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.

Boston's Golden Decade

Boston’s “Golden Era”- 1995-2005

In the context of big-city school systems, beset as they are by the challenges of budget, leadership stability, struggling families, political in-fighting, union-management disaccord and the legacy of racism and poverty, Boston experienced what one might call a decade of unique opportunity and favorable circumstances. From 1995-2005 the city was home to a ground-breaking union contract, the schools had the support and attention of a new, “Education Mayor”, and perhaps most importantly, enjoyed a virtually unprecedented sense of continuity with the tenure of Thomas Payzant, a highly-respected superintendent and former Assistant Secretary of Education. A new School Committed, appointed by the Mayor, was anxious to bring the city’s policies in line with a recently-passed state Education Reform Act and to help counter any potential impact from the new Charter School movement. A series of major grants from The Carnegie Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided funding for a sustained focus on literacy in all classrooms, the transformation of several large, failing high schools into small autonomous schools and the development of a new “Pilot” (in-district charter) schools to push for innovation. Payzant revamped the graduation standards, established a “cluster system” to be more attentive to the management of schools stretched across the city, convened a high school renewal think tank of inside and outside players and pressed for more involvement from the higher education community.

Three life-long educators who shared aspects of that decade of experience in Boston gather to look back and recall impressions, and possible lessons.

Pedro Antonio Noguera is a professor in the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University and has published on topics such as urban school reform, conditions to promote student achievement, youth violence, the impact of school choice and race and ethnic relations in American society.  He has been a classroom teacher, has advised youth organizations and school districts on closing the achievement gap and has worked with charter school start-ups in inner city neighborhoods. Dr. Noguera served on the ASCD Task Force on the Education of the Whole Child and serves on the board of the Alliance for Excellent Education.  His books include Unfinished Business: Closing the Racial Achievement Gap in Our Schools and  The Trouble With Black Boys: And Other Reflections on Race, Equity, and the Future of Public Education.

Deborah Meier has spent four decades working in public education as a teacher, principal, writer and public advocate. The elementary and secondary schools she helped create in New York City and Boston are considered exemplars of performance-based home-grown standards. She is the author of popular books such as In Schools We Trust and The Power of Their Ideas. She is currently a senior scholar at NYU's Steinhart School of Education, and in 1987 was awarded a McArthur Foundation "Genius" Award, the first educator to be so honored.

Larry Myatt was the Founder of Fenway High School, a pioneer in Boston’s small schools movement, and was its Headmaster for twenty years before accepting an assignment to advise Boston's High School Renewal Initiative. Presently he is as a principal in the Education Resources Consortium, after serving as Senior Fellow for Leadership and Education Ventures at the School of Education/CPS at Northeastern University. He co-founded Boston's Center for Collaborative Education and designed and directed the Greater Boston Principal Residency Network  from 2000-2008.  Dr. Myatt is a recipient of the Harry S. Levitan Prize from Brandeis University for career accomplishment in education.

 

Tell us please what each of you was doing in Boston during this time period?

LM- At the outset, I was on a leave to work at Brown University in Ted Sizer’s Essential Schools shop, which was then in the process of merging with the new Annenberg Institute, after Walter Annenberg’s $500 million gift to public education. I came back to Fenway High School, at the time known as Fenway Middle College, to be part of taking the school in a new direction with the advent of the Mass Ed Reform legislation.

DM- I came part-time in ’95 to get Mission Hill going as a new Pilot school, and full time in ’96 to be its founding principal. My arrival came shortly after Tom Payzant began his administration. Surprisingly, the mayor invited me to lunch to talk schools -I think Tom may have suggested it- and the Boston Globe was spending a good deal of time reporting on the education movement in Boston. It was an interesting time.  That media attention and political energy helped create a context for people coming together around ideas for good schools.

PN- I was in Boston and Cambridge, working out of the Harvard Graduate School of Education from 2000-2003. I led a project called Pathways to Opportunity.  I had the chance to work closely with Tom Payzant and some of his deputies on high school reform initiatives. I was mainly involved at the Jeremiah Burke HS, the O'Bryant exam school, The English HS, what was then the unified Dorchester HS, and a few of the new small schools. I also worked some with Felix Arroyo from the school Committee, working on some outreach efforts in the Latino community.

 

What do you see as some of the potential forces at work in Boston out at the outset of the Payzant era?

DM- Well certainly we have to mention the agreement among the Superintendent, School Committee and the teachers union, and pushed by the Mayor and his people. Menino was a new Mayor and proclaimed himself very much focused on improving the schools. And charters were new and both the school district and union were anxious about what that might mean. But an agreement of that kind, to allow for schools with a high degree of autonomy, and a process to create more, was unprecedented.

LM- We had some schools in the city threatened with the loss of accreditation at the time, so the Mayor stepped in. And he had recently won the ability to appoint people to the School Committee. Of course that cut both ways – a loss in terms of the democratic back-and-forth people had come to expect, but a much more orderly policy environment in which to focus on improving the schools. Also, there were rumblings of privatization in several Eastern cities which I think got the attention of the union and there was anxiety that some good schools might leave the district for state charters, taking families and dollars with them. It was quite astounding to have them all on the same page.

DM- For me, that Pilot agreement was clearly the most important factor. It was astounding.  In fact, it was at first the union's "baby".... highly unusual. I think it had the greatest potential to change schools, and in a way that could be led by the educators themselves.

PN- Small schools and extended autonomies seemed to pay off at the schools with strong leaders.  Other schools were foundering and not receiving enough support to my mind.   I was struck by how little learning and sharing of practices was occurring among the schools. There was very little time for talk among them. Even when schools were located in the same building there was very little exchange of information.  I recall presenting research findings to Boston high school principals and was struck by how few questions were asked when I explained the disconnect between what the principals thought they were doing and what was actually happening in classrooms.  I was also struck by how little accountability there was from the central office. I also had some contact with the Mayor's office in discussions about the implementation of the 2 - 6 initiative.  I was somewhat critical of what I saw as lack of coordination at school sites and lack of attention to quality control.

LM- I can’t disagree at all with Pedro’s points about the differing conditions. Its related somewhat to Deborah’s comment on the climate -the first generation of pilot schools, through the late 90’s, were largely created around a strong sense of mission and vision, unlike many of the latter Pilot schools, which seemed focused mainly on getting out from under the yoke of central office and/or union strictures.  And at the time collaborators such as the Center for Collaborative Education and the Private Industry Council, and later on Jobs for the Future, were getting involved with convening, technical assistance, and policy push to get at some of those shortcomings.

 

One of the hallmarks of the Payzant administration was a focus on the high schools, including re-making several schools into smaller ones. Was this a good thing to focus on, and what seemed to work?

LM- I think the push for small schools was definitely a good thing, and a way to address some of the scale, culture and quality issues that he refers to. As Headmaster of Fenway, we had a high percentage of students coming from other high schools that were unsafe and unable to provide good teaching and support. The idea of scale- for knowing students, working together as a staff and making key decisions- gave us a fighting chance to make change. For me, that was a way to re-professionalize the schools, creating an on-going conversation among teachers and leaders. At one point, there was even talk at the School Committee level about making all of the high schools into units of 500 or less

DM- I’ve always been a believer in small settings. We saw what they could do in New York and elsewhere. I like to be able to have the faculty gather around one large table. That’s the best setting for making decisions about teaching and about kids.

PN- I think the development of the new small schools, especially the Pilot schools, was one of the most innovative and effective reforms implemented during this period. Several of these schools, particularly the ones headed by Larry, Debbie and Linda Nathan (Boston Arts) were outstanding and demonstrated what was possible when you gave a group of dynamic educators a chance to work together around a common vision.  However, the big disappointment for me, and a lost opportunity, was that there was so little sharing and exchange of ideas between the Pilots and the traditional schools.   As far as I could tell, they did not even meet together.  When I shared the findings from the pathway study with principals, a study that deliberately included a variety of schools including charters and pilots, I was surprised and disappointed to see that principals from all types of schools did not participate in the discussion.  This inability to think about schools can learn from each other is still occurring today and it is one of the reasons why our best schools, traditional public or charter, do not serve as a catalyst for further change.

 

What role were the colleges and universities able and willing to play in the equation?

DM- In terms of active support, the universities were not as involved as one might suspect, given their abundance in the city. Pedro’s extensive project out of Harvard was somewhat of an exception. At Mission Hill we did get student teaching interns from a variety of colleges, many of who were fabulous, and some of whom remain as full-time veterans at the school. Vito Perrone at Harvard Graduate School of Education was an incredibly helpful ally, but not necessarily because of his Harvard connection. Eleanor Duckworth from HGSE taught a course at Mission Hill for several years, and Northeastern University, when James Frazier was the Dean, provided subsidized courses for our teachers to get special education certification.   CCE, CES, and Ted Sizer, at Brown during that period, gave us energy and support.

LM- I recall that Pedro and the team of researchers he assembled pushed hard to pay attention to climate in the high schools, especially through the students-as-researchers initiative. He was asking some different and hard questions. He helped to get them audiences with the Mayor, Superintendent, principals, etc. They had a lot to say about students’ poor connections with adults and anonymity in the big high schools.

PN- Through my project I was able to get a lot of folks into the schools, asking questions, listening to what young people had to say, and hopefully bringing in some fresh air.  Through that program, students were engaged in researchers in their own schools and were asked to collect data in a scholarly way related to school culture.  They did this through survey research, interviews and observations, and they learned to present it factually but with heart.  I wrote two papers on that work, “How Listening to Students Can Help Schools to Become Safe and Transforming High Schools”.

LM-  As a progressive principal, it was great to have Pedro and university folks’ work to help in convincing the superintendent and school committee that we needed to do something about the big high schools. I think Tom really understood what kids were saying and really had his heart in the small schools effort to the extent it was feasible politically and policy-wise at the time. I regret that his successors have not kept that flame alive and that the Gates Foundation abandoned the work so quickly and with such little understanding of its dynamics. Money has been scarce for this kind of complicated work so when big players like Gates bounce from one good idea to the next, it hurts.

 

The Payzant Era coincided precisely with the national frenzy on testing, standards and alignment. Looking back, could there have been any other way? Did it pay off?

PN- When I was working with several high schools in Boston it was clear that the students were not being taught the material that would be covered on the MCAS.  I said this to the superintendent during a debate on Beacon Hill. I asked, "How can students be held accountable for material that you know they haven't been taught?"  Tom said that he felt the emphasis on testing would force schools to improve over time.  I suppose he is right to some degree given that Massachusetts is recognized as the leader on the NAEP and its standards are seen as the most rigorous in the country.

But there have been casualties in their pursuit of higher standards.  The first year the MCAS was given over 6,000 students failed.  Many of these were kids in big high schools in Boston, like Madison Park, where 50% of the seniors in the first year failed the MCAS.  The administration there readily admitted that students weren't being prepared to take the exam and felt they didn't have the time to address the poor teaching at the school.  Rather than working on improving instruction, they brought in Kaplan test-prep courses.  There were also schools where we found students who were receiving A's in their classes but couldn't pass the MCAS.  I saw very little being done in BPS to address the lack of alignment between the curriculum, teaching and the assessments. If the choice was to make testing as priority, which we could debate, even then the systems were not put into place and quality instruction was not addressed.

DM- I think that Payzant came into the job with a position on testing that was quite compatible with my own. What's interesting is that he also tolerated a test-boycott that lasted 4-5 years by Mission Hill parents.  He even came to speak to them--and the staff--about it, doing his best to explain why he thought testing was the right place to invest, but respected the MH community’s decision. But he chose not to stand against the pro-testing people locally who were quite extreme in their thinking that testing was going to expose poor teaching and we could go from there.

 

When you look back at this time period, what are the one or two things that really were helpful in improving the  schools, what stands out?

LM- I think Tom really engaged around the complicated policy and programming issues in a way that not all superintendents are willing to do. It’s often ceded to people further down the food chain, but he was very much in the fray. Something really smart that Tom also set in motion with Kathi Mullin from the High School Renewal office was establishing a “cross-functional” work group to involve all of the departments in supporting the birth of the new small high schools. In that way, they could be helpers instead of resistors, and they had permission to innovate. That way, the success of the schools and the HSR Office was their success as well. Before that, they were often either by-standers or unsupportive, since the work was different and potentially made their lives more complicated.

PN- I think the thing that was most helpful was Tom’s willingness to experiment.  He was not stuck doing things the same old way.  He was open to new approaches and he willing to work with people from non-traditional educational backgrounds.

DM- Without question, the greatest opportunity was having the autonomy to make our own decisions, through the Pilot Schools contract, and the support and conversation with our allies among the Pilot Schools --Young Achievers and Fenway, in particular, were CRITICAL. Sadly, the union-management alliance didn't hold up as well as we needed it to. Many people saw the pilots as the administration’s vehicle to introduce longer hours without compensation. I think it became divisive. It would have required a great deal more conversation among all the parties involved, but no one really stayed committed to convening that conversation.

LM- I agree with Deborah, and Pedro’s earlier comment - we never went deep enough to create the real capillaries between the district’s procedures and policies and those of the Pilots, and build relationships around that, but it was remarkable that we created a space for autonomy and innovation in the district with the support, leadership and involvement of front-line teachers and the community. If you look at the schools that did well, and are still doing well, they have incredible teacher leadership, and strong boards with ties to the community. The other great thing was the High School Renewal effort. It had all the right pieces and players, and was on its way to re-making the secondary school landscape, including a rich portfolio of alternative options to get at the drop-out issues. Unfortunately, it was a job that required a decade, and the new administration after Tom did not pursue that work.

RtI Finding Its Way

Interview with ERC Response-to-Intervention Consultant Jeff Cohen

ERC’s Craig Levis: There are many different approaches to helping school districts develop and implement tiered intervention systems. What distinguishes the work you are doing with districts from other consultants in the field?

Jeff Cohen: There are two critical factors that distinguish our approach from many other organizations supporting the work on Response to Intervention (RtI). First, we facilitate a comprehensive self-assessment at the building and district levels. Our involvement in this process sets the tone for a collaborative and supportive relationship and ensures that we capture all of the essential elements of RtI that may already exist within the district.  An accurate awareness of strengths and needs is paramount to building a sustainable tiered intervention system.

Secondly, we develop a shared understanding by involving as many stakeholders as possible in the development and implementation phases.  Many organizations offer canned programs in this domain if they do it at all, but this work is generally too complex for that kind of approach. Our experience shows us the more involved teachers and administrators are in the decision making process, the more committed they are in its successful implementation.  We have designed six interactive training modules that will provide all of the background knowledge and information necessary for districts to fully implement RtI, but these modules are modified and facilitated to meet the unique needs of every district.  I like to role up my sleeves and work with the staff through each step of the development.”

Craig: Once the self assessment is completed, what are the next steps for a district?

Jeff: We present the results of the self-assessment to a district leadership team and facilitate a dialogue session on mapping out what the scope of the work will look like based on building and district needs.  As we identify the steps in the action plan, we also identify who will be involved.  We ask each building to commit an RtI team to the process.  Each RtI team must have one representative on a district RtI team.  We work hard to build capacity and  it is through these teams we begin to create enduring change.

This model has been effective in large urban districts (I facilitated for several years in Boston Public Schools and across Massachusetts) as well as suburban and small rural communities.  The personalization and distributive leadership characteristics of our model increase buy-in and staff resolve. We collectively become part of the solution.  I sometimes spend a lot of time talking about the relationships that have to exist for change to happen and perhaps less on the specifics of RtI, initially. But this is where I feel most districts go awry.  So much is being put upon school boards, administrators, and teachers in the form of mandates and initiatives.  Even though RtI isn’t necessarily a new concept, it is a new and very substantial challenge for most districts.  The stakes are high, and with dwindling resources, the uncertainty of change, or simply being asked to do more with less, can be paralyzing to the school transformation process.  Only by developing strong collegial relationships and a common conceptual framework for why the change is needed can we persevere. This is something that ERC takes very seriously and does well.

Craig: Can you describe what the scope of work might look like in a district?

Jeff: “Recently I worked with a district that was celebrating their successes in RtI at the elementary level but was just beginning the raising awareness stage at the middle and high schools.  After the self-assessment was completed, I met with a leadership team from each level.  The elementary team felt very good about having clear consistent protocols and an effective problem-solving process in each building.  One area of need they identified was the availability of interventions at tiers two and three, and the fact that they were not consistent across elementary schools.  A second concern was the lack of a consistent process of analyzing and recording student performance data to be used for special education learning disability identification (LDID).  One of my roles was to facilitate the elementary level team in creating a system to share resources and interventions, including professional development on specific interventions. Teachers are not always used to challenging conversations about values and practices. They don’t have as much time together as in past years and some have lost a part of that skill, so we support getting back to deep conversation with expert facilitation.

In that district we also spent time looking at what protocols other districts were using for the LDID process.  We developed a series of forms based on state guidance and had the forms approved for use by the district attorney.

At the secondary level, I facilitated whole school professional development using our activity-based training modules, to develop a shared understanding of RtI.  Using Principles of Adult Learning, I lead the faculty through exercises that connect the essential elements of RtI to current practices and beliefs in their school.  Universal Design for Learning (CAST.org), Differentiated Instruction (Tomlinson), Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe) are crucial components to the pre-requisite of a comprehensive intervention system: a core curriculum that meets the needs of most learners. Faculty and administrators need to walk away believing that RtI is a win-win strategy.  What teacher wouldn’t want to be able to identify a solution for every student when it comes to academic or behavioral challenges? How much failure does a student need to experience before he/she can find success? Presenting RtI in these terms, I have found that once there is a common understanding, most faculty want to be part of the solution.

Craig: I can sense your passion for students and teachers in your responses. I started by asking you what sets ERC apart when it comes to facilitating the development or improvement of a sustainable RtI system in a district. It is apparent that your ability to establish trusting relationships with all stakeholders is crucial to your success.  What are the outcomes that districts can expect from your work with them on RtI?

Jeff: It is important for districts to have an accurate assessment of what they do well and where they need improvement before a tired intervention system can be implemented. You need to know your precise starting point to develop an effective action plan. Once we identify the strengths and needs, I will work with the buildings and districts in building internal capacity in designing, developing and implementing a problem-solving approach to RtI.  This includes shared responsibilities, data driven decision making, and the Learning Disabilities Identification process.   The district will have clear protocols and resources for tiered behavioral and academic interventions as well as a consistent process that is seamless between grade levels and buildings.  Because it is driven by district personnel, it is more likely to be sustainable.  We continue to provide ongoing consultation as needed once the system is in place.  In our model, a district no longer needing my support speaks volumes about our success!

Math for the 21st Century

THE MATH EDUCATION WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING

Just in case you missed it in the NY Times in late summer, David Mumford and Sol Garfunkel have sounded the latest call for a dramatic re-envisioning of secondary math education in America’s public schools. A similar movement in the mid and late 1990’s was quashed by the testing movement and math “purists”, but hopefully, as testing continues to lose its luster and energy, and  widespread alarm continues to grow about the state of our math education, Mumford and Garfunkel have taken up the torch. No computational slouches in their respective careers, Garfunkel is the executive director of the Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications and Mumford an emeritus professor of advanced mathematics at Brown.

The nation’s on-going anxiety about math can be traced to the poor performance of American students on various international tests. All this worry, however, is based on the assumption that there is a single established body of mathematical skills that everyone needs to know to be prepared for 21st-century careers. That assumption is wrong, say Mumford and Garfunkel. Different sets of math skills are necessary for different career paths, yet American math education has failed to change to reflect that reality.

Today, most American high school students pass through a sequence of algebra, geometry, more algebra, and pre-calculus. Some make it to calculus. This pathway has now been adopted by the Common Core State Standards in more than 40 states, not to the authors liking. Such a highly abstract curriculum, say Mumford and Garfunkel, is simply not the best way to prepare the vast majority of high school students for productive work and civic lives. How often do most adults need to solve a quadratic equation, or need to know what constitutes a “group of transformations” or “complex numbers”? Professional mathematicians, physicists and engineers do need to know such things, but most citizens the authors argue would be better served by studying how mortgages are priced, how computers are programmed, and or how the statistical results of a medical trial are to be understood.

A math curriculum focused on real-life problems would still expose students to the abstract tools of mathematics, in particular the manipulation of unknown quantities. But there is a world of difference between teaching “pure” math, with no context, and teaching relevant problems that will lead students to appreciate how a mathematical formula models and clarifies real-world situations.

Imagine replacing the sequence of algebra, geometry and calculus with a sequence of finance, data and basic engineering. In the finance course, students would learn the exponential function, use formulas in spreadsheets and study the budgets of people, companies and governments. In the data course, students would gather their own data sets and learn how, in fields as diverse as sports and medicine, larger samples give better estimates of averages. In the basic engineering course, students would learn the workings of engines, sound waves, TV signals and computers. Science and math were originally discovered together, and they are best learned together now.

Traditionalists will object that the standard curriculum teaches valuable abstract reasoning, even if the specific skills acquired are not immediately useful in later life. This reminds one of the last generation’s traditionalists who argued that studying Latin helped students develop linguistic skills. Garfunkel and Mumford write that studying applied math, like learning living world languages, provides both useable knowledge and abstract skills.

In math, they pose, what we need is “quantitative literacy,” the ability to make quantitative connections whenever life requires (as when we are confronted with conflicting medical test results but need to decide whether to undergo a further procedure) and “mathematical modeling,” the ability to move between everyday problems and mathematical formulations (as when we decide whether it is better to buy or lease a new car).

Parents, state education boards and (reluctant) colleges deserve a choice, now,  say Mumford and Garfunkel. The traditional high school math sequence seems less and less the best and certainly not the only road to mathematical competence. The authors believe that the best way for the United States to compete globally is to strive for universal quantitative literacy: teaching topics that make sense to all students and can be used by them throughout their lives. It was through real-life applications that mathematics emerged in the past, has flourished for centuries and connects to our culture now.

(NY Times, Aug. 24, 2011)

ERC Keynote at NEASC

ERC Co-Founder Keynotes NEASC Showcase

ERC Co-Founder Dr. Larry Myatt was invited to present the Keynote remarks at the Fall High School Showcase of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges in October. Dr. Myatt who is currently working on projects in more than 20 schools in a dozen school districts chose to focus on the distractions and detours that, in his words, “have prevented high schools from fulfilling the promise of an unprecedented spate of new knowledge in critical fields –human development, cognition and neuroscience, inquiry-based teaching, organizational development, the link between resilience and achievement, to name a few”.

Dr. Myatt also expressed that a number of factors including the lack of imagination, declining professional standards, poor accountability thinking and an undue focus on the minutiae of standards and testing have detained efforts to improve our schools.  But, he posed,  as educators realize the lack of progress and the loss of what was once a monopoly, and reunite around student-centered learning and professional community, we are in a position to take three steps that have the potential to transform our schools –defining rigor, recreating our schools as learning organizations and taking control of the renewal agenda.

The NEASC event was held in Westford MA and was attended by three hundred educators, representing teams from across New England.

New Leader Support

Helping New Leaders Survive and Thrive:
Why it’s Critical for School Districts to Re-Think Support and Mentoring

by Wayne Ogden

In the midst of a massive demographic exodus in school leadership, new candidates for leadership who care about leading, want to lead, and feel able to lead in current circumstances are as rare as mosquitoes in the snow.”
-A. Hargreaves, 2002

In the decade since Professor Hargreaves penned this description, one could say that the recruitment and retention of new school leaders has almost become “mission impossible.” Many large districts report turning over as many as one third of their administrative hires within five years. Although some graduate schools of education have demonstrated considerable success at teaching future leaders much about educational and leadership theory, few of our nation’s school principals credit their graduate programs with actually teaching them how to do well at the job.

Most principals readily admit that they learned the most about that role through on-the-job training. In a report from the Education Alliance at Brown University the authors observed, ‘the fact is, principals have traditionally been thrown into their jobs without a lifejacket, and they are expected to sink or swim. Unfortunately, far too many principals in the early years of their career go directly to the bottom.”

In her 2004 article in the AASA Journal, Suzette Lovely described the dilemma of rookie principals as follows,

“Prospective leaders are expected to conquer the motorway without any behind-the-wheel experience. The dilemma can be framed this way: In the university you spend extended periods of time reflecting about a problem and posing solutions. In the principalship, problem resolution is expected yesterday. In a university class, you might read a case study on searching a school locker for drugs and debate with classmates whether the search should be conducted. As a principal, you hear about possible drugs in a locker 10 minutes before dismissal and you need to act quickly. Principals manage complex organizations with unpredictable demands. No matter how ready candidates think they are, it is always a shock to their system when they finally get buckled into the driver's seat.”

In an effort to counter decreasing numbers of principal candidates at a time when the job is becoming ever more complex, school districts are turning to mentoring or coaching programs to provide both a lifeline and a structured induction period for educational leaders starting out in new principal positions.

So, how can mentoring and/or coaching programs designed to counter new principal’s limited readiness? To begin with, mentoring and coaching programs are actually designed quite differently.

Mentoring programs typically assign a currently working, experienced principal from inside the new principal’s school district. This senior, “expert” colleague is usually a volunteer and may or may not receive a stipend for her/his work. Such programs are most often informal, involve little or no training of the mentor and depend to a large degree on the notion of mentoring on one’s spare time to share or learn tricks of the trade. And often these mentor/mentee matches are more matters of convenience, regardless of the pair’s styles, listening and advising skills, and personality characteristics that can make or break this kind of relationship.

In the real world of school leadership mentors rarely have the luxury of time to give generously to their protégés. More often than not, mentors find themselves needing to react to the many new and unexpected situations in which new principals find themselves on a day-to-day basis. Demands of the work for both partners doom many of these relationships from the outset.

In some circumstances, superintendents declare themselves as mentors to their new building leaders and many school boards expect that from their highly compensated district leader. Yet, two things suggest that superintendents will have the same limited success as colleague mentors do. First, superintendents, even in the smallest school districts, rarely have adequate time to sit attentively with their principals. Managing their boards, the budget, the political context, the media, state departments of education, parent groups, and the union leave superintendents little time to nurture beginning administrators. And, even in the unlikely situation where the district leader can make time, there is an inherent conflict between the role of confidential mentor and “the boss”, who evaluates the principal’s performance and often performs that work in a political domain where issues of power and perception undermine genuine critical friendship. How can we expect an inexperienced principal to candidly share their weaknesses, needs, confusions and challenges with the person who will write their summative evaluation?

In-district mentoring for beginning school leaders may be better than nothing, but dedicated, confidential coaching provided by a skilled coach from outside the school district has proven to have a far better likelihood of helping a new principal to survive and thrive in the challenging and hectic world of leading a school.

A coaching relationship typically has several different characteristics. Again, coaches should come from outside of the school district to provide both experience and perspective. The coach should be expected to provide ongoing, structured, support that must be confidential, nurturing, and rooted in “best practice.” Collaboration between the new principal and coach should be based not only on the coach’s knowledge and past experiences, but also in readings, case studies and text-based discussions rich in connoisseurial insights. As the Brown study suggests, “What (principals) value most from their coaches is the opportunity for reflective conversations, emotional and moral support, and the affirmation that they are doing a good job.” When possible, expert coaches will supplement their one-to-one work with new principals by convening role-alike groups for small groups of new principals often sharing experiences and frustrations in their jobs. These peer relationships frequently provide enduring support networks long after the coach as moved on.

Coaching programs generally come with a higher cost than do in-district, quasi-volunteer mentoring programs that we commonly see. However, as principal candidates become scarcer driving up the costs of searches, the length of principal contracts and the salaries that they are paid, the relative costs of true coaching programs seem small. In addition, dedicated coaching programs seem better matched to a new generation of school leaders and the challenging conditions they encounter in their work.

Second Wind

Fall River Transformation School Gets “Second Wind”

 What do struggling students in an Indiana high school, violent convicts in Georgia, and anxious test-takers have in common? The answer is: the practical benefits of meditation, exercise,  and self-expression, and they all  came together in late February at the Doran Transformation K-8 School, part of Fall Rivers educational  “Innovation Zone”.

The Doran School, struggling with achievement for the past few years and with a 50% new staff in place, is in the throes of implementing its redesign plan, and according to Maria Pontes, Principal, improving student readiness to learn is a big factor. So much so, that with help from ERC founder Larry Myatt, the school has created an expanded “Wellness Team” that is developing a whole new menu of care coordination for students and staff. Part of their February professional development was to learn “Second Wind”* techniques from Jeffrey Cohen. Cohen brought and demonstrated a repertoire of classroom strategies that help teachers to mentally and physically engage students, and increase their powers of concentration and focus.

Neuroscientists, psychologists and counselors and school practitioners are benefitting from new studies that mark distinct benefits of old and new techniques involving neural blood flow. Schools are concluding that letting go of exercise and the arts to focus on testing strategies has had a negative effect on student’s readiness to learn, and therefore limiting their achievement.

Remember our three examples from the top of this article? Three dozen struggling students come to their mid-western school each day an hour early for high-intensity exercise workouts that have raised their self-esteem, grades, and behaviors. The novel approach has taken root to the extent that other clubs and elective gym classes are appearing in the school and visitors are coming to explore the methods and approaches. In Georgia, an experiment with a correctional institute’s most violent offenders, using yoga and meditation, has proven to be a huge asset to prison conduct as well to inmate’s personal habits and behaviors. And a study of nervous, typically under-achieving test-takers has shown that a combination of meditation, visualization and writing, conducted just before starting a test, has lowered test anxiety and substantially improved scores.

Ms. Pontes described the Doran “Second Wind” session, at which every faculty member participated voluntarily and enthusiastically, as “awesome” and something she feels many of her teachers will adopt and will want more training from Cohen. Practices based on Second Wind have been a fixture in some of Boston’s high-performing Pilot Schools, where they help students extend concentration and turn on their preferred methods for increased performance.

The Doran’s efforts have been of note to Carol Nagle, who heads Fall River’s Family Services Association and also serves on Superintendent Meg Mayo-Brown’s 2020 Scenario Development Team. She has become an enthusiastic supporter of the school’s efforts, hosting a Wellness Team retreat and making skilled professionals from her organizational available to the school’s student support staff and students. If this new Doran Wellness model proves to be as effective as early signs indicate, the school district expects to codify the practices and design features and adopt it in other schools.

For more information on the benefits of Second Wind download the flyer

More LA Charters

Charter firms to operate seven more L.A. Unified schools

In a heated, mid-March Los Angeles school board meeting, major charter school organizations won the right Tuesday to operate at seven of thirteen schools under a policy that allows bidders inside and outside the Los Angeles Unified School District to take control of start-up or academically struggling campuses. Charter schools got most of what they wanted by the end of a 5 and 1/2-hour meeting in which the Board of Education divided up or relinquished ten new campuses, including seven new high schools and three low-performing schools with an enrollment of 20,000 students  next year.

District officials were lobbied to support more charter schools than last year, when groups of district teachers, often working with administrators, prevailed on most plans. This year, the recommendations of L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines included more charters, but a board majority went even further to relinquish control of district schools to outside organizations.  California charter schools are publicly funded and independently run.

Cortines had pressed for low-achieving Clay Middle School to be split between a team from the existing school and Green Dot Public Schools, a highly-regarded charter organization. He spoke in favor of exploring the potential to demonstrate how a charter and a district operation could collaborate. Board President Monica Garcia, however, pushed to have the entire school turned over to Green Dot. Garcia, the close ally of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, was joined by the mayor's other allies in approving the full handover. Villaraigosa has spoken frequently of schools being put under the control of groups with "proven track records".

The board also overruled Cortines by giving a new Echo Park elementary school to the Camino Nuevo charter group. He had favored a local coalition of teachers and neighborhood residents because, he said, the charter's emphasis on Spanish language instruction in the early grades was not the right choice for all the students attending that school.

The board did uphold Cortines' recommendation to give a new West San Fernando Valley high school to a district administrator-and-teacher-led  group. That school will includes a performing arts academy.

Some Board members questioned whether the district could afford such an arts magnet program amid an ongoing budget crisis and the potential layoffs of thousands of teachers.

Altogether, seven of eleven charter school proposals prevailed including Synergy, Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, PUC and Aspire — all well-established charter organizations. There were not charter bids for every campus. Another winner was MLA Partner Schools, a non-profit that will manage Muir Middle School, where all employees will be required to re-interview for their jobs. Cortines recommended against MLA because of what he characterized as the group's mixed record at two high schools already under its control, but MLA, which isn't a charter, operates schools under the union contract and has faced less opposition from charter-school opponents and leaders of the teachers union.  (Los Angeles Times)

Teacher Prep Lacking

American Teacher Preparation Out-of-Step with High-Performing Nations

The first ever International Summit on Teaching, convened in March New York City, showing perhaps more clearly than ever that the United States has been pursuing an approach to teaching contrary to that pursued by the highest-achieving nations. It was the first time that government officials and union leaders from 16 nations met together to exchange experiences and pursue consensus about how to create a well-prepared and accountable teaching profession. Linda Darling-Hammond  of  Stanford University,  founding director of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,  and former president of the American Educational Research Association, Darling-Hammond , reporting from the Summit, writes in the Washington Post that the growing de-professionalization of teaching in America was recognized as out of step with the strategies pursued by the world’s educational leaders.

In stark contrast to America’s approach to improving teacher quality, still mired in merit pay debates, officials from countries like Singapore and Finland described how they have built a high-performing teaching profession by enabling all teachers to enter high-quality preparation programs, generally at the masters’ degree level, and receiving a salary as they train. There they learn research-based teaching strategies and practice with experts in lab schools connected to their universities. They enter a well-paid profession (earning as much as beginning doctors in several countries), are supported by mentor teachers, and have 15 or more hours a week to work and learn together. Engaging in shared planning, action research, lesson study, and observations in each other’s classrooms goes a long way in removing feelings of isolation and frustration so often expressed by beginning teachers. And they work in schools that are equitably funded and well-resourced with the latest technology and materials.

Darling-Hammond, who also serves as a convener for the Forum for Education and Democracy, compared such approaches with American states’ willingness to lower standards rather than raise salaries for the teachers in poor districts, and the growing number of recruits who enter the profession with inadequate prior training, learning on-the-job with the uneven, or no mentoring. A third of U.S. beginning teachers leave within the first five years, and those with the least training leave at more than twice the rate of those who are well-prepared. Teacher preparation at the university level in the U.S. rarely includes the development of cultural competence, collaborative teaching and planning, and action research

For the full article, go to:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/darling-hammond-us-vs-highest-achieving-nations-in-education/2011/03/22/ABkNeaCB_blog.html