Three and a half years ago, I wrote about a district that was turning up standards-based reform all the way to 11. In the Brave New World, the Adams 50 school district planned to do away with grade levels and group students based on their level of proficiency.

Education Week recently profiled the district and its challenges with implementing this type of competency based approach (subscription required).

But four years into the effort, Adams 50's work shows how hard instituting such changes can be, even with broad support.

For example, the district divided its curriculum into 10 academic levels, expanded those to 14 levels when 10 were deemed too broad, and then has had to tweak the levels again when the state adopted new literacy and mathematics standards.

The initiative also continues to be challenged by state testing requirements, which force Adams 50 to group students by grade, even though those students may not have been working on the particular academic areas that the tests cover.

And incorporating the approach into the district's two high schools has been bumpy. The competency-based model is currently being used in the 9th and 10th grades in those schools, but Adams 50 is working through what level-based learning means for grade point averages and class ranks.

Even the most experienced teachers have been left feeling like first-year educators in the wake of the changes, district leaders say they have heard.

Adams might be one of the first districts to take this on, but many states are also considering a change to the way they look at credit.

While Adams 50 has gotten attention for its efforts, competency-based learning has a foothold in 36 states, according to a 2012 issue brief from the National Governors Association. That means those states "provide school districts and schools with some flexibility for awarding credit to students based on mastery of content and skills as opposed to seat time," the NGA brief said.

It went on to note, though, that a common challenge for many such efforts is that other education structures within the state may work against that flexibility. For example, student-level data may be housed in systems that prevent teachers from getting all the information they need to evaluate if a student has fully mastered the academic content.

States also vary in how much they encourage districts to take advantage of such flexibility. New Hampshire is a leader in that area: It is the only state that is requiring its high schools to do away with Carnegie units, which award academic credit based on seat time, and instead award credit based on mastery of course-level competencies.

Connecticut offers districts the ability to separate seat time from credits, but recently, a coalition of district superintendents said it would like to see the state embrace even more widespread change. Every school leader in the state signed on to a proposal that, among other changes, would require that students advance to the next level on the basis of content mastery and would offer year-round learning opportunities.

In the coming age of "anytime, anywhere" learning coupled with standards-based reform, it would seem to make sense to take a renewed (and long overdue) look at how we recognize learning. Seat time is no guarantee of learning. Neither is the number of days in a school year. Efforts to lengthen school days/years might move forward under the veil of increased opportunity, but they are still "one size fits all" models when it comes to mastering skills and content.

Systemic change like this is just about impossible, but I am impressed with these states and districts which are making an effort to move forward. Euphemisms about building the plane during flight aside, the simple truth is that we are never going to have all the answers we need at the time we need them. Sometimes, you just have to jump and trust that you can figure out what to do when you land.

Labels: articles, grading, schools

Last week, I participated in a workshop on data coaching. Along the way, there was a piece on measurable goals. I don't have a problem with including these sorts of goals. Even qualitative data is a form of measurement. But I couldn't help thinking that the term wasn't quite right. Decisions aren't made by data alone. We have to apply context to the measurement in order to make sense of things. I started wondering of evidence-based might be a better fit. Sure, it makes me a bit of a pedant to pick at something like this, but I think word choice is important...especially when it comes to something being packaged for school districts.

One of my favourite quotes I've run across during recent research has been this one:

While data may mean numeric information, the term evidence implies something that furnishes proof. Data become the mirror that reflects the evidence teachers and leaders use to make decisions on effective practice (Ruffner, 2008, p. 19).

When we set goals for ourselves, our students, or our schools, we may not be looking for measurement, in a traditional sense. If I have a student whose behavior is making me nutty, do I care more that the behavior stops (or is modified) or about a particular number of times s/he behaves appropriately? In other words, with some goals, is observation "enough"? When I cook, I make observations about temperature, seasoning, and so forth---I don't stick my thermometer in the flame or have a rating scale for saltiness. I could, but why? The evidence from observation is sufficient to get the job done.

Rick Stiggins has said, "Students should be presumed innocent of understanding until convicted by evidence." We collect measurements (scores) and observations about student learning, but in the end, it's our professional judgment (based on this evidence) that allows us to convict students of understanding. I think this same mindset could easily be applied to other decisions in a school.

I do think that measurements for some goals are important. We track student scores as one way to look at learning...we monitor student absences...we need to know specifics about which students and families need additional services. But, being "measurable" isn't quite broad enough to describe how we view what happens in a classroom (or our lives). I would be far more comfortable with telling people to collect their data, but look at a broader base of evidence before making decisions.

On the other hand...this tweet appeared in my feed this week:

https://twitter.com/#!/alixmortimer/status/200864111133859840

Does this mean that sticking with the data---the measurement---is the better bet? I would agree that the way we look at data is coloured by our knowledge and experience...but I don't see any way to get away from that. Data don't interpret themselves---only humans can apply them. There is going to be some subjectivity. The key is to be aware of biases and reduce them whenever possible.

I chatted a bit with one of the leaders of the workshop. He said that he didn't think that there was any difference between a measurable goal and one that was evidence-based. What do you think? Are these the same or different? Is one a better descriptor for how we should develop decisions?

Labels: assessment, meetings

Several years ago, I bought Classroom Instruction That Works (CITW). I was a seasoned classroom veteran by that point, and while none of the strategies presented were new to me, what I appreciated about the book was that it validated many of the things I had intuited over the years. My teacher prep program had not been very good, leaving me to use trial-by-fire methodology to learn how to teach. (My poor students, those first few years...oy.) The book was one of the first I'd ever seen that took educational research and presented it in an accessible way. I often shared bits and pieces from the information with parents and students as we talked about learning to learn---not just science, but developing habits for a lifetime of learning.

CITW has been a part of work I've done with beginning teachers---another lifesaver in the pool that they could grab as they started their journey. The book has also been a part of a few of the edtech programs I've been involved with, as we look at ways to integrate technology into instructional practices. For experienced teachers, it has served as a quick reference as they extend their skills into new areas.

You might have seen that there is a new edition of CITW. ASCD was kind enough to send me a copy, and while I'm sure the intention is that I would post a review right away, I really wanted to take the book out for a test drive first. This spring, I have been working with a few groups of rural schools around the state. I've been going out to them to help them engage with some after school PD. The schools take on a variety of forms---from the near one-room schoolhouse (which couldn't host another staff for PD because they didn't have a room big enough for 30 adults), to a district where the teachers are bused/carpooled in every day, to ones with a significant agricultural base (I had a teacher tell me she couldn't stay for the session because she had to help hubby fix the tractor), to ones with no math curriculum. CITW, coupled with educational technology, has been the basis for our sessions together this spring. Every group of districts was offered three sessions based on components from the book: Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback; Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers; and Cooperative Learning. I'm wrapping up my road show for the year, so it seems like a good time to reflect on the second edition of CITW and its impact with teachers.

I think that one of the most powerful attributes of the book is simply that it isn't new stuff. Perhaps that sounds like a disadvantage or waste of time. What I discovered was that in the simple reminders of what constitutes sound instruction, it both validated what teachers were already doing (and made them feel good about it), and also allowed them to engage in reflection and deeper discussion. In other words, they might not have learned something "new," but this meant our time together could be spent thinking about professional practice in their classrooms and what they'd like to recommit to. Many of these teachers wear multiple hats in their school districts---you might not just be the fourth grade teacher, you may well be the principal and superintendent, too. The plain, but potent, ideas presented in CITW are the right sort of nag about the classroom. You know good questions are important...what reminders would be helpful before meeting with your students tomorrow?

Keep in mind that many of these teachers teach in isolation. If you're the only K - 2 teacher in your school, you don't get the opportunity to talk about teaching with other primary teachers. But CITW provided a common language base so that when these groups of teachers were in the same room, they could move their thinking forward during those 90 minutes: A little prompting from the research presented with time to talk about what works in their own classrooms. It's easy for a lot of us to forget about all the challenges small rural schools have. Teachers there are just as passionate about teaching and learning...and just as overwhelmed (if not more) by the responsibilities posed by their jobs. I won't tell you that a discussion of CITW (or any other book) will change their lives or solve the problems they face, but it does provide a connection with teachers in other places. I have been told that even when "outside" PD opportunities are available, many of these rural teachers do not feel comfortable attending because they think others look down on their job situation (i.e. small school = hick). To have a time and space to safely meet and talk with other teachers is a powerful opportunity for them.

As I've prepared for these sessions, I've had an opportunity to really dig into the second edition of CITW. There are several improvements over the original version, beginning with the simple reorganization of chapters. I like that there is some structure now for learning environments and supporting students to understand and extend their knowledge and skills. I think this would be especially meaningful for beginning teachers who are learning how to put the pieces together and when to leverage particular strategies. The research for this edition of CITW has been updated. For my work with rural teachers, I was able to use Google Scholar to create links to the new citations. Cooperative Learning is not a new idea or strategy, but what we know about how it works in the classroom increases all the time. Fresh eyes are important. I don't want my doctor restricted to using information from 30 years ago...I want him/her to keep current, even if the disease isn't new. I like seeing new references in the educational research. It doesn't mean the old stuff was wrong, just helps us extend what we know. While the first edition supplied more specifics about the effectiveness of each strategy, the second gives better ideas about applying the strategies, along with brief case study examples. This edition even extends the ideas into the realm of technological ways to demonstrate learning. For example, how might teachers and students use blogs in the classroom to reflect on learning goals and set new objectives? I won't claim that the edtech way is better than pencil and paper---you know me better than that---but I do like the acknowledgement that there are multiple ways for students to access and demonstrate learning.

I've had a lot of fun this spring getting to know and learn from teachers all over Washington. We'll also be having 3-day summer events where we will bring many rural educators together for some intensive discussion and work. These are fabulous events. It's so much fun to see them interact with others who really "get" what their classroom world is like. CITW will continue to be a part of the sessions this summer. We'll dig in a little deeper, make more connections with the work they do, and extend it into assessment, grading, and data use. This year, it's all about getting back to basics.

Labels: instruction, staff development

I've been traveling a lot this spring--the Jenny Appleseed of PD. I've done a session in a mall...in a bookstore...in a conference room that seated 200...a first grade classroom...a school library in one of the smallest districts in the state. There have been any number of topics: standards and assessments; cues, questions, and advance organizers; reading strategies for digital texts; and so forth. If you tell me you need me to do a 20 minute session and the only space you have available is the janitor's closet, I can make it work. I do all right with presenting. I won't tell you that I hit my mark 100% of the time with 100% of the audience, as much as I would like to do so. But I like the opportunities, mainly because of the conversations that happen along the way.

Much of what I do would be considered "traditional PD," which is the current whipping boy of staff development. There are many excellent reasons to revile Sit-and-Get. I can't think of a single teacher I know who can't describe at least one horrific experience as part of a captive audience. Research shows it's grossly ineffective at changing teaching behaviors. It can be mind-numbingly boring. And yet, I think this form of learning still has a place in the arsenal. Why? Two reasons. One is simply that there are some teachers who like it. I routinely get feedback on sessions where at least one person says, "Please don't ask us to talk so much. I just want to sit and listen. " Fair enough. But I also think that there is more than one goal (change instruction) of this type of PD. You could argue that the sheer cost of teacher's time to attend a one-hour session gives very little return on investment if it doesn't result in instantaneous change. I would say that there is another purpose: to provide teachers with an opportunity to think and reflect. It's a brief window to feed a the teacher soul. You can inspire a bit of wonder and have time for discussion of one or two key ideas. Maybe that's all you need. Not everything in education is a problem to solve. Sometimes, we just want a reason to keep going.

I won't claim that traditional, face-to-face PD is more desirable than other varieties. There are lots of options for teachers through social media channels, "camps," informal workshops, online courses, job-embedded support, and more. All of them have a place. All of them will be a favourite of one teacher or another. I'm all for teachers being able to learn in an environment that supports them best. But what I see lost in all the shouting these days is that it should be up to each teacher to decide. I see plenty of tweets and blog posts deriding one form of PD or holding another above everything else. And what is lost in all of that is the simple truth that even "one size" (traditional) PD does fit some. It doesn't have to fit all. Ditto for unconferences. And PLCs. And Moodle courses. Seems like we should celebrate learning in all of its many forms.

Labels: staff development

Suppose this email landed in your inbox:

From: Health Person (HP)
To: Your Boss, HP's Boss
cc: You, HP's Friend, Person HP Wants to Join Her Gang, Person Who Once Attended a Meeting with All of You

Dear Your Boss,

Thank you for your follow up on HP Friend’s hand-written revisions of the raw data.  She spent many hours sifting through the numbers to provide an accurate picture for the Summary of Findings report. It is disheartening and unprofessional that You threw the revisions away as it was a public document. HP's Friend was very clear at the meeting that she wanted them back for the team to use to move forward with this report and Your Boss assured us that the revisions would be returned. It is unfortunate that we were unable to make a copy of the revisions as HP's Friend had taped numerous sheets of paper together for ease of reviewing. These revisions were the only documentation that provided us with clear and accurate numbers for our report.

HP

You talk to Your Boss. You've completed all requested work on this project. (A) You weren't present at the meeting discussed and no information was relayed to you. (B) Public documents are the responsibility of the originator...and, as notes/drafts are not considered worthy of retention, they are only public record if the originator chooses to keep a copy. And, most importantly, (C) this is not the first time HP has publicly harassed you. (For kickers, keep in mind that HP has responsibility for K-12 standards against cyberbullying.) and (D) the giant printed spreadsheet would have been unnecessary of HP and HP's Friend had completed their personal responsibilities when the data was submitted (instead of giving it to an untrained secretary...who apparently did also not know how to use a xerox...but this is somehow all Your fault).

Your Boss says that s/he will talk to them. You talk to the HR department, who tell you to just ignore the junior high taunts, although they would be quite happy to call in HP's boss in for a chat. But hey, you trust Your Boss will do the right thing.

Only time goes by...and you discover that the problem has been made far worse, as evidenced by forwarded emails from Your Boss. Monday afternoon is your next big meeting with all the players. What do you do?

Labels: werk

This post is my 1600th to this blog. It's a milestone that I thought I would reach long ago, but I've been plugging along the last few years as other demands in my life have taken over. There's been a lot of change in this space over the past 7+ years, and I am always grateful for the way this corner of the Internet gives me a reason to pause, reflect, and reassess.

Atul Gawande was the keynote speaker this morning at the ASCD annual conference. Gawande is a storyteller...a man who follows his own questions and curiosities (e.g. How do we get good at what we do?). While I collected plenty of sound bites of wisdom in my notes throughout his talk, there was one idea in particular that I found myself thinking about afterward.

You see, I've been pondering how to "ride for the brand" recently. If you're not familiar with the phrase, it's a cowboy term that refers to your loyalty and commitment to the ranch/organization. When you sign on to work a ranch, you ride for that brand. Your actions should align with the goals and ideals of the outfit. To ride for the brand is about integrity.

Gawande used an analogy of Cowboys and Pit Crews to illustrate the type of values required in a school or other organization to be successful: communication, discipline, and teamwork. If he really knew anything about cowboys, he would have used "Lone Ranger vs. Cowboys" as his analogy, but I'll forgive him for the stretch because it doesn't change the values he details. 

As an educator, do you ride for the brand? How many of us even know what the "brand" is for our schools and districts (and agencies)? I have no doubt that we each have our personal brand---the reason we get up and teach every morning. Does that make us Lone Rangers? What happens when our views don't align with one another, let alone the organizations we represent? If, as Gawande suggests, it is the smallest of adjustments that bring us closest to success, then how do we get there when we even haven't taken the biggest step to identify why we're on this ride.

And so, on the occasion of this 1600th post, I want to thank the readers who ride for What It's Like on the Inside. Whether you stop by and lurk, skim posts in your RSS aggregator, comment or add a link to your own blog, or think and pass along the ideas, I salute your discipline in continuing your learning, your efforts to communicate ideas, and the kind of teamwork that exists only in a web 2.0 world as we connect across time and space. I wish you much success as you ride for your brand, wherever that may be.

Labels: staff development

I'm a virtual attendee for this year's annual ASCD conference. Today, I sat in on three sessions...starting at 5 a.m. (PT). On a Saturday morning. Hardcore, I'm telling you. But I appreciate the opportunity all the same. ASCD is my favourite conference. It is the only one I know of that celebrates such a diversity of ideas and people---all around a common goal of making learning happen for kids.

The first session, Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving from Research to Practice to Close the Achievement Gap (book) with Wade Boykin and Pedro Noguera, was phenomenal. I can't tell you that the main points were new, but I have rarely heard them presented with such passion and compassion. Some highlights from what they shared:

• NCLB said--for the first time--that the problem is not the children. 
• There has been a normalization of failure. We have to change the culture around that belief. If you can't change the culture of a school, nothing will change.
• We can't ignore social needs, but solving these will not mean that problems in education are automatically resolved.
• Implementing something (longer school day, new curriculum) makes it easy to say that something concrete has been done; but, we need to make transactional changes between teachers and students.
• We need high quality preschools. This is the biggest difference between the US and other industrialized countries. Invite preschool providers to all of your PD events. You will eventually have the children they serve in your classrooms.
• We can find football players anywhere, because we are willing to cultivate that talent. We need to cultivate intellectual talent in the same way. 
• We are the professionals. The onus is on us to build the relationships with students.
• The job of the educator is to create the opportunity to learn. The best teachers don’t expect students to learn the way they teach, they teach the way students expect to learn.
• We punish the children with the greatest needs, often because we aren’t meeting their needs. The role of discipline is not to teach children to avoid punishment, but to do the right thing—even when we aren’t looking.
• Children who don’t believe they can learn are the hardest to serve. If the children can’t do the work, then we are in the wrong work as educators.
• We will know we are succeeding when race, SES, culture is no longer a predictor of achievement.

Toward the end of the session, Noguera made an analogy between homes with plastic covered furniture (only removed for special guests) and schools where students are kept from interacting with content and background knowledge. What are your schools like? Are they only for special guests? Or does every child feel like they can be at home there?

If you ever have an opportunity to see these gentlemen present, take it. You will not be disappointed with the way they make you think and reflect...and inspire you to make a difference.

• Classroom technology doesn't do cooperative learning well. 
• Cooperative learning works well when there is a group goal and individual accountability.
• To get the most out of technology, we must partner it with a classroom system that works: instruction, practice, assessment, celebration. Each step can be enhanced using embedded technology.

I selected this session because I'm working with some rural schools on integrating technology with strategies from Classroom Instruction That Works. Our next session is on cooperative learning and productive group work. I'd really hoped for some good things to share from this session...but I think I'll have to keep looking.


Although I'm sad not to be at the actual conference, I have to say it was a beautiful afternoon for PD. My view for the final session of the day:

Tide's out, so you can have a view of the shellfish beds.

The Olympics in the distance.

Okay, so moving on to the final session of the day: Finding Each Student’s Sweet Spot: Optimizing Engagement and Learning with Martha Kaufeldt and Gayle Gregory.

This was another presentation which didn't have a lot of new ideas to offer me, which is not to say that others wouldn't have found some good things here. A few of my notes:

• Their definition of the Sweet Spot is a "combination of factors resulting in a maximum response with a given amount of effort." The presenters believe that by using brain-friendly strategies to reduce stress and increase engagement in the classroom, each student can find a way to create that maximum response.
• I really appreciated their example of a visual agenda (as opposed to just text).
• They also offer their materials in Spanish---the first presenters I've ever seen who have made the effort. Kudos.
  
 

My big takeaways from today:

• Most presenters struggle with a large group. They don't know how to adjust their material for a large audience. Those who do are worth watching...and learning from.
• I would love to give every slide deck I've seen today an extreme makeover. (Call me!)
• A lot of people are parroting the ideas developed by others in their presentations, without adding anything to the conversation. Makes me appreciate those presenters who think deeply about what happens (or should happen) in a classroom all the more.

I'll be back tomorrow. For now, it's time to celebrate all of this good learning with a beer and something fun to read. Spring rains will be back tomorrow. Might be my last chance for awhile to enjoy a sunset like this:

Labels: staff development