I have been reading tweets and posts recently that encourage teachers to concentrate on what is within their control. While it may be popular, and necessary, to push back against the tyranny of high stakes tests and phony evaluation systems; teachers need to bring their best to work daily for the benefit of the students. What they can control is how they work bell to bell with students when the door is closed. Surely, Professional Learning Communities, peer mentoring, and horizontal or vertical teaming promote doing what is in our control for the benefit of our students. How do building administrators best serve teachers in this mission? How do building leaders encourage teachers to reach outside "comfort zones" to try new techniques, especially when the building leaders might have last taught ten years ago and have no experience with the idea they are promoting?
A common combination of issues in many middle schools and high schools is student apathy, disengagement, oppositional behavior, frequent absences, and simply failure to earn credits toward graduation. Teachers struggle to differentiate instruction, maintain order, re-orient students returning from absences and suspensions, introduce new lessons, provide second chance summative assessments, contact parents, and keep pace with the curriculum guide and common formative assessments. Knowing these challenges exist, administrative teams develop school improvement plans meant to help teachers and improve student performance. Bear with me; in this scenario the administrators really do care and want to help. How? Seriously, what advice would teachers offer administrators about how to improve student performance?
In my experience with both groups of teachers and groups of administrators, the likely first topic raised would be, "we need to provide consistent consequences when students break rules." Teachers want the bad apples gone from the barrel and administrators look for the consequence that will modify the behavior, or at the very least, give the teacher the impression of support. Teachers reason that they can get back on top of the situation if they only have compliant students in the room. Administrators reason that students will become compliant with the right combination of consequences. Herein lies the problem; compliance is not a solution. In fact, making compliance the goal is the problem.
First, children know that in a negotiation they have the upper hand. If compliance is the goal, the adult has already lost and the child knows it. Second, compliance does not equal learning, nor does it equal engagement in the process of learning. Compliance is not the goal.
The goal is a student who feels respected, valued, and honored as an individual. The students who have years of experience being respected, valued, and honored by the adults in their lives are the ones who naturally engage; they are the ones we all find so easy to teach. It is not that they necessarily are naturally brighter or more talented, they have a different set of experiences and therefore a different mindset. The goal is changing the mindset of the students who we believe need their behavior modified. Addressing that goal begins with the adult behaviors, not the student behaviors. What adult behaviors will students trust that can authentically respect, value, and honor them as individuals? More on how teachers and building leaders can do this in a future post. What are you doing?
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Monday, April 6, 2015
Students need help seeing the world beyond their current circumstances.
In several posts I have described how Tom, now in sixth grade, has developed a fixed mindset. Tom feels he is on a conveyor belt moving him from grade to grade on his way to eighteen. He has given up trying to achieve much of anything in school. He is along for the ride. Tom's mom has tried to encourage him and has met periodically with his teachers and principal. Tom just seems to always be behind his classmates academically; scoring poorly on the annual standardized tests, even after extended remediation sessions. Tom's mom is despondent. Tom is disengaged. What can be done?
Tom has developed a victim's view of the world. Adults have been making all of the decisions and he feels helpless. They will continue to make the decisions. He may as well enjoy the ride; putting in time until he can leave school at eighteen, with or without a diploma. Tom is fortunate, his sixth grade teachers do not see Tom as a victim. They see him as a student who needs some help seeing the world beyond his current circumstances. In fact, that is how they see all students.
Tom enters sixth grade thinking he has school figured out. He will do poorly on tests, go to remediation sessions, then go to seventh grade for more of the same. However, his teachers do not see it that way. By the end of the first week, Tom realizes that this school experience will be something different.
Mrs. Brown and Mr. Dean are Tom's sixth grade teachers. Mrs. Brown teaches language arts and science. Mr. Dean teaches math and social studies. The two teachers are responsible for two groups of students with twenty-five in each group. School begins at 7:30 am and all of the students in sixth grade go to lunch at 11:30 am. After lunch, the students have a rotation of classes with other teachers: music, health, physical education, applied technology, and careers. It takes a day or two for Tom to get the pattern of the sixth grade school day. He readily understands the afternoon. It is like "specials" in the other grades. Tom thinks those will disappear for him by the middle of the year.
The mornings take him a few days to understand. Mrs. Brown and Mr. Dean rotate which group of twenty-five begins in each room each day. Each morning they help the students sort it out; it is just different. Another thing that is different is that they don't seem too concerned with always starting with the same subject or giving each subject equal time. In fact, during the first week neither teacher does much with any of the subjects they are supposed to teach. They seem to spend most of the morning talking about themselves, their families, the students in the class, sports, movies, TV shows, summer vacation, and the afternoon subjects taught by the other teachers. They even have those teachers and the principal come in to talk about how different sixth grade will be compared to other years.
At the end of the first week of school, Tom and his mom go out for dinner together on Friday night. It is a tradition for them each new school year; nothing fancy, just a local place run by a family Tom's mom has known forever. Tom's mom asks a few predictable questions about his day, then mentions that Mr. Dean called to set up an appointment to see her next week. Tom remembers that the teachers mentioned something about conferences. He didn't give it much thought. Hoping sixth grade is a chance for a fresh start, Tom's mom is upbeat about school and the appointment. Tom is a bit suspicious, but as they talk more about how things have gone the first week he begins to see that this might actually be something different.
Tom has developed a victim's view of the world. Adults have been making all of the decisions and he feels helpless. They will continue to make the decisions. He may as well enjoy the ride; putting in time until he can leave school at eighteen, with or without a diploma. Tom is fortunate, his sixth grade teachers do not see Tom as a victim. They see him as a student who needs some help seeing the world beyond his current circumstances. In fact, that is how they see all students.
Tom enters sixth grade thinking he has school figured out. He will do poorly on tests, go to remediation sessions, then go to seventh grade for more of the same. However, his teachers do not see it that way. By the end of the first week, Tom realizes that this school experience will be something different.
Mrs. Brown and Mr. Dean are Tom's sixth grade teachers. Mrs. Brown teaches language arts and science. Mr. Dean teaches math and social studies. The two teachers are responsible for two groups of students with twenty-five in each group. School begins at 7:30 am and all of the students in sixth grade go to lunch at 11:30 am. After lunch, the students have a rotation of classes with other teachers: music, health, physical education, applied technology, and careers. It takes a day or two for Tom to get the pattern of the sixth grade school day. He readily understands the afternoon. It is like "specials" in the other grades. Tom thinks those will disappear for him by the middle of the year.
The mornings take him a few days to understand. Mrs. Brown and Mr. Dean rotate which group of twenty-five begins in each room each day. Each morning they help the students sort it out; it is just different. Another thing that is different is that they don't seem too concerned with always starting with the same subject or giving each subject equal time. In fact, during the first week neither teacher does much with any of the subjects they are supposed to teach. They seem to spend most of the morning talking about themselves, their families, the students in the class, sports, movies, TV shows, summer vacation, and the afternoon subjects taught by the other teachers. They even have those teachers and the principal come in to talk about how different sixth grade will be compared to other years.
At the end of the first week of school, Tom and his mom go out for dinner together on Friday night. It is a tradition for them each new school year; nothing fancy, just a local place run by a family Tom's mom has known forever. Tom's mom asks a few predictable questions about his day, then mentions that Mr. Dean called to set up an appointment to see her next week. Tom remembers that the teachers mentioned something about conferences. He didn't give it much thought. Hoping sixth grade is a chance for a fresh start, Tom's mom is upbeat about school and the appointment. Tom is a bit suspicious, but as they talk more about how things have gone the first week he begins to see that this might actually be something different.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Are we better off with slow, or not at all? Conversations rather than meetings.
In an earlier post I criticized the common top-down, event style of professional development meant to trigger change in a faculty. Here we will consider a multi-layer approach. Success can be designed. Some will consider this painstakingly slow. I would counter by noting that in many faculties, nothing really changes after years of professional development events. Are we better off with slow, or not at all?
To give a mental picture of the multi-layered approach, one might think of a teacher with an overhead projector (please bear with me). The teacher is presenting a lesson, perhaps a geography lesson. One by one individual transparencies are layered on the projector as the teacher adds more detail, checking for understanding as she goes. The teacher had a final picture in mind, but led the class through a process of layering to achieve common, complete understanding.
The building leader whose goal is moving the faculty to a new approach must recognize not only the layering or scaffolding path to teaching a new approach, but also the emotional and social needs of the team members. Team members seldom adopt new approaches just because they learn them, they need to connect with them emotionally as well. Giving up a time-worn, comfortable approach for a new one requires more than the knowledge of how to do the new one. It also requires more than the endorsement of a visiting consultant-expert.
Is the goal compliance or change? I submit that a building leader will achieve neither with event based professional development. If the goal is change, consider a multi-layered approach designed to take advantage of the natural rhythm of the faculty.
Success can be designed through this simple framework: (1) develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input, (2) develop details as you develop believers, (3) reinforce teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process, and (4) empower the team to not only deliver the process, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.
A building leader may have a clear vision of change. The leader may even have a well researched program to implement. However, the team needs to connect emotionally to the change. Step one is critical to long term success. Leaders with a Driver's approach to change must work to be authentic themselves when reaching out to others for authentic input. A leader with a reputation for forcing his or her agenda on others has a deficit to overcome. If one's reputation is top-down, the team is likely to become impatient with the leader faking it, appearing to go through the motions of consensus building. In this model the leader is not selling a pre-determined program, the leader is honestly seeking input about a building-wide issue, establishing teacher agency in the process.
Step one is best done over weeks of individual conversations. With a faculty of say one hundred, a leader will need to give each teacher voice by meeting with each person at least once, often twice or more. The building leader needs to set out to have a series of three or four conversations with at least half of the faculty. Each faculty member will have had one or two conversations with the leader; approximately half the faculty will have three or more. Who gets one or two, and who gets more will reveal itself as the conversations proceed. As the conversations happen, the alert leader will see a network or web of input develop. This network will gain depth of meaning as the follow up conversations proceed. In a sense, the leader is a researcher conducting experiments (conversations) to explore options, gain perspective, and develop the final vision. Additionally, these conversations will be rich with input on not only the vision, but also the pathways to achievement.
Steps two and three are truly not additional steps, but rather guides to the leader's behavior in step one. Genuine, frequent adult-to-adult, open-minded conversations will keep the process fluid, demonstrate teacher agency, hone the details, and develop believers. The leader will know the process is healthy when one conversation leads to others across the network or web of ideas. It will be tempting to replace individual conversations with meetings of groups. Avoid the temptation. Team members need individual voice and an intimate connection to the process and leader. Group meetings and steering committees look efficient and may give the appearance of buy-in; but they often marginalize many group members and sow seeds of discontent. If the leader works tirelessly at individual conversations the common vision developed will become an organic way of life for the faculty rather than a program with limited impact.
As the process moves forward, the leader will begin to see individuals begin to take on the characteristics of the developing vision. As this happens, the leader may suggest that the faculty members share their fresh experiences with one another. Let the new vision and processes develop organically as the web of input developed with the leaders one-on-one conversations. As the faculty members begin to fuel the process of change, the leader promotes greater and greater teacher voice and agency. The development of teacher agency allows the conversations to move to step four. Rather than imposing accountability procedures or systems in the organization, the leader moves the conversations to a level of synthesis. "How do we continue to improve?" "How can we keep the ball rolling?" "How can you share that success with others?" "What advice will you share with others about your experience with your new approach?"
Success can be designed, but it need not be through a pre-determined program. Let the conversations be the fuel for building a web of input and natural performance initiatives.
Develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input.
Develop details as you develop believers with frequent, sincere conversations.
Develop teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process of conversations, avoiding meetings.
Empower the team to not only deliver the process organically, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.
To give a mental picture of the multi-layered approach, one might think of a teacher with an overhead projector (please bear with me). The teacher is presenting a lesson, perhaps a geography lesson. One by one individual transparencies are layered on the projector as the teacher adds more detail, checking for understanding as she goes. The teacher had a final picture in mind, but led the class through a process of layering to achieve common, complete understanding.
The building leader whose goal is moving the faculty to a new approach must recognize not only the layering or scaffolding path to teaching a new approach, but also the emotional and social needs of the team members. Team members seldom adopt new approaches just because they learn them, they need to connect with them emotionally as well. Giving up a time-worn, comfortable approach for a new one requires more than the knowledge of how to do the new one. It also requires more than the endorsement of a visiting consultant-expert.
Is the goal compliance or change? I submit that a building leader will achieve neither with event based professional development. If the goal is change, consider a multi-layered approach designed to take advantage of the natural rhythm of the faculty.
Success can be designed through this simple framework: (1) develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input, (2) develop details as you develop believers, (3) reinforce teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process, and (4) empower the team to not only deliver the process, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.
A building leader may have a clear vision of change. The leader may even have a well researched program to implement. However, the team needs to connect emotionally to the change. Step one is critical to long term success. Leaders with a Driver's approach to change must work to be authentic themselves when reaching out to others for authentic input. A leader with a reputation for forcing his or her agenda on others has a deficit to overcome. If one's reputation is top-down, the team is likely to become impatient with the leader faking it, appearing to go through the motions of consensus building. In this model the leader is not selling a pre-determined program, the leader is honestly seeking input about a building-wide issue, establishing teacher agency in the process.
Step one is best done over weeks of individual conversations. With a faculty of say one hundred, a leader will need to give each teacher voice by meeting with each person at least once, often twice or more. The building leader needs to set out to have a series of three or four conversations with at least half of the faculty. Each faculty member will have had one or two conversations with the leader; approximately half the faculty will have three or more. Who gets one or two, and who gets more will reveal itself as the conversations proceed. As the conversations happen, the alert leader will see a network or web of input develop. This network will gain depth of meaning as the follow up conversations proceed. In a sense, the leader is a researcher conducting experiments (conversations) to explore options, gain perspective, and develop the final vision. Additionally, these conversations will be rich with input on not only the vision, but also the pathways to achievement.
Steps two and three are truly not additional steps, but rather guides to the leader's behavior in step one. Genuine, frequent adult-to-adult, open-minded conversations will keep the process fluid, demonstrate teacher agency, hone the details, and develop believers. The leader will know the process is healthy when one conversation leads to others across the network or web of ideas. It will be tempting to replace individual conversations with meetings of groups. Avoid the temptation. Team members need individual voice and an intimate connection to the process and leader. Group meetings and steering committees look efficient and may give the appearance of buy-in; but they often marginalize many group members and sow seeds of discontent. If the leader works tirelessly at individual conversations the common vision developed will become an organic way of life for the faculty rather than a program with limited impact.
As the process moves forward, the leader will begin to see individuals begin to take on the characteristics of the developing vision. As this happens, the leader may suggest that the faculty members share their fresh experiences with one another. Let the new vision and processes develop organically as the web of input developed with the leaders one-on-one conversations. As the faculty members begin to fuel the process of change, the leader promotes greater and greater teacher voice and agency. The development of teacher agency allows the conversations to move to step four. Rather than imposing accountability procedures or systems in the organization, the leader moves the conversations to a level of synthesis. "How do we continue to improve?" "How can we keep the ball rolling?" "How can you share that success with others?" "What advice will you share with others about your experience with your new approach?"
Success can be designed, but it need not be through a pre-determined program. Let the conversations be the fuel for building a web of input and natural performance initiatives.
Develop a common vision by reaching out to all for authentic input.
Develop details as you develop believers with frequent, sincere conversations.
Develop teacher voice and agency by encouraging alternative ideas in a transparent, fluid process of conversations, avoiding meetings.
Empower the team to not only deliver the process organically, but also the on-going reflection, accountability, and reinforcement.
Friday, April 3, 2015
School has the moment to moment responsibility to help children see a world beyond their current circumstances.
If growing imagination of children is the central mission of public education, how are we doing? How will we improve? The first question is a trap. If we get into a debate about how we are doing, we are liable to find ourselves discussing standardized testing, literacy, STEM, college readiness, or any number of other topics. Let's look at growing imagination from wherever it is to something greater. Why? Because when a child can imagine opportunity beyond his or her current circumstances, the child can apply intrinsic motivation to removing obstacles and engage in a healthy process of personal growth and achievement.
I have the privilege of leading a strategic planning team for my school division; one of six teams working to set a course for the future. One of our members provided a spark for our work as he shared a memory from his childhood. His story gave us a central theme. His dream in fourth grade was to work with computers. As with most fourth graders then and now, his school did not offer him a way to engage in his special interest. The school was built around curriculum and structures that had no room for individual dreams. We saw the connection between pathways to the future and individual student interests. Pathways leading to workforce and college readiness must provide students authentic opportunities to explore their interests. They must stimulate student imagination; showing them a world beyond their current circumstances. A fundamental difference between the high flier and the disengaged student is the degree to which they can imagine themselves beyond today. School and all the adults in it have the moment to moment responsibility to help children see a world beyond their current circumstances.
I have the privilege of leading a strategic planning team for my school division; one of six teams working to set a course for the future. One of our members provided a spark for our work as he shared a memory from his childhood. His story gave us a central theme. His dream in fourth grade was to work with computers. As with most fourth graders then and now, his school did not offer him a way to engage in his special interest. The school was built around curriculum and structures that had no room for individual dreams. We saw the connection between pathways to the future and individual student interests. Pathways leading to workforce and college readiness must provide students authentic opportunities to explore their interests. They must stimulate student imagination; showing them a world beyond their current circumstances. A fundamental difference between the high flier and the disengaged student is the degree to which they can imagine themselves beyond today. School and all the adults in it have the moment to moment responsibility to help children see a world beyond their current circumstances.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Many faculties have suffered from "flavor of the year" professional development in recent years.
I have suggested here that school leaders can shift the paradigm by supporting horizontal and vertical teams along with designing a plan for success. School leaders do not always need to move the whole faculty at once. In fact, they may be well advised to find and develop believers who provide models for others to follow. Many faculties have suffered from "flavor of the year" professional development in recent years. Experienced teachers often fatigue of the "here today, gone tomorrow" pattern of building or district initiatives. Massive, school wide initiatives look great at summer administrative planning retreats. They also satisfy that burning sense of urgency leaders feel when the data suggest that a turnaround strategy is required. Unfortunately, without faculty believers and a well designed plan, what gets trumpeted in pre-service week, fades by Thanksgiving, and the cycle repeats the following summer.
Let me give you an example from my own experience. Four years ago our building worked through a book study. The goal was to improve student engagement by focusing on proven classroom management and instructional techniques. The year long program featured monthly faculty workshops. The workshops were well organized and well executed by a steering committee of faculty members. The program was especially successful at reinforcing what teachers already felt they were doing. Red flag. The program did not feature any form of teacher observation, specific feedback, or ongoing reinforcement. At the end of the year, the principal was promoted and a new administrative team began the next year.
The new principal was advised by the director of instruction that the building had a problem with student engagement. The director suggested that a consultant be hired to conduct quarterly, building-wide professional development. When the "new" initiative was announced, 100 sets of eyes rolled. The faculty felt misunderstood at best and disrespected at worst. Four years after the first "engaging instruction initiative" little has changed and a new director of instruction is planning a fresh strategy. So we've spent four years, tens of thousands of dollars in consultant fees and thousands of staff professional development hours to little effect; or negative effect, since the faculty is now deaf to talk of "student engagement." If four years ago, that steering committee had been working side by side with a few teachers on building their skills and more importantly, beliefs, how might things have changed?
In a future post, we will consider a multi-layer approach to strategic planned and execution. Success can be designed!
Let me give you an example from my own experience. Four years ago our building worked through a book study. The goal was to improve student engagement by focusing on proven classroom management and instructional techniques. The year long program featured monthly faculty workshops. The workshops were well organized and well executed by a steering committee of faculty members. The program was especially successful at reinforcing what teachers already felt they were doing. Red flag. The program did not feature any form of teacher observation, specific feedback, or ongoing reinforcement. At the end of the year, the principal was promoted and a new administrative team began the next year.
The new principal was advised by the director of instruction that the building had a problem with student engagement. The director suggested that a consultant be hired to conduct quarterly, building-wide professional development. When the "new" initiative was announced, 100 sets of eyes rolled. The faculty felt misunderstood at best and disrespected at worst. Four years after the first "engaging instruction initiative" little has changed and a new director of instruction is planning a fresh strategy. So we've spent four years, tens of thousands of dollars in consultant fees and thousands of staff professional development hours to little effect; or negative effect, since the faculty is now deaf to talk of "student engagement." If four years ago, that steering committee had been working side by side with a few teachers on building their skills and more importantly, beliefs, how might things have changed?
In a future post, we will consider a multi-layer approach to strategic planned and execution. Success can be designed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)