School Leader

Can Kentucky remake American education in its own image?

Interesting article from Education Week today on the Council of Chief State School Officer's plans to flood the U.S. Department of Education with NCLB waivers based on a new accountability model. 

States have been aflutter lately following U.S. DOE Secretary Arne Duncan's annoucement that states may seek waivers to exempt themselves key provisions of NCLB.  This is partly a political game, designed to force the Congress to move faster in its re-authorization of the law.  But CCSO has been working on a plan for a new accountability system for some time, according to the article, and plans to use the waiver provision to make sweeping changes in how school and student performance are assessed.

The model state: Kentucky, where CCSO executive director Gene Wilhoit used to be Commissioner of Education.  The Next Generation Learners System (latest incarnation of "CATS") contains the CCSO's preferred components of accountability, including...

...the establishment of college-and-career-ready standards, the measurement of graduation rates, and a requirement that states help build district and school capacity to turnaround the lowest- performing schools. Schools would be given more detailed feedback than just making or not making progress under the law.

Read the full article here.  It's encouraging that Kentucky continues to be an educational trendsetter for the nation.

 

School accountability is here to stay

Two articles the current Education Week illustrate the paradox of school accountability.  Educators want more autonomy (and they need it to meet accountability goals) but the public demands -- and has a right -- to objective measures of student achievement.  Are these goals mutually exclusive?

The first article profiles a nation-wide group of educators who are planning a march on Washington at the end of next month, called "Save Our Schools" (SOS, get it?).  The organizers hope to launch a grassroots movement that will challenge the use of high-stakes accountability testing as a measure of student success, school performance, and especially for teacher evaluation.  A whole slew of high-profile organizations have endorsed the event, including the International Reading Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and of course, the major teachers unions.  Collectively, these groups decry the relentless emphasis on testing for having negative educational consequences on students, and for being inadequate measures of student learning.

The march isn't exclusively about opposition to testing, however:

The four “guiding principles” for the march are: equitable funding for all public school communities; an end to high-stakes testing used for the purpose of student, teacher, and school evaluation; curriculum developed for and by local school communities; and teacher, family, and community leadership in forming public education policies.

Setting the issue of testing aside for a moment, these are worthy goals.  Inequities in education funding across schools and districts is a huge issue, though one that is not easily solved.  As for the last two points -- local development of curriculum and greater involvement from teachers, families and communities -- no arguments here.  One of the things that troubles me about the move toward Common Core standards is the potential loss of freedom for states and local districts to innovate their own approaches to teaching and learning and to meet the individual needs of their own students.  And who can argue with the value of more stakeholder involvement in developing education policy?

I also share many concerns about the role testing has come to play in the learning process.  I've seen schools and districts game the system, pouring resources into students who are more easily moved to proficiency for short term, one-year bumps in test scores, usually at the expense of students who are way behind their peers and need assistance the most.  I've seen schools become obsessed with last minute test preparations, pep rallies, and other strategies that may pay off, again in the short run, but which have little to do with long-term, sustained improvements in student learning.  And I'm definitely familiar with the flaws that exist within the accountability system from the seemingly arbitrary nature of accountability formulas to the myriad problems of NCLB.

But at the end of the day, taxpayers pour billions of dollars into public schools, and they have a right to know that we're doing our jobs effectively.  They deserve a solid, objective measure of student learning, something better than, "Take our word for it; teachers work really hard." 

Because the bottom line is that we are still not making the kinds of learning gains our students deserve, as demonstrated by the second article from Education Week.  Data from the most recent National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP, which is a well-respected test of student learning) indicates that nation wide, only about 12 percent of students have a proficient knowledge of U.S. history.  With the exception of notable improvements for minority students, this is exactly where our students performed in 2006.  This is a deplorable statistic.

We need tests to give us standarized, objective feedback on how we are performing as educators.  We need tests to push us to keep getting better, to counteract the ever-present tendency to blame poverty for low student achievement (i.e., poor teacher and principal performance), and to show the public what they are getting in return for their multi-billion dollar investment.

That doesn't mean our tests are perfect, and we must relentless push to improve the accountability system (which might include getting the federal government out of the education business altogether and allowing states to set their own education standards and agendas).  Educators and the public alike need to have faith in the tests students take.  And once those tests are established, schools should be given maximum autonomy and flexibility to figure out how to get students to that level of achievement.

Short of a full-blown voucher system in which schools have the ultimate form of accountability to their constituents, school accountability testing is here to stay.  We can work to make it better, but wishing it will go away is truly wishful thinking.

Long-term Effects of Preschool?

Preschool programs are one of the topics students explore in EDAD 594, Auxiliary Programs.  We examine the history of early child education, investigate the structure and scope of preschool programs in area disticts, and discuss the pros and cons of universal preschool.  One of the key points we wrestle with is the lack of solid research evidence that students who participate in preschool programs have significantly better long-term education outcomes than students who don't.  Many studies indicate short-term benefits for prechool participation, but most of those effects "wear off" by around fourth grade.

Now a new study, published in a recent edition of Science, shows that children who participated in a Chicago-based preschool program showed long-term positive effects well into adulthood (read U.S. News and World Report's coverage of the study here).

The researchers compared hundreds of children who attended the Child-Parent Center from 1983 to 1989 with a comparable group who did not attend any preschool program.  Twenty-five years later, the preschool attendees demonstrated higher levels of education, income, and socio-economic status and lower levels of drug abuse and criminal activity.  It's important to note that the preschool students started the program at age 3, eventually attended all-day kindergarten, and also received social services support.  The program's teachers were all also fully-certified early childhood specialists, which was not entirely common in the 1980's.  The program is now defunct.

Results are encouraging because the study suggests that, under the right circumstances and with plenty of additional supports, preschool education pays off with life-long benefits.  The study's authors go farther, arguing that the data justifies a large-scale expansion of preschool programs and funding.

Perhaps.  But as Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute points out, history does not show much evidence that trying to mimic successful education programs on a large-scale basis works effectively (Head Start, for example).  We are naturally tempted to think that if a program appears to be working in one school, it can be transplated to other schools and get the same results.  Far too many variables are at work to easily make this conclusion.

Still, preschool educators should be encouraged by this research and should examine the approach used by the program featured in the study.  It makes good sense to emulate successful programs, especially when leadership approaches program improvements with deep self analysis and reflection, and with structures for regularly monitoring and evaluating program effectiveness.

Arts, humanities, PE get more weight in latest version of accountability system

Meeting in Frankfort earlier this week, the Kentucky Board of Education approved revisions to the emerging school accountability system that would give greater weight to program reviews for arts, humanities, and PE than originally planned.

The new accountability program is set to include three components: student performance on standardized tests administered each year; program reviews of non-tested areas like arts, humanities, and PE; and principal and teacher performance as measured under the still-under-development evaluation system.  The most recent version of the accountability formula weighted the three components with test scores counting as 60 percent, program reviews at 20 percent, and evaluation at 20 percent.

In a split vote this week, the Board shifted to slightly more emphasis on program reviews and slightly less on test scores.  The new formula will be 50 percent tests, 30 percent program reviews, and 20 percent evaluation.  KSBA reports that this move was, in part, a response to lobbying from related arts teacher groups who wanted more weight for their subject areas.  Additionally, the Board approved using the TELL Kentucky Survey of teacher attitudes toward school culture and climate as a part of the 20 percent evaluation component for the state's lowest-performing schools.

I was not party to any of the debates about this change in the accountability formula, but my initial reaction is one of skepticism.  As important as arts, humanities, and PE are -- do they really constitute 60 percent of the value of math, science, language arts, and social studies in the entire scheme of student learning?  Furthermore, school administrators have grumbled to me off and on the last few years that the proposed program reviews remain vague in their structure and process.  Having a clear, well-defined program review process will be key to assuring the reviews actually measure high-quality outcomes for these subject areas. 

Educators and the general public are often skeptical about the validity of school accountability systems.  Arbitrarily moving pieces of the formula like this further weakens public confidence.

Am I missing something here?  If you have personal knowledge of the program review process or the Board's deliberations on this topic, feel free to post comments.

Join me at KASA's Summer Institute

The Kentucky Association of School Administrators Summer Institute will be held July 13-15 at the Galt House in Louisville. Click here to register or learn more. I'll be presenting on Thursday in a session entitled, "Helping Principals Help Teachers: Improving Instructional Leadership Through Coaching and Self Reflection." I'll share preliminary results of a year-long study I led in which a team of researchers developed a protocol for coaching principals in their efforts to help struggling teachers improve their instructional practices.

This work is an extension of my doctoral dissertation research, which used the concept of theories of practice to better understand how successful principals think about their own instructional leadership. A theory of practice is a kind of graphic organizer that maps out a person's "game plan" for solving a professional problem of practice. Theories of practice are statements that explain not only how you plan to solve a problem, but also state all the assumptions you are making about the problem. The idea is that your assumptions play a key role in your decision-making process, and by laying them out in black and white and reflecting on how your assumptions may be shaping the outcome of your actions, you can reflect more deeply on why your "game plan" is working -- or why not -- and make adjustments if needed.

Principals who participated in our study received one-on-one coaching throughout the year using theories of practice to help them in their work with struggling teachers. Preliminary results indicate that the principal coaching not only helped most of the teachers improve their practice, but also gave the principals a great opportunity for self-reflection on their own leadership behaviors and assumptions. At KASA I'll discuss these findings in greater detail and share suggestions for how other approaches to principal coaching might be helpful. One of the participant principals will share her own perspective on the experience.

Hope to see you there!

More on the Culture of "Nice"

Reflecting more on yesterday's post, I offered some additional comments on this topic on my Contemplative Learning consulting page.

Follow Dr. H on Facebook

I'm finding lots of exciting ways to intersect my own teaching practice and social media these days, and in that spirit I've just established a teaching page on Facebook.  This will provide another medium to communicate with students and stay connected even when our class time together ends.  The Facebook page will supplement this blog and will link to new blog posts.  I'll also use it to post important announcements about current courses and other WKU news and events.

Click here to see the page (also available in the sidebar to the right).  If you already have a Facebook account, you can "like" the page, and then you'll get updates through your news feed when I make a new post on the Facebook page or on my blog.  You can also post comments and engage in discussion with me, fellow students, and education practitioners about news and events.

See you on Facebook!

Confronting the Culture of "Nice"

The current issue of JSD [the Journal of Staff Development] features a great article on how the culture of "nice" pervades professional discourse among educators and how school leaders can take firm but gentle steps to challenge that culture.

(Sorry I don't have a full-text link to the article.  JSD is the members-only, bi-monthly magazine of Learning Forward, which used to be called the National Staff Development Council, a excellent organization focused exclusively on high-quality professional development for teachers and school leaders.  I strongly recommend membership.)

The article, "When Nice Won't Suffice: Honest Discourse is Key to Shifting School Culture," by Elisa MacDonald, vividly describes how educators feel deeply reluctant to openly critique their own instructional practices or those of others, and how this serves as a barrier to thoughtful, meaningful sharing, especially in professional learning community (PLC) contexts.  Instead, teachers tend to only say nice things about each other's work, even when the goal of the discussion is to improve practice. MacDonald provides a helpful list of signs that the culture of "nice" may be creeping into your professional conversation:

• Teachers rarely question each other's and their own practice, assumptions, and beliefs.
• Teachers only share successful student work to avoid judgment from peers.
• Teachers who share their unsuccessful student work and those examining it make excuses as to why the student performed.
• Teachers recommend strategies for the presenting teacher to apply, but don't critically reflect and apply them to their own instruction.

MacDonald gives examples of these signs, and then offers some specific strategies PLC facilitators can use to refocus the discussion in a more critical, honest direction.  The goal here, she argues, is to replace the culture of nice with a culture of trust, where teachers feel safe in sharing their own growth areas and those of their students.  MacDonald recommends establishing group norms that allow teachers to recognize when the discussion has shifted to "nice" and actively redirect it back to a more self-reflective approach.   Another helpful suggestion includes focusing on the learning dilemma students are encountering, rather than the teacher him or herself.  Finally, MacDonald encourages PLC facilitators to debrief each PLC session, specifically challenging teachers to reflect on how authentic, critical, and self-reflective their discussion has been.

MacDonald's article echoes points made powerful by Richard Elmore and his colleagues in their work on instructional rounds.  Until teachers and principals can separate the personal from the practice, meaningful growth in practice -- and in student achievement -- will be limited.  School leaders bear a key responsibility for contronting the culture of nice, and fostering a culture of honesty and ongoing professional growth in its place.

 

 

Teacher Book Club: Mike Schmoker's "Focus"

Education Week and Teacher Magazine (part of the same company) are sponsoring a summer online book discussion of Mike Schmoker's new ASCD book, Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Achievement.  The online discussion will take place July 19-21.  More information and resources, including online registration, is available here.

Students who have been in my classes recently know that I am big fan of this book.  Schmoker offers a devastating critique of current educational practices, indicting schools for failing to focus on what he considers time-honored, common sense essentials of effective teaching.  Broadly, these essentials include (a) sound curriculum design, (b) sound lesson design, and (c) rich literacy instruction in all subjects and grade levels.  The book explores each of these essentials in greater depth, and offers a pathway for school leaders to once again focus on these basics.

Schmoker's style is frank and, to some, off-putting.  He has a tendency to over-simplify the complex reasons schools have struggled to maintain focus on these basics.  And I don't personally have enough expertise on language arts standards and curricula to assess his critique and recommendations for these areas.

I do think, though, that Schmoker's basic argument is accurate.  Schools have poured millions of dollars and tons of human capital into programs designed to close achievement gaps and offer intensive interventions for struggling students.  There is nothing wrong with this and is, in fact, a welcome development, but far too many schools have focused exclusively on these approaches and neglected the fact that most classroom teachers need a lot more support and development in basic instructional practices.  I believe, as Schmoker does, that if schools invested an equal amount of energy into improving classroom teaching and instructional leadership, schools would see far more dramatic gains in student improvement.

I recommend Focus for every educator's professional library, and if you have the chance to join the book club, I encourage you to do so.  Focus will be a required text in my EDAD 683 courses this fall.