The Unintended Consequences of the Nation’s Teacher Evaluation Binge

[The American Enterprise Institute’s Teacher Quality 2.0 is part of their ongoing series of conversations, which attempts to enliven and elevate the debate around student learning and teacher evaluation.]

In The Hangover, Thinking about the Unintended Consequences of the Nation’s Teacher Evaluation Binge authors Sara Mead, Andrew Rotherham, and Rachel Brown caution the wider education and education policy communities to exercise caution as no fewer than twenty states are moving at warp speed into the unchartered territory of “changing teacher evaluation systems to include evidence of teachers’ impact on student learning.” The authors suggest that while the need to focus on instructional quality and teacher performance and the impact of those things on a student’s success, policy- makers and education professionals need to proceed cautiously.

“After years of policies that ignored differences in teacher effectiveness, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. By and large, this is progress—research shows that teachers affect student achievement more than any other within-school factor. Decades of inattention to teacher performance have been detrimental to students, teachers, and the credibility of the teaching profession. Addressing this problem is critical to improving public education outcomes and raising the status of teaching, and neither the issues raised in this paper nor technical concerns about the design and mechanisms of evaluation systems should be viewed as a reason not to move toward a more performance-oriented public education culture that gives teachers meaningful feedback about the quality and impact of their work."  However, Mead, Rotherham, and Brown worry that a dramatic pendulum swing from almost wholly ignoring instructional practice to an almost obsession level involvement with how to measure teaching success will almost certainly overwhelm the good intentions.

Follow this link to read the entire report, http://www.aei.org/files/2012/09/25/-the-hangover-thinking-about-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-nations-teacher-evaluation-binge_144008786960.pdf

Randolph HS Freshman Academy on Pace to Make a Difference

The new Freshman Academy at Randolph (MA) High School has been in operation for four months and has many accomplishments to its credit. The effort began last spring with the announcement that the Nellie Mae Education Fund would provide support for an initiative to reduce drop-outs and suspensions and to improve school climate and achievement, beginning with students new to the school.  Under the guidance and supervision of Asst. Principal for Instruction, Joshua Frank, the professional development and team-building for his 9th-grade team has been focused on a two-sided approach –building positive relationships and inquiry-based teaching.  According to Frank, “we held our first Parent Breakfast and our first Back-to School Night.  And in late September, we held the first of what are now regular ‘Good News’ meetings for staff to celebrate what was going well for our students and for us”.

Dr. Larry Myatt, ERC Project Coach for the effort, explained that the Randolph team’s effort “contains just the right ingredients, and has enormous potential to re-make the high school experience at the school. I consider it an exemplary initiative in its thoughtfulness, design and the impact it is having in building capacity among the teaching professionals. It’s in sync with what we know works in high schools”.  Myatt praised Frank’s leadership and the dedication and effort of the teachers involved.

Parts of the “relationship-building” blueprint include developing respectful “safety” language, check-in’s for students as they start classes, using guided discipline techniques and conferencing rather than punishments, and beginning to introduce more thoughtful interventions when students present complicated patterns of behavior.  On the instructional side, teachers are developing “essential questions” to help students connect topics to larger ideas in the world, and using a rubric for lesson design and instructional strategies to push and support their students towards challenging intellectual work. Behind the scenes, ERC Consulting Practitioner Katrina Kennett and Math Coach Richard Dubuisson are providing the Freshman Academy staff with iPad training, lesson-design support and inquiry strategies.

Frank says there are some signs of struggle in changing to a new way of doing business, “as we raise the academic bar”, yet other very positive commentary. Math teacher Erica Keane told the group in a Good News meeting that the term “shut up” among students has vanished from her classroom.  English teacher Jamie Steinberg pointed out that her students are really starting to take ownership of their learning and reflected on her own emerging ability to sit back and let students do the work.  She sees this as an indication of the power of high teacher expectations.  Another math teacher, Frank Morreale, stated that he is learning to “bite my tongue and let students answer each other’s questions.” Science teacher Kyle Marshall talked about the power of conferencing to help a girl who had been “completely shut down” get back to work the following day.  His Science counterpart, Karen Resendes, described having 15-20 students come after school to work on homework, “the first time so many students came after class.”  Social Studies teacher Caitlin Walsh described “several great days of instruction” in which students transferred their understanding of perspective from a description of a football game to an 18th century primary source.

Special Educator Brian Cartwright reported on successful conferences with students, as well as a growing number of “regular customers” in the brand new, after-school Learning Center, something long missing in the school, and one of the key structures the grant has made possible.  A “Student of the Week” initiative for each freshman team has begun, another indicator of “a very powerful, positive year for our students, and for us”, according to Frank.

Back to School 2012-13: Giving Our Schools More Hope

by Forum Convener and ERC Co-Founder Dr. Larry Myatt

It's back-to-school time for many over the next few weeks.  What do most public teachers and students across the nation have to look forward to as they head back for the 2012-13 school year?

  • Yet another "common core".  (What's wrong with the dozens, if not hundreds, that states, curriculum and cultural organizations have already constructed over the past decades?  Is it the lists or what we do/don't do with them that make us need a "latest version"?)
  • Lots more testing, costing us hundreds of millions to implement even in times of budget scarcity. (Have you been in or around a school when testing is taking place?  Stress. Anxiety.  A brink's truck worth of secrecy and security passing as education.  By the way, our new generation of school leaders and teachers hasgrown up on standardized testing.)
  • A federal administration that says that those tests don't give a full picture of the quality of learning.
  • A federal administration, with friends at the state bureaucracy level, that say those same tests are good enough to use to measure teacher performance
  • Loads of schools that will be crushed by new teacher-evaluation mandates that rely on those same test scores, "data-driven goal setting" and hundreds of hours of report writing, all in the name of holding teachers accountable.  (These mandates will swamp them all:  schools with strong cultures of pedagogy, schools with good plans in motion and schools with neither.)
  • Surveys across the land that say more kids are bored and tuned out in school, especially in high schools, and are sick of being told "what matters" more than their own questions about the world.
  • Big high-school dropout numbers.
  • Fewer qualified individuals who want to lead our schools.
  • Traditional public schools in every town and city in which two hours of meetings a month pass for the thought partnership needed to improve a mediocre experience for 75% of our students.  Institutions that should define the intellectual life of the community haven't figured out how to employ computers in a way that vaguely resembles the real world.  It boggles the mind.
  • Proliferating charter schools that mimic the architecture and adacemic platforms of 1950's schools that served the affluent, many under the banner of "no excuses".

Yes, it's a troubling take for those heading back into the trenches.

We will not get a lot of real and timely support from the policy and bureaucratic worlds.  Despite their good intentions, they have put us into this predicament.  As my longtime friend and mentor Ted Sizer said at every opportunity, the best thing that policy makers can do is to create the best possible conditions for schools and get out of the way.

Teachers, administrators and, above all, students, need and deserve some relief.

Here's how I think we can dig ourselves out:

  1. Accept the harsh reality that, at present, we don't have enough time for or skill in deep, collaborative analysis and problem-solving at the school level.  Let's make the time.  Find the time at every school and invite smart, design-oriented, capacity-building help from the outside.  Let's include hyper -involved local brain trusts.
  2. Sweep away the residual weight and glut of inherited, competing frameworks for teaching.  Have a school-wide conversation about how and why we should use theauthentic achievement rubric as the lodestone for teaching and learning.  Every teacher needs to know what truly cognitively-rigorous work looks like.  Every teacher needs support and accountablilty for bringing truly cognitively-rigorous work to students.  This can and should be real institution-building--a school development dream come true--if thought out and led well.  The work can only be done one school at a time.  (Sizer said that too.)  Work of this kind flows beautifully into the ascendant, national "multiple measures" and performance assessment conversations.  This good policy thinking helps to gauge classroom learning and teacher skills in smarter, more positive ways.  What teachers' association wouldn't want to grab on to those in today's climate?
  3. Place a two-fold, heavy emphasis on opportunities for student choice and the intense application of technology tools.  They go together, and are critical to meeting students where they're at and take them where they want to go as intellectual/social beings.  Too many people don't realize that Bloom's taxonomy has been dramatically updated in a way that can propel our agenda for better teaching and learning.  This is totally in sync with the ways that real, working adults do business and can move us towared the elusive, much bandied "21st century learning" goal in every school's plan.
  4. Make sure that we have deep and expansive programs (and adult cultures) that recognize the critical role of social/emotional resilience and positive youth development (PYD) as the critical underpinning of achievement in schools serving poor families.  We need more resources, of course, in such schools, but without the PYD framework, we fail to respect and activate young minds and hearts.
  5. Have knowledgeable and skilled teachers work together to, literally, take scissors and cut up copies of the "standards".  Then--after planning inviting, authentic, achievement-oriented lessons--paste them back together in ways that make sense for students and schools, not for bureaucrats and "culture mavens".  They'll all fit just right, believe me.  Haven't we learned over 30 years that approaching these standards as lists to cover doesn't get the job done?  I work with schools that are readily succeeding with this liberating tactic and they refuse to let top-down, linear approaches and pacing guides rule the day.
  6. Abandon the usual rubber-stamp or stubbornly contentious "school site councils" and statutory oversight/approval groups that pass for governance or quality-assurance mechansisms.  Replace them with real, highly-trained and empowered leadership teams or study groups whose work would guide the school, develop resident expertise and involve all constituents who truly want to work for improvement.  And, following the ground-breaking work of some of the new Abuquerque small high schools, let's get real and smart about parent engagement and business/community involvement that can drive change and improvement.
  7. Finally, if you're a charter school, or an in-district pilot, and you have the five autonomies (budget, curriculum, staffing, governance, clock/calendar) we all thought would surely rescue us from sleepy tradition, please take on some real innovation.  You have the bully pulpit and the flexibility.  Revisit such things as the age-alike cohort model that binds us, the arcane and unproductive curriculum hierarchy, the brittle partnerships we form with businesses and communities, the egg-crate scheduling, and our sorely-lagging attempts at technology integration (!).  That's a short list of the structures and practices we continue to employ that, in reality, misguide and fail us.  There are so many others that need to be abandoned or replaced!  Bring in people who are used to thinking deeply about school design to help that work flow productively.

Our schools sorely need hope.  We can provide some with these simple but potentially powerful suggestions. Above all, we need some genuine leadership to take these issues on.  School's in!

Forum Convener Dr.Larry Myatt is the Co-Founder of the Education Resources Consortium and a former National Faculty Member of The Coalition of Essential Schools

For full story go to, http://www.forumforeducation.org/blog/back-school-2012-13-giving-our-schools-more-hope

“Tiger Mom” and the “Race to Nowhere”

by Joshua Frank

“Where were you yesterday?”  The question came from a seventh-grade girl on a Tuesday morning in February.  She was among hundreds of students entering the large suburban middle school where I am principal.  I usually greet these students as they enter the school from busses between 7:30 and 7:40, but I’d had a meeting at 7:30 the previous morning, and hadn’t been there. She had noticed.  That she had noticed might seem ironic.  After all, seventh graders generally try to put a lot of distance between themselves and the adult authorities in their lives.  Her question reminds us that even as they seem to be pushing us away, our middle-school age children are paying careful attention to our presence.  They thrive on the consistency of our presence in their lives, even if they rarely tell us so.

 Two critiques of our parenting and educational culture had generated much discussion that winter.  A book entitled Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua, “preaches tough love and high expectations,” according to The New York Times Book Review, and Race to Nowhere, a film described as “featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people across the country who have been pushed to the brink.”  These critiques, and the buzz that both created, had me wondering.  Why are these messages so contradictory?   We are being told that we work our children too hard at the same time we are being told we don’t work them hard enough.  We are being told that we focus too much on achievement, and at the same time that we don’t focus enough on achievement.  Why do we react so strongly to these critiques?  Chua’s book was on the cover of Time magazine, while Race to Nowhere was playing at schools and theaters around the country.   Don’t we trust ourselves to raise and educate our children?

It’s important to ask these questions, without settling for simple answers.   There should be joy, creativity and engagement in learning; at the same time, hard work is often required before we experience joy, creativity and engagement.  We all have strengths and challenges as learners.  We must understand our strengths and be willing to acknowledge and address our areas of challenge. Hard work is required for achievement, but achievement is empty if there is no joy in the work. Children are individuals who develop at different rates, and who have different areas of engagement and strength in what and how they learn.  These differences should be respected, but not at the expense of learning the value of effort.  That seventh grader’s question reminds me of something just as important to raising and educating children: we need to be there.

“Why am I doing this?”  -a senior in high school asks this question halfway through Race to Nowhere.  She then outlines a simple formula.  “Grades, college, job, happy.  But if I’m not healthy, it doesn’t add up.”  She’s right; it doesn’t add up.  It doesn’t add up because she has been offered too simple a formula for happiness.  As adults, parents and educators, I hope we learn to trust ourselves enough to let children play, learn through engagement, and experience joy when they can.  I also hope we trust ourselves enough to require our children to acknowledge when learning is a challenge, and require them to work hard when learning is more difficult, or to take a step toward a difficult and distant goal. I hope we trust ourselves enough to understand that it will take a long time for them to grow up, so getting it right may take them many attempts.  I hope we trust ourselves to recognize and value their differences from each other, and from us.  I hope that we trust ourselves to realize that sometimes it’s important to let our children live in the moment, and sometimes it’s important to have them think about the future, and that over time we can help them figure out that balance.  Our children can learn this more complicated formula for happiness by living it with us every day.  That’s why I was so happy with the question, “Where were you yesterday?”

Joshua Frank is Assistant Principal for Instruction and Director of the Freshman Academy at Randolph (MA) High School.  He taught social studies in the Brookline Public Schools for sixteen years, and held administrative positions in Brookline and Wellesley, MA. He completed his undergraduate education at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and holds masters degrees from the University of Massachusetts-Boston and the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

The Massachusetts’ Model Evaluation Tool: The next best thing or …

The Massachusetts’ Model Evaluation Tool: The next best thing or …
by Wayne Ogden

Starting in 2010 with an application for “Race To The Top” (RTTP) funds, the Massachusetts’ Department Of Elementary & Secondary Education began an ambitious journey toward a near total redesign of educator evaluation in the Commonwealth. Constituents representing the largest teacher unions (MTA & AFT) as well as organizations representing school superintendents and principals (MASS, MESPA & MASSA) were invited to join the DESE Task Force on the development of a new evaluation tool and procedures in this major shift away from the prior ways of evaluating the state’s 50,000-plus educators.

Two years and thousands of hours later the new system is getting underway. With the help of federal money we have new, model evaluator tools and performance rubrics in place. The DESE has published “Guides” for schools and districts and their implementation of the teacher evaluation tools, as well as similar documents for the evaluation of principals and superintendents. The DESE also published, “Model Contract Language” for use by school districts and their unions in the mandatory collective bargaining process that must accompany these changes.

Most underperforming school districts and some “early adopters” have a year of practice under their belts and the remaining school districts are gearing up for full implementation of the new process by the 2013-2014 school year. While school districts and the state teacher unions prepare for these changes, they do so without knowing what the final two critical components of Massachusetts’ “Model System” will look like. The unfinished portions of the system are the two most complicated and controversial: how to include ratings for educator impact on student learning and how to incorporate student and staff feedback into the evaluation system.

Changes to the process by which Massachusetts’ educators have been evaluated are widely believed to be long overdue. In the words of a former school teacher and principal who served on the DESE Task Force, “Current evaluation practices in the state are wobbly, at best. We’re often stuck in place, unable to move beyond simple compliance with procedures. Now, the Task Force and the Board (of Education) have a chance to break the logjam. We can create a more ambitious, focused and growth-oriented framework. I’m hoping for a breakthrough.” (DESE Webinar, January 10, 2012).

This collaboration, with the exception of the AFT who did not send a representative to the DESE Task Force, has been described as inclusive and professional. After much negotiation and compromise all elements of the “Model System” seemed to have broad support until recently, when some of the challenges of creating such sweeping changes began to surface as educators and districts tried to take the new system from a “state model” to local implementation.

 

 

The first bump in the road to implementation appeared this spring in local school districts when local teacher union leaders and regional MTA representatives, contrary to a statewide MTA leadership endorsement of the “Model”, tried to alter substantially some key language of the Model Contract in negotiations with local School Committees.  The second impediment to successful implementation of the new system came in the form of financial considerations -who is going to fund the costs associated with the training of both administrators and teachers in the new practices required by the evaluation system? There is current legislation pending on Beacon Hill that would answer this question by requiring local districts to absorb the costs of training using federal funds if no local money was available.

The third, and I believe most threatening challenge facing successful implementation, concerns just how the educators will be “trained” as apart of this undertaking. The DESE Task Force has promoted the new system as one aimed at “collaboration and continuous growth” through a five-step process of: self-assessment, analysis, goal setting & plan development, implementation of the plan, formative assessment/evaluation, and summative evaluation. This complex set of goals and cycle of improvement, in addition to a very detailed set of performance rubrics, requires a depth of training of teachers previously absent in most school districts. Most, if not all school districts simply lack the time, let along the expertise, to conduct sessions of this depth and magnitude, AND must do it on a short time-line. Even the present level of training of principals in their work as evaluators and instructional leaders has been wildly uneven across the Commonwealth, usually dependent on the budgetary wealth of a particular school district.  Add to this many schools and districts where visits to classrooms and meaningful discussions of practice are desultory at best.

What I find unsettling is that, despite these challenges posed by the model system, many school districts are attempting to introduce the new system with out-dated and simplistic approaches to training. Routinely, school leaders across the state are being trained apart from their teachers in the specifics of observing and analyzing teaching according to the model system. In some school districts the teachers receive some training from their respective unions and, in others, training is provided by their districts. I strongly suggest that any professional development in support of this model system done by segregating teachers from their evaluators is a recipe for misunderstanding and failure.

If, as the DESE suggests, the new system is about “collaboration and continuous learning”, then let’s train teachers and their evaluators together on all phases of the evaluation tools and performance expectations. Let’s encourage teachers and principals to have open and candid conversations about what is/is not good instructional practice. Training educators while isolated in groups from one another, will result in confusion as to what the criteria are for proficient and exemplary practices.  That confusion will lead to conflict, grievances and arbitrations --the symptoms of the old “us versus them” mentality associated with decades of teacher evaluation. Furthermore, it is unlikely to result in the improvement of student performance that everyone seems to be calling for in this major change of practice.

One (maddening) Day Working with the (Latest) Common Core

By Valerie Strauss

This was written by Jeremiah Chaffee, a high school English teacher in upstate New York for the last 13 years.

The high school English department in which I work recently spent a day looking at what is called an “exemplar” from the new Common Core State Standards, and then working together to create our own lessons linked to that curriculum. An exemplar is a prepackaged lesson which is supposed to align with the standards of the Common Core. The one we looked at was a lesson on “The Gettysburg Address.”

The process of implementing the Common Core Standards is under way in districts across the country as almost every state has now signed onto the Common Core, (some of them agreeing to do in hopes of winning Race to the Top money from Washington D.C.). The initiative is intended to ensure that students in all parts of the country are learning from the same supposedly high standards.

As we looked through the exemplar, examined a lesson previously created by some of our colleagues, and then began working on our own Core-related lessons, I was struck by how out of sync the Common Core is with what I consider to be good teaching. I have not yet gotten to the “core” of the Core, but I have scratched the surface, and I am not encouraged.

Here are some of the problems that the group of veteran teachers with whom I was with at the workshop encountered using the exemplar unit on “The Gettysburg Address.”
Each teacher read individually through the exemplar lesson on Lincoln’s speech. When we began discussing it, we all expressed the same conclusion: Most of it was too scripted. It spelled out what types of questions to ask, what types of questions not to ask, and essentially narrowed any discussion to obvious facts and ideas from the speech.

In some schools, mostly in large urban districts, teachers are forced by school policy to read from scripted lessons, every day in every class. For example, all third-grade teachers do the same exact lessons on the same day and say exactly the same things. (These districts often purchase these curriculum packages from the same companies who make the standardized tests given to students.)

Scripting lessons is based on several false assumptions about teaching. They include:

* That anyone who can read a lesson aloud to a class can teach just as well as experienced teachers;

* That teaching is simply the transference of information from one person to another;

* That students should not be trusted to direct any of their own learning;

* That testing is the best measure of learning.

Put together, this presents a narrow and shallow view of teaching and learning.

Most teachers will tell you that there is a difference between having a plan and having a script. Teachers know that in any lesson there needs to be some wiggle room, some space for discovery and spontaneity. But scripted cookie-cutter lessons aren’t interested in that; the idea is that they will help students learn enough to raise their standardized test scores. Yet study after study has shown that even intense test preparation does not significantly raise test scores, and often causes stress and boredom in students. Studies have also shown that after a period of time, test scores plateau, and it is useless, even counter-productive educationally, to try to raise test scores beyond that plateau.

Another problem we found relates to the pedagogical method used in the Gettysburg Address exemplar that the Common Core calls “cold reading.” This gives students a text they have never seen and asks them to read it with no preliminary introduction. This mimics the conditions of a standardized test on which students are asked to read material they have never seen and answer multiple choice questions about the passage. Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science. The exemplar, in fact, forbids teachers from asking students if they have ever been to a funeral because such questions rely “on individual experience and opinion,” and answering them “will not move students closer to understanding the Gettysburg Address.” (This is baffling, as if Lincoln delivered the speech in an intellectual vacuum; as if the speech wasn’t delivered at a funeral and meant to be heard in the context of a funeral; as if we must not think about memorials when we read words that memorialize. Rather, it is impossible to have any deep understanding of Lincoln’s speech without thinking about the context of the speech: a memorial service.)

The exemplar instructs teachers to “avoid giving any background context” because the Common Core’s close reading strategy “forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all.” What sense does this make?  Teachers cannot create such a “level playing field” because we cannot rob any of the students of the background knowledge they already possess. Nor can we force students who have background knowledge not to think about that while they read. A student who has read a biography of Lincoln, or watched documentaries about the Civil War on PBS or the History Channel, will have the “privilege” of background knowledge beyond the control of the teacher. Attempting to create a shallow and false “equality” between students will in no way help any of them understand Lincoln’s speech. (As a side note, the exemplar does encourage teachers to have students “do the math:” subtract four score and seven from 1863 to arrive at 1776. What is that if not asking them to access background knowledge?) Asking questions about, for example, the causes of the Civil War, are also forbidden. Why? These questions go “outside the text,” a cardinal sin in Common Core-land.

According to the exemplar, the text of the speech is about equality and self-government, and not about picking sides. It is true that Lincoln did not want to dishonor the memory of the Southern soldiers who fought and died valiantly. But does any rational person read “The Gettysburg Address” and not know that Lincoln desperately believed that the North must win the war? Does anyone think that he could speak about equality without everyone in his audience knowing he was talking about slavery and the causes of the war? How can anyone try to disconnect this profoundly meaningful speech from its historical context and hope to “deeply” understand it in any way, shape, or form?

Here’s another problem we found with the exemplar: The teacher is instructed in the exemplar to read the speech aloud after the students have read it to themselves; but, it says, “Do not attempt to ‘deliver’ Lincoln’s text as if giving the speech yourself but rather carefully speak Lincoln’s words clearly to the class.”

English teachers love Shakespeare; when we read to our classes from his plays, we do not do so in a dry monotone. I doubt Lincoln delivered his address in as boring a manner as the Common Core exemplar asks. In fact, when I read this instruction, I thought that an interesting lesson could be developed by asking students to deliver the speech themselves and compare different deliveries in terms of emphasis, tone, etc. The exemplar says, “Listening to the Gettysburg Address is another way to initially acquaint students with Lincoln’s powerful and stirring words.” How, then, if the teacher is not to read it in a powerful and stirring way? The most passionate speech in Romeo and Juliet, delivered poorly by a bad actor, will fall flat despite the author’s skill.

Several years ago, our district, at the demand of our state education department, hired a consultant to train teachers to develop literacy skills in students. This consultant and his team spent three years conducting workshops and visiting the district. Much of this work was very fruitful, but it does not “align” well with the Common Core. The consultant encouraged us to help students make connections between what they were reading and their own experience, but as you’ve seen, the Common Core exemplar we studied says not to. Was all that work with the consultant wasted? At one point during the workshop, we worked with a lesson previously created by some teachers. It had all the hallmarks of what I consider good teaching, including allowing students to make connections beyond the text.

And when it came time to create our own lessons around the exemplar, three colleagues and I found ourselves using techniques that we know have worked to engage students — not what the exemplar puts forth.

The bottom line: The Common Core exemplar we worked with was intellectually limiting, shallow in scope, and uninteresting. I don’t want my lessons to be any of those things.

From Valerie Strauss “The Answer Sheet”:  www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet.

ERC comes to Randolph High School “Student-Centered Classrooms: Authentic Achievement, Choice and Connectivity”

Teaching for authentic achievement came together with state-of-the-art technology, social networking and media tools as ERC Consulting Practitioner Katrina Kennett travelled to Randolph (MA) High School in early June. A new Randolph High School Freshmen Academy Team, under the tutelage of Asst. Principal for Instruction Josh Frank, was treated to an afternoon ERC seminar designed to support their move to high-challenge, student-centered instruction and assessment. The seminar was titled “Student-Centered Classrooms: Authentic Achievement, Choice and Connectivity”.

Ms. Kennett was introduced by ERC Co-Founder Larry Myatt, as “a teacher’s teacher, whose thinking and practice incorporate critical elements needed to address four critical issues in today’s educational-political environment”. In his preliminary remarks Myatt defined those four challenges as the unprecedented levels of student disinterest in classroom instruction as reflected on surveys  across the nation; the outsized appeal and availability of technology tools, social networking, and learning opportunities outside the classroom; the heightened importance and increasing role of performance assessment in classrooms to provide better understandings of links between student learning and instructional practice; and the need for teachers and administrators to be better able to define and portray what rigorous intellectual work looks like. “Kennett”, said Myatt “is able to bring those varying and diverse elements under one roof as a practitioner as she plans and executes state-of-the-art teaching and assessment”.

In her seminar at Randolph HS , Kennett provided some exemplar lessons designed with Fred Newmann’s  definition of “authentic achievement”* in mind, went on to demonstrate her approach to “paperless research”, the use of “EdCafes” to leverage students’ passion and preferences, and an array of technology tools to support student’s critical thinking, revision and “ownership of deeper learning”. One of the theme questions that got the group’s attention was “Understanding Society Through Its Monsters”, a literature and social issues unit that linked students’ passion for the sensational and macabre with historical and literary figures through research, reading and critical essays and presentations, embellished and personalized with a range of high-tech tools and strategies.

 

Randolph teachers had a number of opportunities for questions about how to adopt Kennett’s strategies for their own classrooms. According to Frank, the Randolph team was “extremely enthusiastic” about Kennett’s presentation and would like to do more detailed work with her in the future. In particular, Frank went on, “Katrina’s was not a glitzy ‘technology demo’, but a deeper set of insights into how thoughtful teachers can employ these kinds of tools with solid planning and relationship-building to push for higher student engagement and achievement. This is the future of teaching and we got a look at it today”.  Jamie Steinberg, 9th grade English teacher at RHS was even more direct –“I want to teach like that”, she said, “I want to create and use lessons and tools like she demonstrated, that make students want to push themselves harder”.

 

Interestingly, the Randolph team had just received some exciting news only days before when it was announced that some of the work of transforming the high school’s programming and practices, beginning with the Freshmen Academy, would be underwritten by a planning grant from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation. The grant enabled the scheduled work to get underway early, beginning with two “PD intensive” weeks this summer, rather than waiting for September. Myatt had been asked to assist Frank, working over the late winter and spring with a diverse, cross-grade study group of teachers in order to guide the design of a plan for re-thinking the 9th grade experience at Randolph HS to raise achievement and engagement levels and lower drop-out rates. In late April, Frank delivered the team’s recommendations to the Randolph school district administration for submission to the Nellie Mae foundation, with an emphasis on inquiry-based teaching, high levels of teacher collaboration, and building social/emotional resilience and relationships to support the increased academic demands.  Kennett’s workshop was provided as a pro bono gesture by ERC to help catalyze the school’s efforts, and was the first formal professional development opportunity associated with the new and ambitious transformation agenda for the Freshmen Academy team designed to focus on student-centered learning. Randolph Superintendent Oscar Santos stopped by the high school the following morning to meet with Frank and the 9th grade team to express support and enthusiasm for the initiative.

A graduate of Connecticut College, Ms. Kennett teaches in the Plymouth MA Public Schools and is completing her Master’s Degree at San Diego State University. In addition to consulting with schools and individuals for ERC, Katrina serves as a leading presence on the Authentic Assessment Team for her school in the New England I3 Network, developing performance-based assessments and pioneering student choice as a motivating factor in student-centered classrooms. Ms. Kennett offers a range of model classrooms and through them is adept at guiding and supporting teachers in lesson design, instructional management, and effectively employing a range of connectivity strategies, including Twitter, Todaysmeet, Voicethread, SoundCloud and YouTube.

For more information on the supports for this effort at Randolph HS, please email Larry@educationresourcesconsortium.com.

*- Newmann, Secada, and Wehlage; Newmann, King and Carmichael.

Taking Stock: A Decade of Education Reform in Massachusetts

The golden age of school renewal that was envisioned in Massachusetts in the
mid-1990s has, sadly, never materialized. M r. Myatt and Ms. Kemp contend that the
state's emphasis on testing as a substitute for authentic dialogue about schooling
has been the main reason that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act
has failed to fulfill its great promise .

To continue reading, click this PDF PhiDeltaKappan-Taking Stock- Myatt-Kemp 10.04

Connecting the Dots: The Unexplored Promise of Visual Literacy in American Classrooms

Not too long ago, my wife made the decision to try one of those on-line groceries-delivered-to-your-home deals from our neighborhood chain. She expected that setting up the template for the initial order would take some time, but, once its set, the idea is, you point and click and save yourself an hour and a half each weekend. The surprise for her, and me (enlisted to help out), was that when you go to choose the various selections of soap, pasta, meat, etc., you see only a brand name in script, a size selection, and a price --no click down for an image, packaging color scheme, company logo, dairy maid, ear of corn, giant with ear ring, etc. Just a three-word description of the item – “Tom’s Toothpaste- w/ whitener”, size and price. Suddenly, it became a challenge for both of us to try to visualize and choose the precise products that we had routinely, in some cases for twenty years, been selecting off the shelf as we whisk down the aisles on automatic pilot.

What has this got to do with education? Let me connect some dots, so to speak. For one thing, the composition of the students in our urban classrooms has changed dramatically. Long gone are those mythical days of the “general ed.” classroom, with a large core of on- or near-grade level students, a few outliers slower in their reading, one or two with mild learning disabilities, and the occasional second language learner. The inner-city classrooms I see these days may not have a single on-grade level reader among the 30 or so students, and will have anywhere from 4-10 students with special needs ranging from those who require minor accommodations to others who need teachers to make substantial adjustments to their planning, instructional materials and assessment. Also in the mix are likely to be a number of students with behavioral challenges and, of course, the 6-8 whose home language is not English and who may have come from countries where their education was interrupted or minimal to begin with. Our shorthand in Boston for this challenging array of learners is “the New Classroom” and the implications for instruction, teacher training and development, technology needs, and additional human resources are overwhelming.

Next dot? The dropout crisis. Urban districts are finding it difficult to finesse their dropout numbers for NCLB reporting and the real figures have begun to emerge. Some cities, provoked by the Youth Transition Funders Group discussions, are examining their numbers as a reflection of deep community concern. Whatever the motivation, the scale of the problem is frightening. Boston, a medium-sized city, is losing well over 1,500 high school age students a year to the streets. In 2007, USA Today, adding to the bad news, reported that among the nation's 50 largest districts, three are graduating fewer than 40%: Detroit (21.7%), Baltimore (38.5%) and New York City (38.9%). As the poor get poorer more families find themselves in crisis, and with our fatuous testing-as-school-improvement strategy exposed for what it really is, public school systems across the country are hard-pressed to address the intensified inquiry into how they plan to stem the tide of disengaged youth.

Add one final complicating dot to this picture. The old wisdom goes if you spend much time in high schools, you realize that in every hour, the best 5 minutes for most students occur during passing time. The hallways are where the real action is --home to lively talk, curiosity, engagement, relationships, and the passionate pursuit of “what’s happening”? Nowadays, those frenetic moments between classes are increasingly characterized by the proliferation of personal electronics that connect, display, gratify and inform –cell phones that transmit flashing images, iPods, uploads, downloads, students racing to find available computers to search the Internet, email or Instant Message. Educators still yearn to harness that unbounded energy, but are reluctantly coming to grips with the fact that teaching and learning as currently construed compete less and less successfully with the media appliances of the popular culture. While images and visual literacy are becoming more prevalent for our kids, text-driven instruction has come to dominate their formal schooling, perhaps more than ever before, a function of the press to prepare students for the all-important testing formats, starting now in the early grades and including dozens of state tests, the SAT’s, the AP’s, etc.

As Thomas West asserts, “more and more we insist on having our schools teaching the skills of the medieval clerk –reading, writing, counting, and memorizing texts”. As a frequent observer of schools and classrooms, I have to agree with West, that “clerk-dom” has become the daily lot for too many young people all over this nation, struggling to find a hint of meaning or access into the “work” and swimming in text.

"Please listen, class". "Pay attention, now". "Follow along with me, I'm on page three". "Will someone read for us?" --students let us know with their body language, their passive disinterest, or their distracting behavior, that it’s hard for them to be engaged and successful in an academic world interpreted almost completely through text, a format that discounts some of the very methods through which they might find meaning and become more intellectually involved. We are watching more and more kids, across grade or subject area, lean away and tune out from lessons that force them to listen, sort through page after page, write short responses, talk some, read more, write more, etc. For many of us, there has been far too little acknowledgment or discussion of the role of this kind of teaching and assessment and its correlation to our dropout plague.

Back to the on-line shopping. We know from such episodes and personal experiences, from child-rearing, from Howard Gardner and others, that we each learn in differing ways and at different paces— and, when given the chance, we express our learning differently. The novel notion that robust theories of multiple “intelligences”, aptitudes, and predispositions could inform and help to re-make the structures and teaching practices of our schools enjoyed a short burst of interest a decade ago, but is now largely off the table, too costly and complicated, save a small number of privileged schools, many at the elementary level. Yet, the marriage of popular culture and new technologies now plays an unprecedented role in the ways in which young people are entertained and informed, and, simultaneously, how they learn and communicate. The trend is undeniable and irreversible –most kids these days have learned to learn in these new ways first, and in the “old-school way” second, if at all. Add to this equation the limited capacity and/or determined resistance of many older educators to the uses of technology in schools, a sad fact that has proven enormously problematic in the medieval classroom. And while our students are connecting globally, we baffle visitors from other countries when we tell them how much we spend on textbooks, those relics of yesteryear --enormously expensive, containing a fraction of the information available on line, and outdated within days of publication. Like it or not, we are at a pedagogical crossroads and we either have to get on board with other, more expansive ideas about literacy and the related uses of technology or continue to pay the price in the loss of young minds.

So, what makes me hopeful? The work of a small but growing number of schools, educators and thinkers that have not been anesthetized by testing, who keep in mind such notions as curiosity and emergent curriculum, and who have also taken to heart both the realities of The New Classroom and their students’ deep connection to developing technologies. These are folks who acknowledge as West posits, that “machines have already become our best clerks… it will be left to the humans to maximize what is most valued among human capabilities and what machines cannot do –and, increasingly, these are likely to involve the insightful and integrative capacities associated with visual modes of thought”.

A decade ago, DeFanti and Brown summarized reasons for the booming popularity of visualization in their Advances in Computers, "Much of modern science can no longer be communicated in print; DNA sequences, molecular models, medical imaging scans, brain maps, simulated flights through a terrain, simulations of fluid flow, and so on all need to be expressed and taught visually…. Scientists need an alternative to numbers. A technical reality today and a cognitive imperative tomorrow is the use of images. The ability of scientists to visualize complex computations and simulations is absolutely essential to ensure the integrity of analyses, to provoke insights, and to communicate those insights with others." It becomes clearer each day, that it’s not only scientists who are moving beyond text and numbers.

Among those making sense of these issues is Kristina Lamour-Sansone, founder of The Design Education Consultancy, whose commitment to bringing highly-challenging and disciplined graphic design values and applications into classrooms in a number of cities has shown exceptional promise. Working in Boston’s High School Renewal Initiative, Lamour-Sansone has been digging in with teachers of substantially separate special education classrooms, second-language learners and behaviorally- challenged students. Her visual-literacy approach captures the energy and vitality needed to liberate learning for those youngsters least likely to succeed in passing through the ever-shrinking “eye of the needle” of text-driven instruction. Lamour-Sansone works with teachers eager to plan lessons that turn students loose on their machines and in their mind’s eyes, to design complicated, eye-catching visual arrays that reveal sophisticated reasoning and high levels of intellectual engagement. These organic “maps” that interweave concepts, skills, connections, and comparisons are then deconstructed and converted back into thoughtful, highly organized outlines and drafts for use in chapter summaries, research papers, essays and portfolio artifacts.

For example, in a civil rights unit in their integrated Humanities course, Social Justice Academy students comparing the lives and ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X began by brainstorming what they knew in small groups. Then, researching independently on Google Image Search, they developed formative Venn diagrams capturing images and events from the lives and experiences of the two men. By using tracing paper on top of central, well-chosen images, the students began to add vocabulary and key concepts from the lesson, linking them to the enduring themes identified in the unit’s curriculum standards. Meanwhile, Lamour-Sansone worked with teachers to help them learn page layout software for designing visual timelines as a classroom tool in conjunction with the lesson, demonstrating promising impact on teacher capacity and positive professional development outcomes. The unique, visual time lines helped to further provoke students’ developing notions of King’s and Malcolm’s intersecting or opposing strategies and beliefs. Finally, with firmer ideas about the men and issues in question, the students returned to essay writing, class discussion and, eventually, test-taking, having transcended the initial limitations of a text-based, linear approach, and with strong images of the unit in their “mind’s eyes” and at their disposal.

Some teachers have gone above and beyond the initial expectations and are thinking actively about how to tap the potential of graphic design-based visual literacy in the initial introduction of skills and concepts, enhancing their didactic repertoires. Some schools in which Lamour-Sansone has worked are making time for teachers to learn such techniques, more commonly found within intellectual constructs such as that of the Reggio Emilia, a respected yet under-utilized approach that capitalizes on the realization that complex visual thinking is both instinctual and universal. Lamour-Sansone is committed to appropriating these notions now for urban public schools, building their capacity to employ them across a range of concepts and skill development. Kids are getting on board and looking forward for opportunities to employ what comes naturally to them. One need only look at videos of her students in traditional classrooms and their work in other classes centered on graphic design techniques to wonder how the same students can show such different attitudes towards the same material and concepts. Across grades and subject areas, this work is showing exceptional potential to draw in the marginal learners, among them those who struggle with text and language and for whom points of entry may have more to do with visual thinking than with straight text.

The commitment of Lesley University in planning for the opening of a new Center for Graphic Design in Education, to be directed by Lamour-Sansone, means, one hopes, that the generative thinking behind such initiatives as Harvard’s Project Zero is about to find its way into mainstream educational planning and programming. And what’s great about this movement is that it is in no way a lowering of standards or an end-run around those significant skills students will need to learn and thrive in their work and private lives. For these people and these schools, reading and writing remain the central goals, but they are recognizing a smarter way to get there.

As West concludes, “Education, and self-education, is nothing without performance, results, application and (sometimes) official verification through some sort of credible examination. The inherent flexibility of the computer, and the surround of global technology, would seem ideal material for these tasks as well as for all forms of creative pursuit –many not possible otherwise. It would seem likely that such developments would open up such pursuits to whole new sections of the population –especially those who could never pass the initial hurdles before”. Now, more than ever, we need to connect the dots, and to make way for the powerful visual thinking lying dormant within our classrooms to surface in order to make sure our young people have the chance they deserve to pass the hurdles we put in their way.

Larry Myatt was the founder and long-time Headmaster of Fenway High School and the Co-Founder of the Center for Collaborative Education, both in Boston, and the founder and Director of the Greater Boston Principal Residency Network. He teaches at the College of Professional Studies at Northeastern University, is a co-founder of the Project for Educational Options and a convener of the Forum for Education and Democracy.

Published By: Phi Delta Kappan

Date Published: November 21, 2008

An abridged version of this article appeared in the November 2008 edition of Phi Delta Kappan. Reprints are available through PDK Intl., but the author retains copyright.

To view this article as a PDF, click  Connecting the Dots

Indiana University Study

Students are bored, many skip school, lack adult support

High school students from 110 schools in 26 states participate in Indiana University study

Today's high school students say they are bored in class because they dislike the material and experience inadequate teacher interaction, according to 2007 special report from Indiana University's High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). The findings show that 2 out of 3 students are bored in class every day, while 17 percent say they are bored in every class.

More than 81,000 students responded to the annual survey. HSSSE was administered in 110 high schools, ranging in size from 37 students to nearly 4,000, across 26 states.

According to the director of the project, the reasons high school students claim they are bored are as significant as the boredom itself. Ethan Yazzie-Mintz, (photo above) HSSSE project director for the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), says the finding that nearly one in three respondents (31 percent) indicate he or she is bored in class due to "no interaction with teacher" is a troubling result. "So, in a high school class, 1 out of 3 students is sitting there and not interacting with a teacher on a daily basis and maybe never," Yazzie-Mintz said. "They're not having those interactions, which we know are critical for student engagement with learning and with high schools."

Other key findings include:

  • Fewer than 2 percent of students say they are never bored in high school.
  • Seventy-five percent of students surveyed say they are bored in class because the "material wasn't interesting."
  • Nearly 40 percent felt bored because the material "wasn't relevant to me."

The lack of adult support may play a role in student disengagement from school. While 78 percent of students responding agree or strongly agree that at least "one adult in my school cares about me and knows me well," 22 percent have considered dropping out of school. Of those students who have considered dropping out, approximately 1 out of 4 indicated that one reason for considering this option was that "no adults in the school cared about me."

"The fact that this many students have considered dropping out of high school makes the numbers of dropouts that we actually see across the country -- and the supposed dropout crisis that we have -- not surprising," Yazzie-Mintz said. "I think schools definitely need to pay a lot more attention to what students are thinking and the reasons why they're dropping out."

The high dropout rate may also be related to the finding that half of the respondents said they have skipped school; 34 percent said they had skipped school either "once or twice," and 16 percent said they had skipped "many times." Yazzie-Mintz said the students who skip school are far more likely to consider dropping out and that this finding may suggest a reason for schools to reconsider how they handle discipline for students who skip.

Among the other findings:

  • Seventy-three percent of students who have considered dropping out said it was because "I didn't like the school." Sixty-one percent said, "I didn't connect with the teachers," and 60 percent said, "I didn't see the value in the work I was being asked to do."
  • Students said activities in which they learn with and from peers are the most exciting and engaging. More than 80 percent of students responded that "discussion and debate" are "a little," "somewhat" or "very much" exciting and engaging, and more than 70 percent responded in this way about "group projects." By contrast, just 52 percent said teacher lecture is "a little," "somewhat" or "very much" exciting and engaging.

The survey found that students aren't spending a lot of time on homework. While 80 percent of the students surveyed indicated that doing written homework is either "somewhat important," "very important" or a "top priority," 43 percent reported spending an hour or less doing homework each week. Similarly, 73 percent of the students said reading and studying for class is either "somewhat important," "very important" or a "top priority." But 55 percent said they spent an hour or less per week reading and studying for class. Even though students may not be putting in time outside of class, they expect to earn a diploma and go to college. Nearly 3 out of 4 students responded that they go to school for that very reason.

Yazzie-Mintz said the lack of time spent studying and reading may work against such a goal. "Students may not be doing the work to get them to that point," he continues, "or they're not interested so much in what they're doing in their classes as they are in the goal of getting a diploma and going on to college."  Yazzie-Mintz said the size of the sample certainly means that high schools from across the country can draw some conclusions about their own student bodies. He added that as administrators consider restructuring programs, the HSSSE data can be especially valuable.  "I think this brings critical student voices into reform efforts and into conversations about the structures and practices of individual schools," Yazzie-Mintz said.

Think Again on Schools & Careers

Ice Cream for Dinner

I have been reading a lot about the future of Career and Technical Education (CTE) lately and I must say that I do not understand where this sector of our public education system is headed. Maybe that is because I don’t know much about that world from personal experience. I never took shop in high school and the “Industrial Arts” classrooms were in a different wing of the comprehensive high school from where I used to teach. Yet, one could argue that I am now the founder of a CTE school. How is that possible for a guy who has to remind himself of the “lefty loosey and righty tighty” rule when using a screw driver?

About three years ago I had the great fortune of sitting in on board meetings of the education foundation for the Associated General Contractors-New Mexico Building Branch. They were struggling with their workforce development challenges, in particular, the sense that they were among the employers of last resort in New Mexico. It was ironic, because they believed their profession required them to be among the most facile business men and women in our community. They spoke about the mental agility it takes to work with owners, architects, engineers and the myriad government agencies in order to build a project on time and under budget. They also proudly spoke of the ethos of an industry where you are only as good as your word and hard work and perseverance make you a success.

In that board room we created a vision for ACE Leadership High School, a new school that could serve the very complex future work force development needs of the entire sector of the economy. I was optimistic we could solve their workforce development problems and design a school that would create a bridge that could cross the education and poverty divide. The school would be a way forward in breaking down the barriers between community and industry and help to overcome the challenges low income students of color face when they attend schools that are built for another era and another kind of worker.

I set out to read the industry trade journals and forecasts for labor force development and I discovered that the needs in the ACE professions were like those of most dynamic industries. The ability to think and adapt to new circumstances were the prized intellectual traits and that was familiar territory for an educator like me. I visited other AGC sponsored schools around the country and found them largely wanting, despite their high profiles and substantial industry investments- because of their focus on developing narrow skill sets (plumbing, diesel mechanics, etc.) In response, we set out on a quest to build an institution that could use the ACE professions as the context for a compelling and supremely relevant learning experience for young people. ACE Leadership is a sharp contrast to the trade school model because it asks students to think deeply about complex problems that are rooted in reality. As a result, we created a school that stresses nuanced thinking built upon excellent communication and collaboration skills—the definition of a modern education.

Prosperity
Although we are preparing our students for prosperous careers in the ACE professions, some worry that when the rest of the country comes out of the “Great Recession,” we New Mexicans may be stuck in a downward spiral. Mark Lautman, an economic development expert from New Mexico tells employers that everyone you are going to hire in the next 25 years has already born and since the baby boomers are getting older, many of the people we counted on to be highly skilled will soon be retired. Meanwhile, the skills expected from new workers are increasingly more sophisticated. He also warns people that if they are paying attention, they ought to be worried about a 60 percent graduation rate because it does not bode well for our prosperity. It used to be that the dropout rate was a problem for poor communities because there were plenty of middle class children who would graduate and go to college and ultimately fill the new high skilled jobs. However, the demographic trends forecast that there are fewer middle class children around who can be depended upon to power our economy forward. In other words, we cannot afford to disregard the potential of any of our young people.

One would think that our communities would make a deliberate effort to create a strategy to engage students who are in danger of dropping out of high school so that they can have rewarding careers in industries where there will be shortages. However, the study found that career academies are likely attracting students who are better prepared than most students and more motivated to graduate from high school and attend college. Also, these young people earn significantly more than their peers after graduation. Therefore, the young people who benefit from a career academy education are the same young people who were already well positioned to graduate, attend college, and earn a good living the education self-motivated students receive is the education that disengaged students need if we want our community to thrive.
Career academies are a missed opportunity for the children who need them the most. One could argue that they further exacerbate the inequity in our communities between students with many options and students with few options. Why have we not provided the best career focused education to the students that our community desperately needs to be productive?

A New Frame of Reference
We started ACE Leadership High School is focused on educating low income students of color. AGC understood that their future was tied to a work force that was nearly 90 percent Latino, of which, 50 percent had no high school diploma. It was founded on the principle that all our graduates would transition to college, or an industry apprenticeship, giving a diploma from ACE Leadership currency in the marketplace. That notion has hooked many of our students who need tangible results from their efforts. With the help of our industry partners, we re-imagined the content and activities of every class so that teaching and learning occur forcefully in and through the ACE context. We did not save the Architecture Construction and Engineering (ACE) lens for our electives like most other trade schools or career academies. This meant re-designing the school schedule to serve our instructional priorities. Most CTE focused schools stack their curriculum, having students to take a series of core content classes and then attend a different block of career-oriented “elective” classes. Simply put, under those circumstances, the career focus is an add-on to the regular day. At ACE Leadership, all classes are career focused because Math, Science, Humanities, and Spanish all must and do apply to the ACE professions. In essence, we have rejected the current paradigm that expects students to eat their vegetables before they get desert.

MDRC, a nonprofit social policy research organization, and the Association for Career and Technical Education have both recommended that the separation between career and core classes be eliminated and that they become one in the same. Both organizations know that the distinction is a barrier to effective schooling. According to a study of career academies, MDRC stated that “. . . although the Academies were more likely to expose students to applied and work-related learning activities, they typically did not truly integrate academic and career-related curricula and instructional practice . . .” However, the authors stop short of acknowledging why the integrated approach is so difficult to implement, possibly because it requires fundamental restructuring of the prior notions of the school day. No longer would we accept the current structure where students first take a series of core classes and then attend career focused electives. It also means that we must revision the distinction between the universal core curriculum and career focus electives. Instead, they should be one in the same. Currently, when schools are able to integrate the core curriculum with career focused electives in traditional CTE schools, it is a situational variation from the traditional practice.

Less is More
The literature about the future of CTE stresses the need to provide a variety of experiences for young people to explore careers. It describes job shadowing, internships, and dabbling in many different industries to understand career options. In other words, it stops short of asking students to commit to a career while in high school. In fact, one of the values of a career academy model is that it allows for variety so that students can transfer in or out of the program and according to a recent MDRC study only 55 percent of students stayed in the career academy where they had enrolled. Inherent in the career academy design is that breath is superior to depth. The role of CTE is to retain the core curriculum, and then expose students to a breath of careers through the electives in the academies which is encouraged by allowing transfers in and out of the program. While I agree with the general theme that choices are good, I disagree that the core curriculum and elective system with easy entry and exit actually serves the students.

A school that focuses on a single sector (ACE, Health Care, Information Technology, etc.) promotes deep thinking and nuanced understanding. For example, at ACE Leadership students encounter problems through the lens of architecture, construction and engineering. They learn the entire scope of a project and when they choose a career focus because they understand the way in which it relates to an overall project. The ACE context ensures that students are capable of becoming leaders whether they choose to work in the field or in a design studio. We embrace the complexity of the industry and by doing so we give our students the opportunity to think about nuanced problems which opening the door to more learning.

“Less is More” is one of the common principles promoted by the Coalition of Essential Schools and Cathleen Cushman describes it in the following way, “This commonsensical observation holds true in extensive research findings about how humans learn. In the last few decades cognitive theorists have firmly established that we come to know things . . . by thinking them through. This is an active process; it puts information into a meaningful context and asks us to struggle with its complexities and contradictions. When we use information to serve our real needs in this way, research shows, we remember it.”

For me, the conclusion is inescapable. We should create career focused schools that rooted in deep intellectual rigor and relevancy. Adaptable, problem solving workers who are capable of thinking deeply about challenges is what is needed to meet our future workforce needs. That fact demands that we provide our young people an excellent education, one that prepares them to adapt to an unknown future. We think the model described above does just that.

Tony Monfiletto is a native of Albuquerque New Mexico and has worked in school reform since 1990.  He began his career at the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy helping to promote the restructuring of the Chicago Public Schools. Tony was the founder and lead administrator at Amy Biehl High School. In 2010, Tony began work on ACE Leadership High School, the first in a network of the next generation of STEM schools in New Mexico. His efforts were recognized by "Partners for Developing Futures" a grant making intermediary that funds charter school leaders of color.  He was the founding President of the New Mexico Coalition of Charter Schools, and currently serves as a member of the New Mexico Community Foundation. In June of 2010 he was named a Theodore Sizer Fellow by the Forum for Education and Democracy.

Better questions=Better learning

From Teacher’s Questions to Students’ Questions
By Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana

Questions are a teacher’s trusted friend. Teacher-generated questions make it possible to cajole students to think in new ways, to assess and re-assess what they’ve said or written, to probe, ponder, explore, clarify and even inspire. That’s quite an energizing list of verbs, conjuring up images of an active, engaged learning environment.
Many great educators who have celebrated the use of questions in the classroom, drawing upon a range of practices and traditions, including project-based learning, inquiry-based learning, Montessori, and Great Books, all the while aiming to model, encourage, and improve the level of questioning in the classroom.  In some of these particular pedagogical approaches, however, there’s also an implicit and sometimes even explicit argument that can inadvertently impede students asking their own questions. The argument suggests that to climb the mountain of Bloom’s Taxonomy requires that students need to know how to ask “better” questions, or what might be called “higher order” questions.

We have seen, however, that the demand for ‘higher order’ questions from the outset can actually prove counter productive to students getting comfortable and proficient at asking their own questions. Indeed,  we  have seen that the actual skill of question-asking can be discouraged when, from the outset, the teacher is concerned that the students will not be asking ‘good’  or ‘higher level’ questions.

In the arena of idea production, in contrast, the familiar path to good ideas, as Einstein pointed out, is paved by having lots of ideas. Unstated, but clearly suggested here, is that along that path, there were a lot of not so very good ideas that had to be jettisoned.

Today, the practice of “brainstorming ideas” is simply common wisdom, even though it is a relatively recent entry into the world of idea-generation, emerging only several decades after Einstein’s maxim about the production of (relatively) good ideas. Brainstorming as a practice, made room for and even honored bad or simply weaker ideas, with an acknowledgment that they may even play a catalytic role in the eventual production of a good idea. 
We need to apply Einstein’s Theory of Relatively Good Ideas to the act of question-generation as well. Students can eventually get to “better” questions or to “higher-order” question if we make it easier for them to learn how to produce their own questions, “good” ones or “bad” ones. But, making it easy for them to ask questions can be a challenge in and of itself. As any teacher who has ever asked, “are there any questions” knows all too well.

RQI has been working on this challenge for two decades, trying to figure out the simplest way to teach anyone, no matter their educational, income or literacy level, how to ask their own great questions. It’s curious that we have had to spend so much time trying to re-create an ability for which many students demonstrate perfect competency when they arrive at school as kindergarteners.  The insight about the importance of people learning to ask their own questions actually came from parents in one low-income community who told us they did not come to school or participate in their children’s education because they “did not know even what questions to ask.”

Our work with them and with many other people learning to think and act on their own behalf helped us eventually tease out a simple, but rigorous process that produces remarkably consistent results. We call it the Question Formulation Technique™ (QFT), a step by step process that promotes divergent thinking, convergent thinking and metacognition. People who have never before asked questions, use the process and learn to produce their own questions, improve them and strategize on how to use them. The results are often transformational and have been demonstrated in many fields (in health care, for example, in NIH-funded studies at www.rightquestion.org/healthcare)

Recently, we’ve worked closely with teachers and have been impressed by how quickly they can take the QFT™ and integrate it easily into their on-going classroom practice. A second grade teacher uses the process in a very straightforward way for students to study major weather events, develop questions to drive their research, shape their reports all the while using the metacognitive aspects of the QFT™ to reflect on their own learning.   A middle school social studies teacher has students use the process to lay the foundation for their month-long multi-media projects on Ancient Egypt. A high school biology teacher uses the process early in a unit so the students can see what questions they are answering as they move along in their unit.  A high school mathematics teacher adopts the process to drive his pedagogy, encouraging students to “think like mathematicians and turn answers into questions.” And, teachers at all levels use the QFT™ to help students “get unstuck” when they state, repeatedly, “I don’t get it.”

The examples go on and on because the obvious idea of the value of students learning to ask their own questions resonates strongly with so many teachers. But, the QFT™ is also being used by more and more teachers because the students do indeed wind up asking “better” questions or “higher level” questions, They get there through a process that started with divergent thinking, producing many questions. Then, they started to look more closely at the questions they produced and classified them into just two categories: open and closed-ended.

As they begin to see that they get different kinds and levels of information based on the kinds of questions they ask, students begin to develop the sophistication about questions that their teachers have acquired through years of practice. The QFT™ then has the students prioritize their questions and that pushes them to assess the relative value of each question, the sequence in which they need to be asking their questions and, even, discover new questions that they need to ask as well.

Teachers who may feel uncomfortable at first making the switch from asking questions of students to students asking their own questions, are quickly persuaded by the changes they see in their students. When students learn to ask their own questions, they themselves become acutely aware of a change in themselves:  “When I ask the question,” a high school student in a Boston high school said, “I feel like I really want to get the information I need. It’s different than just answering the teacher’s questions.”  A student in a suburban middle school observed: “You learn more when you ask your own questions.” And, most poignantly, a summer school student in a remedial program to prevent being held back, announced a change in how he felt about  himself as a student: “you know, i’m getting good at this question thing. It makes me feel smart.”
These are students who not only feel better about their ability to think for themselves, but they also demonstrate to their teachers that they:

  • are more engaged in their learning
  • take greater ownership
  • learn more.

These are powerful outcomes that emerge when students learn to ask their own questions. And, it’s made possible by teachers who commit themselves to ensuring that their students leave their classrooms not only knowing more, but knowing how ask the kinds of questions teachers already to cajole, inspire and engage the brain to think in new ways. And,as one teacher noted, they not only know how to ask the questions she often asks. Her students used the QFT™ to “ask different and better questions than I’ve ever heard in my thirty years of teaching.”

Dan Rothstein and Luz Santana are Co-Directors of The Right Question Institute
Co-Authors of Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Question

http://rightquestion.org/

Re-Booting School Redesign

The New Finland and ERC’s Re-Commitment to Innovation and School Re-Design
Larry Myatt

A lot of people are talking about the Finns these days. When it came to Finland, most people conjured up the home of the sauna, blondes in reindeer parkas, a steady, socialist-oriented, monochromatic society. But it also now happens that young people in that country are seemingly showing substantial benefits from their nation’s more recent educational approaches – good mental and emotional health extending into adulthood, high levels of employability at home and abroad, a penchant for creativity and team-work, a propensity for life-long intellectual endeavor and, last but not least, very high marks in broad measures of comparative academic achievement results.  Those of you who know me know my disdain for the generally bogus “international comparisons”. I always loved Gerry Bracey’s scathing exposes of the different international test results and the corresponding interpretations by so many American “education thinkers”, most of them tied to work-force organizations. At differing times we were going under to the Soviets, Japan and the “Asian Tigers”, the Common Marketeers, the Irish, the Icelanders, etc. So, I lead with skepticism when it comes to comparing different countries’ educational systems.

I also want to be quick to point out that although Finland is a small country and still quite homogeneous, many of its larger communities now host growing percentages of immigrant workers’ children, far less educated than their Finnish peers on arrival, generally much poorer, and speaking the languages of Slovenia, Ethiopia, The Philippines, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, and Iraq, as well as others. Not all that different from many of our urban centers and edge cities.

What is it that the Finns do? Well, a number of things, but to sum it up in a paragraph, they are far less mechanistic about their school programming, and more willing to challenge old classroom traditions with common sense and brain science. They are more flexible with their schools structures, invest heavily in teachers and give them great latitude for collective decision-making. They impose far less formal curriculum than we do until 3rd or 4th grade, they put a premium on keeping teachers and student groups together --often for several years- valuing relationships before formal curriculum sequence. They have only a light layer of testing --most of it near the end of the academic continuum-- and finally, it’s hard to find a student, especially a struggling student, who can’t name at least one adult friend and advocate in their school critically invested in her/his academic and social success.

What a far cry from “Race to the Top”, multiple mandatory tests at virtually every grade level, DIBELs, Reading Street, our century-old school schedules, and the scattered, episodic professional development that characterizes the typical school American district. The American school innovation conversation is so stalled as to be considered DOA in almost every state. What the Finn’s do may not be characterized as “innovation”, but compared to the paucity of ideas currently at work in this country (merit pay, “competition”, adding an hour to the school day, yet another “common core”, and more testing at earlier grades) they show a willingness to take what Peter Senge wonderfully called a “living systems” approach to their schools, as host environments for children and teachers. The same ideas and practices used by the Finns are certainly at work across our own country today, but in one-off, disconnected ways, and largely available only to the children of the affluent. Within each of those “characteristics” of the Finnish approach to schooling are sharp questions about and insights into school re-design that can help us to re-think the shape and feel of our schools.

Over the next year, ERC and I are committed to doing our best to put some oxygen back in an innovation and re-design conversation that has largely evaporated. I will be traveling, speaking and conducting regional seminars and charrettes about how our schools can look radically different, and far more successful. If you’re interested in hosting one of these events in your community or school, please contact me at Larry@educationresourcesconsortium.com.  I’d be delighted to talk and study with you about what we can learn from the Finns, and moreover, from each other.

The Hub as Classroom

I knew the time to move on had come when the children started calling me “the man who brings the tests.” Three years earlier I had been hired at a K-8 Boston public school as Director of Instruction. My objective was to help teachers develop project-based curriculum that would engage students, sustain their interest in learning, and help them master content and skills. It was the dominant and successful instructional approach at Mission Hill Pilot, my previous Boston school, based on the premise that children learn best through experience, discovery and experimentation. What’s more, I felt it was especially critical for the English language learners who comprised nearly 50% of my new school’s student population, those who needed hands-on experiences to build a bridge to strong language acquisition.

Its important historically that the concept of Pilot schools was co-developed over 15 years ago by the Boston Teachers Union and the Boston School Committee to cultivate and support inventive curriculum and student-centered learning environments. Each school had the freedom and flexibility to develop a program of study that would best meet the needs of their students.  The overriding party agreement was “increased autonomy for increased accountability.” Whether it was art and drama or math and science, Pilots were models of urban education reform. In time, teachers and administrators would take the best practices of pilot schools—hands-on learning, multiple ways of assessment and democratic schooling—and partner with colleagues throughout the district to provide the proven, most intellectually engaging educational experiences for all children.

And so, armed with promising ideas and creative teaching strategies, I began my second administrative role, hoping to make a difference from the bottom up. Teachers—the individuals closest to the children—would share in decision-making and leadership. More involvement in developing curriculum would reinforce their own value and the child’s investment in learning. But as time went on it was clear that teachers had less opportunity for hands-on activities amid pressures to adhere to a schedule of drilling for high-stakes tests.  Pacing guides crowded out experiential and student-centered styles of learning. Ultimately, the exploration of ideas could not compete with the necessity of preparing students for tests.

Although time proved that I would never test my ideas, test I did. Over 75% of my working day focused on data collection, analysis, and alignment of curriculum and budgets, all in the service of high-stakes single measure assessments and standardized testing. I had become “the man who brings the tests”. To effect change on any level, I felt I had to leave the school system. My own, personal education initiative, would have to be the antidote to the scripted instruction, memorization, and testing that has now become the unquestioned status quo. Intuitively, I knew how to engage youngsters to work with their hands, to excite them about learning, and address their learning needs by using their strengths and helping them follow their curiosity and interests.

With these ideals in mind, I launched Boston Explorers, an urban day camp for children ages 9-14. Boston Explorers is especially designed to give youngsters the unique experience of working with their hands while exploring the natural and physical environs of Boston. What began as an inspiration became an ultimate motivation for change. Boston Explorers is an outlet for children that promotes play and discovery, while encouraging children’s ideas and nourishing their imagination. The camp draws on a philosophy and approach to education that emphasizes the natural way children learn—through experience, observation and practical application. The goal is to inspire adventure and curiosity that will last a lifetime.

Boston Explorers engages children on a daily basis in experiential activities such as woodworking, cooking, art projects, urban agriculture and photography. They are on the move exploring their “campground”: city sites and thoroughfares, monuments, gardens, museums, “secret spaces” and waterways, with the skyline and harbor as a backdrop. Building on their interests and ideas, Boston Explorers offers children a complete hands-on experience that builds character and confidence.

In August of 2011, Boston Explorers held a weeklong pilot. In 2012 we will enroll 75 youngsters, adding a 2-week session that combines hands-on activities with longer explorations to sites such as Boston Harbor Islands, the MBTA subway command center and the Deer Island Waste Treatment plant. Campers will also have the option of choosing an intensive session in woodworking with shorter excursions.

Whatever their age, and wherever they come from --the metro area neighborhoods or the suburbs-- by the end of their Explorers week, youngsters will feel that Boston is their city. I knew I was true to my roots when on the last day of camp a kid announced, “Here comes Mr. Alphonse—with the tools!”    -Alphonse Litz

For further information, check out bostonexplorers.org (operational in February 2012).

 
Alphonse Litz has been a public school educator and administrator in Concord and Boston, Massachusetts for over 20 years. His diverse teaching career integrates a range of expertise not only in the classroom but also in youth development, school coaching and administration, and school governance. He has promoted and developed programs based on the philosophy that “children learn best through experience.” As a Teacher Leader he was part of the group that led the nationally renowned, staff-governed Mission Hill K-8 Pilot School. He specializes in issues of race, culture, and identity, and promotes the Small Schools movement.

Fewer Tests in Golden State?

Less Testing in California’s Future
by Valerie Strauss

California Governor Jerry Brown has gone further than any other governor in blasting test-based school reform, saying in mid-January 2012 that he wants to reduce the number of standardized tests students take, give more authority to local school boards and design a system to measure education performance that is less test-centric than the one now in use.

In his State of the State 2012 address, Brown explained that he was vetoing an education bill because it relied too heavily on standardized tests for high-stakes accountability purposes. He said students take too many standardized tests, and that the results are given too late for teachers to get much use out of them. He also said that state and federal governments have too much power when it comes to making decisions about education and that he wants to return some to local school boards.

Brown said, “Our schools consume more tax dollars than any other government activity and rightly so as they have a profound effect on our future. Since everyone goes to school, everyone thinks they know something about education and in a sense they do. But that doesn’t stop experts and academics and foundation consultants from offering their ideas — usually labeled reform and regularly changing at ten year intervals — on how to get kids learning more and better. Ia state with six million students, 300,000 teachers, deep economic divisions and a hundred different languages, some humility is called for.

“First, responsibility must be clearly delineated between the various levels of power that have a stake in our educational system. What most needs to be avoided is concentrating more and more decision-making at the federal or state level. To me that means, we should set broad goals and have a good accountability system, leaving the real work to those closest to the students.

 “No system, however, works without accountability. In California we have detailed state standards and lots of tests. Unfortunately, the resulting data is not provided until after the school year is over. Even today, the ranking of schools based on tests taken in April and May of 2011 is not available. I believe it is time to reduce the number of tests and get the results to teachers, principals and superintendents in weeks, not months. With timely data, principals and superintendents can better mentor and guide teachers as well as make sound evaluations of their performance. I also believe we need a qualitative system of assessments, such as a site visitation program where each classroom is visited, observed and evaluated. I will work with the State Board of Education to develop this proposal.

See the full article: at www.washingtonpost.com/blogs

ERC at CES Fall Forum

This year’s Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, “A Conversation Among Friends”, provided an opportunity for ERC Co-Founder Wayne Ogden to convene a panel highlighting the work of four client school principals. The Forum, held on November 10-12, 2011 at The Met Center in Providence, Rhode Island, included sessions presented by national figures such as Deborah Meier, Alfie Kohn, Gary Stager, Ron Wolk, and Dennis Littky. But, the heart and soul of this annual conference remains in the numerous workshops presented by CES members and their schools from all over the nation.

The ERC workshop, “Critical Support For New Leaders” introduced the work of four Massachusetts principals, Jessica Yurwitz of the Salem Community Charter School; Karen Ghilani of the Johnson Elementary School in Natick, MA; Liz Coogan, from the Talbot Middle School in Fall River, MA and, Michael Ward of the Spencer Borden Elementary School also in Fall River. The topic was these leaders’ work with ERC partners Larry Myatt and Wayne Ogden. Panelist principals were unanimous in their agreement with current research that principals who have an experienced, external coach are far more likely to survive and thrive.

 

A range of additional topics were covered by the panelists but the conversation centered on expectations of the coaching relationship, challenging situations that were successfully confronted by principals and their coaches, and the general benefits and advantages of coaching support. The sitting principal panelists commended the ERC approach* to coaching services as unique and supportive, and one that provides principals an external, confidential mentor/coach who is dedicated to their success and well-being.

For twenty-five years, the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) has been at the forefront of creating and sustaining personalized, equitable, and intellectually challenging schools. Guided by a set of Common Principles, Essential schools are places of powerful student learning where all students have the chance to reach their full potential. Diverse in size, population, and programmatic emphasis, Essential schools serve K-12 students in urban, suburban, and rural communities.” www.essentialschools.org

* For more on the ERC approach to coaching services for principals and a summary of the current research on coaching and mentoring support for school leaders see, http://educationresourcesconsortium.com/2011/05/11/new-leader-support/

Issues with Teacher Ratings

Should Teacher Ratings Be Adjusted For Poverty?
From “The Hechinger Report”
November 22, 2011

By Sarah Garland

In Washington, D.C., one of the first places in the country to use value-added teacher ratings to fire teachers, teacher-union president Nathan Saunders likes to point to the following statistic as proof that the ratings are flawed: Ward 8, one of the poorest areas of the city, has only 5 percent of the teachers defined as effective under the new evaluation system known as IMPACT, but more than a quarter of the ineffective ones. Ward 3, encompassing some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods, has nearly a quarter of the best teachers, but only 8 percent of the worst.

The discrepancy highlights an ongoing debate about the value-added test scores that an increasing number of states—soon to include Florida—are using to evaluate teachers. Are the best, most experienced D.C. teachers concentrated in the wealthiest schools, while the worst are concentrated in the poorest schools? Or does the statistical model ignore the possibility that it’s more difficult to teach a room full of impoverished children?

 

Saunders thinks it’s harder for teachers in high-poverty schools. “The fact that kids show up to school hungry and distracted and they have no eyeglasses and can’t see the board, it doesn’t even acknowledge that,” he said.

But many researchers argue that value-added models don’t need to control for demographic factors like poverty, race, English-learner or special-education status at the individual student level, as long as enough test score data (at least three years) are included in the formula. They say states and districts choose to include demographic characteristics in the models to satisfy unions and other constituents—not because it’s statistically necessary.

William Sanders at the SAS Institute Inc., has spent nearly three decades working on a complex statistical formula that’s been adopted in districts around the country. With at least three years of test-score data from different academic subjects, he says he is able to home in on a good prediction of what a particular student’s progress should look like in a given year—and thus, how much a teacher should be expected to teach the student. Adding demographic factors only muddies the picture, he argues.

“If you’ve got a poor black kid and a rich white kid that have exactly the same academic achievement levels, do you want the same expectations for both of them the next year? If the answer is yes, then you don’t want to be sticking things in the model that will be giving the black kid a boost,” he said.

A large body of research has found that student achievement is affected not only by a student’s individual circumstances at home, but also by the circumstances of other children in the same school and classroom. Studies have found that students surrounded by more advantaged peers tend to score higher on tests than similarly performing students surrounded by less advantaged peers.

Controlling for the demographics of a whole class can be messy, says Douglas Harris, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who has studied both value-added modeling and how a student’s peers affect his or her own achievement.

“It’s very hard in a statistical sense to separate for those things,” Harris said. “Accounting for the student level and the classroom and school level is not going to make that much difference.”

Isenberg agrees: “I haven’t seen anything to date that suggests peer effects make a large difference” in the context of value-added teacher evaluations. Nevertheless, he is currently leading research in D.C. and 30 other cities to see if factoring in the concentration of disadvantaged students in a class will make a difference in teachers’ scores.

See the full article at: hechingerreport.org

ERC Supports Dramatic Turn-Around

The Doran School on the Move: A Case Study of School Renewal 

The John J. Doran K-8 School in Fall River. MA has come a long way in a short amount of time and is still on the way up. People in the city, and increasingly in the region, are recognizing the school as a new and promising center of activity. The Doran is being heralded not only for the growth not of its students, but also for the development of its staff and, increasingly, its parent and caregiver community. With its designation as a Massachusetts “Level Four” school (one requiring intervention) only three years ago, Principal Maria Pontes has been strategic in using resources to create a vibrant conversation at the school. With support from ERC, the school undertook a deeper and more focused conversation about two often neglected components: the link between resilience and achievement and building teacher leadership capacity. Pontes has gone on to assemble a diverse, committed staff that has helped to turn the school around and make it a “go to” place.

ERC Co-Founder Larry Myatt who has consulted with the school from early in its transition, recalls, “I had been asked by the Supt. of Schools to visit and see if there were any ideas I could bring from my experience in Boston and in other cities. It was quite open-ended.  I remember my first impressions of the school vividly”. Teachers were clearly working alone, Myatt recalls, and he remembers a high level of student disruption causing the palpable frustration of teachers, to the point of frequent negative remarks. “It was a classic case of students AND teachers not getting what they needed. And then, all of a sudden, they’re in the Level IV spotlight”, says Myatt, “and the expectations for collaboration and capacity building were beyond what district practices, resources and expertise could provide. Myatt adds, “The good news is a new level of urgency and the ‘checkbook’ that comes with intervention status”. Supt. Meg Mayo-Brown was committed to bestowing the flexibilities Myatt alerted her the district would need to show. Mayo-Brown, says Myatt, “was willing to hear that potential solutions to the problem would require that the district think and act in a one-school-at-a-time way”.

Myatt goes on, “One of the first things I did was to look at school-based job descriptions. They were quite behind-the-times, very narrow”. The gaps in services were enormous and filling them would be significant in helping the school to in turn help students raise the level of what Myatt calls their “readiness to learn”. “Somehow”, he says, “since the testing bug bit us, many people forget what I call the ‘Law of Resilience and Achievement’ --if we demand high levels of engagement and academic performance, we must offer equally levels of high-quality social/emotional support. We’ve paid a huge price for under-designing and under-supporting in the social/emotional arena, and worse, in allowing an arcane ‘guidance counseling’ model to continue to wither just when we need it most.” Myatt also spurred the school to become a K-8, citing examples of many urban schools where sustaining student-teacher-family relationships has bred higher achievement, avoiding unneeded  transitions that research reveals to be a key factor in students falling behind and dropping out. “But”, says Myatt, “it must be done carefully, with a design plan and attentive engineering, and that’s just how the Doran is proceeding.  I’ve seen too many districts botch similar attempts”.  Pontes says that Doran 6th graders are now outperforming their middle school counterparts.

When Myatt mentioned the need for the formation of a school-based “Wellness Team” for the Doran, people scratched their heads. He had to explain what the idea would encompass to almost every person he came in contact with. He began to weave in the ideas of positive rituals and routines in classrooms to provide an inviting atmosphere for students who may come from challenged families, and establishing a much higher level of care coordination. “For me, executing that coordination was critical, and would likely call for some outside-of-school experience”. Myatt crafted new job descriptions and job titles to get a fresh start with each of the new roles in a bureaucratic environment that, as he says, “generally trumps innovation”. Myatt was also insistent on developing parents and caregivers as essential partners and that would take expertise, time and energy in the form of a Parent and Family Coordinator, part of a support model he helped to establish in Boston’s Pilot Schools.

Pontes and Mayo-Brown trusted Myatt’s wisdom and experience. Pontes began to shop these ideas around the school and sent teams to look at others using similar practices, and Mayo-Brown supported the creation of new roles and positions in concert with the Fall River teachers union. Within a year the high-poverty school had a Wellness Team consisting of a Student Support Coordinator (SSC), two student support counselors, a Parent/Family Educator Liaison, the school nurse, and the school’s Asst. Principal, Natalie Silva-Patterson, a key person in tracking behavioral challenges. Karen Lima, a public mental health professional, the new SSC , brings the “inside/outside” perspective and connections Myatt deemed crucial. The difference has been palpable and the Wellness Team, warmly received by the staff and parent community, now seems a fixture.

“The development of the Wellness Team has really made a difference”, says Pontes, “Now, with fewer distractions and more student eagerness for learning, we can take better advantage of our coaches, our planning time together, and our extended hours”. Those critical extra hours were made available by the district and agreed to by new Doran teachers. “That negotiation, tricky at first for teachers”, says Myatt, “has made both a symbolic and a performance difference”. Teachers get compensated for extra time and they use it well, with Pontes regularly polling the staff via her Leadership Team for how that time could be best served. The investment in an expanded Leadership Team, another component suggested by Myatt, has enabled the school to build capacity among staff to understand big picture ideas and leadership dilemmas. “It’s Deb Meier’s old quote, ‘teachers should spend some time thinking like a principal, and vice versa’” says Myatt. “We needed to take a ‘living system’ approach, not just your typical ‘site council’ or ILT, but a group that could learn and grow in the dynamic and high-stakes Level IV setting”.

Teacher Alexis Norton-Williams, a 5-year Doran veteran says she is enjoying her best year of teaching ever. Not only does she feel she has finally put together a solid teaching tool belt, but the school has now become a highly collaborative community. “Years ago, it seemed that every teacher was just out to survive on their own. I like learning from mistakes, talking about professional practice and we do that now”. Norton-Williams carries that into Leadership Team meetings, where the many teacher representatives can disagree and challenge each other and the administration, in the spirit of making the school better for adults and children.  Norton-Williams and Pontes agree that teachers now show little anxiety about sharing their viewpoints in a way that once might have seemed impossible.

Pontes, says, Myatt, “has modeled a concrete approach to sharing leadership, to the school’s good fortune. Maria invested time and resources with ERC support early on for retreats for the Wellness and Leadership Teams, in order to build new skills and capacity. We could have just sat people down together and winged it, but we’ve benefitted from a more studious and well-paced development of these ‘organisms’ within the school, places that need to be highly functional. I’m fond of reminding people in districts and schools in recovery that ‘you can’t afford even one bad meeting’. Maria has taken that to heart and grown a new set of leadership skills to complement her drive and determination.”

Math Coach and lead designer of the new Doran Middle Years initiative, Brian Raposo, attributes a part of the success to the school having become a place where adults can find a safe but challenging zone in which to grow. He, too, cites a sense of urgency as a new dimension to the school’s work, but importantly, he also hears less about “how can we fix the kids?” and more of “how can we get better?” As a former middle school teacher, coach, and math scholar he brings the advantage of seeing a longer continuum of math learning. “I can bring a sense of where it needs to go from the early grades on, and provide a fuller rationale for decisions we might make, or change, about concepts, depth, etc.” he says.

Raposo also acknowledges that he and others at the Doran seem to enjoy a richer professional life that some others in the district, including access to consultants, conferences, readings, tools and more high-level conversation. “It’s been professionally beneficial to me. Our staff wants new ideas, and we’re doing things like making videos in classrooms and analyzing them to support teachers. That’s unlikely in many other schools. Its exhausting but energizing”, concludes Raposo.

First year ESL Teacher Wendy Bandi represents another new dimension on the Doran team as a part of Fall River’s first Teach For America cohort of 10 members. Bandi is high-energy, bright and determined and also brings a policy studies background to her work. She felt that in order to someday contribute to the policy dialogue she needed to be on the front lines. “You can’t understand the work unless you’ve been in, and part of, a school community” says Bandi. Pontes says that Bandi is growing quickly into the job. Bandi adds, “We received an impressive welcome as TFA members coming to Fall River. We had a luncheon with the Mayor and parent and community members and a panel. It was clearly important to them and that helped make it more important to us”.

This complicated turn-around recipe is paying off. Never one for complacency, Pontes is quick to add, “We’re not there yet, but we’re miles ahead of where we were, we’re making slow and steady progress and we’re only going to get better!”

Critical Role of Teacher Culture

The Importance of Teacher and School Culture:
Social Capitol and School Change

“Three beliefs -the power of teacher capitol, the values of outsiders, and the centrality of the principal in instructional practice- form the implicit and explicit core of many reform efforts today. Unfortunately, all three beliefs are rooted more in conventional wisdom and political sloganeering than in strong empirical research” argues Carrie R. Leana in the Fall, 2011 issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review. Instead, Leana and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh argue that “social capitol” or how teachers treat and interact with each other in the school setting, will contribute far more to lasting change and improvement.

To be clear, explains Leana, “I am not opposed to recognizing the contributions of outstanding teachers or to holding bad teachers accountable for poor performance. But I believe in the power of objective data.” Leana provides the following example, “Social capital… is not a characteristic of the individual teacher but instead resides in the relationships among teachers. In response to the question “Why are some teachers better than others?” a human capital perspective would answer that some teachers are just better trained, more gifted, or more motivated. A social capital perspective would answer the same question by looking not just at what a teacher knows, but also where she gets that knowledge. If she has a problem with a particular student, where does the teacher go for information and advice? Who does she use to sound out her own ideas or assumptions about teaching? Who does she confide in about the gaps in her understanding of her subject knowledge?”

The implications of the study not only suggest the many complications of assessing “merit” and attaching incentives, but also the need to comprehend the dimensions of school culture at the deepest levels. “This is not an area that is easily understood or influenced”, suggests Wayne Ogden of Education Resource Consortium, “many leaders do not have these skills, do not even consider such strategies, and almost all schools are handicapped these days by severe limits on after-school planning and problem-solving time for teachers working in small groups. We’ve thought this stuff was fluff and that a focus on testing would cut through the performance issues, but experience and studies such as this are proving otherwise.”

Please see the link below to the full article:

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_missing_link_in_school_reform/

Boards & Teaching Practice

Time to Bring School Boards Up-to-Speed with Teacher Performance

Wayne Ogden

Taxpayers in Michigan want their school boards to work. A recent survey of registered voters in that state revealed that just under half of the respondents believed that the number one job of school board members is improving student performance. It seems logical that this would be a universal expectation for board members across the country. However, the requirements for the training of school board members to perform this critical set of duties vary widely among the fifty states.

When and where state mandated training does occur it is often of short duration and broad in topic orientation. Since 2003 in Massachusetts, for example, newly elected school committee members are required to receive 8 hours of training in the following topics: school finance, open meeting law, public records law, conflict of interest law, special education law, collective bargaining, school leadership standards & evaluations, and school committee roles & responsibilities. State monitoring of such training is lacking, however, and neither student performance nor teacher performance is specifically mentioned on this list.

The realities of school board training to support their district schools in improving achievement seems on a collision course with emerging federal and state regulations that will change teacher and principal evaluations procedures in the very near future, in some states as early as 2012. States that are in receipt of federal “Race To The Top” (RTTP) funds are expected to include student performance data in the evaluations of teachers and principals. Many states and school districts are now introducing the concept of performance-based merit pay into their collective bargaining agreements with teacher unions. This all seems to be happening at warp speed yet, few school boards have much understanding of what constitutes good teacher performance is and, correspondingly, what good teacher evaluation looks like.

Educational researchers know that collaborative, highly-skilled teachers working with school leaders who monitor and support the planning, instruction and assessment practices of their faculty combine to create and sustain schools with strong student performance. School leaders also know that the supervision and evaluation of instructional performance is the most important, difficult, complicated and time-consuming work they do. Despite these realities, school board members throughout our nation remain amazingly agnostic of their own districts’ expectation, practices and challenges around teacher evaluation.

In an experience that contrasts this national disconnect, I had the pleasure of working with Superintendent/Principal Charlie Meyers of the Fishers Island School in New York State. Supt. Meyers was running the first in a series of trainings to orient his five newly elected School Board members to the complexities of supervision and evaluation of the Island’s educators, and thereby to the intricacies of their own work in helping to oversee it.

Leading up to this orientation session were almost two years of work by Island educators and their school leadership spent in developing a teacher supervision and evaluation rubric intended to take the mystery out of the evaluation process and establish very clear standards for performance. While the School Board was willing to include the new process and tool as parts of its collective bargaining agreement with the teachers, they had not had an opportunity to understand its full complexity and the significant improvement it would be over their previous evaluation tool.

Superintendent Meyers and I decided that the best training for the board members would be for them to assume the role of observer and evaluator of a teacher’s in-class performance. Using video of a volunteer teacher from another school district I asked the board members to view and judge the teacher’s performance using two different tools. The first process required them to make a summary judgment (giving the teacher a grade) for the instruction they observed using a rating scale of 1 (low score) – 5 (high score) and then to describe salient characteristics of the teaching that caused them to make their judgment. The superintendent participated in the exercise but spoke last in the rating and discussion activities to minimize his impact on the judgment of board members. The ratings of the school board’s five members varied by 3 points on the scale (a low of 3 to several members rating it a 5). The superintendent’s assigned rating of 2 broadened the range further.

The discussion that followed the rating exercise was rich and enthusiastic, and often perplexing, as board members and the superintendent probed each other’s thinking. Board member awareness of the potential for problems in the face of such variation among the observers was increased dramatically. A subsequent reassessment of the teaching performance after our discussion period saw each of the raters move to a score of 3, the midpoint of the scale.

After a second debriefing of their collective judgment/ratings about the instruction, the board was asked to reevaluate the teaching segment by applying the school’s new teacher performance rubric. That rubric correlated likely teaching behaviors into state-aligned performance standards, descriptive indicators, and four possible levels (judgments) of teacher adherence to performance levels.

While the time available to us did not allow completed discussion of each teaching standard, their associated indicators, and performance levels, a significant learning moment happened for board members as they began to realize the power and complexities of making claims about teaching performance using evidence gathered in the observation process, followed by making judgments according to the indicators of teaching practice contained in the rubric. As we wrapped up the training session, board members were animated about their “ah-hah” moments, expressing a new appreciation for the complexities of teacher performance, and how difficult the process is to evaluate such performances with fairness and accuracy. The meeting closed with all board members enthusiastically requesting to revisit this topic several more times in the coming year.