Archive for the ‘Education Reform’ category

Quick—Hire the Wrong Superintendent!

April 20th, 2011

Inspired by actual events…and a great article by Richard Lee Colvin over at The Quick and the Ed.

The position of school district superintendent is complex, situational and nuanced.

Hiring a superintendent is often simplistic, universal, and one-dimensional.

That delta may be one reason the average time on the job for superintendents is so short. Maybe district leaders look for the wrong things when they hire a CEO.

If you were to compare school district superintendents to the general population, I strongly suspect you would find that they are more likely to be tall, attractive, white, male, poised, extroverted, and articulate. Here are photos of the first eight superintendents I could find who serve in El Paso County, Colorado—the greater Colorado Springs area. Certainly, our community contributes to the more homogenous nature of this pool, but many more diverse locales are led by a group of similar constitution.

Sups

I’m not trying to reinforce a superintendent stereotype, but these folks have a lot in common. They are generally photogenic, confident, good in front of a group, extroverted, etc. I have no quarrel with anyone pictured above, though I know some of them personally and work indirectly for one of them. Their names don’t matter. Their characteristics do. Superintendent folks are almost always “alpha’s” both in the sense of being a leader of the wolfpack and in the sense of coming from the highest caste, à laHuxley’s Brave New World.

Among the group above are politicians, athletic stars, award-winners, journalists and authors. They tend to be verbal and insightful—especially with limited preparation. They shine in the kinds of interviews and open houses that are common in most superintendent hiring processes.

But are they the best fit? Some say no.

Superintendents are educational CEO’s. As such, they are subject to the myth of the charismatic, heroic CEO. As Collins and Porras point out in Built to Last, their brilliant study of industry-leading firms, the best companies in each industry were six times more likely to promote insiders than their high-performing competition. (Emphasis in the original)

Community members, teaches, and especially board members have a long-standing preference for hiring people that fit the image. Although these leaders are more than teeth and hair, I’d be willing to bet that they are not the presumptive best candidates on paper. In fact, in my limited experience around two dozen superintendent hires, the best candidates by resume almost never got the nod. The best candidate in the interview—the most likable or inspirational—that’s who wins.

In fact, if you want to hire a traditional superintendent, I’ll save you a lot of money. Simply have candidates submit a two-minute video in which they explain their vision for the district. Post the videos online, have people vote, and there’s your sup. Do diligence with references and a background check, but you’ll probably end up hiring the same person you would have hired after a traditional process anyway. Why is that? (For one answer, refer to “Thin-Slicing” as explained by Gladwell in Blink.

For another perspective, think about how we arrive at the board vote.

The start is almost always selection of a search firm. Search firms cast a wide net, filter aggressively, and then present a short slate of candidates. Boards interview, present to the community, solicit feedback and select finalists. They choose, negotiate and hire. By the time the process narrows to a few candidates, the system has usually weeded out those slow to speak, “unimpressive,” reserved candidates who don’t sparkle in large-group settings. The betas are gone and the alphas survive. Usually, if a person is more reserved and not charismatic they don’t have a chance—unless that person is an internal candidate who has proven his or her worth over time. Only rarely do districts employ a strategic succession strategy to cultivate leadership from within.

Depending on the life cycle of the school, and the particular challenges of the district, a solid, administrative-minded candidate might be just right. I’ve written and presented for years on the importance of recognizing and adapting leadership to life cycle dynamics. For example, your strategic planning and strategic hiring should vary greatlydepending on whether your school is in a growth cycle or a stagnation phase. Based on that insight, it is highly unusual to find a circumstance where the celebrity superintendent is the best choice. Although their focus is on business, Collins and Porras found that only 4% of the CEO’s at great companies came from outside the organization.

If you are involved in the decision about hiring a new superintendent, first examine the process. If you follow the traditional model I can predict with high certainty that you will hire a traditional candidate—one who looks right for the role. Please go deeper. Even if you don’t get it right, you can reset and look again.

 

This post originally appeared at Charter Insights.

 

3 comments »

Posted in Education Reform, Innovation

Tags:

Analyze This

February 6th, 2011

10 education warning signs that somebody needs to heed as this next decade unfolds:

1)   Between now and 2020, America will need to hire more than 3 million new teachers.

http://inform.com/science-and-technology/impact-baby-boomer-retirements-teacher-labor-markets-439094a

2)   More than 40% of school principals will retire in the next decade according to survey data collected by national principal associations.

http://www.elearnportal.com/student-center/do-you-have-what-it-takes-to-be-a-school-principal

3)   50% of current superintendents in America do not plan to be on the job in five years.

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=17184

4)   Teacher turnover is highest in poor, urban school districts where positions may remain vacant or filled with less than qualified and/or inexperienced  teachers.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/tb/2007/08/24/3336.html

5)   More families are living in poverty and since 2008 this has resulted in increasing numbers of America’s students taking advantage of free and reduced lunch services.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-10-schoollunchinside_N.htm

6)   PK-12 public school enrollment will increase about 4.5 million students by 2018.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2018/sec1b.asp

7)   No data have been collected in a decade but the National Education Association estimates that school facility infrastructure improvements needed are in neighborhood of $322 billion. Report Card Grade: D

http://apps.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm

8)   Arts education and funding declining over last decade, mainly due to budget cuts to public education.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/blog/news_features_releases/2009/06/on-the-chopping-block-again.html

9)   Despite decades of focus on improving literacy rates, we as a citizenry read about the same as we always have.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69

10) By 2018, America will need 3 million more college graduates for the workforce than we’ll graduate.

http://chronicle.com/article/Number-of-Workers-With-College/65948/

No comments »

Posted in Achievement Gap, Basic Skills, Education Reform, Education spending, Leadership, Literacy, Pam Moran, School Finance, state financial crises, Uncategorized, urban education

Tags:

Emerging Trend: Superman Snubs the Justice League, Lex Laughs to the Bank

September 18th, 2010

NBC’s Education Nation confirmed their list of panelists for the upcoming education summit – none of whom are teachers and all of whom seem to take snaps from the same ed reform playbook. All except for the lone Randi Weingarten. She will play the role of Dissenting Voice in an ed reform narrative that is being ballyhooed across the nation. (Except where it’s not.)

It was important for event organizers to give Randi a place on the panel. The basic ed reform thesis, chronicled in the upcoming “Waiting for Superman,” begins with the idea that the school system & schools are broken, and that unionized teachers are where the faulty rubber meets the road. The trouble is, if the powers-that-be were to directly cast teachers as Lex Luthor their plan might backfire.

Who’s willing to place the failure of the American Education System on little old Mrs. Newton, teaching 2nd grade to generations of tots that loved her? That won’t sell well or bring in votes.

Enter unions stage left. Randi, as president of the American Federation of Teachers, has been a vocal critic of NCLB, RTTT, & the Fire-(Teachers)-At-Will squad of trigger happy reformers. As a teacher representative, she’s become the de facto Lightning Rod in the plot line that pits unions (as antagonists) against the great teachers the ed reformers (as protagonists) would deliver if only meddling teacher advocates would step aside.

For the NBC organizers, she needs to be a panelist in order to give the Gates’ League the whipping boy (girl) it requires.

The story goes like this: the unions enable the hordes of bad teachers who are responsible for keeping students from achieving. All the while the benevolent market forces of goodness & quality do their darnedest to right this wrong through superhero feats of privatizing, hiring & firing, and incentivizing teaching to the tests.

We are asked to buy into this plot-line and then jump to reformers’ same conclusions. Effectively, we are asked to leap these tall buildings, each in a single bound of reasoning:

  1. If we weigh the cattle more often, they’ll get fatter.
  2. Non-union teachers teach better.
  3. Charter schools = silver bullet against poverty & lack of parent involvement.
  4. Merit pay will be enough improve teacher “performance”. (A recent Vanderbilt study concludes otherwise.)

These unproven assumptions need more than super breath to blow me over. I’m just not convinced that these measures will lead to more professional educators & greater access to quality learning environments for all students.

The Bottom Line Variable

But what if they are wrong?

What if the fear mongering and hyperbolized “broken” metaphors that the media outlets have bought-into & hyped are the machinations of private stakes and bottom lines, rather than deep insights into poverty, parenting & learning? (That’s not to say there are not deeply rooted problems that need transforming. But “broken”?! That seems a slap in the face to the thousands who work in our nation’s schools.)

On his site, How the University Works, Marc Bousquet brings this point to light:

I’d like to see a few more of us start to question the objectivity of The New York Times and Washington Post, both corporations with increasingly large hopes that profits from their education ventures will prop up sagging journalism revenues. The Post, which owns Kaplan and shocked readers by blatantly pushing Kaplan’s legislative agenda in print and in person is already an education corporation that owns a newspaper as a sideline.

What is curious is that even Fox & Friends has discovered what the Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Post knew a long time ago: The Obama/Duncan algorithm for improving our nations’ schools has a hidden variable — profitability.

Non-union teachers + prepackaged curricula + (test x test x test) = Corporate Bling Package

Standardizing content across the country simplifies what all teachers teach, making it easier to . . .

Increase class size and save moola on teachers (especially the union-free teachers in charter schools who get paid less & have fewer benefits), which frees up money for . . .

Buying curricula in bulk from major textbook companies (which are more profitable to produce in larger numbers) which will necessitate. . .

Buying tests designed specifically for those prepackaged curricula, which will be justified because it will help  prepare students for . . .

Super-sized multiple-choice assessments to determine if teachers are teaching, which will . . .

Earn testing companies stacks of benjamins for administrating & scoring those tests, and has the added benefit of . . .

Determining which teachers should be fired, so newer, cheaper teachers can be hired, and more curricula can be bought to raise scores.

The private sector’s opportunity to profit handsomely from this brand of standardization has stockholders salivating & lobbyists scheming. The Chamber of Commerce, at the behest of former FL governor Jeb Bush (whose younger brother, Neil, profits from NCLB & RTTT), has become a testifying standard anywhere education reform is on the legislative docket.

It all makes me wonder if ed reform is being driven by Superman, or Lex Luthor.

What if we are asking the wrong questions?

What if the propagandized central conflict, Unions vs. Good Teaching, isn’t the central conflict after all? What if it is just a sub-plot? What if the problem is much more complex than that?

What if the central argument, “Pay great teachers for student achievement and great teachers will flock to the classroom” doesn’t hold water? What if the actual teachers we want teaching and shaping our youth are not the ones attracted by promises of pay for performance?

What if wooing and keeping great teachers requires a different sort of honey altogether?

Unfortunately, no-one is asking what it takes to attract (and retain) the truly innovative educators who can provide the transformative learning experiences that transcend race, gender, and socio-economic status. It seems assumed that bonuses, based on centralized high-stakes tests, will be enough.

In a tweet-versation with RiShawn Biddle (@DropoutNation), an education journalist and ed reform advocate, I asked if the current slate of reforms was likely to narrow the curriculum and decrease educator autonomy. He replied that it would, that it was necessary.  This made me wonder what it would take to attract and keep the best and the brightest (the most ambitious and well educated among us) to the field of teaching. So I asked him.

His response?

They need more than a paycheck. They need an environment which allows them to utilize their skills in new and creative ways. In essence, they need autonomy and the flexibility to work in a professional atmosphere where they have latitude.

And therein lies our paradox. We want/need the best and the brightest to embrace teaching as a profession, but our brand of ed reform vinegar (high stakes testing, value added firing, & standardized everything) is a hook without a worm. It doesn’t attract and/or keep the very candidates we need flocking to our schools.

Superman & the Justice League

We seem to hope that by testing the kryptonite out of students Superman will arrive. However, him being faster than a speeding bullet doesn’t make him a silver bullet. We’ll need more than Superman if we aim to make meaningful, relevant, and lasting changes to our national school system.

We’ll need the entire Justice League in order to effectively address the central conundrums of transforming our schools into learning environments of equality where students are engaged, enabled, and empowered.

Our villains are many:

  • Poverty
  • Lack of parent involvement
  • Untenable dropout rates
  • Too few high achievers in the field of teaching
  • Overly specific centralized learning goals
  • Undervalued teaching profession
  • Inaccurate measures of teacher effectiveness
  • Overuse of high stakes assessments as a cure all
  • Elitism

To tackle these villains, we must recruit & engage every one of the Justice League heroes, many of whom are dedicated teachers who’ve been asked to stay quiet and do as they’re told for far too long.

The Justice League is supposed to be a collection of people banded together in mutual cooperation.

Too bad they’ve been left off of Superman’s panel.

Thanks a lot, Man of Steel. You could’ve gotten a teacher on the panel if you wanted. After all, with that cool x-ray vision thing you got going, you should be able to see through their shenanigans.

This post was originally published on Ecology of Education.

Justice League Image: OSU Department of Statistics
Lex Luthor Image: Prodigeek

1 comment »

Posted in Accountability, Arne Duncan, Big Idea, Collaboration, Duncan, Edreform, Education, Education Reform, educational reform, Jason Flom, Merit pay, Michelle Rhee, NCLB, Schools, Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Pay, Teacher's Unions, Testing

Tags:

Emerging Trend: Teachers as Advocates

June 15th, 2010

(This piece was originally published at Cooperative Catalyst.)

I keep waiting on the invitation:

Who: Teachers

What: Education Reform Policy Party

Where: Wonk Circles All Over

When: NOW!

Why: We want YOU to help envision & shape the next generation of schools.

The paradox, of course, is that as the reformation of education garners greater and greater media attention, teachers — the unrecognized professionals — continue to find ourselves left out despite the fact we have one of the largest stakes in the debate.

While it would be fun to point fingers at others, the truth is that we have a long history of grudgingly accepting whatever comes down the pipe at us, so it may well be of our own doing. Fortunately, that is changing, and none too soon.

However, thanks to the Race to the Top and the unprecedented funding by the federal government, the reform effort has amassed a following of armchair experts who all seem to sing from the same hymnal:

  • Market driven solutions will work.
  • Increasing competition among teachers will improve their “performance”.
  • Firing teachers must be a first priority.
  • Threats achieve results, especially if the threats involve closing a school.
  • Standardized tests are effective measures of success.
  • More standards = more learning.

Yet the most egregious (albeit tacit) tenet of the movement seems to be that reform should happen to teachers rather than with teachers.

While nearly everyone intimately involved in the reform effort would publicly deny this, the fact is that teachers remain the underutilized voice on how to improve our schools.  The most recent example of this was in the New York Times Sunday Magazine’s May 23rd piece, “The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand“.

The over 8,000 word education reform article did not quote one teacher.  Not one!

It’s outrageous! When an editor from one of the world’s most powerful newspapers does not insist that a teacher’s voice be included in such a premiere education piece we learn a lot about the esteem teachers are held in. It’s the The-emperor-has-no-clothes moment of truth. Finally, we see and we should be livid! After all, we have the most profound of roles in our schools — we teach the children.

Imagine for a second a comparable examination of banking reform that does not quote from at least a single banker. It would never happen.

Fortunately, the letters in response to the article raised this concern, perhaps most poignantly by 2nd grade teacher, Emily Miller.

There are many things in Steven Brill’s article that trouble me, but my greatest concern about the education-reform debate is the absence of teachers’ voices. When the country was debating the economic-stimulus plan, policy makers asked economists for advice, and the press frequently provided a forum for them to express their opinions. Yet when discussing education, the experts — those who work with children every day in classrooms — are rarely consulted. Many of those who were interviewed for Brill’s article said that they want what is best for children. It seems to me that if this is a genuine concern, those who best understand the challenges and problems in our schools, namely teachers, should be asked what they think.

The fact is, teachers have little history making or getting our voice heard. We are the unrealized professionals.

Thankfully, change is in the air.  Through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, & ASCD Edge educators are building networks that turn up the volume on their ideas, concerns, and potential power of their numbers.  This ability to make our voice heard is an important first step toward being substantively included at the table.

It is a start, but we still need to do more. But how?

As with most grassroots efforts, it begins at home: Think Globally, Elect Locally.

Our local officials and state representatives need to know our names, not just the names of the union reps.  During the summer, we can make calls to our elected policy makers, write letters to the editor calling out publications for misrepresenting us, and learn how to advocate. We can interact with politicians running for office and insist they answer questions about education.  And if their answers seem copy-pasted from the Reform Hymnal, we help educate them, or deny them our vote.

Perhaps Jessica Luallen Horten said it best in her piece, “Calling Teachers to Action Beyond SB 6“:

I implore you to think about your beliefs about how children learn, what have you discovered in your years of experience? Write it down, share it, speak it and continue to examine it every day. If you truly want to advocate for children, you will become active in the process that will shape their tomorrow.

We have an opportunity to capitalize on the press and the widespread focus on education, even if we never get an invitation to the party. It’s time to bust down the doors and demand to be heard. As the experts in the field, we have a civic responsibility to speak truth to power and to armchair experts everywhere.

Change will happen.  However, the onus is on us to either be recipients of it or agents in it.

How else can teachers get involved? What other ways can we help shape the debate?

Image: alli coate

2 comments »

Posted in Collaboration, disruption, Edreform, Education Reform, Jason Flom, Professional Development, Race to the Top

Tags:

Peyton Manning Can Call Audibles, Can You?

February 1st, 2010

By Jason Flom, Ecology of Education


I’m not afraid to admit it. Standardization — it scares me.

It’s the monster under the bed, lurking in the closet, rumbling around in the attic of my mind. Its the haunting moans in the walls of the profession, a harbinger of doom. In fact at times, in states of sleep deprived overly-dramatic hyperbolization, it is the end of days. At least in my head.

Its not common concepts, core values, or normalized skill sets that go bump in my night. No, the zombie lurking in my room is mandated standardized teaching, the cranking out of factory built sameness. The terror is this: If educators are bitten by standardization will they cease to think for themselves? If they must all teach “X” during the __th week and then assess that content on Friday, will they churn out little stardardized zombie students?

Ultimately, my fear is the dichotomous relationship between what we want (teachers as professionals) and what we may be moving toward (teachers as laborers).

(Warning, Mixed Metaphors Ahead!)

The teacher as professional is still a long way off. That’s not to say there are not a number of very professional teachers in the field. There are. However, there is a difference between “teachers who are professionals” and “teachers as professionals”. In the former, some teachers act as polished experts, while in the latter, the field of teaching is respected for its (eek, eek) standard of excellence.

In many ways, teachers are quarterbacks in the football game of schooling. They try to move the ball of learning and knowledge down the field despite the numerous linebackers that attempt to halt forward progress. The talented quarterback, much like judo experts, use the oncoming obstacles as opportunities. (Technology is a good example of this. Teachers who embrace students’ immersion in it can move their team closer to touchdowns than those who try to keep it off the line of scrimmage.)

Teachers able (meaning possessing both the ability and autonomy) to “read the field” and make adjustments fair better than those who cannot (either do to ineptitude or restriction).

I’m not suggesting that teachers go on the field without a game plan or without consulting regularly with their coach (administrator, team, mentor, or planbook). Professionals work in collaboration on a number of fronts and approach each task with established goals and objectives. Teachers are no different. The well prepared teacher can manage a wider assortment of obstacles than can an unprepared one.

The great topography of the US, both in terms of geography and demography, is a boon to our future possibilities. Myriad communities, resources, and experiences present schools with a rich diversity of ideas, cultures, and personalities. The adaptable and engaging teacher culls from this a unique blend of opportunities, tailored specifically to the students under his/her leadership. Innovation is born of imagination, discovery, research, knowledge, and exploration. Creativity and flexibility are necessary components of growth and development, and schools can be allies in this far beyond the 3 r’s.

Because of the dynamic nature of classrooms, teachers able to tailor curriculum to the reality on the ground — essentially to adapt to the configuration of the defense — can “score more touchdowns” and provide students with more skill depth than teachers who stick to the texts.

The ability to take advantage of learning opportunities depends on three interrelated components:

  1. Teachers trained to “read the field” and adapt or construct curriculum to meet the reality of the field. Colleges of ed need to prepare teachers who know how to learn. For working with interns in my classroom, I use this sheet. We can’t simply give teachers autonomy. It must be worked into the system, to capitalize on diverse ideas, talents, and visions. Students thrive under inspired teachers.
  2. Administrators who have (and can use) more effective methods for providing teachers with feedback and support. (I’m a big fan of this rubric.)
  3. The support and respect of the policy making establishment and, by proxy, the public. (A pay grade that attracts top flight candidates might help.)

I wonder, can we standardize creativity, individualism, differentiation, learning opportunities, innovation, and a sense of community in our learning environments? I think we can, but it’ll take a different effort than “simply” standardizing for scoring high on standardized tests. We need to standardize teachers’ ability (skill as well as autonomy) to follow the lead of the students, and fully capitalize on the gifts students bring with them.

Teachers need to be able to call audibles without fear of reprimand. Its not going to happen over night (nor should it), but with concerted effort, it can happen. And the team — the kids –will only benefit, if we do it right.

Zombie Image: Wiki Commons
Peyton Image: UPI.com

No comments »

Posted in Education Reform, Peyton Manning, Service Learning, Teacher Efficacy, teaching

Avoiding the Dickensian Curriculum

August 27th, 2009

Monotonous tedium and homogeneous uniformity — the great plagues of education. With rampant disregard for age, class, or ability, a curriculum lacking topography flatlines interest, dulls creativity, and limits potential. Yet, we find ourselves haphazardly careening toward fact based national standards, accountability systems, and teacher pay incentives that further cement our commitment to high stakes assessments. Such batteries that, by proxy, entrench pedagogical practices in the mires of conformity.
What we need now is a hyperbolized metaphor to cast the right light on the situation. Enter 19th century Dickens.
I’m reminded of the orphan scene from Oliver Twist, in which sallow eyed kids lament full bellies while heavy handed lords offer meager sustenance, the lowest common denominator for survival. “Please, sir, can I have some more?” “MORE?!”
Fast forward to the 21st century, the faces of students drawn down by boredom, teachers droning on and dolling out dittos of “test prep” materials. One curriculum looks the same community to community, offering little variety (or interest) for the educators or the learners. Students under such Dickensian conditions soon associate learning and schooling with drudgery, toil, and starved minds.
The rare lesson that engages students to dig deep into an idea or concept, to explore new avenues, and to get a bit messy with creativity awakens and feeds an enthusiasm long suppressed by the sameness of repetition. Students for whom such learning has been absent, or withheld, find their palates whet with the sweet taste of authenticity and relevance. “Please, marm, can I have some more?” “MORE?!”
A bit much you say? Too overstated? How could I possibly compare NCLB to the New Poor Law of 1834?
You’re right to question, to stand up for an education system that endeavors to educate all students, and to advocate on behalf of the millions of educators working to cultivate the minds of our young.
However, the fact remains that while the world around us has changed, much of the education system remains firmly rooted in an industrial society that no longer exists. It is less important now that students can repeat the same task over and over. The standard of yesterday’s literacy, “Can the worker read the signs in the factory to ensure the safety of himself and his colleagues?” no longer applies to the degree it once did.
We enjoy a world with abundant and assorted information, replete with mutliple access points for ideas, concepts, and knowledge. Students of diverse backgrounds (and of both genders) can reasonably vie for myriad careers and a range of higher level learning opportunities, if so interested. Given this, it is of absolute necessity that we seek to add topography to our educational landscape. Homogeneity must give way to heterogeneity if we aim to give all students connecting points.
How do we do that?
Teachers need the demonstrated ability and supported autonomy to effectively tailor curriculum for the unique culture, skills, needs, and interests of each class. Beginning with a framework of basic skills, concepts, and themes, the teacher must seek two main pillars to effectively differentiate for the individuals within an individual class.
What does that mean?
Connections and Contrasts
Constructing knowledge begins with connections. If students are to make any sense of material, they must first find a connection with it. If we are to believe Jay McTighe’s quip that, “Facts don’t transfer, big ideas do,” then it is imperative that we elicit student involvement in order to link the big ideas to their interests and backgrounds.
Teachers have known this for ages. The KWL chart (Know, Want to know, Learned) is a well known acronym in teacher-ese. Beginning with the connection, teachers then need to provide enough contrast so as to stimulate the brain and effectively engage the student. Building (or at least maintaining) nueral pathways requires broad exposure that keep the nueral connections alive, functioning, and well traveled.
Unfortunately, legislation has come to think of that as simply exposure to copious facts we want the students to know. What we’ve ended up with are standards that are a mile wide and an inch deep. What the brain thrives on is consistent contrast.
Students need newness, contrast in experiences, and depth of study. This is the great beauty of the differentiated instruction movement — it seeks to provide big ideas that span the curriculum and add multiple connection points for students. Combined with the Understanding by Design efforts, in which teachers create new experiences that offer a contrast to the experiences of the past, we have the potential for a rich depth of learning that students find relevant, meaningful, and ultimately, useful.
The challenge then becomes, if we aim to leave no child behind and recognize that each student is different, how do we standardize teaching and learning without monotonizing teaching and learning?
Image: BBC One

1 comment »

Posted in Dickens, Differentiated Instruction, Education Reform, Jason Flom, Jay McTighe, learning, NCLB, Oliver Twist, teaching, Understanding By Design

Edustat Reflection: The Nouns and Verbs of Reform

July 24th, 2009

Edustat Reflection: The Nouns and Verbs of Ed Reform

By Chad Sansing @classroots on Twitter

“#edustat singing right reform song,” @flemster via Twitter

Current state and desired state. The stuff and why the stuff matters. Nouns and verbs. Receiving and producing. Teaching and learning. Grades and learning. Access and achievement. School work and real work. Failure and aspiration. This year’s EduStat University sprung from the tension created by these pairings, as well as from THE question:

Can you call it “reform” if it’s not scalable for the entire system?

That’s a tough question, a gut-check question, posed by Andy Rotherham of Eduwonk and other attendees. Can we grow out programs like Expeditionary Learning? Can we make sure every teacher sees Marco Torres teach? Will national standards be performance- and mastery-based and assessed by portfolio? Are we ready to say, as an educational system, that despite the shortcomings of NCLB, we wouldn’t be looking at other sobering and compelling measures (like minority graduation rates from 4-year colleges) without it? Are we ready to admit that we’ve had 21st century skills for millennia, but haven’t begun to teach them systematically? Are we ready to act? That’s not rhetorical.

For educators, these questions reverberate. They are the essential questions in the backwards design of reform, the motivating discontents of our best selves, the questions that keep us wired, driving or flying home through the night from summer conferences. These are the questions we keep answering an hour later, the next day, the next week, revising and revising until we feel like we’re at the cusp of an almighty, transcendent apotheosis of educational practice that will forever change our students, schools, the fabric of our society and its view of teaching as a profession. It’s all so clear and compelling.

And then for us, the desperate mass of teachers, school starts. In the face of the system and its inhabitants – administrators, colleagues, and kids – old habits return. The pressures mount: peers, policies, tests, and that one kid you can never reach, the kid whom no one ever reaches. We revert to teaching as we have taught before, or as we have been taught before. We engage in our PLC work to improve the test scores that we’re encouraged to see as the ultimate measure of student achievement. We hold ourselves accountable to the system. We engage in school work right there in front of the kids. What are we teaching them? What are they learning from that? The student panel at EduStat said kids learn that the further you go in your education, the more grades matter, while learning matters less and less.

Say it with me: it’s not our fault. We have all worked with incredibly driven, dedicated people who make students’ achievement their first priority, but so long as we measure achievement by the current testing model, we’re hamstringing our colleagues and our kids. I wish I had the skills many of my peers and mentors have for improving student achievement. I also wish we were all expected to offer students more than the “hope” of passing a test.

So, how do we scale up reform? Well, how do you scale up engagement? Marco Torres said it’s our job to make sure kids want to come back the next day. How do you do that? How do we teachers accomplish such a feat without control of the big picture, the policy-level, budget-driven levers? Can we all equip our classrooms as filmmaking studios? Can we design the new school or addition to create flexible, social spaces for learning? Do we have the money on hand to bring in a program, a consultant, to push a new paradigm into our neighbors’ classrooms?

Yes and no. Like so much in education, reform exists in a quantum state. It is a systemic need, but it relies on individual action. Reform is an emergent, complex behavior that depends on teachers’ practice to move from noun to verb.

But how about this? How about we scale up student achievement in our classrooms? How about we find what really engages each kid instead of using those “standardized” tricks of ours that “engage” the “kids who want to learn.” Every kid wants to learn. As Tony Wagner said, our kids are motivated to learn, but they’re motivated to learn differently from us, as well as from one another.

How do we scale up engagement in our classrooms? In teaching about schooling by design, Jay McTighe said to start small, with the people already doing the work. So start small.

Start with yourself and maybe a trusted colleague or Twitter friend. Stop thinking about what’s engaging, and look at what engages the students. What media are they using? What learning are they doing outside school? As Wagner and Torres said, ask which skills students turn off during the school day, that they could be using in your classroom. Build with inquiry in mind. Find which of Schlechty’s dimensions of engagement work and use them regularly. Read Sullo on what motivates these students. Design your classroom space so there’s a campfire, cave, and watering hole – areas for instruction, reflection, and social learning (via Bob Moje, VMDO architect). Stop measuring yourself against what good teaching looks like and consider what learning looks like. Students want to produce and collaborate; don’t stick to lessons and rules that get in the way. Create structures that promote inquiry and provide students with chances to show you what they learn. Facilitate students’ learning; don’t deliver content or teaching.

Or start ever smaller. Pick a goal – a lesson, a unit, a class – and ask yourself what it would look like if you and your students related to one another as human beings learning together instead of as teacher and students. Engage students in human relationships and you will learn how to make class relevant to them. The work you provide, the rigor, will reflect how positively you view every child, and the kids will read your passion and care through your work. EduStat student panelists were very frank: students can tell how the year is going to go in your classroom in the first 5 minutes. With that in mind, what should your room look like, how should the learning be designed, and how should you relate to your students? What kind of learning will make them want to come back the next day? Find your vision and act on it; persist and revise and accept some failure as a necessary part of positive change. Work with your administrator so you both understand the nuances and larger context for your vision, then agree on measures of accountability on both sides.

Most importantly, ask your students to do real work. There’s no more powerful sign of your willingness to form positive relationships with all your kids than trusting them to create work affirmed and evaluated by an audience beyond your classroom. Whether your class follows the Expeditionary Learning model and crafts a publishable field book of local habitats, or produces a series of history podcasts or plays for third-graders, make your students accountable to real-world measures of success. Connect the stuff and why students are doing the stuff. There is evidence everywhere of students mastering standardized content through authentic work on the ‘Net and in our backyards. We can do this.

Yes, we can reform education in our classrooms; no, we can’t scale it up on our own, but it takes individual action to cause change. Imagine if we held ourselves accountable for our classrooms and for working regularly and intentionally with peers engaged in the same work. Imagine class roots reform. On our teams, in our grades, in our schools, we have enough influence to make learning better for kids, and our students’ expectations of learning will change and follow them from class to class, influencing what they ask of others and making them less satisfied with the status quo, including the status quo of the work they do just to get by or to get an A.

The reform song is written; it’s time we started singing – accepting as fact that the first time we sight-read it, we’re going to be off-key. The song isn’t anything without the singing, and we won’t ever build a choir if we don’t start practicing our parts.

Let us know how you and your colleagues are reforming classroom practice this year to connect kids and learning at school. Please follow and contribute to a conversation on authentic engagement on twitter with the hash-tag #AE.

No comments »

Posted in Andrew Rotherham, Chad Sansing, Education Reform, Edustat, Jay McTighe, Marco Torres, NCLB

Who Should Coach? Three Essential Traits for Professional Development Coaches

May 19th, 2009

By Kevin Washburn

“Who do you think should be our coach?” I get this question from administrators in schools that invite me to lead professional development events. There is an assumption that after a few days of working with teachers I’ll have a good sense of who could coach colleagues effectively. Sometimes I do, but often I don’t feel confident in making a recommendation. I’ve had teachers in these events who seemed resistant but on a return visit had become a new initiative’s supporter and best practitioner. Conversely, I’ve experienced teachers who seemed receptive and motivated during training but who resisted actually making changes to their practice. The training event is not the best setting for identifying potential coaches.

What, then, should we look for? What traits does a successful coach possess? While a lengthy list could easily be developed, let’s examine three that are critical.

First, an effective coach possesses a passion for and a deep understanding of the new initiative. Genuine passion is contagious. It acts like a magnet, drawing others to its energy, but it rarely manifests itself as a cheerleader. A quiet dedication to doing something right, to working with excellence even while learning, marks the teacher who attracts others to a new initiative. An effective coach will help colleagues see the value of new ideas through actions more than words. Does the teacher take an initiative to make changes to her practice? Does she seem concerned about getting it right, about trying out the initiative as designed? Does the teacher pursue more knowledge and better ways of implementation?

Implementing a new initiative is an act of transfer—the applying of new ideas and methods to actual classroom practice. Coaching others is a step beyond that: equipping and enabling others to be successful in their transfer of new ideas and methods to their classrooms. “The first factor that influences successful transfer is degree of mastery of the original subject,” conclude Bransford, Brown, and Cocking. “Without an adequate level of initial learning, transfer cannot be expected. This point seems obvious, but it is often overlooked…Transfer is affected by the degree to which people learn with understanding rather than merely memorize sets of facts or follow a fixed set of procedures [italics added].”1

Just attending the same training event everyone else attended does not equip someone to coach colleagues successfully. Deeper understanding must be constructed so that the coach can adapt the initiative to various teachers, various classrooms, and to best serve various students. An effective coach seeks additional learning and, if available, additional training in the new initiative.

Second, an effective coach knows how to strategically handle difficult conversations. If the training event went well and the administration has been open with teachers prior to it, difficult conversations may be few in number, but they will still happen. At some point, the coach encounters a colleague who is overwhelmed and feels stressed and defensive about making changes, or a colleague who feels threatened by the idea of having a coach in the classroom, or even a colleague who would like to be left alone to use the same approaches that have been used before. All these conversations occur in every type of school.

After explaining the importance of self-respect and respect for one’s counterpart, Holly Weeks, author of Failure to Communicate, explains how a successful coach perceives difficult conversations:

Self-respect and respect help us frame the problem between us and figure out how to talk about it. Meanwhile, respecting the landscape of a tough conversation assumes there will be problems ahead. Rather than put our heads down and start to plow through, we will do better to step back, take a satellite view, and think about the lay of the land. That is, think about the problems we are likely to encounter and look for a good path through them.2

A good coach will approach difficult conversations with such a “satellite view,” rather than a perspective of “the problem is you.” A good coach stays focused on solving problems and supporting progress, avoiding and ignoring personal attacks.

Finally, a good coach focuses on improving thinking. The goal with any major professional development initiative should not be to produce robots who follow formulas to plan teaching. The goal should be to help teachers understand what works and why it works, to deepen teacher thinking about teaching and to increase teacher intentionality. A good coach aids colleagues’ thinking, often using questions to support teacher thinking rather than short-circuiting thinking by always giving answers. Questioning helps others discover insights for themselves. David Rock, author of Quiet Leadership, explains:

…it’s time to give up second guessing what people’s brains need and become masters of helping others think for themselves. The best way to do that is by defining solutions rather than problems, and helping people identify for themselves new habits they could develop to bring those solutions closer. Pivotal to all this is the art of enabling other people to have their own insights. Once people have had new insights for themselves, our job as quiet leaders is to provide the encouragement, ongoing support and belief in people, over time, to ensure they develop the new habits that are possible. Then we will be truly bringing out the best in others.3

Certainly more contributes to successful coaching, but these three traits are where I’d begin my search, either for a coach or to determine my potential as a coach. Here are some guiding questions based on these thoughts:

  • With whom does the new initiative seem to resonate? Who holds the same values as those advocated by the new approach? Who shows an authentic dedication to the new ideas?
  • Who is skilled at navigating difficult conversations? Who can calm others in the midst of heated interaction? Who maintains a focus on finding solutions? Who seems capable of equipping and encouraging colleagues?
  • Who is skilled at engaging others in thinking? Who asks great questions? Who can use questioning to help others think things through for themselves? Who works with colleagues to think things through rather than assigning blame or taking resistance personally?

The professional development event may be great. The presenter may be dynamic, engaging, and informative. But after the event, the real work begins. The coach plays a pivotal role and directly influences the success of a new initiative. Effective coaches know the program, know the people, and know the processes that will optimize success. When asked for my recommendations, the best advice I can offer administrators is, “Choose wisely.”

  1. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1999), 41, 43.
  2. Weeks, H., Failure to Communicate: How Conversations Go Wrong and What You Can Do to Right Them (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008), 45.
  3. Rock, D., Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 27.

No comments »

Posted in Coaching, David Rock, Education, Education Reform, Holly Weeks, Kevin Washburn, Professional Development

Switch to our mobile site