A Reader Writes... (Poisonous Staff - Part 6)

In response to the 12/12/2010 post, “Poisonous Staff – Part 5,” a reader writes:

I thought it was rather funny that one of the responses to this continuing saga of poisonous staff was to suggest that the writer find another school district to work for rather than some other option. Giving up is never an option that we as teachers suggest to our students, so why should anyone in authority suggest it?

You are right about that principal being under much stress. But, you only create more stress when you are experiencing it. Stress gets even the best of us. I'd love to have LYS provide teachers, school districts and the like with ways to redirect each other in positive ways and make it so that we need and must do so. Being a LYS teacher should also mean: Work as a team. A unit. Know that each one of the team is vital to success. Never try to do a team member in. Always, always find a way to keep each team member up and find a way to relieve stress in a positive way rather than taking it out on your TEAM!!!!!!

SC Response

Let’s start with one of the first rules my grandfather (a very successful leader of men and women, both in the military and the corporate world) taught me. “If you have a problem with your boss, it is your problem, not the boss’ problem.” That’s why I advise if you do not agree with your boss and/or you cannot live with the direction the organization is heading in, that is your problem. Support the organization and your boss, or leave. I can respect either of those decisions. But I cannot condone someone who is unhappy with the situation, sandbagging or sabotaging. As adults, we have a choice of where we work and whom we work for. Exercising that choice is always a viable option. Students, on the other hand, do not have a choice of what school they will attend and who will teach them. Since they have no choice (relatively speaking), we have a responsibility (moral imperative) to teach them to the best of our ability. Every day, whether we are happy or not.

Your suggestion that we work with educators on ways to reduce stress and support each other is part of our training and the support that we provide schools and districts. And the schools and districts that we have worked with for multiple years realize that this is the case. Unfortunately, in the initial stages of LYS training and support, there are those who are frazzled by the changes in their daily practice that they are trying to implement. Which is why we remind everyone that initially, all we are looking for is effort, because with effort the improvement will happen. Change is never easy, meaningful change even less so. We (LYS) know that, which is why we are there to support campuses in their attempts to improve. It is also why we don’t take it personal when people vent towards us. It’s just a natural part of the change process.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain at www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Booth (today)

Hear the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Association Conference (tomorrow)

A Reader Writes... (Curriculum Myth - Part 2)

In response to the 12/10/2010 post, “Curriculum Myth,” a LYS Principal writes:

Sean did a good job of fielding this one. Let's look at your opening statement:

Shouldn't curriculum, instruction and assessment all be standards-oriented, research-based and data driven?

The answer to this question is "YES"

From a curriculum theory standpoint, you have the taught curriculum, the prescribed curriculum, and the learned curriculum.

Curriculum begins with standards. In Texas, the State Board of Education (SBOE) determines these standards. Standards should be research based with input from society, experts, and anticipation on the needs of students in a changing future, etc. TEA uses the SBOE standards (TEKS) and builds assessment of those standards (TAKS, STAAR). Pearson uses a whole lot of experts (and money) to develop assessments. These assessments are research based and to paraphrase Willard Daggett, “For a standardized test, TAKS is pretty good."

You have no control of the tested standards. And there is NO need for YOU to research them. The research has been professionally conducted and the assessment is what it is. Are those standards research based? Maybe, maybe not. You really have to follow the buffoonery that is SBOE deliberations to answer this question and if you do follow the buffoonery, you know the answer.

Once we know the tested standards, we work on the prescribed curriculum. We select a curriculum that we trust is aligned to tested standards. Again, no need to do the research, it has been done for you when the standards were determined, just align your prescribed curriculum to the tested standards.

Next you have the taught curriculum, what happens in the classroom, and the learned curriculum, which also happens in the classroom. This is where PowerWalks, the Fundamental Five and common assessments come in. We use frequent common assessments (which are probably not research based) to verify that the taught and learned curriculum is aligned with the prescribed curriculum.

From top to bottom it looks like this:

1. Standards (partially research based, partially politically and ideologically motivated) developed/approved by the SBOE.

2. Tested standards based upon SBOE standards (TEKS). Tested standards are developed by TEA (TAKS, STAAR). The tested standards are definitely research based, but not by you. You can conduct your own research, but the State is not interested in the results of your research.

3. Your district chooses a curriculum (C-Scope, C-CAP, et al.) that is aligned to the tested standards. Again, no research required, just verify the prescribed curriculum addresses the needs of the tested standards, which is a scope and sequence issue, not a research issue. At this step, we are looking for alignment, not validity and reliability.

4. Verify that the taught and learned curriculums are tightly aligned to the prescribed curriculum.

So yes, curriculum is in theory, research based. But in our case no research is required. BTW, you get an A+ and get to go to the head of the class if you can analyze the process described in steps 1-4, find the weaknesses, and create practical solutions to address those weaknesses. The process will require no research.

I have a lot of principals and central office types ask me how to respond to teachers who are attacking C-Scope, claiming C-Scope is not research based. I hope here I have made it clear C-Scope has no need to be research based, it just needs to align to the tested standards, and it is.

SC Response

If I did a good job with my response, you did a great job with yours.

All I will add is this. I want teachers to be experts. But to create a staff of experts I have to narrow the focus, not expand it. So to create a staff of experts in the delivery of instruction (the art of teaching), I have to take something off their plate. Outsource the “what to teach” (constant research) and the “when to teach it” (constant evaluation) issues to other experts. Translation: Leadership must bring an aligned scope and sequence to the instructional staff so they can focus their time and brainpower on becoming expert teachers.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain at www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Attend the LYS Presentations at the TASB Winter Legal Conference (Today)

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Conference (2/24 - 2/26)

Attend the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Association Conference (2/26/2011)

A Reader Writes... (Common Assessment Data Analysis - Part 1)

In response to the 12/8/2010 post, “Common Assessment Data Analysis,” a reader writes:

Response to Intervention! RTI originally targeted children with special needs. Now, with the NCLB, RTI is used to help with "no child left behind" as well as targeting children that are possible GT students. These students will benefit from RTI strategy by the use of differentiated instruction. This leads me to the thought I had about differentiated instruction and the Test Blueprint. Using the Test Blueprint technique is it possible to make one test that covers all the cognitive domains reaching all levels of learners on as targeted by the RTI (the test being written for differentiated instruction assessment) and score it based on the level indicated by the RTI?

Meaning the low level students are expected to answer specific response questions correctly. The middle level students are expected to answer the lower level questions as well as the mid range questions and possible a portion of the higher cognitively guided questions. And the GT level students answers both the lower level questions as well as the medium level questions and now the higher level cognitively guided questions or an essay question where the student can elaborate on his/her knowledge? The test is kept in the students folder, but using differentiated assessment to assist differentiated instruction would save a lot of time and less paperwork for the teacher, plus allow the teacher to see the learning level she/he needs for instruction. The test of this nature of course is not returned for the sake of the lower level learners thinking they did not answer all the questions when in fact they answered what their objectives covered. Differentiation is differentiating objectives, not interest right?

SC Response

First of all, I’m very happy that you are thinking critically about this. I also want some input from some other LYS’ers, (specifically E. Don, Chuck, the Mike’s and Lesa), but I really believe that you are over-thinking this. The goal of instruction is to teach the standard at the level it will be assessed. We modify instruction to ensure that our students can demonstrate mastery at the assessed level. Then we assess at the level at which the standard is supposed to be taught. How our students perform on the assessment gives us the best indication of the positive or negative effect of our instructional practice.

I believe that your modified testing solution could quickly evolve into a case of self-fulfilling prophecy and would have a dampening effect on the overall quality of instruction on a campus. I prefer to teach every student at a high level and expose every student to the strategies and practices that increase performance.

To answer your closing question, differentiation is the differentiation of strategy, practice and intervention to insure success. In short, differentiation is the art of coaching.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Attend the LYS Presentations at the TASB Winter Legal Conference (2/24/2011)

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Conference

Attend the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Conference

A Reader Submits... More Myths - Parent Involvement

A LYS Principal submits:

Some mythology is simply left over from over 100 years of "conventional wisdom" that simply has little factual basis. Other myths, however, seem to be a bit more sinister.

Let's talk about parent involvement. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Parents involved in their child's education is a good thing. But is it a necessary practice? It seems to me that the so-called lack of parent involvement is merely an excuse contrived by educators to explain away their lack of success. I have been in 7 high schools. Rich ones, poor ones. Urban, rural, and suburban. Large, medium, and small. And you know, in every one of those schools somewhere between 95% and 99.9% of parents were at least supportive, if not "involved."

I contend that parent support is all you really need. Not that parent involvement won't make your job easier. But the lack of parent involvement does not make the job of educating children impossible. If you can make a phone call to a parent and get help with a student, that's all you need. If that doesn't work, try a home visit. Again, in every school I have worked in the vast majority of parents were supportive.

So quit blaming the kids and the parents. Take what you have and make it work.

SC Response

I always amuses me when I here the well meaning, but misguided, “expert” who tries to explain that parent involvement is the critical element to school improvement. They will often present data that shows the connection between performance and involvement and generally have a very complex and labor intensive program to get more parents involved.

Here’s the first problem with this argument, correlation is not causation. Yes, parents are often involved with successful schools, but my contention is that parents are involved due to the success; they are not the cause of the success. Second, purposely courting parents before the campus is successful, takes resources away from the critical task of becoming successful. I advocate making your campus welcoming to parents. Instead of seventeen reserved parking spaces in front of your campus devoted to everyone from the principal to the assistant registrar, why not reserve those spaces for visitors? I advocate communicating openly, honestly and often with parents. Instead of only calling with bad news, why not call whenever there is good news. I advocate making sure that more students are successful. Instead of spreading the misery, why not build a student success magnet.

Parents send us the best they have. If we constantly point out that their best isn’t very good, why are we surprised when they don’t freely share their limited time and resources? If on the other hand we take their best and make them better, at scale, what do you think will happen?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Attend the LYS Presentation at the TASB Winter Legal Conference

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Conference

Attend the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Association Conference

Bootleg Technology and the Top Tweets from the Last Two Weeks

If anyone has heard me speak informally in the past couple of months, you know that I have been championing the idea of encouraging the increased use of personal technology (ex: smart phones, I-Touches) and universal connectivity in schools. We have to free up our people and our students or risk becoming the buggy-whip industry of the 21^st century.

Along these lines I have started to use Twitter to increase the reach of the LYS Nation network. With Twitter, you have 144 characters of text to make your point and it is always live. I love it. For me the blog is the deep thought, the tweet is the summary. If you don’t have a Twitter account, just go to Twitter.com and sign up. It takes less than three minutes. For those of you the LYS Nation who are not yet following @LYSNation, here are the top ten LYS Tweets for the past two weeks, as tabulated by the accountants at Price Waterhouse.

Week of February 13^th, Top 10 Tweets

1. Districts should make campuses Wi-Fi hotspots. Increase connectivity. Tax dollars pay for it, give taxpayers access. Build knowledge and good will.

2. Coach Odom has her lesson framed, is in the PZ, has kids writing and talking, and is passing out the R&R. 1^st observed 5 tool player in 2011.

3. Fullan keynote address (at AASA) is a great opening act for the LYS Presentation.

4. LYS Presentation at AASA: Enthused crowd, great discussion (Fun 5 works in every setting). Audience amazed by the Zen of the Foundation Trinity.

5. Leadership has a physical component. Ignore that fact and your body will let you down when you most need it.

6. Schools should use Twitter for “wake-up” morning announcements before school starts. Embrace bootleg technology!

7. Watching 3 year olds work an I-Phone like a master. Embrace bootleg technology in the classroom!

8. Just used BeeTag reader on my I-Phone to download free copy of Ben Franklin’s Autobiography. Embrace bootleg technology in schools!

9. Student discipline is improved by better adult practice, not stiffer consequences. LYS schools typically have 40% drop in referrals in year 1.

10. Article says some teachers don’t like C-Scope. No one likes change. Everyone likes success. You don’t have to like the play to run the play.

Week of February 6^th, Top Ten Tweets

1. We must make an effort to embrace bootleg technology in the classroom or be irrelevant. Starting to think that tech departments may be the problem.

2. Perpetually better schools and perpetually lower taxes are mutually exclusive.

3. Just saw critical writing in a math class. BooYah!!!

4. More observed critical writing on the same campus. Red Letter Day!

5. Principal asks: What do we do next year? Answer: The same, with less hesitation and more insight. Good to Great: Keep rinsing the cottage cheese.

6. Ms. Granger cleaned up her act and the kids have loved every minute of it. Halfway there and making progress.

7. Ms. C. Gallagher better organized her room this semester and it looks awesome! And the kids have responded positively! Shelves next.

8. At LBJ Elementary - shiny floors, good lesson frames and a building full of hard working students. Nice!

9. Saw great lesson frames at Whitt ES.

10. Sometimes you have to create a problem to solve THE problem.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Hear the LYS Presentation at the TASB Winter Legal Conference

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Conference

Hear the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Association Conference