A Reader Writes... (Comments from LYS Trainings, Camps and Presentations - Part 1))

In response to the post, “Comments from LYS Trainings, Camps and Presentations,” an old school LYS Principal writes:

As a principal of now multiple LYS schools, I have to comment on "buzz words." We all hear them, everyone uses them, very few know what they mean, and even fewer implement the ideas. I was talking to an Education Support Center (ESC) curriculum "expert" a few weeks ago. He used all the right language, gave a great presentation, but upon closer questioning it became apparent the "expert" we were receiving training from had some serious misconceptions concerning rigor.

In our ongoing discussion it became clear that the "expert" had only a cursory knowledge of instructional issues and a poor understanding of Bloom's Taxonomy. I then spoke with a principal in the training session who from a large, middle class, mostly white, suburban school district. She certainly spoke the language and I was impressed, until I found out her school missed recognized (even with TPM) by just a couple of points.

Seriously? LYS principals have taken EXTREMELY low SES urban schools in the middle of gangland to recognized with TPM. TPM is the ultimate wildcard, if it is not helping you, what are you doing? Because it obviously is not aligned instruction. It is the knowing/doing gap, and that is what we strive to close as LYS leaders. We walk it like we talk it. As I have built my resume cleaning up the messes left by others, I see that is a rare quality. Welcome to what education can be Alice, enjoy the ride down the rabbit hole.

SC Response

As always, I wish I could contradict what you present, but we both have cleaned up too many messes. What makes you want to scream is the fact that the problems we face in education are solvable. Solvable, if we would simply do three things.

1. Quit shooting ourselves in the foot, reloading and shooting again.

2. Recognize that the fundamental practices of creating a self-sustaining learning organization are not difficult, but they are fundamental. Ignore them and everything else you do is an empty exercise.

3. Work hard, with purpose, reflection and passion.

And there is the rub; purposeful change, fundamental practice and hard work isn’t a program that you can just plug “those” kids into, so it isn’t a viable solution for anybody other that the special breed of teachers and leaders that make up the LYS Nation.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Cotten Writes... Old and New Bloom's - Part 2

One of the major cogs in the LYS Instructional Brain Trust reminds the LYS Nation,

The only significant change between “Old Bloom’s” and “New Bloom’s” is the switch of evaluation and synthesis. Since both are still the two upper level critical thinking skills, which occupies the number 5 slot and which occupies the number 6 slot matters very little.

The Other SC

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Old or New Bloom's - Part 1)

In response to the post, "Old or New Bloom's," yesterday’s writer continues,

“Thank you for your answer. If there is a verb that is in a different place on both lists, we will go with the original Blooms. I also appreciate your list of the most important ideas to remember from our training.”

SC Response

Now I understand some of the confusion. Don’t forget that that there are numerous verbs that apply in multiple rigor categories.

Take for example "How." Depending on the context of the question and the student product or answer, "How" could be at either the comprehension level or the analysis level of rigor.

That's why you have to remember the "complexity of thought / levels of cognition" construct. Keep working at it. The more we observe, think about, and reflect on the quality of instruction, the better we get at it.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Asks... Old or New Bloom's

A new LYS Teacher asks:

“SC

There has been some confusion the LYS training and the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The websites we have reviewed have old and new lists. We need to find out which version we are expected to use. Can you email me the official list?

Old Bloom’s: Knowledge – Comprehension – Application – Analysis – Synthesis – Evaluation

New Bloom’s: Remembering – Understanding – Applying – Analyzing – Evaluating - Creating

Thanks for the help!”

SC Response

LYS doesn’t endorse an “Official Bloom’s List.” We simply recognize that there is the Rigor Taxonomy originally developed by Bloom and an updated (re-labeled) taxonomy. Both address levels of cognition in terms of increasing complexity. In practical terms, the old and the new are inter-changeable. We use the old version during our introductory trainings because it is the version that most teachers are familiar with it. There is nothing like accessing existing schema to speed up the understanding of new concepts.

In regards to Instructional Relevance (also discussed in the training you attended), LYS has modified the levels of relevance, based on our ongoing field research. The LYS model includes "Knowledge Across Content Areas." However, in later LYS trainings, we actually simplify the concept of Relevance, to just three levels: In Content; Cross Content; Real World.

I want to highlight the important ideas we wanted you to take from the LYS training you participated in this summer:

1. The overwhelming majority of classroom instruction occurs, in the content area, at the knowledge and comprehension levels.

2. This is primarily due to the sources of curriculum and generations of ingrained teacher habit.

3. This is the first generation of teachers who have been expected to consistently teach at higher levels of rigor and relevance, and to do so with every student.

4. Increasing the Rigor and Relevance of instruction is less difficult than it seems and can be accomplished with slight changes to the way teachers plan, small modifications to normal instructional activities, and the purposeful stretching of typical teacher practices (which was the primary focus of the training on your campus).

I appreciate your enthusiasm, further reading and inquiry. I hope this answers your questions. If it doesn't, just let me know and we'll keep working on it.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (What to do Next)

In response to the post, “What to do Next,” a reader writes:

“You are on the right track. As Cain said, the reading becomes meaningful when you build upon it. Having the child write or report about what they read increases the reading comprehension and is a great formative assessment instrument for you. A brief writing assignment can get your students to the analysis level, if the writing assignment has some thought put into it by you. Don't have them report by answering questions like "Who is the main character?"

That is a knowledge/comprehension level response."

SC Response
All I want to add is a discussion point from Fundamental Five training, “Without critical writing and critical reading, our attempts to get students to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy remain both inconsistent and contrived.”

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Schmoker's Findings Revisited

I was recently talking to a group of teachers and administrators about the lack of critical writing that occurs in classrooms and relating how it was Mike Schmoker who actually brought this to my attention just prior to his publishing the book “Results Now.” A quick aside, every educator needs to read that book. If you haven’t yet, that is your LYS reading assignment for the upcoming Spring break.

One of the AP’s ran to her office and brought back a summary of Schmoker’s findings (and earned 12 brownie points in the process). Here is what Schmoker saw in 1,500 schools across the nation in the early 2000’s:

• Classrooms with a clear and evident learning objective – 4%


• Instruction using high yield strategies - 0.2%


• Instruction at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy – 3%*
  * I assume that Schmoker meant work at the Synthesis and Evaluation levels.


• Classrooms where students were engaged in critical writing – 0%


• Classrooms using worksheets – 52%


• Classrooms engaged in non-instructional activities – 35%

Now let’s cut to Texas in the Fall of 2009. Here are the results of over 60 unannounced campus instructional audits:

• Classrooms with a clear and evident learning objective – 22% (Better)


• Instruction using high yield strategies - 15% (Better)


• Instruction at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy – 1%* (Worse)
  * I assume that Schmoker meant work at the Synthesis and Evaluation level.


• Classrooms where students were engaged in critical writing – 4% (Better)


• Classrooms using worksheets – 33% (Better)


• Classrooms engaged in non-instructional activities – 12% (Better)

Now let’s cut to those same 60 (but now LYS) campuses in the month of January. Each of the campuses worked with one or more LYS Coaches during the Fall semester.

• Classrooms with a clear and evident learning objective – 76% (Awesome)


• Instruction using high yield strategies – 23% (Significant Improvement)


• Instruction at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy – 5%* (Improved). The assumption is that Schmoker meant the Synthesis and Evaluation level. However, if Analysis is included, then these campuses are at 18%, which is an incredible improvement.


• Classrooms where students were engaged in critical writing – 28% (Awesome)


• Classrooms using worksheets – 10% (Significant Improvement)


• Classrooms engaged in non-instructional activities – 3% (Awesome)

The point being is that on our own we are not nearly as effective and efficient as we believe. Yet, improved instruction is well within the reach of any campus. All it requires is desire, coaching and discipline. The proof is in just three months worth of data.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...