discussions allowed us all to share opinions and we learned from each other. Our backgrounds were diverse and our leader had great respect for that." Another said, "I feel that I gained a new and deeper appreciation and respect for people of various cultures." Two Fellows wrote:
Not only did I enjoy the instructor, but the mix of teachers in the seminar was mentally and educationally stimulating as well. There were variations in everything from grade level to ethnic, socio-economic, and environmental backgrounds. This made for some very interesting discussions in that it allowed us to see and accept differences as well as provided us with opportunities to observe some of the ways in which we were alike (standing firm on the same issues). In an age when people are divided on so many matters it was satisfying to observe a level of harmonious spirit.

The Institute had several strengths this year. First, the Institute brought together teachers from various backgrounds which allowed me to meet, exchange ideas and socialize with people I might not usually meet. Second, it gave seminar Fellows a chance to discuss the topic of race in an intellectual atmosphere. While our debates were sometimes heated, I think we all gained an appreciation on how sensitive we need to be on this issue and that we must teach our students to be just as sensitive.

As has been the case since the Institute s inception, its participants and staff are still sometimes 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. The comments they made this year in this regard, including some already cited above, are representative. As one seminar leader wrote, "By this point [mid-way] in our seminar, moreover, we had come to such a spirit of honesty and good will that our discussions had become wonderfully open and mutually educational."
In turn, Fellows expressed their respect for their Yale colleagues. In typical comments, several wrote:
The seminar leader was friendly, likeable, and provided us with stimulating discussion topics. He allowed us the freedom of expression and even dissent, which proved to be quite engaging. There was never a moment where I felt alienated for the ideas that I possessed.

The seminar leader is an honest, open man who offers his views and listens to Fellows points of view. He is intrigued by others views at times and allows himself to grow from the new exposure. As a leader he was comfortable to be with.

The seminar leader provided us with very useful and practical information. He was both informative and stimulating, allowing ample time for analysis and discussion. His candor and sense of humor was refreshing. He challenged us to view a problem in its entirety instead of focusing on the issues we felt most comfortable with thus allowing us to expand our understanding of the problem and the possible solutions.

Really what the professor achieved was one of the best achievements that we could ask of any professor in an institute to truly stimulate and motivate us to learn more for ourselves.

I was very pleased with the professionalism and respect that was given to me by [my seminar leader]. Our seminar was a model for cooperative learning. The teachers were empowered to voice their needs and concerns [and the seminar leader] responded to the concerns and made adjustments to her lectures to meet the needs of the teachers. Such cooperation and respect made the course very enjoyable and profitable to me.


"Really what the professor acheived was to stimulate and motivate us to learn more for ourselves."
-Institute Fellow
(picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Multiculturalism and the Law." (Left to right: Fellow Donna L. Timmone and seminar leader Robert A. Burt.)
The seminars afford Fellows 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 simply, "The interaction between NHPS teachers and the seminar leader as well as the interaction among the NHPS teachers was super!!" Another wrote, As a first time Fellow,"I found many strengths in the Institute. Foremost, it provided an excellent forum for teachers to work, collaborate, and converse with colleagues on a variety of professionally related topics." Others wrote:
(picture available in print form)
The Seminars afford Fellows an opportunity to work with other teachers across the artificial boundaries that often separate grade levels, school, and disciplines.
The seminar on "Environmental and Occupational Health." (Left to right: Fellows Katherine Ware, Kelley N. Robinson, and John P. Crotty.)
My fellow colleagues exhibited a natural propensity towards analysis and the problem solving process. Their contributions towards discussions were immense, stimulating and thought provoking. It was a pleasure to be among them.

This seminar gave me the opportunity to know and work closely with some of the best teachers in the New Haven school system. I realized that there are a lot of creative and talented teachers out there that can bring numerous new insights in creating curriculum units for classroom use.

The most positive aspect of the seminar was the interaction with other New Haven teachers. Discussing seminar topics and school-related events definitely heightened my sense of belonging to the New Haven School System. I was pleased to see so many other teacherswho wanted to improve our system and challenge themselves intellectually.

The interactions with other teachers was exceptional. Talking to other professionals in my field gave me an advantage that will assist me all throughout the next school year. I made contacts that will be available to me for a long time to come and their help will prove, I m certain, to be invaluable.

One of the strengths of the Institute is the opportunity it creates for teachers to communicate and get to know each other in different contexts. New and lasting friendships are generated by the way the Institute is set up.

The interaction in the group was at a high professional level. There were always free exchanges of information and ideas; individuals were willingly offering help and support. In particular, I derived great benefit from the reports of colleagues who had the opportunity of testing their curriculum units during the period.


"I was pleased to see so many other teachers who wanted to improve our system and challenge themselves intellectually."
-Institute Fellow

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


From Seminar Subject to Curriculum Unit

Each Institute seminar must balance the complementary and inseparable but at times competing demands for studying generally the seminar subject and developing specifically applications of that knowledge for school classrooms. Each seminar approaches these demands somewhat differently as seminar leaders strive to strike an appropriate balance.

A sizeable majority of Fellows said that there had been a good balance between general study of the seminar subject and work in progress on their units.
In the end, a sizable majority of this year's Fellows (76 percent) said that there had been a good balance in seminar between general study of the seminar subject and Fellows work in progress on their units. For some Fellows, in fact, making connections between the seminar and their classroom seemed natural, at times effortless. As one wrote, "A good pace was maintained throughout the seminar period, with all sessions being equally valuable for support of the writing process and for maintaining active interest in the seminar." For some others, more time spent discussing work in progress on the units would have been beneficial, and the larger than usual size of the seminar tended sometimes to limit such discussion. One Fellow wrote, "This year's large group made for less cohesiveness and collegiality. The work in progress was limited new teachers, as well as seasoned teachers, had problems adjusting to a larger audience." Another said:
(picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Genetics in the 21st Century." (Fellows Stephen Beasley-Murray and Richard R. MacMahon.)
In our seminar this year, there was not enough time for all the participants to present their units before the final draft was submitted. For a few teachers who were able to do their presentations there was again very little time for comments, suggestions and open discussions of the units. I think teachers learn more from each other than from reading books alone. In future seminars, I suggest that sufficient time should be allotted to discussing our individual units to get input from Fellow teachers.

"Teachers learn more from each other than from reading books alone."
-Institute Fellow
Responses such as these probably argue for the Institute returning in 1997 to the limit of no more than twelve Fellows in any seminar.

As mentioned above, the New Haven teachers who participated as Fellows completed their curriculum units by August 1. Their units were then 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 Fellows wrote, based on synopses of the units 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 1,024 curriculum units contained in the 115 volumes of units 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 numerous school district administrators who have responsibility for curricula systemwide. At the same time, the Representatives conducted an inventory to ascertain whether each middle and high school has a complete set of all 115 volumes of units and whether all elementary schools have each of the volumes that their teachers believe are applicable at those grade levels.

Although the Institute has, from the outset, furnished each middle and high school a set of every year s units and although elementary schools have been encouraged for the last seven years to request any units their teachers might use a survey in 1994 revealed that there were gaps in the unit collections in a number of schools. 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 1993-1994, the Institute therefore sought to determine the best location for Institute material to be deposited in every New Haven school, and in 1996 it continued to supply units missing from any collection, insofar as the volumes were still in-print. As described below (page 59), we also pursued the creation of an electronic version that makes the Institute s curricular resources more widely accessible.


The volumes were deposited in libraries of all schools so that New Haven teachers--whether or not they have been Fellows--might use them.
Both seminar leaders and Fellows commented favorably on the units produced this year. One seminar leader wrote, "I was pleased with the seriousness of the Fellows approach to their units; and it seemed to me that each of them could serve as vehicles in their classrooms for much useful discussion." Others wrote:
All of the Fellows drew successfully on the readings assigned in the seminar. In most cases a fair amount of additional research went into the preparation of the unit; an a few clearly put a great deal of effort into researching their unit topics.

Some Fellows came in with a fairly detailed plan of what they wanted to do, based on a previous teaching unit or other activity. They refined and expanded their ideas. Some came in with only an idea and they have developed it, expanded their understanding of [the seminar subject] and the issues they wanted to present, and really developed over the course of rewriting and refining the drafts. Nearly all have moved substantially in their understanding of [the subject]. The range of imagination has been wide, and the ability to relate to the group of students they are teaching obvious.

Fellows also commented, in ways as diverse as their own classrooms, on the value of the units they prepared. One wrote:
I would like to emphasize the published curriculum unit as being a strong motivating factor for taking the Institute course. Therein lies the strength, in my opinion, of the Institute. Although no small task, I have found my units to flow quite naturally as I begin to put them together. The finished products have given me a great sense of accomplishment.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


Results for Participants

As in past years, Fellows in 1996 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 (82 percent) to take part in the Institute, almost all (99 percent) said that they had gained knowledge of their subject and confidence to teach it by participating in their seminar. Only one Fellow differed with the statement that the seminar helped him or her grow intellectually and professionally.

As one Fellow wrote, "It was good to be with other teachers who were actively trying to make their teaching more interesting and current. The best part was that I felt like I was using my brain again. I was just not studying only 7th and 8th grade material." Another said, "The information I received in the seminar, as well as my own research, has helped me professionally as well as in my development as a critical thinker generally." Two other Fellows wrote:


Almost all said they had gained knowledge of their subject and confidence to teach it by participating in their seminar.
(picture available in print from)
The seminar on "Remaking America: Contemporary U.S. Immigration." (Left to right: Fellows Daisy S> Catalan and Pedro Mendia.)
The Institute became a springboard for me to get back in the classroom and realize the worth that I can contribute to intelligent conversation, while continuing to challenge my never-ending thirst of knowledge through research and lectures as well.

At first I had ambivalent feelings in pursuing this seinar because I felt inadequate and "rusty" after being away from a university setting for quite a number of years. Also I dreaded the thought of meeting deadlines for papers and long lists of readings. At any rate, all these apprehensions were overshadowed when the seminar was in full swing because every Tuesday afternoon I was looking forward to another two hours of intellectual discussion with my fellow teachers and seminar leader. There was always something new to discuss. In spite of our opposite views and differences in opinions, the "mental exercise" was healthy and there was always excitement.

Numerous Fellows also described the Institute experience as having increased their professional confidence and morale. As one Fellow said, "The Institute recognizes that often times teachers are undervalued and underestimated by parents, administrators, and even students. The Institute allows teachers to feel a part of something worthwhile." Two Fellows wrote:
Fellows described the Institute experience as having increased their professional confidence and morale.
(picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Race and Representation in American Film." (Left to right: Fellows Geraldine M. Martin and Karen E. Carazo.)
I have been very excited about being able to present my unit to my students as well as having the opportunity to create a published unit that anyone can use. My confidence in my ability as a teacher and a leader has definitely been elevated.

My curriculum unit and participation in the Institute will make me more enthusiastic about returning to school in the fall. I feel that the development of my unit allowed me to tailor reading and writing activities to suit the needs of my students. The unit gives me a solid foundation on which to begin my year.

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 (89 percent) access to Yale's academic facilities such as the library was an incentive for their participation, and three fifths (60 percent) reported that membership in the Yale community had been greatly or moderately useful to them. As one Fellow wrote, "I really feel that the selection of lecturers and the access to the Yale community far outweighed any weaknesses that I could ever possibly think about." Another said, "The resources at Yale were also most valuable. The tours of libraries helped greatly and the Yale staff was also there to answer questions." Another wrote:
The Institute puts New Haven teachers in direct contact with the Yale community, which offers a kind of potential symbiosis for developing pedagogy that is relevant to students with respect to the community they live in, and with respect to the demands of higher education. Lastly, Yale offers a great deal by way of its facilities--libraries, computer center, etc.
Nor do Fellows see the results of the Institute as being limited to their own classrooms, or even to teachers who have participated directly in seminars. Every single Fellow said that he or she plans to encourage and assist other teachers in using the unit he or she prepared; half said they plan to do so with four or more other teachers. Fellows this year provided numerous and various accounts of the more extended influence the Institute has had, and will have, for themselves and their schools. One said, "The concepts of the Institute are enforced when the school is developing its Comprehensive School Plan for the year." Others wrote:
Through two of our teachers having taken a film seminar in 1995, we now incorporate video and film more into the English and history departments, as well as part of a weekly after school academy activity. Through the relationship established with other Fellows, there is more inter-school networking at the high school level.

After sharing the unit with several other teachers who did not participate n an Institute seminar, they too are anxious to work with the unit to do a collaborative project. The students therefore will get added benefits from teachers "talking the same talk."

I am on the Curriculum Committee at my school. I believe that my involvement with the Genetics seminar will broaden my awareness in the sciences. I feel that we will be able to expand the curriculum to include a variety of topics that up to now had not been thought of or addressed.

Our school is focusing on creating Science/Social Studies thematic units. My involvement will help others to focus on clear objectives and strategies for developing and evaluating these units. It will also help in the collaborative efforts, across grade levels, to integrate curriculum aligned with national, state, and district goals.

(Picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Outstanding Problems in Contemporary Astronomy and Cosmology." (Fellow Victor J. Leger.)
Each year we are attentive to the responses of both first-time and veteran participants because, on the one hand, we want a high proportion of New Haven teachers to become Fellows and, on the other, want the Institute to become a regular part of Fellows professional lives. Both groups cite their own rewards. One first-time Fellow wrote, "I have always wanted to participate in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, and I am very pleased that I finally did. I met a lot of fellow teachers from other schools. The class itself was very rewarding and provided me with a new outlook on the subject." Another wrote, "I received a great deal of help in the development of my unit by those Fellows who had participated in past seminars."
"My involvement will help in the collaborative efforts, acrss grade levels, to integrate curriculum aligned with national, state, and district goals."
-Institute Fellow
For returning Fellows, the rewards of participation do not appear to diminish over time, as the experience becomes cumulative, and not repetitive or redundant. In fact, at least some teachers report that the benefits increase as one has more experience as a Fellow. Five wrote:
My curriculum writing was a more pleasurable experience than last year s inaugural unit, mostly because I knew what was expected and had a better sense of the time frame for each deadline. I also felt that it was easier to construct the unit, after knowing what the Institute called for, as far as structure was concerned.

To me the Institute is as strong as it has ever been and it continues to provide the expertise that is needed for instructors in the New Haven School System to work together and develop materials to enhance the curriculum of the subject areas.

I have participated in the YNHTI many times. My prior participation has been enjoyable. It has been a way of growing and keeping current in subject content. The fellowship with colleagues has been more than inspirational. The professors have really done a super job of helping the participants (Fellows) to maintain professionalism. Knowledge is power and the process lends itself to the growth teachers need to be professionals.


"The professors have really done a super job of helping the participants to maintain professionalism."
-Institute Fellow
The results of my prior participation in the Institute have been positive. My students have benefited from my improved skill and increased knowledge; my curriculum has expanded to include atypical experiences for my students and my colleagues; and my school has increased its overall enrollment in the Institute to, in turn, increase the faculty s use of curriculum units and participant feedback.

Having participated in the Institute for the past eleven years, I have reached a stage in my educational life where not to participate would create a void for myself and my students that would be very difficult to fill. The Istitute provides that jump start each year that keeps me actively reading and researching materials to impart to my students on a daily basis. Wednesdays are always the highlight of my school week because my students receive that instant gratification from my Tuesday experience at lecture or seminar discussions.


"I have reached a stage in my educational life where not to participate would create a void for myself and my students that would be very difficult to fill."
-Institute Fellow
(picture available in print form)
Institute Fellow Luis A. Recalde teaching his students at Vincent E. Mauro Elementary School.
As in every year since 1940 when elementary school teachers became a regular part of the Institute, they spoke this year of the particular advantages of the Institute for them specifically. One wrote:
My experiences with the seminar leader were positive because of the professional development I received through the use of his seminar. Professionally I ve reached a point where I am not afraid to deal with certain issues (especially on the elementary level). He taught me unique ways to deal with sensitive issues.

I have already made arrangements to begin my unit with a first-grade colleague. Measurement, time, journal writing, social studies, art . . . will be incorporated to bring the subject matter to life over a five-week period. I can t wait to get started! I m sure that the excitement will rub off on my students and fellow colleagues.

It was a friendly and very diverse group of teachers. Everyone was very helpful and shared ideas and information. Those who were science teachers helped many of us to find resources. Our instructor was very interested in seeing that the information we had would be made intelligible for students in our classes. We had a lot of opportunity to share ideas on how we would explain certain concepts to our students, who were from elementary to the high school level.


"We had a lot of opportunity to share ideas on how we would explain certain concepts to our students, who were from elementary school to hish school level."
-Institute Fellow
(picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Remaking America: Contemporary U.S. Immigration." (Seminar leader Patricia R. Pessar)
Seminar leaders, too, speak of what they gain from participation not only in terms of their involvement in public education and the University s home community, but also in terms of their own scholarship and teaching. Presenting what they wrote in their evaluations is especially worthwhile because the Institute is often asked what are the incentives and rewards for Yale faculty members who participate. Seminar leaders said:
The experience has broadened my view of the community. The Fellows ask some very basic questions, answers to which I just take for granted. Having to answer them clearly made me look at some very basic concepts in a detailed and precise way concepts I have not thought about in that way for a while. That was useful for my own teaching, and gave me some new pedagogical ideas.

Another positive aspect was to witness the development and implementation of some curriculum units based on the seminar, which produced excitement for the Fellow, his/her pupils, and for other members of the school. Finally, some of the Fellows stated at the end of the seminar that the experience had enriched their life and drastically changed the way they view science in general, and [the seminar subject] in particular. These feedbacks make any effort worthwhile.

While this seminar did not contribute directly to my scholarly work, it was fabulously stimulating personally, and I think represents an important level of contribution for Yale faculty. It has certainly expanded my horizons and sense of involvement in this community.


"Some of the Fellows stated at the end of the seminar that the experience had enriched their life and drastically changed the way they view science in general."
-Seminar Leader

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


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, and Fellows often write their units for students at more than one level. In fact, a similar proportion of Fellows reported that they designed their new curriculum unit for their "least advanced" students (61 percent), as designed their unit or their "most advanced" students (59 percent). Ninety-two percent of Fellows designed their unit for "average" students. The plans of four Fellows illustrate the wide range of unit use in the schools:
(picture available in print form)
Institute Fellow Victor J. Leger with his students at Vincent E. Mauro Elementary School.
I believe my unit will have a big effect on my teaching next year. Since I intend to use my unit to get marginal students interested in college, I will begin the school year with it.

My fourth-grade students will learn about the lives and music of immigrants...in order to develop a more responsible behavior and respectful attitude towards all peoples in our society. They will gain knowledge of what it means to be an immigrant, why people left their countries, what was special about their countries, and how they adapted to their new home. The students will increase their understanding of geography, history, and languages, and expand their comprehension of these cultures through the different types of music from the Caribbean.

I feel this curriculum unit and my participation in this Institute will have a very positive effect on the blind and visually impaired students that I teach. This project allowed me to explore and research an area that is greatly needed by my students. It will provide them with the information they need to understand genetics and their personal genetic disorder. In addition, their sighted peers will also have an opportunity to learn about genetics, how traits and disorders are passed from generation to generation and about genetic handicaps. It also will allow them to understand that they are very alike and at the same time very unique. It will be a good introduction to handicapping disorders and will introduce them to understanding the handicapped people they encounter.

In this coming year, I will be teaching this unit to my class of students with special needs. I believe that my science class will be the beginning of an increased science curriculum at my school. I will be exposing my class to a subject that prior to my involvement with Yale, had not been explored at my school for students with severe disabilities.

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. Half of the Fellows responded that they would teach their unit to at least 55 students. The chart below illustrates the length of time they planned to teach the unit. For all Fellows, then, the unit is a significant part of their teaching plans.
(chart available in print form)
For all Fellows, the unit is a significant part of their teaching
plans.
Fellows this year were optimistic about the responses they anticipated receiving from their students to the material they had studied and developed in the Institute. Importantly, most Fellows this year (93 percent) agreed that, as a result of Institute participation, they have a higher expectation of their students ability to learn about the seminar subject. Almost two out of five Fellows (37 percent) strongly agreed with that conclusion. Fellows spoke about the ways their own enthusiasm for a subject would motivate students, and how they planned to involve students more actively in classroom learning. They wrote:
My students should benefit because I believe the curriculum I developed is more stimulating, more organized and well thought out than before. The unit is student-oriented, that is, written to be read by students as well as teachers, with thought-provoking questions and activities that will turn students on to learning.

My participation in the Institute has afforded me the opportunity to develop creative an thought provoking subject matter for my students. It has also allowed me the opportunity to present students with a differentiated curriculum that develops higher level thinking skills.

My Institute experience has emphasized allowing students to work in smaller groups, do research, share insights with one another, and write coherently and persuasively. These convictions have been buttressed during the summer; I return to school believing that we must continue to infuse these methods and skills into the school curriculum to a higher degree than in the past.

Teaching students to recognize and appreciate our various cultures and their impact on society is something that s very important. Having completed this unit I am better qualified to teach the subject matter and can direct students to further inquiry.

This seminar I participated in hit a home run because it addressed the student population I am currently teaching. The readings and discussions we had in class enabled me to understand my students better, plan out lessons and incorporate strategies of effective learning experiences for my students who have diverse cultural, ethnic and racial background.


"My students should benefit because I believe the curriculum I developed is more stimulating, more organized and well thoughtout than before."
-Institute Fellow
We also asked Fellows who had participated in the Institute in prior years to report on student response they had actually observed when teaching units they had developed previously in the Institute. Their comments were very much in the same vein as the results Fellows expected to achieve with their new units. Fellows wrote:
My prior participation has affected my students in very positive ways. The Institute experience has allowed me as a teacher to create units that are student-centered. By this I mean that topics and activities I choose tend to be ones that I feel will motivate my students to be better students and more informed about issues. For example, in almost every unit I have developed, there are debates, role-plays, mock trials or some other activities oriented toward making learning fun, involving students in the process of learning. The Institute process is significant, because there are other teachers who know what works in their classrooms and are willing to share insights with me. My current students seem to enjoy the materials even more than my students did a decade ago. Invariably, when graduates return to visit, and we talk about classroom experiences they remember, it is Institute learning activities and projects that often come to mind as significant ones.

"The Institute experience has allowed me as a teacher to creat units that are student-centered."
-Institute Fellow
(picture available in print form)
Institute Fellow Marcella M. Flake teaching her student.
Again, as I have experienced in the past, I believe that my curriculum unit will be highly motivating, both to me as a teacher and to my students who will participate in the unit this coming school term. My units in the past have had nothing but positive effects in terms of stimulating my children in the learning process across all curriculum areas. I thrive on creativity in my teaching experiences in the classroom and that is what my units have been able to offer motivation through creative teaching.

This school term, I planned a special student-parent day where the children presented their finished projects from my curriculum unit. Along with parents and students, Dr. Mayo and my principal were present for the program. I really did not anticipate Dr. Mayo to stay more than a few minutes. However, to the delight of myself and the children he stayed for the hour program, giving very positive comments at the end of the presentation. I have had nothing but positive feedback whenever my units were presented in a public program.


"When graduates return and we talk about classroom experiences they remember, it is Institute learning activities and projects that often come to mind as significant ones."
-Institute Fellow
With regard to the application of my curriculum unit in school, my 8th grade writing students collaborated on writing a murder mystery play entitled, "The Mysterious Case of the Tarantula s Bite," that involves the audience in solving the case. I collaborated with another 5th-grade theater teacher, and our students performed the play for three other 5th-grade classes. The play takes place in the library and is intended to introduce 5th graders to the various aspects of the library and cataloging systems by searching for clues. Our production was a great success.

I taught my '95 unit--it was wonderful! I enjoyed having something more engaging to teach in the middle of the year. It was a much needed break from the regular reading program. My students were really happy with the books provided to my classroom!


"I enjoyed having something more engaging to teach in the middle of the year."
-Institute Fellow

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


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 8 below, very few Fellows said that any aspect of the Institute had not been useful. In fact, with the exception of the lecture series and membership in the Yale community, no fewer than three quarters of Fellows said that each aspect of the Institute had been useful to a great or moderate extent. Half or more responded that favorably to the lecture series (50 percent) and membership in the Yale community (60 percent). They rated most favorably the knowledge they gained, their seminar leader, the interaction with other Fellows, Institute guidelines for writing a unit, and the program overall.
(chart available in print form)
For their part, seminar leaders reached the following general conclusions about the Institute this year:
Overall this has been a terrific personal experience. I think the results will be mixed, but that a substantial leap forward has occurred in the challenge to upgrade awareness of children about the [seminar subject], and in scientific literacy generally I feel even more confident that I ve had a positive impact on these fine teachers.
(picture available in print form)
The seminar on "Environmental and Occupational Health." (Seminar leader Mark R. Cullen.)
I think the Institute is a wonderful force for continued learning for teachers; it is a model for continuing education because there is a product at the end and the learning is very interactional and "hands-on."

I certainly would tell other faculty members about the positive aspects of the experience--getting to know the community better, teaching fellow teachers and fellow adults. I felt that I began to have a sense of what was going on in the public schools, which I feel was important. I think it is an important thing for Yale to be doing and that the faculty should support that. I d also have to tell them that my involvement with the Institute too a tremendous amount of time--far more than teaching summer school. Teaching at the Institute is a great honor, and should be considered in that light. Seminar leaders deal with real, down-to-earth people who are trying to help our society in a grass-roots kind of way. The future of our country is going to be shaped by what goes on in the nation s public schools as much as in its universities. It is one of the most important things that Yale and Yale faculty can do.


"The Institute is a model for continuing education because there is a product at the end and the learning is very interactional and "hands-on."
-Seminar Leader
At the end of a long journey, I am more convinced than when I began that the Institute is a wonderful accomplishment for New Haven, Yale, and all its participants. As a member of the Yale faculty I enjoyed the opportunity to bring my passion for my subject matter to another academic community. I am pleased to have collaborated with New Haven teachers to ensure that more students have an enlightened view of the opportunities and challenges that lay ahead as we become an increasingly multiracial, multicultural nation.

"I am more convinced that when I bagen that the Institute is a wonderful accomplishment for New Haven, Yale and all its participants."
-Seminar Leader
Finally, we asked Fellows to sum up their overall conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of the Institute. Their general observations presented here complete the discussion of the Institute s 1996 program for Fellows.
My seminar group and leader were wonderful. It was like a warm family where opinions were expressed openly and confidently. I really enjoyed it and would hope to participate again in the future.

I felt personally there was a lot of healing that took place during the seminar; feelings of hurt and anger were expressed openly and others were very supportive and understanding. In sum, one of the best seminars I have attended. If offered again, I would make time to participate.

The strength of the Institute was the organization and professionalism in which the Institute was run.

Having been my first curricular unit, the whole experience has been very exciting. From the first phone call telling me that I was accepted, to the lectures, to the seminar meetings, to all the reading and the writing for the final unit, I have really enjoyed coming to the meetings and discussing with other teachers our theme of study.

My Institute seminar experience was: an exhausting, time-consuming process involving much discipline and hard work; an excellent opportunity for intellectual stretching and professional development; a challenging, motivating time of risk-taking discussions and broadening perspectives, leading to understanding and tolerance; an awakening; energizing; wonderfully stimulating and rewarding; time well-spent, very well-spent.


"From the first phone call to the writing for the final unit, I have really enjoyed coming to the meetings and discussing with other teachers out theme of study."
-Institute Fellow
In their evaluations, every single Fellow said he or she intended to participate (84 percent), or might participate (16 percent), in the Institute in one or more future years.

In July and August the Institute identified the 71 teachers who would serve during the 1996-1997 school year as the Institute Representatives and Contacts for their schools. Representatives were selected according to the recommendations of the teachers who served as seminar Coordinators and conversations they had with individuals who have served as Representatives in the past, other Institute Fellows, and in some cases school principals. Because the Representatives who served during the 1995-1996 school year were widely regarded as effective, we sought a high degree of continuity of Representatives.


...exhausting, timeconsuming, challenging, motivating, broadening, awakening, energizing, stimulating and rewarding.
-Institute Fellow
(picture available in print form)
Meeting of Institute Representatives. (Left to right: Henry A. Rhodes and Kathleen L. Ayr.)
At the same time, we slightly increasedthe size of the Representatives group, (which had been expanded last year by almost half) from 23 to 24 school Representatives. These Representatives were well distributed across New Haven schools with nine (38 percent) representing elementary schools, eight (33 percent) representing middle schools, five (21 percent) representing high schools, and two (8 percent) representing transitional schools. Whether or not they have 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. The main difference between the Representatives and the Contacts is that the former 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, on the other hand, perform many of the same functions but are not required to participate in bi-weekly 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.

The Representatives held their first meeting of the new school year on September 10 and thereafter met twice monthly with the director. On September 24 the Institute held a reception for Representatives and Contacts, so that they might become better acquainted with one another and discuss plans for 1996-1997. The meeting set the stage for another productive year of their work together. In the intervals between their 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 all New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools.


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.

to the top of The Program for New Haven Teachers


© 1997 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

© 2016 by the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute
Terms of Use Contact YNHTI