Anchors Aweigh

Well, the news that the Michigan Department of Education was awarding its testing contract to the College Board and the SAT took everyone by surprise. Many reactions were quite visceral, and I found myself trying to explain it to someone who was taking a balcony view of what might be best for kids.

Once upon a time, students taking the ACT in high school was voluntary. Only those students who were college-bound to schools that required the ACT tended to take it. After the introduction of the Michigan Merit Curriculum, the ACT became mandatory for all juniors. In that first year, our high schools, like others around the state, saw their average ACT score dip by a significant amount. ELA teachers, among others, took up the challenge to revisit how they supported readers and writers. No one wanted to be teaching simply to a test, but to the extent that the test was now serving two separate purposes (individually by students to apply to college and by the state to "score" high schools), it was important for all students to be prepared to perform at their best. After many years of hard work, our district average on the ACT finally met and exceeded the average we had before mandatory testing. More importantly, it meant that more of our kids had improved their reading and writing skills.

Having worked so diligently with and for kids, and feeling successful, it is no wonder that teachers (and administrators) felt punched in the gut last week. It does not mean that the SAT is a "bad" test, or that the skills we have been cultivating in our students are wasted. In fact, I know I don't know enough about the revamped SAT to make an objective evaluation of whether it is in the best interests of our kids. All I am trying to do is explain why the news hurt.

For me, some wisdom from Peter Senge helps. In Breaking the Code of Change, he writes about people and groups being anchored in established thinking (2000). It causes me to look at the "heaviness" of my "anchor," or in other words, is the "weight of [my] established thinking...too great to overcome?" (Senge, p. 69). Even when presented with logic and clarity for meaningful change, it is extraordinarily difficult to let go of our core, entrenched strategy because we are personally invested in the success of the strategy. Ironically, the very attributes that made us successful in that strategy may now be holding us back; our commitment to the strategy has positioned us to reflect the commitment.The new proposal, which seems radical to many, creates tremendous emotional and cognitive processing demands, and might exceed our capacity to honestly reflect upon it, even if we have more information and time to process (Senge).

The phrase "anchors aweigh" comes from the U.S. Navy, and it is used to signify that the ship's hoisted anchor has just cleared the sea bottom. In other words, the voyage is underway. I know that I have to re-establish my thinking, but it will be difficult. So, how might we learn together to hoist this testing anchor, even if just a little, to begin the voyage of sailing toward the SAT?

-- J. Walton

The Student Chair

It's been an interesting four months. Instruction Office by day, Michigan State student by night (and Saturday mornings). Going back to school in your early fifties (emphasis on the early) highlights the idea of being a lifelong learner, and perhaps a glutton for punishment. At any given time, I have two classes: one a year-long, online class and the others change in a trimester fashion, meeting on Saturdays for four hours. So far, I have been exposed to three different professors, all with very different backgrounds and teaching styles.

Aside from the actual content of the classes, sitting in the proverbial student chair has taught me a lot, and hopefully makes me a better teacher and coach. In no particular order, here is what I have gleaned:

• As readings are assigned, it is extraordinarily helpful to have a prior explanation of the author's background, our purpose in reading it, and some look-fors.
• Going to class when the rest of the campus is tailgating before a home football game is an odd experience, but the MSU fans are very friendly and have offered coffee on more than one occasion (except the day of the Michigan-Michigan State game when I was wearing my Michigan sweatshirt - understandable).
• At the beginning of each class session, the overview of where we are going and how it connects to our last meeting helps. It's even better when it is written or projected on the board so that I can read it and hear it. When it's not provided, I spend time in my head wondering "why" instead of focusing all of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Inevitably I miss something.
• It is a challenge to sit on a hard chair and pay attention for any stretch of time. I appreciate it when we get up to move into different learning groups. I love the classroom with the swivel office chairs; not only are they more comfortable, but I can easily turn and focus on whomever is speaking.
• Online Zoom discussion sessions (think Skype) get unwieldy when the group gets any bigger than eight or nine.
• Our online professor had us form small (three to four people) learning groups within our cohort, and it is an excellent resource. I have two partners to touch base with for questions, peer review, brainstorming, etc. when we're not in class.
• I love it when our professor stops and asks us if his/her choice of instructional strategy for a chunk of information is working, or if we need to change it up.
• The official title of a class really tells you nothing about the learning journey you are embarking upon. The learning needs to be put into perspective every time the class meets.
• Learners need multiple opportunities to dialogue with each other during the learning process. It helps clarify and solidify the content.
• You cannot disguise "busy" work. It's about compliance, not learning.
• Time leading up to a deadline goes more quickly than say, a minute running on a treadmill or waiting for something to come out of the microwave. It is important to plan enough time to revise your writing so that the professor is not grading your first draft. The perception of time between turning a paper in and receiving a grade is also skewed. Corollary: online drop boxes to turn in work and receive feedback are wonderful.
• The same people are always late.

(If you are interested in learning more about the educational leadership program at MSU, click here. Applications for the Fall 2015 Cohort are being considered through the end of January)

Any readers out there currently taking classes? I wonder how your experience compares. What have you learned about the student perspective? If you are also teaching at the same time, how has it impacted teaching and learning with your students?

Happy New Year, and as always, thanks for reading.

- J. Walton

And The Oscar Goes To...

On December 5th, NPR's All Things Considered aired a story entitled What The Movies Taught Us About Teaching. In it, we find all of our favorites -- Annie Sullivan (The Miracle Worker), Jaime Escalante (Stand and Deliver), Mark Thackeray (To Sir, With Love), Melvin B. Tolson (The Great Debaters), and of course, John Keating (The Dead Poets Society). These real and fictional teachers have many things in common, but one stands alone -- the fact that they all stand alone. All are heralded as successful lone rangers.

What we know in real life is that students are much more successful when their teachers work in collaborative teams. So, let's envision the heroic engineers in the movie Apollo 13 as a teacher team, working on a critical issue with finite resources:

That's not really that far-fetched. We do have finite resources, and we are faced with urgent student needs every day. Ironically, the same day the NPR story aired, we had district-wide professional learning. I was lucky enough to be learning with teacher teams at Eastern High School, who were collectively diving into student data and searching for real-time actions to address student learning needs related to their school improvement plan. Thankfully, we were not wearing matching ties, but we did have powerful conversations that resulted in four dynamic strategy options.

There are certainly some challenges to collaborative work. The first is time. With student learning as the non-negotiable, urgent need, what might we dump onto the table to fit the square peg into the round hole vis-a-vis time? In other words, what are some teacher-driven solutions? How might we creatively revamp our daily schedule to create more collaborative time? The second is clarity about the work to be done. Do we all understand the parameters and priorities that each team (and each individual) must honor and observe? (DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2014) The third is focus. When we come together, what do we do? Do we study our content standards and curriculum documents to agree on priorities and pacing? Do we discuss essential knowledge and skills we want our students to learn? Do we craft common formative assessments and then analyze results? Do we commit to one another to teach the agreed-upon curriculum? (DuFour & Marzano, 2011)

Going back to the Apollo 13 scenario, each person at each level had to be committed to the collaborative mission in order to achieve success. In Forest Hills, our mission is to "provide all learners with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to build meaningful and productive lives." Our vision is "all learners achieving individual potential," and the term "learners" is broad enough to include teachers. So, how will each of us commit to our collaborative mission and vision? Administrators? Teachers? Instructional Coaches? Here's an example to get started: As an instructional coach, I commit to support collaborative teacher teams by learning new strategies of your choice alongside you to achieve higher student learning.

Since we started with Hollywood, we'll end there as well, with a much better collaborative success story from Toy Story 2:

"There is nothing more important than each member's commitment to common purpose and a related performance goal to which the group holds itself jointly accountable." Katzenbach & Smith, 1993



-- J. Walton

The Assessments are Coming, the Assessments are Coming!

Yes, they are. But contrary to popular belief, the sky is not falling.

For the first time, our schools will all be administering state assessments in the spring. While this has been true in high school for many years, our K-8 schools are experiencing a shift from fall to spring testing. Even though this has been the norm in high school, change is occurring there as well -- the number of spring assessments at the high school level has been increased. Additionally, for the first time in our district, we will be administering the bulk of our assessments online. All of this has caused some to question instructional practices and what teachers need to do "to get kids ready."

In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X. First, there is absolutely no legitimate research that says the more we cover, the more kids learn. That bears repeating -- nothing supports the idea that the more we cover, the more kids learn. So, the idea that somehow we need to take a year's worth of content, and ignore what research does show -- that going slower, with more depth actually does enhance learning -- and get through it by the middle of April.

Second, I recently had the privilege of attending a meeting with approximately fifty local business leaders, as part of the resurrected Business Advisory Council. As this group of movers and shakers developed a list of traits and skills they wanted to see in the people they hire, not one said that being a good test-taker was important. When presented with a problem or issue, one is not given a finite set of four choices to choose a solution from; in fact, the problems and issues tend to be muddy and amorphous. What do business leaders look for? Things like this: 1) a problem-solver who will look for ways to make it happen and not wait to be told what to do; 2) someone who is comfortable with ambiguity in all phases of their work, because change is constant; 3) basic literacy skills such as spelling and grammar; 4) sophisticated skills in writing and verbal communication; 5) someone who is adaptable in unfamiliar circumstances; 6) a collaborative person, especially in face-to-face meetings; 7) a risk-taker who is willing to fail; 8) a self-starter; 9) someone who is punctual; 10) someone who understands the importance and structure of process and methodology, as opposed to someone who just seeks an answer; 11) an understanding of work/life harmony, as opposed to balance; and 12) someone who understands and respects generational differences in colleagues, customers, and clients. Racing through content is not only unsupported by research, but it flies in the face of those 21st century traits and skills our kids need.

Third, take a look at this image from Education Week:

What can we control?

• because the assessments (excluding the Classroom Activity, ACT, and Work Skills) will be administered online, each school can control dates and times to schedule testing sessions anywhere within the testing window; in other words, not all students need to be administered the same assessment at the same time, nor on the same day
• excluding the College Entrance and Work Skills Tests administered only to 11th graders, none of the test sessions are timed, and we have the ability to allow our students extra time beyond the recommended times if they need it
• our own attitude toward the assessments
• what we do every single day in our classrooms, not to "teach to a test" or race to finish early, but to build knowledge and skills that have wide application in the 21st century
• work our plan -- each individual school's improvement plan -- to achieve our stated school goals and our district vision of all learners achieving individual potential

What can we influence?

• because of a conflict between state law and federal accountability requirements at the high school level, as of today the state has only recommended that the Classroom Activity and Performance Task in both ELA and Math be administered; if we can influence a decision to forgo those this year, we can cut the testing time (and missed instruction time) for our high schoolers from 16 hours to 11 hours
• our students' attitudes toward the assessments
• our parents' attitudes toward the assessments
• our colleagues' attitudes toward the assessments

Everything else outside of our control and influence:

• the testing window
• the content of the assessments
• the format of the assessments
• the scoring of the assessments
• et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

So, if it is not something we can control or possibly influence, in the words of Disney, LET IT GO. This is a transitional year. We are transitioning to online assessments that will change again. The MDE is transitioning to a revised accountability system that will change again. Times of transition can be challenging, but they can also be opportunities to learn and to let go. Keep doing what you know is best for kids -- using research-based best practices with the Instructional Framework as your guide -- and the kids will not only survive but thrive.

-- J. Walton

If you want additional information on the new Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress ("M-Step"), go to www.michigan.gov/baa

Failure Was an Option

"Failure is not an option." We've heard it many times, in all different contexts. I myself have said it as a teacher.

So, when I heard Doug Fisher say it last Thursday during a day of learning at "Creating a Culture of Achievement," I nodded right along in agreement. Yep. That was me. No failure option in my class. But then Doug shook me to the core -- "then why was an E displayed in your syllabus grading scale?" Failure was an option. He was right, and I felt like the failure.

Right there, in black and white, in every syllabus I handed out, in every class, was this section:

The grading scale is as follows:

A         93-100%                                             C         73-76

 A-        90-92                                                  C-        70-72

 B+       87-89                                                   D+       67-69

 B          83-86                                                  D         63-66

 B-        80-82                                                   D-        60-62

C+       77-79                                                   E          0-59

My written words did not match what I said I believed. On the syllabus, I told every single student that failure was, in fact, an option.

In the last few days, I've given thought to how I might do it differently if given the chance. I know I would change the syllabus language, maybe to something like this:

Grading Scale

Our school has a percentage scale to assign letter grades for your transcript,

and you will find it in your student handbook. For purposes of this class,

know that no one will drop below a 70% in meeting the essential learning

outcomes for this class. It is not option, You and I will work together, and

do whatever it takes to ensure that you are learning. That means we may

 both have to commit to time together outside of our regular class time, and

 perhaps to different types of teaching and learning, but you are worth it.

A good first step, perhaps, but what else would I do to back it up? Words are not enough. Here is a list of ideas I brainstormed in 10 minutes. I have neither edited nor ordered them; this is my raw list:

• revise my summative assessments to be more than mere regurgitation, and share the learning expectations at the beginning of the unit by having the assessment already drafted (backward design)
• utilize formative assessments a lot more often so that both my students and I know exactly where the learning is and is not for each individual student
• less "sage on the stage" and more "guide on the side"
• sit side-by-side more often
• stand "over" students that need it
• build a relationship with every student
• call home more often, especially with good news, and stop using email so much
• encourage students to join parents at conferences, and even let students run the conference
• explain the "what" of the curriculum and the "how" of instruction to parents at every opportunity
• expand the daily learning topics I used to post to align with standards and learning expectations, and be in student-friendly language (i.e., the Instructional Framework)
• do what I tell kids is good for them: take risks, collaborate with peers, and ask for help

I don't know if it would make a difference, but it sure couldn't hurt. What ideas do you have?

I also thought about a book I recently read, entitled "The Art of Possibility." It was written by a husband and wife team, Rosamund and Benjamin Zander. She is a psychotherapist and he is a university professor/conductor of the Boston Philharmonic. As an experiment, Professor Zander gave all of his students an A at the beginning of the class. Each student had to draft a letter to him that explained what they would do over the course of the class to earn their A. He met with them at regular intervals to check on progress. If you read the book, you will see that many of the students were troubled by this process -- some did not believe him, some could not fathom a class that did not rank students against each other, and some had a hard time coming up with expectations for themselves because they were so used to others doing it for them. Interestingly, once the pressure for a letter grade was removed and students embraced the process, the students really focused on learning and meeting (or exceeding) the expectations they set for themselves. Now, I'm not advocating every teacher take the Zander approach, but it does offer a different perspective on the concept of "failure is not an option."

I truly look forward to the next opportunity that allows me a "do-over" on "failure is not an option." Not only will I hold that true for my students, but for myself as well.

-- J. Walton

Why?

“People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe.”  Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action

My colleague Melanie Hoeksema quoted Simon Sinek this morning while we were meeting to plan our next learning session with principals. Wow. It really struck me. I’m not sure we spend enough time processing the “why” – we tend to just jump into the “what.” And then we wonder why there is pushback.

This followed on the heels of an impromptu conversation about an hour earlier among four of us as to some lingering pockets of resistance to the implementation of the Instructional Framework. Without the “why,” it’s probably easy to just malign the name “Marzano,” or be unable to detach the Instructional Framework from the evaluation process.

So, why the Instructional Framework? Why a three-year plan of implementation? Why spend time unpacking content standards to write learning goals, learning targets, and learning progression scales? Why spend time to intentionally plan and collaborate, focusing on student achievement? The short answer we’ve spouted: researched best practices. And it’s true, but the short answer doesn’t allow us to really process the “why.”

So, let’s move to the long answer. We know that students who have an effective teacher (i.e., high pedagogical competence) will significantly out-achieve students who have a less effective teacher (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004). This proves what we intuitively know – effective teachers make a meaningful difference in student learning. Bob Marzano and others have conducted decades of research  to identify what specific characteristics the most effective teachers possess. But even he reminds us that

            research will never be able to identify instructional strategies that

            work with every student in every class. The best research can do is

            tell us which strategies have a good chance (i.e., high probability)

            of working well with students. Individual classroom teachers must

            determine which strategies to employ with the right students at the

            right time. In effect, a good part of effective teaching is an art – hence

            the title, The Art and Science of Teaching.

(Marzano, 2007, p. 5). What the Instructional Framework offers is a sequence of effective classroom pedagogy, and we adopted it as an instructional model with the belief that all teachers can increase their expertise from year to year, which produces gains in student learning from year to year with a powerful cumulative effect (Marzano, 2013).

The first 41 elements of the Instructional Framework are encapsulated with Domain 1 – Classroom Strategies and Behaviors. Within Domain 1 are nine of the ten design questions that comprise the Instructional Framework. Those 41 elements are not an exhaustive list, but do represent the strategies that research shows have the highest effect size (Marzano, 2007). Domain 1 was our focus in year one, 2013-14.

The remaining 19 elements are distributed among Domains 2 (Planning and Preparing), 3 (Reflecting on Teaching), and 4 (Collegiality and Professionalism). Our focus now in year two is integrating Domain 1 with Domains 2 and 4; Domain 2 is where the tenth design question, “what will I do to develop effective lessons organized into a cohesive unit?” lives. Indeed, we have a professional learning goal for 2014-15: To increase our instructional expertise through collaborative, intentional planning to enhance student learning. It is guiding us in all of our learning and work this year.

At the risk of being repetitive, it bears remembering:

            [E]ffective teaching is part art and part science. The science part

            of effective teaching is founded on decades of research that has

            provided guidance for the general categories of behaviors that

            constitute effective teaching and for the specific techniques that

            can be employed within those general categories. The art part of

            teaching is founded on the dual realizations that research cannot

            provide answers for every student in every situation and that the

            same behaviors can be employed in a different order and fashion

            by two different teachers with equally beneficial results.

(Marzano, 2007, p. 191). The Instructional Framework does not require teachers to teach exactly the same way, just like no two students learn in quite the same way. But it does provide a set of proven strategies that teachers can draw upon to help all students learn at high levels.

In this district, we believe in our students, and we believe in our teachers. We believe that full implementation of the Instructional Framework will have a powerful cumulative effect for student learning. And, we believe in our vision: “All learners achieving individual potential.”

J.  Walton

P.S. If you want to hear more from Simon Sinek, check out his TEDTalk at http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

What A Difference A Delay Makes

Today marks the first district-wide delayed start of the school year. It is part of eighteen hours of professional learning for teachers built into the instructional schedule, and complements twelve hours that were conducted the week before students returned. When I was a classroom teacher, many of my students would ask what we did during the delayed start times. Many of our other stakeholders (parents, community members, board members, etc.) may wonder the same. We owe it to everyone to be as transparent as possible.

All of our professional learning time this year is guided by our district professional learning goal: To increase our instructional expertise through collaborative, intentional planning to enhance student learning. Similar to other professions that demand continued professional education, we recognize that teachers are learners too, and that ongoing professional learning for teachers must be collaborative, intentional, and focused on the ultimate objective of high levels of learning for all students.

Here are just two examples of how the two-hour delay this morning was utilized:

School A focused on two topics – the building blocks of a “guaranteed and viable curriculum,” and SMART goals. In our district, when we use the phrase “guaranteed and viable curriculum” we mean that students have access to the same essential learning no matter who the teacher may be and that it can be taught in the allotted time, as well as that a collaborative team of teachers works to ensure that every student acquires the knowledge and skills the team has agreed are most essential (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010). Within that context, collaborative teams looked at content standards to be taught, the “big” curricular ideas, essential questions, assessments, resources, and time frame. In conjunction with that comes the concept of SMART goals – strategic, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time-bound. Both topics relate back to the overarching school improvement goals the school has set forth in its school improvement plan.

School B also focused its efforts on school improvement. Specifically, each department in the school contributed goals and objectives to the school improvement plan in June, and this morning was a time to examine how to continue to move forward to meet them. Each department has a proficiency measure and teachers are learning new, collaborative methods in which to use available data to analyze proficiency levels. The action plan for each department is similar: 1) identify the bottom 30% of students in each grade level with specific assessment and data; 2) develop strategies to increase proficiency levels for all students with a focus on those students identified in the bottom 30%; 3) regularly use formative assessments to measure ongoing progress; and 4) use summative assessments to determine whether the measurable objective was met.

The professional learning in both of these schools this morning was tied directly to our district professional learning goal in order to enhance student learning. And these two schools are not exceptions, but rather, the “rule” for the use of this precious collaborative time. Two of our high schools are also experimenting with multiple delayed starts throughout the year in addition to those that are district-wide. With this repurposing of time, instructional staff are gaining approximately sixteen hours of additional collaborative time to intentionally focus on the quality of teaching and learning so that all students achieve at high levels.

Similar to the idea that we would not want to be treated by a doctor or advised by a lawyer who was not immersed in current best practices, we do not want our students in classrooms that are staffed by teachers who are not lifelong learners. By intentionally supporting teachers in collaborative, professional learning such as this morning’s two hour block, we are enhancing student learning for all of our kids and fully living our vision of "all learners achieving individual potential."