A Reader Writes... Reasonable Accountability - Part 3

In response to the January 14, 2016 post, “Reasonable Accountability – A Primer for the Texas Legislator,” a reader writes:

SC,

First, let me also state that I too am a public school advocate and proponent for accountability. With the proposed accountability revisions, I offer the following for consideration:

Use the ACT as the exit level assessment for high school graduation.

SC Response

Actually, this is not a bad idea, in theory.  In practice it has a rather significant flaw. But a flaw that can be easily corrected.

First the flaw.  The ACT is not aligned to the mandated state curriculum (TEKS).  Because of this, if a campus were to teach only the TEKS (which should be done), ACT questions not addressed in the TEKS would be difficult to answer.  Meaning that a student who met state curriculum standards could miss meeting state testing requirements.  Also, though I won’t walk through the reasons why in this post, such a system would put low SES students at a significant disadvantage to high SES students.

Now the fixes.

Fix number one would be to align the TEKS to the ACT.  This wouldn’t be hard to do.  In fact there is a great blueprint for doing this. It’s called.... the Common Core.  So I guess fix number one isn’t going to happen.

Fix number two is more workable.  Allow two accountability pathways. 

Pathway One – Pass the required STAAR/EOC tests.

Or

Pathway Two – Earn a predetermined ACT (or SAT) score.

If the student does either one, for graduation and school accountability purposes, the standard has been met.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: American Association of School Administrators Conference; National Association of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook 

A Superintendent Writes... Reasonable Accountability - Part 2

In response to the January 14, 2016 post, “Reasonable Accountability – A Primer for the Texas Legislator,” an Old School LYS Superintendent writes:

SC,

Your plan is better than what we have now and obviously written with a heaping dose of common sense.  But... here is your big flaw.  You are still basing your plan on the current system.  When a house has a flawed foundation, you don't fix it by updating the curtains.  

If you strive simply to fix/change the over-testing problem ask the question, “What tests do the Feds require that all kids take?”

The answer is 3^rd and 8^th grade Reading and Math.  Why would we test more than that?  The answer is probably superstition. 

All other tests should be a local decision.  

The next question that needs to be addressed is why have a social studies test? 

Usually an answer addresses something about citizenship, knowing your heritage, etc. Well if that is the case, why not give all 8th graders a version of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services civics test? It’s rigorous and meets the above stated goal's and immigrants have to pass it to become citizens and vote. So why not do he same those of us fortunate enough to be born here?

Next, what should we do about high school testing?  If we are truly interested in college readiness, there is only one test that colleges use to measure readiness for college in Texas (and by the way, it's required now) and that is the TSI (Texas Success Initiative) test. Any other test is a waste of time and resources.  All schools should prepare their students for this and administer it during their Junior year.  

What I have just presented only addresses the number and type of tests.  It does not address the flawed testing instrument that we currently use, the flawed measures in reporting, the excessive curriculum standards, and a flawed public school funding structure and reporting requirements. This would just be the lipstick that we put on the pig every spring.

So in summary.

•                Test only what is required by the Feds.

•                Give the U.S. Immigration Services civics test to cover all social studies.

•                Prepare and administer the TSI test to high school juniors.

•                Anything beyond this should be decided on and paid for by local ISDs.

SC Response

Not surprisingly, I have no material disagreements with what you have shared.

The early accountability advocates (of which I worked for three of the pioneers: Rod Paige, Bob Brezina, Shirley Neeley) believed in the end of course exam.  So I see the current EOC system as a bastardization (or negative politicization) of the original idea. So yes, I’m a proponent of actually fixing the state’s accountability system, not abandoning it.

I also think the state should have higher expectations and standards than the Feds.  We should consider the Fed’s requirements to be the floor or the minimum standard.  And meeting the minimum standard just means that you are “Not Bad,” which in no way should be construed as meaning that you are good. All of that to say, that I’m OK with having more tests than what the Feds require.  And you and I both know if the entire accountability issue is placed in local hands, too many local communities are OK with undeserving the underserved.

I do like your idea of just having one social studies test in the 8^th grade addressing U.S. citizenship that is at least comparable to the citizenship/naturalization test that immigrants must pass.  And the idea of the using the TSI, which tests reading, writing, and math skills is worth consideration, if the TSI is aligned to the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). If the TSI is not aligned to the TEKS, then that puts schools in a no win situation. One, either teach the state mandated curriculum which only tangentially prepares students for the accountability test. Or two, ignore the state mandated curriculum to prepare students to pass the accountability test.

I can’t argue that the STAAR is flawed.  Hard? Yes. Aligned? Yes. Issues with how the test is administered? Yes. Flawed? Not so much. 

I completely agree that the TEKS are too broad, as does every curriculum expert that has examined them. And the legislature did pass a law last session to narrow their scope.  But remember, our Governor, The Honorable Greg Abbott, vetoed the law due to the misguided and ignorant fear of turning the TEKS into the Common Core. Nothing like pandering to the lowest common denominator.

As for your summary solution? I could easily live with it. But I would also want to strengthen it.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: American Association of School Administrators Conference; National Association of Secondary School Principals Conference (Multiple Presentations) 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

Reasonable Accountability - A Primer for the Texas Legislator

First, let me state for the record that I am a public school advocate and an accountability proponent. As are most of the proactive public educators that I know and work with. 

Accountability, implemented correctly, is good for students.  Because without accountability, it is too easy for too many students to be systematically underserved by the schools they attend. This is a real problem that requires a real solution. And in spite of the rhetoric of anti-accountability advocates, the “We will hold ourselves accountable,” premise has never worked at scale.

Now, my accountability revisions. 

Shorten the End of Course (STAAR/ EOC) exams. Twenty to twenty-five questions are more than adequate. 

Reduce the number of elementary and middle school tests.

3^rd grade: Reading and Math

4^th grade: Reading and Writing

5^th grade: Reading and Math

6^th grade: Reading and Science

7^th grade: Reading and Writing

8^th grade: Reading, Math and Social Studies

Make the high school exit tests actual high school EXIT tests instead of high school PROGRESS tests.

Algebra 2 (instead of Algebra 1)

ELAR 3 (instead of ELAR 1 and 2)

Chemistry

Biology

U.S. Government / Economics (instead of US history)

Administer the EOC’s are at the end of April / beginning of May.  Any student that does not a pass a particular EOC gets to take the failed test again, at the end of May. For accountability purposes, passing either administration counts.  This takes the, “One day should not measure a school,” argument off the table, and it is more fair to students.

Set the passing rate at 75%. Yes, I know this is significantly higher than the current standard.  But we (educator, taxpayer, politician) should expect mastery of the subject.  And correctly answering 75% of the questions on a test that is 100% correlated to the state mandated standards is not an unreasonable expectation.

Allow district to exempt up 5% exemption of its students from testing.  Use a sliding scale that is driven by the percentage of students with severe special education needs and LEP students enrolled in a district. Again this is reasonable and fair.

Recognize that when considering student demographics, poverty is the great equalizer. Therefore, the performance of economically disadvantaged students should be the primary driver of accountability ratings for districts.  Then based on the performance of other demographic groups allow some ramp-ups and ramp-downs. But basically assign accountability ratings based on the following performance standards:

Acceptable / Met Standard / C: At least 75% of students pass their EOC’s.

Recognized / Exceeded Standard / B: 85% to 92% of students pass their EOC’s.

Exemplary / Model School / A: More than 92% of students pass their EOC’s

As always, I’m open to further discussion.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TMSA Winter Conference; ASCD Annual Conference; TASSP Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); TEPSA Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); NAESP National Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Reader Asks... Does the Passing Standard Matter

A LYS Central Office Administrator asks the following:

SC,

Quick question. When the state doesn’t require 70% of the EOC (End of Course Exam) questions to be answered correctly to meet the state’s standard - why are requiring 70% proficiency on our checkpoints?

We realize we need to get to this 70% level for the state some day, but that is still a couple of years in the future.

What if we lower our common assessment standard to something closer to the current state requirement? Wouldn’t this be more realistic and even motivating for our staff? 

Your thoughts?

SC Response

Not exactly a quick question.  But that’s OK. I have a not exactly quick answer.

 

1. It doesn’t matter that the passing standard on the state assessment is currently lower than your in district standard.  In fact, it is good thing.  

A. The state standard is a minimum standard.  I have to assume the minimum is not acceptable for the students attending your schools. 

B. You want to “practice” harder than the “game.” It's the best insurance/assurance of success when it actually matters.

2. Hard truth time. In all likelihood your district developed common assessment questions are easier than the STAAR questions, so it is best to err on the side of caution.

3. The common assessment is over what was supposed to be taught and mastered in a specific window of time. If it was a teacher made test covering a specific window of time, the teacher would not accept a grade lower than a 70 as acceptable. We should not expect less from the common assessment.

4. Winners don't lower their standards because the task is hard. Winners work hard to elevate their game to eventually accomplish the task.  Which means that winners don’t always win in the short run, but they always work towards eventual victory.

5. The decision to lower district standards boils down to this: Is the district working towards being "not bad" or is the district working to be exceptional.  Whichever one you choose, your students and staff will work to meet that expectation.  Hence the value and importance of leadership. 

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TMSA Winter Conference; ASCD Annual Conference; TASSP Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); TEPSA Summer Conference (Multiple Presentations); NAESP National Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

The Benchmark Test... Why?

The Working Definition of the Benchmark Test: A test that shows how much of the entire course curriculum a student has mastered at a particular point during the year.  For example, the 9-week Benchmark Test provides an indication of how much of the entire course content a student has mastered after nine weeks of school. 

The unasked and unanswered question is, “What is the value of a benchmark test?”

There is a short answer and a long answer. Here is the short answer:

Most benchmark tests are a waste of instructional time and debilitating superstitious instructional practice.

The long answer explains why the above ”short answer” is, in fact, the case.

There are two times during the year when a benchmark is appropriate:

1. The end of the year.  At the end of the year there should be a common, cumulative assessment that gives an indication of how much of the content for the course was mastered.  This test can be the State’s EOC (End of Course Exam), or for courses that do not have an EOC, it can be the district final.  The data from the EOC/Final then informs the current grade level teachers on what is working and what should shored up going into the next year.  The data also informs the teachers in the next grade what learning deficits need to be addressed and what the student seemingly has learned.

2. At the end of the first semester, there can be a benchmark.  This provides teachers with an idea of how much progress has actually been made and what still needs to be addressed in the upcoming semester.  This benchmark should be disguised as the semester final.  The majority of the questions on the final should address covered material. But embedded in the final there are key preview questions.  Just don’t grade the preview questions.  The results on the preview questions are for staff use only.

Any additional benchmark tests that are administered during the year are simply a waste of instructional time. 

Why are benchmarks debilitating superstitious behavior? 

The answer is that students (especially at-risk students) should not be expected to know what we have not taught.  Any benchmark (other than the EOC), by definition covers “to be taught” material.  When students do poorly (the logical outcome) on the benchmark, it demoralizes students and makes teachers defensive.  Yet, we feel compelled to keep engaging in the process… debilitating superstitious behavior.

The bottom line: Teach more; Assess quickly; Benchmark less.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); PowerWalks CLC (Networked Formative Observation Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TMSA Winter Conference; ASCD Annual Conference; TEPSA Summer Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Checkpoint Discussion (Brutal Truth Version)

The following is an exchange I had with a district curriculum director concerning 3-week checkpoints (common assessments).

DIRECTOR

This is a question I'm getting fairly often now, “Why don't the checkpoints get progressively longer as the time for the EOC exam nears? 

I restate and remind our teachers about the purpose of checkpoints.  But the questions keep coming up. What else can I add to my response?

SC

Teachers are worried about how their students will perform on the long, rigorous, high stakes test.  A legitimate concern.  Share with them that World Class marathon runners train thru a regiment of short sprints and mid-length runs. They do not constantly run marathons.

We mimic this with the following assessment series: 

Weeks 3 and 6 – short checkpoints

Week 9 - a mid-length midterm

Weeks 12 and 15 – short checkpoints

Week 18 – a longer final

Finally, we are checking to see if students have mastered what we taught and did we re-teach our identified deep holes. We are not checking to see if students can navigate thru 40 problems in four hours.

DIRECTOR

The same teachers that complain about the test being the center of everything, then complain that the test isn't the center of everything. Do they realize how schizophrenic that makes them look?

SC

Unfortunately, no.  But this is not unique to your district.  It is the manifestation of teacher stress, fear, and superstitious behaviors. And it’s better than your teachers not caring.

DIRECTOR

Just to clarify, are you saying that the 9-week checkpoint should be cumulative?

SC

Yes. But not stupid length cumulative. 15 questions, max.  Also, if the district looks at assessment data, it should only look at the data from the 9, 18, 27 and 36-week tests.  All the other checkpoints are for campus use.  And the tests for weeks 18 and 36 (which are in lieu of a traditional final exam) can be 20 to 30 questions.

DIRECTOR

Got it!

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: TMSA Winter Conference; ASCD Annual Conference; TEPSA Summer Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Superintendent Writes... My Texas School Plan - Part 1

In response to the 10/10/2014 post, “My Texas School Plan: An Open Letter to Candidates,” a LYS Superintendent writes:

SC,

I like it overall.  

A. On item 6 (21:1 maximum class size), I would make class sizes smaller.  I would go 18 in pk-6. And yes, I would have universal Pre-K, full day.  It would be optional at the parents’ discretion, but the option would be there.

B. On item 7 (increase time devoted to academics), I would also limit students to 2 extracurricular or co-curricular activities per semester.  A student with a straight A average could get a waiver for 3 per semester.

C. On item 8 (EOC testing), we are far apart.  I would rather see no EOC tests whatsoever.  The state and Pearson has lost all credibility with the ability to administer a testing program.  Ditto on accountability.  The state politicized the testing and accountability system to push an ideological agenda.  The needs of the students were put behind this political ideology.  Any testing and accountability system should be put together by a panel of school district and university system employees, with no state involvement other than to administer the resulting program.  All tests should be verified by a second, independent panel of public school and university system pedagogy experts to be developmentally appropriate, something current tests are not.  I am good with the rest of item 8. 

D. On item 9 (superintendent salary scale), I really don't see how putting state controls on superintendent salaries will help children in the classroom.  And I don't think it would save anywhere near as much money as you think it would.  Given current salaries, I doubt this plan would save more than $20,000,000 statewide.  Of all the items in your plan, this item just doesn't seem to fit the overall direction of all other items.  However, if item 9 salaries are put in place in conjunction with and simultaneously with item 3 teacher salaries, I would have no problem with it.

E. On item 10 (charter school rules), charter schools should be forced to take all children who apply.  No stipulations on parent involvement or other gimmicks to weed out the hard kids to teach.  

SC Response

On Point A, I’m in complete agreement.  Yes, it will require an increase in school funding (which in all likelihood will increase school taxes). But I don’t look at this as an increase in taxes. I look at this as an increase in our collective investment in our communities, infrastructure, and economic engine.

On Point B, I agree.  I’m not anti-extra curricular activities. I’m a realist.  The chance of a student getting an extra-curricular college scholarship is slim. The chance of becoming a professional in the extra-curricular activity, essentially zero.  Everyone is better served with an increased focus on academic endeavors.

On Point C, I agree that the credibility on the accountability system built by our legislature lacks credibility.  But I don’t believe the answer is no testing.  We have both witnessed that the negative effect of  “district self-accountability” systems on students.  If we agree that the TEKS are workable, then building an EOC that assesses grade level mastery of said TEKS is mostly a mechanical proposition.  As you suggest create an advisory board of key educators to actually review the created tests and we are back on the right track and ready to move to a incentive based accountability system.

On Point D, I see the teacher and superintendent pay components as a package.  And tying Superintendent pay to average teacher salary creates an incentive for School Boards and Superintendents to do more than just talk about adequately paying teachers.

On Point E, we agree. But the issue is not just with some charter schools.  Similar hard and soft enrollment games are used by traditional schools and school districts for gifted and magnet programs.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: ASCD Annual Conference; TEPSA Summer Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Reader Writes... The Common Assessment Process - Part 4

In response to the 3/13/13 post, “The Common Assessment Process – Part 3,” a long time LYSer writes:

SC,

I had an interesting discussion about the implementation of common assessments and benchmarks with a state literacy expert.  What is abundantly clear is that the STAAR and EOC assessments are more than ever, reading literacy assessments. 

Students find themselves more challenged by the rigor and complexity of the assessments as the supported level of reading competency is progressively decreased from grade level to grade level.  How we got away from literacy, both academic and life literacy, and the development of interdisciplinary vocabularies is beyond me.  But, the fact remains that we have isolated core content areas from each other in a desire to specialize, especially at the secondary level. The impact of this can be seen in the urging of the use of common assessments as benchmarks. 

I tried to make the point that it is difficult to administer Social Studies assessments at the high school level when the assessments are built to specific literacy levels.  The same is true for all other content areas.  Complicating this reality, especially at campuses and districts that are working to dig out of being academically unacceptable because student performance is not at grade level, is the desire to administer benchmarks in lieu of common assessments. Testing students on the entirety of the content prior to the material being introduced seems detrimental to the learning process.  Such benchmarks do not focus on the supporting standards required and the pre-supporting standards that may not have been mastered either.  I have to wonder if we are actually caught in the eddy of assessed illiteracy, with no diagnostic or recommended response.

SC Response

An excellent, reasoned extension of the discussion. 

I have to agree with your initial concern/observation.  If the rigor of an assessment is increased, that increased rigor necessitates increased literacy competency.  Which means that literacy instruction and support must be scaffolded, PK-12.  Which as we all know, isn’t the case.  This isn’t a new need.  The experts have been preaching this since I was in the classroom (very early 90’s).  In the long run, this situation can be corrected without a lot of effort (in fact the solution actually reduces the work stress loads for most teachers).  But the solution is rarely implemented because it looks slightly different from what we have always done.

In the short-run, at the secondary level (where you work) here is 80% solution. Start reading more, especially in ELA and Social Studies.  Start writing more, in all subject areas.  Start having students talk more, about what they have read, done, wrote about and/or will write about. Do this every day in every class.  Then with your short-term assessments, do your trend analysis and tackle the deepest hole and the deepest gap.  Don’t worry about the “bubble / almost got it” items.  You don’t have time to fix everything, all the time, so don’t try.  Instead make a purposeful baby step every day, every class. This adds up and the gaps will close.  But the expectation that one can fix years of deficits quick and easy is either a pipe dream or selective recruitment.   

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: The Fundamental 5 National Summit (Multiple Presentations); NASSP National Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Reader Writes... Assessments vs. Benchmarks - Part 2

In response to the 11/17/2011 post, “A Reader Writes... Assessment vs. Benchmarks – Part 1,” an old school LYSer writes:

SC,

I completely agree with your comments on November 17, 2011 about Assessments vs. Benchmarks.  While our superintendent wants benchmarks at mid-term across the district for STAAR and EOC/TAKS, we are only using the unit assessments (inclusive of CSCOPE assessment questions) to monitor our progress.  We will create a mid-term assessment (CSCOPE does not have a mid-term nor a final which we could use as pre-assessments as well as post) to monitor what has been learned and relearned as it applies to the current course.  Of course, for high schools that is a challenging proposition because in many cases so much prior material has not yet been mastered that remediation swallows up accelerated learning.  We have to find the gear for accelerated learning and get our students and faculty into it or two birds will be killed with multiple stones. 

I believe it would be valuable to have a true pre-assessment given before the school year begins and develop schedules based on what students will need to learn in the upcoming curriculum instead of blunting their educational spirit by duplicating what is known in order to glean what is not yet mastered.  If students are going to be held accountable for current course curriculum without supporting standards mastered at a high level then how will they be able to grasp sufficiently the readiness standards? 

As I run this over in my head, the same rigorous monitoring of teachers we are advocating should also include a similar model for students (and accompanying stakeholders.)  I still like to promote that each classroom is like a mini-school.  Teachers are administrators of instruction teaching students how to be instructional leaders on their own as peer tutors.  Students teaching students (proficiently) could be the most valuable assessment of all.  If you can't teach it then you don't know it.

I can’t wait to see you again.  I really need to pick your brain on an administrative issue.

SC Response

Again, there is gold in the archives.

First, the pre-assessment for a given year is the state test taken at the end of the prior year.  Though not perfect, the results give us a significant head start in determining the instructional needs of our incoming students.  Sadly, I can count on one hand the number of schools that actually use this data for effective pre-planning at the individual classroom level for an upcoming year.  The schools that do so, do it for the very purpose you describe.  The result of this significant brainwork? Campus performance that outpaces peer campuses.  Meaning at the very least, this work provides meaningful intrinsic rewards.

If I don’t see you before the end of September, make sure you get to the Fundamental 5 National Summit in October. Not only will I be there, the entire LYS team be holding office hours.  

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite (Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: The Fundamental 5 National Summit (Multiple Presentations); NASSP National Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook