Friday, September 3, 2010

A Reader Submits... TPM

A reader submits:

A hot topic in Texas at this time is the Texas Projection Measure, TPM. TPM is an attempt to measure growth. The idea is that schools that show statistical improvement get credit for meeting with accountability standards even if the raw scores are not up to standard. Some issues:

TPM statistics assumes that a child doing well or improving in math and reading will eventually pass all sections of State testing (science and social studies). This is probably an accurate assumption, however the implementation is 180 degrees contrary to my thinking. Here is why, a student who is passing or substantially improving in math and reading yet fails science and social studies is an indicator that the school let the child down in science and social studies. The school should not receive credit for the science and social studies but rather should be given notice for the poor performance since the child has the learned the basics of reading and math.

A child failing a portion of the state exam is a “go, no-go” issue. That is, promotion and graduation depend on pass or fail, not improvement. Yet under TPM the school gets credit for a pass, even though the student does not, as long as the child's performance has statistically improved. This is also 180 degrees opposed to my philosophy. The student-school relationship concerning testing should be if one benefits, both benefit. With TPM this is not the case as the child can fail and face dire consequences, yet the school not only escapes dire consequences, but inexplicably is rewarded.

If a child is failing but also statistically (and in reality) improving, what is this a measure of? I don't know for sure, but TPM assumes it is because the school is improving. I ask, “Improving from what?”

A child is improving, so the child was apparently always capable, so it is entirely likely the curriculum and instructional practices of the school were to blame for the child failing in the first place. It is possible (likely?) the school was providing a disservice to the child resulting in the child failing to meet accountability standards.

I applaud schools with the courage and conviction to fix failing practices, but to reward the school with a favorable, unearned accountability rating while students continue to suffer from the consequences of failure is WRONG. And while I applaud schools that have the courage and conviction to fix failing practices, the reality is that failing schools chose to provide a disservice to students. The courage and conviction to improve is a choice, as it is a choice to provide a disservice to children. Choose wisely as your student's future certainly depend upon your choice, even if your school's future does not.

SC Response

You make a very logical and compelling case. I particularly like the following point that you make, “The student / school relationship, concerning testing, should be if one benefits, both benefit.”

When this is not the case, it provides a concrete example of adult comfort being placed ahead of student need. A child failing to meet minimum standards is a serious issue with many real world and life long consequences. The system needs to be warned, mobilized and accountable for rectifying that issue. But by camouflaging that information (TPM), the system, and the adults in the system, can continue moving in the same direction, at the same pace, under the illusion that they are solving problems, which in actuality they are not.

Next, though it stings, you are right in pointing out that school failure is often a choice. There are fundamental practices required to operate effective schools and these practices are not a secret. However, many in education believe that those fundamental practices do not apply to themselves, their campus, or their district. Sadly, it is their students that pay the price for that hubris.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Thursday, September 2, 2010

A Reader Asks... Power Zone

A new member of the LYS Nation asks:

“Sean,

I recently saw you present at a conference. During your presentation on “The Fundamental Five” you spoke of the "Power Zone." You also quoted a percentage of where the majority of teaching takes place, i.e. “Behind the desk”. I can’t remember exactly how much time you stated was spent in other areas besides the Power Zone and was waiting to talk to my superintendent about this. How much time is spent not in the Power Zone? I thought this was very interesting.

Thank you,”

SC Response

Great question.

I'll give you a couple of masked examples from the 2009 / 2010 year.

District 1: Data from a large suburban district (30+ campuses, Elementary to High School); prior to LYS training, coaching and support.

Power Zone - 33%; Lecture Position - 22%; Teacher Desk - 44%

District 2: Data from mid-sized urban district (4+ middle schools); prior to LYS training, coaching and support.

Power Zone - 13%; Lecture Position - 21%; Teacher Desk - 62%

District 3: Data from large suburban district (4+ affluent elementary schools); prior to LYS training, coaching and support.

Power Zone - 47%; Lecture Position - 42%; Teacher Desk - 21%

None of the above are outside the norm.

Now, for some post training and coaching results:

LYS National Data for the Month of April 2010 (4,037 classroom observations).

Power Zone - 63%; Lecture Position - 18%; Teacher Desk - 17%

As you can see from the data above, just a little training and awareness creates a dramatic change. And that change is significantly correlated to increases in on-task behavior and retention and decreases in discipline.

Good luck and call us if you need us.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

A Reader Writes... (I got a Royal Flush - Part 5)

In response to the post, “I Got a Royal Flush,” a reader writes:

Sean,

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the “I Got a Royal Flush,” post. I was curious as to how you calculated the numbers:

TEA posted the following numbers on their site: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/news_release.aspx?id=2147485608

The only numbers that match up with your numbers are the exemplary numbers at 2624/1159. Please explain?

Cain Numbers: Overall / Absolute

E: 2624 / 1159

R: 3153 / 2212

A: 1456 / 3280

AU: 145 / 727

TEA Numbers: Overall / Absolute

E: 2624 / 1159

R: 3153 / 748

A: 1456 / 874

AU: 135

SC Response

Great questions and I have been waiting for someone to call me on the math. First of all, the early numbers I was working from were originally percentages, so there are some rounding errors. Second, I did lump the AU and the AAU together.

As you pointed out the state claims the following:

Exemplary (Overall) 2,624 / Exemplary (Absolute) 1,159

Recognized (Overall) 3,153 / Recognized (Absolute) 748

Acceptable (Overall) 1,456 / Acceptable (Absolute) 874

Unacceptable (Overall) 135

Here is how I figured out my numbers

1. Start with Exemplary, if you take away the wild cards, you have to assume that those campuses would drop down to the next level. So you have 1,159 campuses that remain Exemplary and 1,465 campuses that are now Recognized (2,624 – 1,159 = 1,465).

2. Do the same process with the Recognized Campuses (3,153 – 748 = 2,405). The 2,405 wild card Recognized campuses drop down to acceptable. But don’t forget you now have to add the campuses that moved down from Exemplary to the Recognized ranks (748 + 1,465 = 2213)

3. Do the same process with the Acceptable Campuses (1,456 – 874 = 582). The 582 wild card Acceptable campuses drop down to Unacceptable. But don’t forget you now have to add the campuses that moved down from Recognized to the Acceptable ranks (2,405 + 874 = 3,279)

4. Now add the wild card Acceptable campuses to the Unacceptable total (582 + 135 = 717).

Finally, your campus’s rating of Exemplary without the use of wild cards is a significant accomplishment. You and your staff should be proud. Just remember, one time could be a fluke; two times signals a trend; three times is a dynasty; and four times is why they write legends.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

A Reader Writes... (I got a Royal Flush - Part 4)

In response to the post, “I Got a Royal Flush,” a LYS Principal that has been working with us since he was an AP writes:

“Great analogy and advice. BTW, we got our Exemplary rating at Deweyville HS without any wild cards. Now I hope we can do it at Whitney.”

SC Response

You will, because like all the old school LYS’ers, you execute the LYS non-negotiables without apology.

1. The Foundation Trinity

2. The Fundamental Five

3. The focus on student need instead of adult convenience.

Go raise the bar yet again.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Sunday, August 29, 2010

An Offer from a Member of the LYS Nation

See below for yet another example of the LYS Nation stepping up to help its own. At the very least, print a copy of this and keep it in your desk. You never know when you may want to take Bret up on his offer.

Sean,

For any leader transitioning into a new position, I recommend the following two books:

1. You’re in Charge - Now What, by Thomas J. Neff and James N. Citrin

2. The First 90 Day, by Michael Watkins

I know you have read at least one of them. From those books, I developed my own transition plan/agenda for when I became Deputy Superintendent at Grand Prairie. I will gladly share my plan/agenda with the LYS nation. Anyone interested in receiving it need only e-mail me. I also have my highlights of both books typed up. I will also share them with the LYS Nation. Again, just email me.

Bret Jimerson, Ed.D., J.D.
Deputy Superintendent of Educational Operations
Grand Prairie Independent School District
2602 South Belt Line Road
Grand Prairie, Texas 75052
(972) 264-6141
Bret.Jimerson@gpisd.org

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...