Leading Shallow vs. Leading Deep

I recently was re-reading an article from 2008 titled “Are you Coaching Heavy or Light?” written by Joellen Killion (@jpkillion) which, as the title indicates, was originally directed toward academic coaching.  However, as I was re-reading, I realized that the concept of coaching heavy or light really applies to instructional leadership in general.  Instructional leadership, in my mind, is not limited to the positional authority of an administrator or even a department or grade level chair, but should be thought of more universally as dispositional.  (see “The Power of Dispositional Leadership”)  According to the article, coaches  whose main purpose is to build and maintain relationships more than they want to improve teaching and learning are considered to be coaching “light” and coaches who are committed to improve teaching and learning are considered coaching “heavy”.  If you make the shift, like I did,  to expand the term coaching to include all types of instructional leaders (positional and dispositional)  than the terms “leading light” or “leading heavy” could be substituted in for coaching.  However, “leading heavy” seems to carry a negative connotation with it, so I prefer to use the terms “leading shallow” (light) or “leading deep” (heavy) when thinking about instructional leadership.  

Examples of leading shallow include sharing best practices with colleagues through articles or discussions, but not holding an expectation that they apply the learning in their classrooms.  These leaders tend to tread lightly and limit their interactions to praise in order to build or maintain relationships. They are most comfortable giving feedback to the teachers that describe the teacher’s behavior rather than the student learning taking place in the classroom (intentions vs. actual learning).  Of course, it is important to have strong relationships and build trust with colleagues as a leader, especially in the beginning, and teachers do feel supported by this type of leadership, but if that is all the deeper the discussions go then the leader is leading too shallow.

Leading deep, on the other hand, includes conversations about beliefs and how they influence practice with a focus on how it improves teaching and impacts student learning.  To be fair, from the teacher’s perspective, this type of leadership does feel a little heavy.  However, the sense of weight comes from the collective responsibility and commitment each teacher devotes to the success of every student through dispositional leadership rather than from the single authoritative positional leader.  This shift mainly takes place because leading deep includes “asking thought-provoking questions, uncovering assumptions, and engaging colleagues in dialog about their beliefs and goals rather than focusing only on knowledge and skills”(Killion, 2008, p.3).  This type of leadership builds a culture of learning where “teachers feel a heightened sense of professionalism, excitement, increased efficacy and satisfaction with teaching” (Killion, 2008, p.2).

Leading deep can take place through conversations between principals and teachers after a walk-through as easily as it can between teachers in a PLC (Professional Learning Community) meeting.  The key is to ask the deeper questions focused on student learning.  Teachers who are aware of what students are thinking, who can put students in situations based on that thinking,  and who have proficient knowledge of how students build on their understanding can provide appropriate feedback to their students.. We have to help each other to reflect on such scenarios and support each other if we are not there yet.  Reflections such as this can not take place in a silo and all educators need to support each other to keep operating at that level of professionalism. Providing a safe environment to discuss teaching and learning, encouraging reflection through video review, and asking each other questions that focus on reaching all of our students are a few examples of leading deep.   We all need to resist the urge to stay too shallow in our conversations with each other and be willing to lead more deeply.  In the end it, will create a culture that supports student learning and teacher growth which will ultimately lead to the improvement of our schools.

Looking at High Stakes Testing as a Genre

The original purpose of me starting this blog was to force myself to look back on what I have worked on for the week, process that information in my mind, and articulate it through the blog.  I have found this is a great way for me to reflect on my own learning for the week in order to become a better instructional leader.  As I looked back on the week, I was a little frustrated because I didn’t feel there was a lot of learning going on with me because the main items on my “to do list” this week were the State of Ohio (AIR-- American Institutes of Research) Testing, mandatory ACT testing for Juniors, and Iowa Reading make-up testing for our third graders who didn’t pass the Fall State AIR Reading Test.  At first I shook my head at the “waste of time” taking place, but I quickly reminded myself that high stakes testing is a part of the expectations for educators and can be used as a benchmark to see where students currently stand.  The key, in my mind,  is to not allow high stakes testing to be the driving force behind our curriculum and teaching. (I already mentioned what should be the focus in an earlier blog titled “Adopting a Greenhouse Philosophy for Schools"), but instead look at high stakes testing as a genre to bring to the students attention.

The first time I read about testing as a genre was in Donalyn Miller’s @donalynbooks “The Book Whisperer”.  In the book, Donalyn mentions that her  students often come to her class hating reading because they have been exposed to reading through endless test prep.  She counters this test prep approach by teaching reading standardized test as its own genre.  By exposing students to the items they might see, allowing them to discuss the different types of questions, examine the terms that are often used, and discuss the skills and knowledge the tests are trying to assess.  HOWEVER, she does not teach reading through test prep.  She emphasizes the importance of looking at your best readers in class as exemplars and has determined the students who read the most are the best at every part of school.  This is not unlike discussions I have had with Jen Miller who is our district’s Reading Specialist.  Jen often states, “The best way to help students to be better readers and writers is to get them reading and writing more.”.  That seems to be common sense advice, but runs counter to the often pushed test prep of our students.  I believe what Donalyn and Jen are saying about reading and writing can, and should, be applied across our curriculum. By treating testing as a genre across the curriculum, we are exposing our students to the nuances of standardized testing while emphasizes the importance of putting students in authentic situations for their learning.  As an example,

• If we want to support students to become better readers we provide time in class for them to read books they are selecting and use those books to expose students to the expected standards through a variety of pedagogical techniques such as mini-lessons.  

• If we want them to become comfortable at writing we need to give them time to reflect on what they have read through their writing.  
• If we want students to be better mathematicians we need to allow them to discover the patterns and relationships in the numbers and allow them to make their own connections instead of telling them what connections to make.
• If we want them to be better scientists we must put them in situations that allow them to be more inquisitive (ask good questions), curious (develop a sense of wonder), mature socially (collaborate), and be more analytic (exam and interpret data) rather than follow cook-book like procedural labs.  
• If we want to develop citizens that understand the world around them from a social standpoint (Social Studies), then we must resist the urge to tell them about the history, but rather allow them to discover it and live it through their experiences such as a Mock Congress.  
• Finally, I believe, if we want to develop better global citizens, then instead of teaching them how to conjugate in a different language we ask them to speak, listen, and basically immerse them in the culture of that particular language.  I am confident no child learned their native language by conjugating verbs, but instead listened, observed, and made connections by speaking.

Our students don’t need to be “test prepped” to be successful on standardized testing when we can look at testing as a genre and instead, when possible, put them in authentic situations to learn.  I am fully aware we, as teachers, can’t ALWAYS put our students in those situations, but I am confident the students will not learn as well if we NEVER have or have limited authentic opportunities for them to learn.  

One last thought I have about standardized test prep is the “practice test”.  If we expose the students throughout the year through various situations and look at testing as a genre, I believe, there is little value in giving a full length practice test as many teachers insist on in order to build endurance.  If you think about it, a runner doesn’t train for a marathon by running a bunch of practice marathons.  They instead work on the aspects of running such as intervals, conditioning, endurance, etc. and then put it together on the day of the marathon.  I strongly believe that standardized testing should be looked at in the same way.  If we put our students in authentic situations and expose them to the nuances of testing through a genre approach their success on the high stakes standardized tests will be a natural bi-product of their learning taking place throughout the year.  

How are you Celebrating Question Week (March 12-18, 2017)?

I am in the middle of reading “A More Beautiful Question” by Warren Berger  @GlimmerGuy and this book combined with the upcoming  Question Week (March 12-18) got me thinking  and asking myself,  “How we, as educators, can help close the education gap?” and of course my answer was through school.  However, that led to another question, which was, “What is the purpose of school?”.  One of the points Berger makes in his book is the power of questioning and how asking both open (ex. How…?) questions and closed (What…?) on the same topic can lead to other questions which might get to the root of what you are asking and can help anyone, kids and adults, become better learners.  

Taking advantage of what I have picked up from Berger’s book so far, I thought it would  be interesting to sit down and ask myself some questions about education, and school in particular, by writing down what question came to my mind immediately after the next.  Here is the line of questioning that my mind took:

What is the purpose of schools?

Why do we have schools?

Why do kids go to school?

Would kids go to school if they didn’t have to go?

What would make kids want to go to school?

What do kids want from school?

What is it that kids want to learn?

Would kids go to school if they could learn what they want to learn at home?

What is the difference from learning in school vs. learning at home?

Why do some students prefer to learn away from school?

What do schools have that home doesn’t offer?

What does home offer that schools do not?

Why does it seem like many home schooled students are creative thinkers?

Could schools be set up to be more like home schooling?

What would that look like?

How can schools allow for more personalized learning?

How would teaching be different in a school with more personalized learning?

What pedagogy would be the best for helping kids learn?

Is there any one pedagogical strategy that will work for all kids?

How can schools be more flexible or adaptable to the kids needs?

It was interesting to see how the next question evolved from a subliminal answer to the previous question and how the flow of questioning went from a focus on “school” to “kids”, to “learning”, to “teaching”, and ultimately to “schools adapting to kids”.  The next steps for me are to choose a few of these questions to dig down into for some of those answers.  Hopefully, this research and subsequent answers will lead me to a deeper understanding and a better way to articulate the purpose of schools.  At the same time, I did re-ask myself the question and came up with this answer to the purpose of school:

“Schools should be a place where kids want to come to learn with other students to build on their understanding, while gaining understanding on topics they don’t yet know.”

This is my first iteration of my answer to the question and I suspect it will evolve as I look into some of the questions that I asked earlier.  

Ironically, next week is also the first day our District is starting to give the mandatory  State Tests, which many seem to believe to be the purpose of schools.  However, in keeping our focus on the real purpose and in honor of Question Week starting tomorrow (March 12, 2017), let me ask the first question as a preemptive strike:  “What do you believe is the purpose of schools?”.  I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on the question posed, so please consider leaving a comment on this post.   I believe your input can go a long way in helping me to keep a focus on what is important in school as well as perhaps lead to an even better question to ask.

Promoting NCLmB (No Child Left in my Basement) to support the Black Collar Class

Earlier in the year I had the privilege of attending a lecture (which you can hear at this link) at the City Club of Cleveland featuring Yong Zhao (@YongZhaoED) in which he addressed Education in the Age of Smart Machines.  In the lecture he talks about the “side-effects” of policies such as NCLB (No Child Left Behind) or RttT (Race to the Top) where “these policies might raise test scores, but may cause students to hate reading ” as a side-effect. He eludes to these reforms as causing more damage than solutions and jokingly suggests the need for a new policy titled “No Child Left in my Basement” (NCLmB) which promotes entrepreneurship and innovation in schools.  The title is humorous, but the point is serious.

In a blog post titled “The Rise of the Useless Class” historian Yuval Noah Harari (@harari_yuval) eludes to a not so distant future in which many jobs will be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) creating a “useless class” of citizens.  It is interesting to note that teaching is one of those jobs that Harari proposes will have a low probability of being replaced by AI in the next 20 years, but the article does make me think of two points:

1. I wonder how long it will be for teaching to be replaced if we don’t change how we teach?
2. What can we, as educators, do today  for those students who will be going into blue-collar and white-collar jobs that are targeted to be replaced by AI?

I came across one potential answer to  my second question when reading “Counting What Counts” written by Zhao and others including  Ross C. Anderson who referred to the “creative class” or “black-collar worker” (inspired from Steve Jobs' black turtleneck) as the group that will, “even in the hardest hit fields, have the skills, education and human capital that (will) allow them to switch jobs, fields, and careers when required , (which is) an option that is largely unavailable to blue-collar workers.”.  In my mind, we educators need to promote environments that nurture our students ability to join the “black-collar” class.

In order to join this class, we have to evolve from our factory model of schooling that promotes the compliance associated with blue-collar workers to one that both engages and even empowers students leading them to have the opportunity to join the black-collar class.  George Couros (@gcouros) address this evolution in “The Innovator’s Mindset”.  Couros points out, “to truly be empowered, people need both ownership and autonomy”.  I believe this is true for both students and teachers, so instructional leaders (school administrators) must promote and support environments in the school that will lead to empowerment.  Couros suggests eight things to look for in the classroom which will promote empowerment:

1. Voice-  to empower students to speak up and use their voices effectively
2. Choice- providing choice allows students to build on strengths and interest
3. Time for Reflection- Dewey’s quote “We do not learn from experience we learn from reflection on experience” comes to mind here
4. Opportunities for Innovation-  this refers to on-going opportunities to pursue innovative ideas across the content areas in school
5. Critical Thinkers-  students need to be able to develop the ability to ask questions and empowered to challenge ideas
6. Problem Solvers/Finders- put students in situations to find problems and give them a sense of purpose in solving something authentic
7. Self-Assessment-  students assessing their own work provides another opportunity for reflection; portfolios work great here
8. Connected Learning-  students who understand where to look to, who to reach out to, and how to get info driven to them when solving a problem will be prepared for an environment beyond the classroom

I am a parent of four children myself, so I am a big fan of “No Child Left in my Basement”, but as an educator I also feel the responsibility to promote and support the growth of the black-collar class.  In my mind, the change from compliance to engagement and ultimately empowerment must be supported by administrators, promoted by the teachers, and demanded by both students and parents if we want to see NCLmB become reality.