Change a Practice, Change a Life

I am in the middle of  reading a book called Killer Germs which gives an account of the history of microbes and diseases that have threatened humanity and I came across this story of an unbelievable medical practice for delivering babies from the mid 19th century:

In some hospitals as many as one in four women who gave birth died of childbed fever, which was also known as puerperal fever an epidemic disease caused by a specific agent of unknown origin, like small pox.

Ignaz Semmelweis noticed something very puzzling at the Vienna General Hospital, where women were routinely delivering and dying.  In those wards where obstetricians and medical students delivered the babies, an average of 600 to 800 mothers died of childbed fever each year.  Where midwives delivered a similar number of babies, the annual death rate was 60- less than one-tenth!  Mothers who delivered their babies at home had an even lower mortality, nearly zero...eventually he realized what was happening.  Childbed fever was not caused by a mysterious epidemic or by miasmic air.  It was a wound infection of the uterus caused by the contaminated hands of doctors who were performing autopsies and then delivering babies.  As they left the autopsy rooms- the death houses- they carried with them the “cadaver particles” of corpses they had handled and transferred these deadly particles to the torn and infection-susceptible wombs of postpartum women (disinfecting their hands was not common practice at the time)…. Semmelweis ordered all obstetricians and their assistants to wash their hands thoroughly in a solution of chlorinated water until they no longer smelled the cadavers (on their hands)....the results were dramatic...one year after this practice the death rate plummeted (from 1 in 4) down to 1.2%...leading to childbed fever no longer being a threat to women giving birth.

Astonishingly, this was not the case...the “elder statesmen” in the medical profession carried great political clout.  They were conservative in their view, were slow to accept change, and most important, were loath to admit that but for a simple act of washing their hands countless women had suffered and died….In the end Semmelweis’ practice of antiseptic hand-washing to prevent childbed fever was stopped, and the incidence of the disease rose to record levels (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 2006, pp. 25-27).

Even though this was over 150 years ago, I found this blatant disregard for the evidence/data at the time along with the  refusal to follow best practices and ignore colleagues “in the know”  to be equivalent to medical malpractice and wondered how someone, who took an oath not to harm, could be so blind at the cost of their patients.  These doctors could have changed their practice and, as a result, could have literally changed the lives of the women and their families forever.  However, soon after reading this story, my mind started to drift to how we teach today and I began to wonder if 150 years from now people will look back, shake their heads, and question how so many educators in the early 21st century could continue questionable practices in school in spite of the evidence/data.

There is plenty of research out there for what works and what doesn’t in education. John Hattie’s meta-analysis of much of this research (see his short TEDTalk on successful teacher practices) does a great job of spelling out what works in schools and what doesn’t.  So, in my mind, it is not the lack of information or knowing what we could do that is the reason for many educators, like the doctor’s mentioned above,  continuing to follow traditional practices.  Then I wondered if perhaps the educators are somehow not aware of the changes in pedagogy.  

In “A More Beautiful Question”  Warren Berger points out that, “One of the many interesting and appealing things about questioning is that it often has an inverse relationship to expertise- such that within their own subject areas, experts are apt to be poor questioners” (Berger, 2014, p.13).  I wonder if 21st century educators who “believe they have arrived” fall into the same trap of 19th century doctor’s?  Berger warns “In a time when so much of what we know is subject to revision or obsolescence, the comfortable expert must go back to being a restless learner” (Berger, 2014, p.23).  My mind immediately goes to the Red Queen Effect and the importance of continuous improvement through professional development.  As soon as we stop asking questions we begin to fall behind in our practices.

The third trap we can fall into if we are not careful is summed up in a word...pride.  How could those 19th century doctor’s ignore the research and not follow best practices?   In short, their pride got in the way of their practice and impacted the lives of those women and their families forever.  As educators in the 21st century I would caution us not to do the same.  The Hattie video from above also discusses collective efficacy, which I mentioned in this earlier blog, and how the power of this practice comes from learning from each other.  The “experienced” 19th century doctors were not open for input from another colleague because it would indicate that what they were doing was not best practice and actually causing harm.  There is a quote by an unknown author (to me anyway) that states, “What we learn today doesn’t make yesterday wrong, it makes tomorrow better”.  I would modify this to say that “it makes tomorrow better IF we change what we did yesterday”.  To err is human, and as educators we should honor errors, but to continue to err out of pride as educator is malpractice and I would caution any of us to be mindful of our pride.

I suspect you noticed that I have been very general in my examples lest I inadvertently accuse myself.  I would hate it if 150 years from now someone reading about educational practices from the early 21st century were to wonder, “How could they not see it?” or  make accusations of educational malpractice based on our inactions.  I would instead encourage us all to take a deeper look at the research, always be open to improving our teaching, and capture the power of collective efficacy through conversations with our colleagues (i.e. PLCs).  Because, the positive changes in education we make today, could very well change our students’ life for tomorrow.  

References

Berger, Warren (2014). A More Beautiful Question.  New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Zimmerman B., Zimmerman D.   (2006).  Killer Germs: Microbes and Diseases that Threaten Humanity.

Chicago, IL.:McGraw-Hill..

Are you up for the Challenge of Being Authentic from Day One?

This year the folks in our Curriculum Office, the coaches/specialists and myself, are reading Better Conversations by Jim Knight in order to attempt to strengthen our coaching skills.  In the very first chapter Knight discusses the importance of being authentic and that in order to be authentic you have to first understand where you stand (your beliefs).  In my opinion one of the best ways to peek into the window of someone’s beliefs is to see how they run the first day of school.  The first day of school gives students a snapshot of how the rest of the year might look, the expectations of the teacher, and the culture of the class.  Needless to say, as I walked around our schools on the first day I was excited for many of the students as various classroom where abuzz with activity.

As a matter of fact, when I got to our high school there were no students in one of the Biology classrooms.  Instead the students were already outside with the challenge of finding any example of the same species living in two different environments with the goal of collecting quantitative data of their choice on that species.  Once the data is collect the students will begin to analyze it and naturally be introduced to topics such as histograms, standard deviation, critical value and other such biological statistical terms which will eventually  lead into their first topic of evolution.  

At the middle school I found students out of their seats standing in small groups around signs labeled  historical fiction, mystery, horror, sports, and other genera.  Each student had a book title written on a piece of paper in their hand and were talking with each other about their favorite book they read over the summer that fell into that particular genera.  After a few minutes, the students flipped the sign and a color was displayed.  The students then needed to move to the color that best describes the book they were just discussing.  Once in their new location, typically with a new group of students, they explained to each other how the color represents their particular book.  These discussions continued throughout the period using various signs including: candy bars, emojis, and the number of stars recommended which all led to a variety of conversations over what the students read over the summer.  It is a great example of giving students voice on their choice of summer reading and setting the culture for the class.  All on day one.  

This continue throughout the district as I entered the intermediate school where, in one class,  students were given a hand full of dice along with a blank sheet of paper and were challenged to create their own math game using the dice and then teach it to another student.  I was even more impressed with a primary classroom in which, not even 10 minutes after the students were in class, they were spread out all over the room reading while the teacher was going around the room having one-on-one conversations with the students about their reading lives up to this point.  As it turns out almost half the kids number one wish, in this open ended conversation, was to be able to read the books they chose to read.  Not so ironically, I thought back about that particular classroom and recalled that each student had a different book in their hands at the time.  

These are all refreshing examples that run counter to the much too common first day of school experience where many students are required to endure  the reading of the rules and sharing of all the things they, as students, should not be doing in class.  One extreme example I observed was actually not in class at all, but was in the hallways.  Students were being “drilled” on how to walk down the hall  being careful to always keep their right foot on the green tiles running next to the wall while they are to remain completely silent.  I understand the importance of being orderly and quiet so as not to disrupt other classes, but this seemed to make school  a little too institutionalized.  In any case, the culture set from day one of school is often a good indication of the beliefs and values of the teacher.  However, it is important to remember that just because, good or bad, that happens on the first day it is the day in and day out routines or habits that set the culture and are the true indicator of authenticity.

I’ll use myself as an example here.  I made a point of getting out of the office and being in the schools from day one in order to be available for conversations about the curriculum and to observe and learn how it is actually looks in the classroom.  That is great, IF I do it on a consistent basis throughout the year.  One of my favorite quotes is one by Aristotle and it reads: “We are what we repeatedly do.  Excellence then is not an act, but a habit”.  In his book, Jim Knight points out that beliefs and  habits are inseparable when it comes to authenticity.  “An authentic person...would be someone who lives in a way that is completely consistent with who or she is” (Knight, p.7, 2016).  If the teachers in these exemplars I mentioned above don’t continue to nurture these types of student centered classrooms, if it is not a habit, routine, or regular occurrence, it is not a true reflection of their pedagogical beliefs and therefore is not an authentic look into their pedagogy. Luckily for the students, in most of these classrooms, it really is the habits/beliefs of the teacher.  

It is my belief that in education, time is currency and the situations we create for our students is a good indicator of what we value and believe.  These beliefs, expressed on a daily basis, become habits and that leads to establishing the culture of the classroom.  I believe Knight would agree that authentic teaching is making sure our actions in the classroom match our beliefs or what we say are our beliefs.  I would encourage you to reflect on what  your first day of school looks like for your students.  Is it an authentic window into your pedagogy?   My challenge this year, to myself as well as to all of us, is to do our best to be authentic in our actions, conversations, and pedagogy.  I think a good question to ask ourselves to start the year is, "Am I up for the challenge?".  

References

Knight, Jim  (2016).  Better Conversations: Coaching ourselves and each other to be more
Credible, Caring, and Connected.. Thousand Oaks, CA.:Corwin.

What is your One Wish for this School Year?

Earlier this week, out of the blue, our Instructional Technology Coordinator strolled into the Curriculum Office, sat down next to my desk, and asked, “What is your one wish for this school year?”.  Caught off guard by the abruptness of the question, I thought for a moment and replied, “I wish we could shift our instruction to be more student centered instead of teacher centered”.  I then internally cringed because it sounded like such a canned answer.  He nodded his head, contemplated the statement for a moment, stood up, and walked away without saying a word.  I thought, “I hate when he does that”.

Had the conversation continued I am sure I would  have elaborated on my answer, but like George Costanza from Seinfeld I always seem to come up with the just right response after the moment is gone. Unlike George’s “Jerk Store” response, I think I would have been better able to articulate a different response that would have gone something like this:

I wish....

we could move from, what Larry Geni’s Teacher Handbook  would call a “curriculum transfer model” to more of a “preparing for life model”.  The curriculum transfer model has the teacher serving as the “gatekeeper” to information where all student learning must go through or come from the teacher.  It is the traditional way schools have approached learning since the development of public education.

The “preparing for life” model has rearranged those three parts and places the curriculum in a location accessible to all, with the students and teachers being able to interact to discuss and share their understanding of the curriculum whatever the subject.

In science class, students would be put in situations to nurture their natural tendencies to be inquisitive (ask good questions), curious (develop a sense of wonder; I wonder...?), social (collaborate/work together),and analytic (ability to exam evidence and make connections).  They would not follow “cookbook” type labs, but instead (with support) develop investigations.  The science teachers would build off the students prior understanding when introducing new information and if the students do not have a prior understanding of a new topic then the teachers would have the ability/understanding of the topic to use demonstrations or activities that would provide a common base for all students to work off of as they develop their understanding.

In math the teachers would not show students how to solve problems, but would instead create scenarios or ask questions that help students see patterns, make connections, and develop relationships between the numbers.  I elaborated on these thoughts in an earlier post titled “If THEY build it, Learning will Come”, so I won’t go much further here.

In language arts, students K-12 would develop voice and choice through some form of a readers and writers workshop.  The key here is that the more reading and the more writing the students do while in school the better they get at each, which means the teachers are talking less and the students are immersed in authentic reading and writing.  I also addressed this topic in an earlier blog titled “Oh good, are they just reading?”

In social studies students would receive lecturs on a limited bases and instead be given a series of standards or a problem to investigate.  Once they start their individual research, they would revisit, with their groups, in order to share and discuss their findings or take part in a “fishbowl” type activity as a whole class.  The point here is that students determine how they are going about learning a topic (with teacher support) which will naturally lead to more motivation and ability to make connections.  In our district, I  have seen this work in a single classroom as well as across a grade level in the form of Mock Congress.

In global language class students would walk through the doors and enter a completely different culture in which to be immersed.  English would become the second language and the particular language being “taught” would be the primary language.  If you think about how we learned our own first language as children, we did not learn to conjugate verbs and take written test, but instead:  observed, followed a model, experimented, asked questions, and repeatedly tried and failed with nurturing corrections from our parents.  I would love to see an intro to global language class run as some form of conversation based learning like this.

In my opinion, the fine arts have it down because there is continuous formative assessment and feedback taking place once a concept is introduced.  The communication between learners (teachers/students, students/students, students/teachers) is key for the learning and application of a skill.  Learning is social and we, as humans, have evolved to learn best in a social environment.  We are naturally curious and are actually energized by learning more about the world in which we exist.  Schools, run in the form of a factory model, have gotten away from this and a lot of that is due to trying to measure the success of a school through testing.  
I wish schools would be run more like a greenhouse, rather than a factory or business, and if we must have some quantitative way to measure the success of schools, let’s look at the differential between how fast kids run into school as compared to how fast they run out of school.  If we can keep that differential low, in my opinion, we have all the quantitative evidence we need to show kids are excited to come to school to learn.

Supporting Collective Teacher Efficacy is a Great Place to Start the Year

This summer, one of the books I read was Penny Kittle’s (@pennykittle)  latest book titled Book Love.  As mentioned in my last post “Great Summer Read to Help Create Readers in High School”, the book started to get  me thinking on the importance of student choice.  However, discussing the book over the summer with a group of teachers and administrators in our district, through Voxer, was what really helped me to process those thoughts and begin to apply Kittle’s message.  In a small way, through those discussions, we were experiencing the power of sharing with others (an important part of the readers workshop) and I really appreciated being able to have that opportunity.  Then it hit me, that this was a great example of the power of collective efficacy among educators.

Collective Teacher Efficacy was one the highest powers of influence (effect size) found in John Hattie’s most recent research.  It was second only to teacher expectations.  Hattie stated that research shows that educators who are aware of the collective power they have to make a difference in student learning can overcome challenges that students face both personally or in the home.  It is a powerful factor in learning.  This short (3 minute) video does a nice job of explaining collective teacher efficacy as it applies to Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), which I believe provide  a great avenue for teachers to support and promote collective teacher efficacy in order to make a difference in student learning.  

Both  administrators (positional leaders) and  teachers (dispositional leaders), share the responsibility to be sure PLCs focus on at least one of the three main ideas of a PLC: Student Learning, Collaboration, and Results (not Intentions) when meeting.  Using a framework for PLCs will help to promote deeper conversations about student learning (the HOW and WHY of teaching) versus more shallow (WHAT are we teaching?) conversations.  These deep conversations can lead to an increase of collective teacher efficacy which in turns leads to greater student learning.  However, it is important to nurture this idea of collective efficacy in order for it to be most effective in PLCs.  

I believe reading and discussing  this short article on “Fostering Collective Teacher Efficacy” in your PLC is a good place to start the process on how best to support collective efficacy within your own setting.  The power of dispositional leadership, the importance of effective goal setting, and the impact of effective supportive leadership all can lead to  nurturing collective teacher efficacy within a school setting.  Each school district, building, and even PLC will look a little different and that is the power behind having these discussions within the PLC.  As we approach the new school year it is an ideal time to sit down with our PLC team, share the importance of nurturing collective teacher efficacy within it, and discuss how best to support this best practice within our school setting.  If we start here I believe we will feel the power and see the impact in our students’ learning as the year progresses.  Welcome back, I hope TOGETHER you all have a great start to the new school year.