Just say, "I’m Disinclined to Acquiesce to Your Request" to Telling

This week I started reading a book recommended by both an elementary ELA teacher and a secondary ELA teacher in our district, so I thought it must be worth digging into more.  The book is “Reading Nonfiction: Notice & Note” by Kylene Beers & Robert Probst and even though I just started it, what I read,  as well as some discussions with colleagues concerning what I read, made something “click” in my head about teaching that I couldn’t quite put my finger on earlier.

In the book, Beers and Probst were discussing the definition of nonfiction and pointed out how it should go well beyond “not false” or “true stories”.  Their point is well taken, especially with today’s “fake news” dilemma  via the internet making clear that all “nonfiction” is not necessarily “true”, but rather is the viewpoint of the author.  Students, they say, must approach reading nonfiction with a more critical eye and, in fact, it’s their discussion on the definition of nonfiction based on the student’s developmental stage that got me thinking.  

• Primary Students- Nonfiction, because of their concrete thinking, is simply a book about real people or real things.
• Elementary Students-  The definition of nonfiction, because these students can begin to think of another’s perspective, is not limited to just  real people or real events, but also includes beliefs and ideas of others.
• Middle School Students- The ability for this age group to think more abstractly expands the definition of nonfiction to include the author’s claims or assertions about real people, real events, beliefs, or ideas.
• High School Students-  Due to student maturity a more sophisticated, and shorter, definition of nonfiction can be used.  Nonfiction is now able to be defined as “the body of work in which the author purports to tell us about the real work, real experience, a real person, an idea, or a belief” (Beers & Probst, 2016, p. 27).

The point here is that the teacher must always be aware, be able to recognize, and be able to consider the student’s developmental stage, even with something as “simple” as the definition of nonfiction.  However, many times educators believe they are making something more developmentally appropriate by using more simple or complex vocabulary, but in reality we need to take into account how the students think when considering the term developmentally appropriate.  This is when the light bulb finally went on for me. It makes sense, if you think about it, as parents it doesn’t matter if you tell your seven year old “no” or “I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your request” (a favorite Pirates of the Caribbean quote) to a demand they might make, because they are still going to be persistent until they understand and can “see” why their demand is not appropriate.  

In “The Art of Changing the Brain”, Dr. James Zull points out that teachers must see things through their students’ eyes and suggests that “teachers balance their teaching so students use both the front (analyzes info) and back (takes in info) cortex (part of the brain)” (Zull, 2002, p.136).  The reason behind this is as “experts” of a topic, teachers need to be aware that they are working with novices and even though our brains, whether we are an expert or novice, basically sense the same things, “the difference is the experts know which part of the sensory data is important and which part isn’t” (Zull, 2002, p.141).  That is why, as expert teachers, we have to consider carefully what we are going to show our students and how to show it.  By allowing students a chance to “ notice once shown” (the situation they are put into by the teacher) then they will be able to make their own connections and therefore “learn” the concept.  That is something students can’t do if we, as experts, rush the process and tell them what is important to remember.  In fact, our brain is designed to ignore a repeated sound after a while which is a phenomenon called habituation.  Dr. Zull half  jokingly points points out that nothing demonstrates habituation more than a lecture” (Zull ,2002, p. 149), but it is an important point to remember as educators.

As educators we do need to have a certain amount of content knowledge, but it is not the content knowledge that separates out the more effective teachers from less effective.  It is not “Do you have the knowledge to teach?” it is “Do you have the understanding of how kids learn?”.  If you have that understanding, and enough content knowledge, you can put kids in situations that allow them to make their own connections rather than “telling them the answer”.  The origin of the word “teach” comes from the Old English term “techon”, which means “to show”...not to tell.  Putting students in situations and giving them time to process and make or see connections is what we should be doing, but we must be able to recognize where the students are developmentally, understand the scaffolds of our subject area well enough to know where the students fit, and have the ability to put them into the next best situation that would allow them to see, and ultimately make, those connections.

References

Beers, Kylene & Probst, Robert. (2016).  Reading Nonfiction:  Notice & Note Stances,
Signposts and Strategies.  Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Zull, James (2002).  The Art of Changing the Brain.  Sterling VA: Solution Tree Press.
Stylus Publishing.

Little Steps Add Up to a Big Change

I just spent the majority of the morning making what felt like my 100th edit to a chapter I am contributing for a book that is being published this Spring and was therefore not going to post anything this week.  However, I think a little OCD kicked in and I wanted to at least post a small reflection of the week.

There have been some great conversations taking place in the curriculum office in which dialog bordered on arguments fueled by the passion to help kids learn that we all possess.  This week was no different as we continue to work on finding ways to create a system that promotes high expectations with support while providing the latitude teachers need to make professional judgments based on student needs.  I was reminded of the importance of this combination of expectations, support, and latitude when editing this portion of my chapter this morning:

School leaders must understand “the fundamental purpose of school is to ensure all students learn at high levels” (DuFour & Fullan, 2013, p.14), and that “the single most important influence on student learning is the quality of teaching” (McNulty & Besser, 2011, p.44). Once the importance of the “roots” is understood by all, the goal for school leaders, administrators and teachers, comes down to creating a culture to support teachers. However, administrators can not build and sustain such a culture on their own.

In order to communicate the importance of teacher leadership, “rather than talking about leadership as pertaining to any one person, we need to recognize that leadership is a process of a set of functions that may be performed by many of a team’s members” (Levi, 2014, p.184). Therefore, a culture of learning for all, students and adults, with a focus on democratic values must be emphasized. At the 2015, Model Schools Conference, Bill Daggett stated multiple times that “Culture Trumps Strategy.” A greenhouse culture such as this, promotes leadership as being “dispositional” rather than “positional” and communicates the vital role teacher leadership plays in a successful school district. Dufour (2013) states:

Sustaining systematic improvement...relies less on the brilliance of a charismatic leader and more on the task of creating dispersed, widely shared leadership that supports an organizational system and culture that enable people throughout the organization to succeed at what they are being asked to do (p.64).

When teachers serve in a leadership role, a culture of sharing and respect for the ideas of all group members is encouraged and expected. “Success only happens if team members are willing to share their knowledge and learn from each other” (Levi, 2014, p.252). This willingness to share is a form of collegial-reflective inquiry and is brought about by the creation of a culture that reflects shared learning. “Leaders must create environments in which individuals expect to have their personal ideas and practices subjected to the scrutiny of their colleagues” (McNulty et.al, 2011, p.59).

One of the best ways to nurture shared leadership is to provide time to develop trust and collaboration through PLCs. PLCs align with wise curriculum judgments, supporting a greenhouse culture. PLCs provide the opportunity for the teachers to examine their teaching practices in a safe and trusting environment. These discussions have the potential to become hard discussions as teachers might disagree on a particular pedagogical approach. If given the time to build trust, this can also be productive because “dissonance helps to move PLCs in a positive direction” (Henderson & Gornik, 2007, p.208).

Hopefully I am allowed to post that :),  they are still my thoughts, so I think I’m good.  The point being is that this week I was reminded of the importance of trust, the value of  teacher leadership, and the power of collective efficacy yet again.  These are topics that I have mentioned before in this blog, but they are worth repeating because they must happen everyday.  I honestly believe that we are missing the boat if we don’t use PLCs (continuous and embedded professional development)  as the main platform to work together to help all of our students grow as learners.  I am encouraged as I see this happening more and more across our district including amongst the administrative team.  I believe it is the best way to shift the culture of schools from a curriculum transfer model to one which prepares our students for life.  It may seem like a long journey, but I would encourage each little step as we make our way closer to this ideal destination.

References

Daggett, W. (2015, June). Model Schools Conference Session 18- Culture Trumps

   Strategy [Lecture Notes & Powerpoint]. Retrieved from   

http://www.cvent.com/events/2015-model-schools-conference/event-summary-7982b0b7d11e4fbd9d4bd8d06147b303.aspx?ct=59458a8c-b962-48fc-b8b3-eae7e385e2d2

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005).  On common ground: The power of

professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R. & Fullan, M. (2013).  Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs at work.

   Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Henderson, J. & Gornik, R. (2007).  Transformative curriculum leadership.

   Pearson Education, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Levi, D. (2014). Group dynamics for teams (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

 

McNulty, B. & Besser, L. (2011).  Leaders make it happen. Englewood, CO: Leadership

   and Learning Center.

Using Standards & Collective Efficacy to get On Common Ground

Our school district has been working as a Professional Learning Community (PLC) for a little over a decade and although we still have a continuum of functionality amongst our PLC teams,  I believe we have done a nice job across the board of aligning our curriculum to the state standards.  This step stopped the target from moving and has allowed our PLC discussions to go deeper into the pedagogy through a focus on “how” and “why” versus a focus on “what” we are teaching and “when” are we teaching it.  This week I was reminded of the power of standards when paired with collective teacher efficacy.   

I have reference John Hattie’s work a few times (Confession of a Closet Data Avoider & Supporting Collective Teacher Efficacy) in this blog, but I unexpectedly came across similar concepts through a book study of Rick DuFour’s “On Common Ground”.   On Common Ground is an “older” book in that it was published in 2005.  We used it as a launching pad for shifting toward PLCs in our district in 2006.  At that time each of the teachers in our district read and discussed the concepts embedded in the book and I believe it helped us to get our PLCs off the ground.  The reason I was revisiting  the book this week is because each year I hold a book study of On Common Ground with teachers who are coming into our district for the first time.  We do this so they literally can get on common ground with their new PLC teams in the district.   This month’s chapter focused on standards.

I believe it is safe to say that standards are important, but especially so when you are trying to minimize the educational lottery that could take place if we are not careful.  One quick example:  In 1999, before standards, I moved to Aurora High School (OH) after teaching for seven years prior.  I joined two other teachers in the “Biology Department” and enjoyed working with the team.  However, one of the teachers loved plants and so spent a considerable time in class discussing Botany, but he did not believe in Evolution and as a result didn’t touch the topic.  A second teacher in the department loved the Theory of Evolution and dove deep into the topic while avoiding plants because he thought they were boring.  Meanwhile, I covered both Botany and Evolution in my classes but not nearly as deep as the other two members of our department.  At the end of the year you could have a conversation with any of our students and easily determine which one of us the students had based on their understanding of these two topics.  It was literally an educational lottery as to which Biology curriculum you received based on which teacher you were assigned.  Standards have helped to eliminate this lottery, but at the same time have led to another problem of teachers feeling the pressure to rush through content to cover all the standards by the end of the year.  In our review of On Common Ground this week, we were able to discuss some strategies the book suggests for avoiding the trap of and pressure from rushing through the curriculum in order to reach all the standards.  

When faced with an inordinately large number of standards to “cover”, it is important to be able to identify the key standards (power standards) that all students should have after completing the course.  On Common Ground contains three key questions to ask yourselves (PLC) when trying to identify these power standards:

1. Does this standard have endurance?
2. Does this standard have leverage?
3. Is this standard needed for the next level?

Endurance refers to the idea that the concept embedded in the standard is going to have a lasting effect on the student long after the student learned the concept. In short, is it foundational?  Leverage asks can the concept addressed in the standard be connected to other standards?  It is more broad in its impact where endurance tends to be more deep within a topic.  “Needed for the next level” address those standards which contain concepts that build toward other concepts found in standards to come.  Asking these three questions in your PLC while reviewing your respective standards will help to focus your time, energy, and talents on what the students need most.  

However, I believe it is important to emphasize,  the power behind this idea is the fact that teachers decide together within their PLCs.  The impact comes from believing that working together to help all of our students (collective efficacy) can make a difference and that can only take place when we discuss and debate these three questions, as applied to our standards, as a PLC team.  “Accountability systems must focus not only on what students achieve, but also on how the adults in the system influenced that achievement” (DuFour, 2005, p.61).  This is a concept that works in 2017 as much as it did in 2005 and it is important to constantly revisit in order to stay on common ground as we continue to work together to use standards as our framework to help all of our students grow as learners.  

It’s like Vuja De for the Very First Time

Most people are familiar with All-Star Yankee’s catcher and accidental philosopher,  Yogi Berra’s, statement, “it’s like deja vu all over again”.  However, not as many are familiar with comedian George Carlin’s reference to “vuja de” in which someone sees something familiar in a completely different light.  I didn’t grow up listening to Carlin’s routines centered around vuja de, but came across this idea of vuja de while reading Warren Berger’s  “A More Beautiful Question”.

In this book, Berger mentions the value of asking questions and how the best questioners are not necessarily the experts, but rather those more unfamiliar with the topic.  However, most of us often don’t want to ask questions for one of two reasons:  We either don’t want to look foolish or we don’t want to come across as disrespectful.  I have often said, “It’s easy for me to ‘play dumb’, because I am a natural at it” when referring to having certain conversations, so not asking questions because I might look foolish isn’t my problem.  At the same time, I do find myself not asking questions because I don’t want to “offend” or come across as being disrespectful when having a conversation.  I am finding I need to get over that feeling of being disrespectful for asking too simple of a question because as Berger mentions, “Part of the value in asking naive questions, is that it forces people to explain things simply, which can help bring clarity to an otherwise complex issue” (Berger, 2014, p.80).  He also references Shunryu Suzuki’s quote from “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind” which basically points out that the beginners mind allows for many possibilities, but an expert’s mind is often limiting.  Sometimes our understanding can get in the way of our curiosity.

I find that happening to me currently as we are revisiting our grading practices K-5 and in particular how those practices are being reported.  We are finding that the report card often seems to dictate the pedagogy instead of the other way around.  As a results, we are following practices that are not necessarily best practices because they meet the needs of reporting or quantifying student learning.  Somewhere in here is a vuja de moment where asking the right question with a beginner’s mind will help to flush out the next steps.  The key is for us to sit down, pause, and give ourselves the opportunity for this to take place.  That is a step we often skip because we are in too much of a hurry to get to the solution to the problem.  I suppose, on the positive side, my limited experience with K-5 or in creating a report card might lead to asking the right “simple” questions that gets folks reflecting.  I just need to remind myself to get past the idea of potentially coming across as disrespecting teachers when I ask them elementary questions about their grading practices while at the same time together we need to create an atmosphere which protects and encourages naive questioning.  If we can do this, we just might see the obvious answers that were right in front of our nose the whole time and it will be just like veju de for the very first time.

References

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

Six Beliefs Which can Lead to Better Conversations Across our Schools

In Jim Knight’s “Better Conversations”  he speaks to six beliefs about conversations which will help any coach or administrator reflect on how they have conversations with their colleagues.  Some of the beliefs come across as common sense, while others might hit closer to home and just might get you to reflect on your own conversations.  I believe these six beliefs, discussed below, would be a great topic for a Coaches, Administrative Team, or PLC meeting and I would encourage any such group to start the conversations..

Belief #1:  See Conversation Partners as Equals

I honestly believe that you can always learn something from anyone during a conversation and that includes conversation with students.  Too often, as educators, we fall into the trap of being the “authority” figure or the “Keeper & Distributor of Knowledge” when it comes to our students and as a result we don’t see our students as equals.  If we are not careful, this same dilemma can befall us if we leave the classroom to serve as a coach or administrator and have conversations with our fellow teachers.  Actions speak louder than words, so check your body language, Do you find yourself interrupting someone who is speaking?,  Do you acknowledge what they are saying or do you already have a response in your head ready to share?, Do you send an undercurrent that you are in a hurry and this conversation is an unwanted distraction?  These, and many other subtle actions, send the message we don’t see our conversation partners as equals.  Our actions will show we see the value in people as much as our words tell it.

Belief #2:  Hear What Others Have to Say

This comes down to more than acknowledging what people say after they are done talking.  In my mind there is nothing more patronizing than to repeat what a person says, as if you are acknowledging it, and then immediately go into your own rant on what you think.  If you are “hearing” what others have to say you are actually keeping your mind open to the possibility of change based on what they have to say, even if it is completely opposite of what you think.  Have empathy, “walk a mile in their shoes”, “seek first to understand” are all reminders to the importance of hearing what others have to say.

Belief #3:  People should have a Lot of Autonomy

We often define who we are by the choices we make just as we define others by the choices they make, so taking away choices in one way can be dehumanizing.  We all should work toward giving more autonomy in our classrooms and schools whenever possible because not giving choice frequently can lead to resentment or even resistance.  As a result, whenever possible we should work to promote autonomy at all levels.  I have seen this in the classrooms K-12 as teachers who have allow kids to have some control of their own learning have been amazed of the connections kids make.  Sometimes we need to just get out of the kids way.  This can be extrapolated to administrators getting out of the teachers way in the form of giving them the latitude and autonomy for those teachers aligned with the overall vision of the school.

Belief #4:  Don’t Judge Others

I have always believed that it is human nature to categorize things, it’s in our biology, and if we are not cognizant of that fact it is very easy to judge or rank someone above or below us based on their opinions or actions.  This belief of “not judging others” reminds us to resist the temptation to categorize others while in the middle of a conversation which will keep the conversation open to new ideas.  As you can see these beliefs start to blend together because in order not to judge you should ask questions which is basically working towards seeking first to understand (Belief #2: Hearing What Others Have to Say) and asking questions automatically leads to keeping the conversation going both ways..

Belief #5:  Conversations Should be Back and Forth

As an administrator I honestly welcome others questioning or disagreeing with something I have said because it shows that they are engaged in the conversation and could potentially keep me from making a mistake.  I get more worried when I say something and someone, who I know does not necessarily agree with me,  silently goes about their business because that often means they have made their own determination on the topic or feel as if they are not being heard.  I believe this belief also means you have to be comfortable asking questions to understand more versus asking questions to “trap” someone or to “demonstrate” your own thinking is correct.  Good questions promote the back and forth nature of better conversations.

Belief #6:  Conversations Should Be Life-Giving

Admittedly , this does not happen all the time to me, but I have been part of conversations that have gotten me so energized and excited about the next steps they do feel “life-giving”.  I have noticed these conversations often happen with the same people and, in reflecting, those people tend to follow the first five beliefs mentioned above.  If I want people to feel the same way after having a conversation with me then it is clear I have to be cognizant of these beliefs.  

As I get deeper into Knght’s book, I have in some ways felt better and at some times felt terrible about my conversations with others.  However, the one theme that seems to keep coming back is the importance of keeping those conversations going.  Incorporating these six beliefs in your approach to how you speak with others just might lead you to nurturing those better conversations.