Posts
All Comments
An eagled eye LYS Reader sent in the following question:
“SC,
There's an LYS koozie? If so, I want, need, etc...”
SC Response
Not only is there a koozie, it’s darn near World Famous. We gave away over 10,000 of them last year alone. We hand them out all over the place. To get one, you either have to be in the right place at the right time, or…
For the first five responses that we get to this post (with a name and a mailing address), I’ll send you one in the mail.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
I was able to travel the country this summer to work with dedicated LYS educators, speak to packed halls filled with excited audiences, and discuss theory with some of the best thinkers and practitioners in our field. All phenomenal highlights, but one of the best moments was one that on the surface seemed unrelated to schools.
After my presentation at TASB in San Antonio, I had a choice, fight rush hour traffic or wait at the Chart House in the Tower of the America’s. So I grabbed my co-presenter Dr. Mike Laird and we went to the restaurant. The Executive Chef, Chef Dwayne, follows the blog and is a member of the LYS Nation.
Chef Dwayne expects his restaurant to be the best in both San Antonio and the best in the Chart House chain. He monitors every detail of the restaurant, constantly coaches his staff, and models both charm and excellence. I marvel at the way his staff works like a well-oiled machine, but until this summer, I thought it was just the “Chart House Way.” I was wrong; it is the “Chef Dwayne Way.”
Two weeks after the visiting the Chart House in San Antonio, the LYS team visited the Chart House in Monterrey Bay. It was nice, but it wasn’t special. The staff moved a little slower, they were a little less attentive, and their overall presentation was just OK.
Once again, a real world reminder that the organization takes its cues from leadership. If leadership is OK with OK, then OK is what you get. If leadership doesn’t monitor what is important, then what is important receives diminished attention, by everyone.
The bottom line is that it is up to leadership to position the organization to maximize its potential. If you are not working to do that, what are you working on?
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
The author of last Friday's submission submits his/her P.S.
“Just to be clear, I am all for a system that takes student growth and improvement into account, however both the student and the school should benefit from such a system.”
SC Response
Since we are clarifying, here again is my rock solid position on accountability and school rankings:
1. School accountability is good for students, especially the hard to teach and the hard to reach. Want proof? If you work in Texas, did you have any Katrina kids enroll in your school? Was it criminal how noticeably far behind they were? Did those students catch up within two years? Those last two “yes” answers are due to a functioning accountability system.
2. I am an advocate for a system that objectively measures both the performance of the campus and the degree of difficulty faced by that campus. Currently, this is something that the Texas system does not do. Want proof? Take two schools. One school is 85% poor, one 85% rich. Both are Exemplary (without TPM). Which school had the tougher row to hoe? Which result is the greater accomplishment? Does the current raking accountability system answer the previous two questions?
3. The truly great educators, schools and districts hold themselves accountable to internal standards. If you and your system define success by what outsiders dictate, you are leaving student success on the table.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
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...
