Share Your Comments on A Potential New Direction

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has recently offered opportunities to provide feedback on the most recent draft of Each Child=Our Future which is ODE’s proposed 2019-2024 strategic plan.  I raised an eyebrow as I began reviewing the plan because it, at least on paper, is making some shifts many educators have been calling for over the last several years (see also Working Towards Debunking Educations "Big Lie").  For starters, there is a proposed shift away from a “college for all” attitude which includes a heavy focus on academic assessment accountability to more of a preparing our young people to be successful in life model with a balanced educational approach.  The “four equally valued domains of learning” are composed of the more traditional domains of “Foundational Skills & Knowledge” and “Well Rounded Content” to go along with a new focus on “Reasoning” and “Social Emotional” concepts. It is these last two domains of learning that raised my eyebrow.

The new “Reasoning” domain is designed to encourage problem solving, critical thinking, innovation, and creativity among other skills which basically addresses the importance of  “nurturing our young people’s roots.” Meanwhile, the “Social Emotional” domain also focuses on “root” concepts such as growth mindset, collaboration, and perseverance. The proposal points out that these two domains are not easily measured, but should be part of the “whole child” approach for educating our young people.  As a matter of fact, the shift to a focus on the whole child is only part of what ODE calls their 8 Guiding Principles:

Whole Child

1. Students are the state’s hopes and dreams. Meeting the needs of the whole child,

including the development of social-emotional skills, is essential for preparing students for success in the classroom and to navigate the rapidly changing future of work. (see  Schools as a Greenhouse and  Change a Practice-Change a Life)

2. Equity is the state’s top education imperative. A student’s circumstances should never predetermine his or her success.   (see Raising Young People as Human Beings… )

Caring Adults

3. Parents, caregivers, teachers, school leaders and support personnel are at the heart of the state’s education system. They care deeply about students and do whatever it takes to support student learning and success. (see Is Being an Educator your Job, Career, or Calling?)

Strong System

4. A student’s learning experience—from preschool through post secondary education—must be seamless and engineered for preparing each student for future success.  (see What is Your One Wish for the School Year?)

5. Business, foundation and community partners are essential to helping the state reach its goals. The education system relies on community support, such as the meaningful participation of businesses, health care providers, social service organizations and others in the community.  (I do believe it is important to get the schools into the community and the community into the schools, but we should be careful not to put the business community on a pedestal as schools are not a business.  See also We Interrupt this Educational Blog Post…)

6. Schools are where it all happens—and a central focus of the work. Ohio’s schools often serve as hubs and resources for their communities.  (This is a lot about the right culture, so please see Value of a Shared Vision)

7. There is no one-size-fits-all. Regions and communities across Ohio face unique and nuanced challenges. (see Using Standards & Collective Efficacy to Get on Common Ground).

8. Evidence, data and clarity on desired outcomes are essential to the work, particularly when it comes to school improvement. At the state level, Ohio is prioritizing the use of evidence as schools determine what strategies yield maximum results in student success. (see Confessions of a Closet Data Avoider and Hire a Math Coach to Raise Your ELA Scores )

ODE has admitted that over the years the main focus of assessment has been on the domains of “Foundational Skills & Knowledge” and “Well Rounded Content.” They also have stated on page 9 of the draft that “If Ohio values all four domains, the state must explore innovative approaches to summative assessments, while working to help school districts gauge learning in (the domains of) Reasoning and Social-Emotional Learning. The research is clear that the acquisition of social-emotional skills cannot necessarily be tested.”  As a result, the state plans to provide feedback only for the domains of “Reasoning” and “Social-Emotional Learning” and therefore not have them be a “graded item on the state report card.”

Like I said, I am intrigued by ODE’s new direction and am curious to see how the feedback mechanism will look.  However, there are a few areas that I think would be of value for ODE to consider adding to the strategic plan and they would be included as part of my comments on the plan.  

• My first suggestion would to include a strategy which shifts the classroom to more of a student centered model.  Telling is not teaching and listening is not learning, we need to do better at putting our students in situations which allow them to build on their own learning.  (see Can Playing and Learning be Synonymous?,  If THEY Build it Learning Will Come, They do not understand shallowness because they do not experience depth, Just Say I’m Disinclined to Acquiesce…, Which is Best for Kids: Questions or Answers?, Great Summer Read to Help Create Readers in High School, and Oh Good...Are They Just Reading? to name a few.)  
• The second area I would suggest ODE add is to build on the importance of professional development and continuous learning for ALL of us. (see The Red Queen Effect,  Instruction Leader = Questioner not Expert , Change a Practice, Change a Life, Supporting Collective Teacher Efficacy, and Discomfort & Depth Will Work for a Team By Any Other Name to name a few.)

These are my suggestions, I hope this helped to generate some of your own thoughts and comments that you will share with ODE concerning the direction of education for our young people.

No Need to go Around the World to be Mathematical

In second grade I was the undisputed “Around the World” champion of my class making it around the entire room two consecutive times without being “defeated” although my buddy, Curtis Williams, used to give me a run for my money.  Do you remember Around the World? If not, it is where one student stands next to another student sitting at a desk, the teacher has some sort of math fact card (addition, subtraction, etc.) that is shown to the two students, and whoever answers the fact first gets to move on to the next student.  If the student standing, the current champion, loses then they sit at the desk of the person who beat them and waits until the “champion” makes her way around the room again for another chance. I used to love this activity because it was “so fun”, in fact I often was able to shout out an answer before my “opponent” even had time to think, and I hated it when I lost and therefore had to wait until the champion made her way back around to me.  Now, as a curriculum director, I look back at this activity I enjoyed so much as a kid and shutter. I think about how the activity was focused solely on speed and answers, I cringe that the students who needed the most practice sat around waiting for 23 other students to answer one fact before getting their turn, I hate that the slower thinkers never even had time to think, and I wonder how did we think this was a good idea. To be honest, this practice didn’t help me as a mathematician either.  It only reinforced what many people still believe that being good at math means you get answers quickly. It also makes me think that even though something is “fun”, although probably not for all the students, it is not necessarily a good practice.

At this point, I suspect you are reading this saying of course that was a terrible

practice, but I wonder if we fall into that same trap of “fun” math practice when we assign our young people to complete fact driven drill and kill computer based math games.  I am not saying all computer math games are bad, but what I would like to suggest is that not all computer based math games help our young people be more mathematical. The next time you get on one of these games decide for yourself. When “playing” this game are you spending more time on collecting and using “potions” or are you spending more time on mathematics?  When you are using math in the game is it based on how fast you find an answer? In other words, is it an electronic form of “Around the World” by recalling math facts quickly? This, of course, is assuming that the game covers the appropriate level of mathematics for the young people in your class. Hopefully, the math program is not covering concepts that are not developmentally appropriate as it can quickly lead to frustration and even anxiety especially if our young people are expected to complete the on-line activity at home (which often means without support).  We have to be careful we don’t fall into the “Around the World” trap that practicing by using some form of assessment (drill & kill) is a form of learning mathematics. I would argue that there are math apps out there that do help our young people be more mathematical, we just need to ask ourselves a different set of questions when vetting the app.

One of these questions could be, “Is this math app focused on product or process?”.  What I mean by product is “answers” and what I mean by process is conceptual understanding.  Math apps that help students to apply their current understanding of mathematical concepts to new situations help students to build their conceptual understanding of math.  A math app that is based on conceptual understand rather than rote facts and speed can also be fun. One such math app that I am looking at now is ST Math.  I am not sure if it fits the bill yet, but it certainly answered the first question on the “process” side.   This particular app also emphasizes looking at the big picture or analyzing info to look for patterns. Another question might be, “Does this app reinforce making connections to mathematics through examining patterns and relationships?”.  In “Mathematical Mindsets”, Jo Boaler suggests several math apps that do just that task.  One such game, Wuzzit Trouble, helps young people to become more flexible in their math thinking as they problem solve various mathematical scenarios or situations  their character was placed. It is a fun and challenging way for young people to make connections and see those mathematical patterns as they solve the various challenges.  One last question I would suggest we ask when evaluating a computer based math game is, “How does this app promote creativity, innovation, or flexibility with numbers?”.  Only a small part of mathematics should be about calculations. That is another one of the traps we fall into with “school math” vs. “mathematics”. As mentioned in, If THEY Build it, Learning Will Come, mathematician Conrad Wolfram points out mathematics should also be about: posing the right question and making connections.  A math app that I believe meets the criteria of the third question is Code Monkey.   In this app, young people will be able to be creative and innovative as they literally start to learn how to code.  

I am sure there are many more math apps out there that can help our young people become more mathematical, but I am also aware of many others that reinforce getting an answer quickly which undermines mathematical thinking.  It is for that reason we should start to ask these questions and others in order to vett the large number of computer based math games. If we do this, it will go a long way in helping our young people “develop mathematical mindsets whereby they believe that mathematics is about thinking, sense making, big ideas, and connections-not about the memorization of methods” (Boaler, 2016, p.47).

References

Boaler, J.. (2016).  Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential

Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages, and Innovative Teaching.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

We Were Made For This

This week I have been part of over 15 different interviews for open administration positions in our district with another 10 still on the horizon for next week, so needless to say my mind has been on leadership.   However, when thinking of leadership I can’t seem to get away from the importance of relationships and the “one consistent lesson that emerges from studies of the change process... that no one leader has all the energy and expertise to reform...a district, improve a school, or meet the needs of students in the classroom each day” (DuFour & Fullan, 2013, p. 24) which leads to valuing the strengths of those with whom we work.  In fact, there is actually an evolutionary connection to the power of relationships with a set of chemicals that rewards our brain for reaching out and working with others.

Oxytocin helps us form bonds of love and trust which lead to relationships so strong we can make decisions with complete confidence that those who care about us will stand by our side.  It is why it feels good to be part of a group. The more we learn to trust the group and earn their trust in return the more oxytocin flows in our body. The second chemical, serotonin is what motivational speaker Simon Sinek, in his book “ Leaders Eat Last” calls the Leadership Chemical.  He states, serotonin is “responsible for the pride we feel when those we care for achieve great things or when we make proud the people who took care of us and do right by those who lead us.”   Serotonin chemically reinforces this bond between ourselves and the group to which we belong. It actually encourages us to serve those for whom we are directly responsible.

So, being human means we are exposed to these leadership chemicals on a daily basis.  It also means that we ALL, thanks to oxytocin and serotonin, have the natural tendency to want to belong and serve.  Therefor positional leadership, such as being a principal, should be looked at as form of servant leadership or stewardship. (see also Entitlement:Stewardship as Oil:Water)   Being a steward is basically being a servant to others by taking care of something that is not yours.  In my opinion, public service, and especially leadership, should be looked at as a form of stewardship because it is not about “me” or “mine”, but rather “us” and “ours”.

However,  just because we select someone to serve as a positional leader today, doesn’t mean we, as a member of the school community,  relinquish our responsibilities to lead as well. Even if we do not serve in a positional leadership role, we all have the opportunity to serve in some form of dispositional leadership. (also see The Power of Dispositional Leadership)What that looks like is going to be different for each one of us as we all bring our strengths and weaknesses to the group. Think about your own talents as if they are along a continuum  with one end being weak and the other being strong. If we were to self-asses these skills we would each come up with a sort of jagged profile. As an example, part of my own profile set would be:

WEAKER--------------------------------------------------------------------------STRONGER

     +Strong in Science

+Weak in Grammar

+A little stronger in Writing

+Weaker in learning a Second Language

+Fairly competent in Mathematics

+Higher in Social Sciences

+Low in Art even though it runs in my family

+Stronger for Athletics

     (Although I find “The older I get the better I was”.)

+But, even today I struggle to play an instrument

+And you definitely don’t want me to sing.

So, you could do this for yourself and I suspect you would see each of us bring this jagged profile to the group and therefore all of us bring strengths and weaknesses.  It is these strengths that we have the ability and responsibility to use to help the school community.  This is the power of dispositional leadership.  

The smartest person in the room is the room.  Together, with our jagged profiles, we

each bring something that makes our school more impactful as a whole than any one individual.  Remember that no one positional leader has the ability to lead alone, but a leader who acts as a steward serves the group. These positional leaders should seek out group member input based on the member’s strengths and therefor model how to nurture a collaborative culture.  A positional leader which promotes such a culture will provide more avenues for dispositional leadership based on the skills and knowledge of each member.

Looking at leadership as a form of stewardship, I believed,  allowed me to transition from working with my colleagues as a teacher to working with them as a principal.  I also was able to nurture a culture that provided opportunities for others to use their strengths to contribute to the group and that is the path  I would encourage school leaders to follow. However, don’t forget we each have the natural disposition, thanks to our serotonin, and the ability through the strengths in our jagged profile to take on a dispositional leadership role and contribute as well.  We all were made for leadership, in our own way, and I would encouraged each of us to use it.

References

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

    Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Sinek, Simon (2014).  Leaders Eat Last.  New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Three Questions Leading to Better Resolution

It has been hard to focus on education with all the concerns about safety taking place in our schools and communities lately.  School leaders have really found themselves between the “Scylla and Charybdis” when it comes to decisions on weapons and drugs as applied to the young people in our schools.  Conversations with parents that touch upon both Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights have somehow found their way into to the daily norm of school dialog and the questions concerning how best to prepare our young people for learning have been pushed to the back burner.  As this is an “educational blog”, I don’t believe this is the forum for discussions concerning those constitutional rights unless actions related to those rights can be worked into the purpose of schools.  If we agree with Linda Darling-Hammond that the purpose of public education has shifted to  “preparing students to work at jobs that do not yet exist, creating ideas and solutions for products and problems that have not yet been identified, using technologies that have not yet been invented” (Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. 2), then I think that is where we, as educators, need to be sure to ask ourselves three questions.  When we answer to the affirmative for any of the the three questions we should then move forward and if we answer in the negative for all three we should move on.

“How does this nurture a student's ability to learn?”

In my mind, this is the most important question to ask when it comes to resources such as time and money.  I have often stated that in schools, “time is currency” and how we have our young people spend their time demonstrates what we value most just as much as how we spend our money.  I do realize this is not a straight up “yes” or “no” question but we should be able to perceive the general trend from our answer to this question.

“Will this promote teacher growth?”

“The single most important influence on student learning is the quality of teaching” (McNulty & Besser, 2011, p.44), so it is important to be sure that the decisions we make, at minimum, do not negatively impact teachers, but ideally should lead to opportunities for growth.  (see also  “The Red Queen Effect”)

“Does this lead to school improvement?”

Typically, when I am referencing school improvement it is in relation to improving the culture of the school.  A strong culture is supported by a strong vision (see also Value of a Shared Vision), such as supporting the vision for  “Schools as a Greenhouse”. There are many decisions educators, both in and out of the classroom, must make that can positively or negatively impact the culture of the school.  If we are not clear on the vision of the school, those decisions which are not aligned with the vision could slowly undermine the culture of the schools.  

Of course these three questions are not the end all be all, but I believe they are three questions we should always ask when making decisions about schools.  When most people read the term resolution they envision “solving a problem”, but as a Biology teacher the term resolution to me connotes “the ability to see more clearly” (think microscope resolution).  So, with that definition of resolution in mind, I would like to propose that dilemmas which educators face today from arming teachers, to drug testing students, to pedagogical decisions within the classroom can all be viewed with a little better resolution through the lens of these three questions.  

References

Darling-Hammond, Linda (2010).  The Flat World and Education.  New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

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

Leadership and Learning Center.