A Reader Writes... (First, Fix the Obvious)

In response to the post, “First, Fix the Obvious,” a reader writes.

"I have seen the following at the host of highly dysfunctional secondary schools that I have turned around:

1. One fourth of the school missing class to help with Special Olympics, in the days preceding TAKS. This was tough to address because I am a big proponent of Special Olympics.

2. Benchmark tests that attempt (without success) to simulate TAKS.

3. Continuous pull outs of teachers to give them professional development with NO monitoring to verify they implement the training.

4. Bad weather surplus days and local holidays scheduled immediately preceding TAKS.

In all too many schools there is NO sense of urgency. As Cain says, the people yawn and play their fiddles as Rome burns."

SC Response
First, I would love to give credit to whomever I stole this idea from, but at this point I no longer remember. I visited a campus in the late 1990’s that awarded varsity jackets to their high school Special Olympians. As soon as I got back to my district, we began doing the same thing. That act may be in the top three things that I have ever done for my student body. Whatever the cost, make it happen. That being said, if you aren’t cutting it academically, you don’t need to be pulled out of the classroom for any reason (the volunteer, not the athlete).

Second, in general, benchmarks are a waste of time. The frequent, short-term common assessment that is aligned to a valid scope and sequence is the tool that teachers need to make informed adjustments to their delivery. Hit your short-term targets and the big picture takes care of itself.

Third, as you allude to, training isn’t the issue. Ineffective training delivery and non-existent implementation is the problem. And teachers can’t fix this. Training delivery is the responsibility of the trainers and implementation is the responsibility of leadership. When we blame teachers after we train them ineffectively and withhold timely support, how are we any different than the teacher who blames his students for not learning after he has presented the content?

Fourth, again, we build schedules based on adult convenience and tradition instead of effective practice. I visited a campus this year that held open house during the same week as TAKS. Not because it was postponed from an earlier date, but because that was the way they had always done it. When I suggested that they stop, they looked at me like I suggested that they quit breathing. And again, not a teacher issue, a leadership issue.

Finally, I believe that the lack of urgency is because too many of us don’t believe that we can make a difference. If you can’t make a difference, why try? Anyone of us in the system can make a difference greater than our position. If I didn’t believe that with all of my heart, I wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Asks - Suspendend Curriculum

An LYS reader asks:

“Sean, my high school has this plan not to teach the regular curriculum for the first week. We’re supposed to teach school rules, study skills and college enrollment information instead. What do you think?”

SC Response:
I understand that questions like this are loaded with nuance and contextual issues and obviously, I do not have all the facts, but here goes…

In general, I do not like the idea. High schools that do this are often trying to cover up the fact that they did a sub-par job of scheduling and are leveling classes for a week. Realizing that most teachers don’t want to start teaching until the class roster is settled, someone decides to create fluff and busy work to fill the time.

Now this begs all sorts of questions and observations, here are just two.

First, when every teacher I work with tells me that there are not enough days to cover everything in the curriculum, why would a school purposefully take a week of instruction from those teachers?

Second, I work with very large urban high schools that have all students scheduled and classes leveled by the second day of school. If that is not occurring on your campus, who is dropping the ball?

That being said, the idea of pre-teaching school and classroom rules is valid and one that I strongly recommend. However, it takes less than one class period to do it properly. The idea of teaching study skills is valid and one that I recommend. However, it should be embedded in the content of every class and reviewed on an as-needed basis. The idea of discussing college early and often is an idea that is valid and that I recommend. However, this too should be embedded in every class, throughout the year.

In summary, without knowing any facts other than your question, it sounds like your campus is covering up significant system failures with camouflaged busy work. I would recommend that the campus spend the first day of school on the busy work (first period – school rules; second period – class rules; third period – graduation requirements; fourth period – task management; fifth period – college enrollment; etc.) and start teaching the curriculum at full speed on Day 2.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (... Not Getting the Job Done)

In response to the post, “Who Really is Not Getting the Job Done,” a reader writes:

“Teachers want great leadership. However, we sometimes get so caught up in our daily routines that we forget what our job is about. As educators, we need to focus on what is best for the children and how can we make the staff we have the best they can be. We cannot stand by as we watch ineffective teachers educate our classrooms. We must take charge of the situation and find a solution. If after it is all said and done and the teacher does not improve replace that person.”

SC Response
Everybody craves leadership. And, we all function better when we trust leadership and believe that leadership is vested in our success. Key though, is how success is defined. Great leaders ensure that the definition of success is concrete and constantly communicated (examples: Take THAT hill; If it is not right for students, it is wrong; etc.). Struggling and poor leaders either do not know or cannot define organizational success; and/or do not regularly communicate their expectations. In that void, the organization devolves into an every man for himself (or every teacher in their own silo) situation.

Second, behind defining and communicating organizational success, is providing tools and training for staff. Great leaders prepare their staff to be successful. They ensure that a common scope and sequence is available. They ensure that the master schedule is logical and is conducive to quality instruction. They ensure that training is geared towards building critical skills (such as the Cain/Laird Fundamental Five). They ensure that staff receives critical information in a timely fashion. Poor leaders just throw their people into the meat grinder and hope for the best. The lucky (?) staff simply survives to fight another day.

Third, great leaders constantly monitor, support and enforce. In a school setting, they hyper-monitor, noting trends and responding to organizational strengths and weaknesses. They provide regular and timely support, specifically geared to allow staff to meet organizational goals. And, they enforce expectations. They understand that not working with the organization is the same as working against to organization. Poor and less effective leaders hide from classrooms and avoid the uncomfortable leadership tasks that are critical to protecting and improving the organization.

Finally, leadership does not just mean "Principal". Leadership encompasses lead and master teachers, department chairs, instructional coaches, assistant principals and a host of others. The Marines believe that whenever there are two or more Marines together, one is always the leader. So, Lead Your School Reader, who are you today? Who will you be tomorrow?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…

A Reader Writes...

In response to the post, “Master Schedule," a reader writes:

“In high schools that are ineffective I have found maybe 1 in 20 teachers who can use (time) effectively. Giving these teachers more time at an early stage of a growth (improvement) process can be a real problem in my opinion. Once you get teachers capable of effectively utilizing 50 minutes, then I agree that a more time effecient schedule should be explored. At the early stages of change there seems to be a balance between effective and efficient that must be carefully monitored.”

The reader’s points are valid, but here is how I would address the specific situation that he has outlined. Except for the most aggressive principals, schedules are inflexible in the short-run, yet flexible in the long run. The time to train staff on new techniques and expectations is while operating under the old schedule. Beta test new strategies and procedures before the structural change. Then, when the new schedule is rolled out in the new academic year, the learning curve is less steep and staff is better position to succeed.

Again though, the schedule is never “the solution”, but it can be “the problem.” And no matter how you schedule it, poor instruction remains poor instruction.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…

A Reader Writes...

In response to the post, Master Schedule, a reader writes"

"I think the effectiveness of any schedule depends on the strength of the classroom teachers to adapt and make the most out of every minute. I am at a middle school, and block scheduling is not good for these hyper-active kids. They need to move around, and a change of scenery works at this age. However, there is no cure all. Teachers need to be effective the entire period of instruction whether it is 50 minutes or 90 minutes. That is where we come in. Whatever my principal implements it is my job to support him, charge on, and be successful. Adapt, overcome, improvise, the Marine Corps way!"

As I stated in my post, no schedule is "the solution," but it can be the problem. The key is to build a schedule that maximizes instructional time and student success. There is no perfect schedule, but I think a lot of schools become penny wise and pound foolish. They want to get in a bunch of classes to meet district and state mandates but ignore the impact of that decision on the overall quality of instruction.

That being said, the reader is right in his statement on the need for teachers to use every available instructional minute. And he hit the nail square on the head when he states that it is his job is to run full speed and support the current schedule 100%. A bad plan aggressively executed will trump the unsupported perfect plan.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Master Schedule

Recently I was at a high school working with a principal and the discussion came to the topic of the schedule for next year. Now I have two opinions on master schedules. The first opinion is that the schedule may be the problem, but it is never the solution. Poor instruction and leadership remains poor no matter how it is scheduled.

The second opinion is that the worst schedule is the 8 period day, which this campus is currently using. If anyone wants a complete essay on the weaknesses of the 8 period day, send me a request and I will oblige. For now, I will use the illustration that I shared with this principal and his assistants.

This campus had an 8 period day with a 5 minute passing period. If the campus would move to a modified block (still not the optimal schedule) and reduce the passing period to 4 minutes, they could add 40 minutes of instruction to the current school day. 40 minutes a day times 5 days a week is 200 minutes. 200 minutes times 36 weeks is 7,200 minutes. 7,200 minutes is 120 hours. 120 hours is equivalent to 20 days of instruction.

So the question becomes, “if you had 20 extra days of instruction, what could your students and your school accomplish?” The answer to that question is your school's instructional cost of the 8 period day.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…