"Now! Not Later"

There is a huge difference in the work we must do and the work that is legislated.  They are not the same!   This may be a surprise to some especially those who trust policy makers can legislate into existence something that does not, cannot, and will not become reality by policy alone. 

There is a huge misunderstanding and misconception about education policy, legislated accountability, and legislated mandates (funded or not) and the reality of work that must be done to ensure that, at a minimum, every student is proficient in not only the basic skills but in the knowledge, experiences, and skills to be successful in life's four major roles - family, community, career, and self.

Without debating the specifics of each of these roles let it suffice that the skills, knowledge, and experience required to be successful extend beyond the traditional school day or instructional year. 

We have known since the commencement of public schools that learning is not limited to time in school.  In a like manner we have known that family, community, faith, work and civic as well as other sources have equipped, enriched, and in some cases remediated skills, knowledge and experience.  This is as it should be.

Though tempting, we must resist expecting our schools to go it alone – as if they ever did.  There is much to learn about the future by looking at what has worked in the past and abandoning what didn’t.  Abandonment is key.  Unfortunately education and educators have a dismal record of successful abandonment of unproductive, inefficient, ineffective, and failed practices and programs hence the dependency on legislation to force change.

However, much of the successes from the past are as viable today than ever - differences however abound in access, sense of urgency, and commitment.  

The access to skill, knowledge, and experience building take many forms.  The advent of new applications of technology literally makes the universe the classroom; create a global faculty, and completely removes any time or age constraints. 

The sense of urgency should be self-explanatory, but it isn't.  

There is not a universal sense of urgency to eradicate illiteracy, ensure algebra mastery or ensure a set of skills, knowledge, or experiences necessary for ...  success!

Unfortunately, there remain myriad opinions, positions, and “absolutes” that often polarize parents, students, staff, and the general public to the purposes, expected or desired outcomes of, for, and by education.  

Truth be acknowledged, there has never been universal agreement on the purposes or aims of education.  We've come close but can't seem to get beyond our own biases, opinions, or agendas.  Often the excuse is there are just too many competing agendas to achieve focus, commitment, and success.  Justifiably, it is far too easy to attack, tear down, and point out what one is against rather than articulate what they are for - hmm ... and I thought naively that education was about learners and their future.

The access to global faculty intrigues me.  Consider with instant, ubiquitous access to information including “thinkers”, scholars, and the like at a fingertip how teaching and learning can no longer exist in isolation.  Literally the world, the universe for that matter, is the laboratory for forming, testing, debating, applying, creating, analyzing, and etc. ideas, solutions, concepts, and constructs.

Time and age constraints are antiquated practices based more on theory as well as convenience.  Has it not been proven again and again and again that we all learn in different ways and at different times?

So? 

We need to embrace the learning tools of this age and integrate them as quickly as we can.  We need to let go of the configurations of time and age as the means to sort and organize learners – this is far from new. 

The aforementioned will only be reality if we accept and act with a sense of urgency to do what we should have always been doing 1) eradicate illiteracy and 2) achieve algebra mastery.  The sad thing is that we already know more than we need to achieve this.  

It will take commitment and courage to do this now! 

It is far too costly to simply rely on remediation to failed learning rather than aggressive prevention to intervention.  Again, we already know how to do this – it’s a matter of our will, our priorities, and our convictions.  By the by, we can eradicate illiteracy in this country within four years if we really, seriously, and authentically wanted to – interested?

Enough with the excuses!

Now, is the time to act!

“Indicators are not of Equal Worth”

There is a fixation on trailing or lagging indicators that has become ubiquitous.  In education, the obsession almost addiction to “after the fact” or autopsy data analysis has generated absurd policy and practices that work against the very ends we seek to achieve.  I liken this practice to the basketball coach who is extremely dissatisfied with their free throw shooting performance in games but neither schedules time to instruct, practice, record or monitor free throw shooting in practice.  

As I posted last week, End of Grade and End of Course results (trailing indicators) have import and utility – but must be reviewed and used in context.  The inability to understand ongoing monitoring, “inspection” is probably the most misunderstood essential to using data to inform decisions, making modifications or adjustments, and seriously preventing failed learning.  

I am convinced that failed learning as well as the failure to learn must be significantly disrupted if not eliminated. 

And, it can!!!

Though far from a panacea, we have longed understood that frequent monitoring of teaching and learning is key to individual as well as corporate success of learners.  Frequent monitoring as suggested from the school effects research is examining leading as well as trailing indicators of learning. 

A critical leading indicator of student learning is the design and implementation of effective instruction.  To do so requires skill sets such as:

1.     Reflection and reviewing what students already know and can do;

2.     What they need to know and be able to do;

3.     Identification of instructional strategies to achieve the desired learning;

4.     Selecting available instructional tools or resources;

5.     Knowing and articulating to students how they will demonstrate their learning; and

6.     Knowing what to monitor during instruction to inform any and all adjustments or correction of instruction.

Argumentatively the aforementioned six (6) skills barely scratch the surface of what effective teachers do consistently every day.  They do illuminate however leading indicators that are seldom systematically monitored or measured.  That is, effective teaching requires effective planning.  Effective planning requires time.  How is this time monitored or measured?

As a leading indicator of learning, the time and its’ use toward effective lesson design needs to be monitored.  I don’t believe that simply requiring teachers to submit their lesson plans is sufficient.  Rather, it is the use of time that becomes the opportunity to improve design and implementation.

Phil Schlechty’s work on student or learner engagement remains seminal and as such should be required learning for all educators.  Embedded in his work are leading indicators of learning (He has created some very powerful tools to monitor and measure engagement). 

The level of engagement as well as the duration of engagement are both indicators that inform both instruction and student progress toward meeting or exceeding standards.  Engagement is also one indicator of effective lesson or unit design. Monitoring and measuring student engagement is critical to student success.  However, I venture to say that again, more or often than not, we give lip service to student engagement but don’t systematically monitor or measure it – daily!

Lastly let me share that frequent monitoring requires SMART.  Though obvious to some the concept and construct of SMART is missing from monitoring and measuring leading indicators of learning.  The acronym SMART is specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and timely.  Though there are variations to SMART – sometimes its’ strategic rather than specific or attainable rather than actionable, the idea here is being intentional about monitoring and measuring leading indicators.

I believe being intentional with respect to monitoring and measuring leading indicators of learning requires a thoughtful, comprehensive examination of time.  In all likelihood, our educators will continue to be expected to do more and produce more with less and less time.  Therefore, now more than ever leadership must demonstrate courage, creativity, and commitment to thinking differently about the use of time. 

If we treat the monitoring of both planning and engagement as two very important leading indicators of learning we will see results. 

Next week I will explore just how this can and must be achieved –

That Time of Year, again!

The beginning of the instructional year brings renewed excitement, enthusiasm, and optimism. This is as it should be!  Learners and those that provide, facilitate, and deliver instruction as well as those that are charged with supervising, observing, and evaluating teaching and learning share a sense that this year will be different and better. 

Different and better - words associated with improvement, right?  They sound good but often lack the intentionality, deliberateness, and yes planning to make it so.

Improvement is seldom by chance or random.  Yet, the improvement necessary to ensure that each student at a minimum makes a years' growth in a years' time is more often than not, unplanned.

Good intentions without planning will result in broken promises, disappointments, and most egregiously failed learning.

There are however some steps that can assist in moving towards more intentional planning.  The first involves unpacking and analyzing results from the previous year.   Without question this data is informative and helpful in understanding both instructional decisions and student progress toward meeting or exceeding standards.  Yet, last years' results are lagging and after the fact.  Their utility and import are limited but do contain some insights worth mining.

We must use them to understand, raise awareness, and serve as a starting point for the next.  Shifting summative data from a lagging, after the fact statistic to a leading indicator requires discipline and perspective in addition to knowing what to ask for and listen for in conversations with teachers and administrators alike.

Four important questions:

1.    If the results demonstrated growth, improvement, or desired performance outcomes, do we know what caused the improvement? 

2.    If we know what caused improvement, how do we increase consistency, efficiency and ultimately effectiveness this year? 

3.    On the other hand, if our performance did not improve, do we know why?

4.    This is a little more challenging, how do we ensure we modify, adjust, or abandon ineffective practice?

Teetering on mastery of the obvious, teachers and administrators cannot attempt to interpret last years’ results in isolation.  One cannot simply wave the banner for improvement in 5^th grade by using last years’ 5^th grade results. Fifth grade results from last year must be used for reflection and review of teaching decisions and subordinate strategies and actions to ascertain what modifications, adjustments or etc. must be made to ensure improvement.

I submit that if every teacher and administrator intentionally unpacked results by reviewing and reflecting on the decisions, strategies, actions steps and etc. through the filter of last years’ results we will see lesson and unit design that will drive improvement.

Let me foreshadow next week by reintroducing the concept and construct of leading versus trailing or lagging indicators of learning.  As mentioned earlier, last years’ end of course, end of grade assessment data are lagging, trailing indicators of learning.  They come after the fact and are limited in their use.  Conversely, leading indicators are extremely important and have great import for driving improvement.  Lagging indicators are far easier to identify and report.  Leading indicators such as student engagement, opportunity to learn and time on task, home and school partnering, safe and orderly learning environment, frequent monitoring of student learning, and lesson planning, to name just a few are much more difficult to measure and quantify initially.  Yet, leading indicators have greater influence on learning and in determining end of course and end of grade assessment performance results. 

Let’s make this year a great year – by being intentional, thoughtful, and deliberate!