A Reader Writes... (Broke is Broke - Part 2)

In response to the 11/11/2010 post, “Broke is Broke – Part 1,” a reader writes:

This goes beyond bullying. A teacher’s refusal to write lesson plans also affects our students’ education. It is an affront to teamwork and can have a negative effect on the accountability rating of the campus. Relying on someone else to do your planning work boarders on unethical behavior. The person you describe is a teacher who needs to rethink why they became a teacher in the first place.

If the grade level team members take turns writing particular parts of lessons or specific lesson for their team because they favor a particular subject, and all agree on and discuss teaching strategies, that is a professional learning community. But the teacher who refuses to participate in group planning meetings yet demands access to the product of those meetings, is only concerned about themselves.

SC Response

As is the case with you, I was appalled by what was described in the original post. My response to the original writer was advice on how to address the situation with the individual.

1. Do your work and the work of others (not fair and tastes bad).

2. You can refuse to share with those who do not reciprocate (feels bad).

3. You can point out the lack of teamwork with administration (can be bad).

But understand that situations such as the one described occur when leadership is not doing an adequate job of supporting and monitoring the instructional planning process. Much like the bully who terrorizes the playground when teachers don’t pay attention, the same can occur when administrators and instructional coaches do not actively participate in the discussions and meetings that drive instructional design. The campus manager who espouses the belief that, “I was hired to run the school, the teachers were hired run instruction” has ensured that both the campus and instruction are operating at sub-optimal levels.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Poisonous Staff - Part 4)

In response to the 10/27/2010 post, "A Reader Writes... Poisonous Staff - Part 1,” an assistant principal writes:

It sounds as though your Principal might be under as much stress as you are. The comment, "This is what you will do," sounds as though your Principal has never done what you are being asked to do.

If he or she had, then the response might be more along the lines of, “Here, this is how I did it,” or “Try doing it like this,” instead of just issuing commands.

It sounds as though you might have to step up to the plate and help find a solution to the problem or at least be a part of the solution.

SC Response

Ouch. Insightful, but ouch. You just nailed a concept I have been talking about for quite a while now. What we ask teachers to do now has never been done previously in education. That’s right, the good ol’ days just weren’t that good. That means that for teachers to improve, leadership has to improve. We must do a better job of identifying tools for our teachers, providing training for our teachers, providing implementation coaching for our teachers and working with them to identify both performance hindrances and potential solutions. If all leadership is able to provide to you with is “work harder, work faster, and work longer,” do yourself a favor and find a new leader.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Curriculum Myth)

In response to the 10/20/2010 post, “Curriculum Myth”, another big brain in the LYS Nation writes:

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

Without standards it would be difficult to know when mastery has occurred. Without research it would be difficult to improve the breadth, scope and sequence of curriculum, instruction and assessment.

Without data it would be difficult to assess needs, anticipate solutions and project mastery goals. And so the cycle continues.

SC Response

I had to go back to the original post (10/20/2010) to review the argument.

1. Curriculum should be standards based (instead of research based).

2. Instruction should be research based (instead of standards based).

I would argue that both of you have valid points. It’s the nuance of the argument. I think that the first writer’s point was that most people attack curriculum and instruction decisions from the wrong direction. I agreed with that point and added that in my opinion when the problem is attacked from the wrong direction, it actually justifies inaction.

But with the cycle that you describe you make an intuitive leap that escapes numerous of us in the profession (but not the old school LYS’er).

1. We select a standards based curriculum (less common than one would suspect).

2. We implement the curriculum at full speed (rare) with fidelity (more rare).

3. We implement research based instructional practices (rare, and yes, we have the data to back this up).

4. We objectively assess (learning and instruction) in short windows of time (rare in isolation, exceedingly rare in combination).

5. We purposefully make incremental adjustments based on the analysis of both components of data (exceedingly rare).

6. We repeat steps 2 through 5 at increasing speed and intensity (my gut instinct is that this occurs at less than 1% of schools, nationally).

Which is why I agree with both of you (which is not unusual). But until the first argument is satisfied, it is hard to make your argument actionable. The question for those of us on the training side is, from an organization and system perspective, is the process critical or can the typical school make the intuitive leap?

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Common Assessments for Students with Special Needs

The following are discussions on procedures to follow when including students with special needs in a common assessment program. It may be helpful for other schools and districts within the LYS Nation

1) From a Special Education Director, the initial answer to the question regarding common assessment grading practices for special education students:

There has been discussion to NOT modify the three and six week common assessments, in order to get full information about the skills of special education students. However, IF TEACHERS ARE COUNTING EITHER OF THESE ASSESSMENTS FOR A GRADE, then you must provide the accommodations that are specified in the student's ARD. Please ensure that your teachers understand this requirement of the law.

2) Because some parties in the discussion were using LYS as justification for their opinion and actions, we clarified the LYS position:

For the record, our recommendation has always been that for the common assessments, the student receives the same modifications / accommodations that he or she receives on the state accountability test.

If you do otherwise, as some campuses do, then the purpose must be for information only and there must be a grade modification, if a grade is taken.

3) The Special Education Director then provided even better clarification to make sure the needs of students remained at the forefront, and to remind us all that short cuts are not acceptable.

We need to be clear to instructional staff that there are modifications and there are accommodations. They are not the same thing. If the assessment is used for determining progress only and not for a grade, then you can (but don't have to) allow the student to take the assessment without accommodation or modification to determine the student’s current skill level without supports. This can help in determining whether those modifications or accommodations are indeed necessary for student success.

If however, the assignment will be used for accountability purposes, the modifications and accommodations must be used as specified in the ARD.

Now for the tricky part. Modifications include verdana font, larger point, more white space, horizontal item layout, reduced blueprint, plus 19 other item modifications. As you can see, to provide this level of modification to an assessment each three weeks and six weeks, in every subject would be a voluminous task. Certainly, if the campus staff is willing to learn how to do it and then dedicate the time, they could provide this. I don't really see this as realistic. As you can see, modified does not mean reduce one answer choice for everyone and then call it modified.

Accommodations are student specific and should be used daily in class and do not require altering the test in any way. They include things like colored overlays, calculators, addition charts, oral administration etc. These are easy to provide but they must be included in the ARD and they must be specific to the student. Once again, there is no "one size fits all." For example, the classic “reduce the answer choice for every student” and call that accommodated.

The issue is much more complicated than first meets the eye (as are most things in special education).

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Asks... Common Assessment Data Analysis

A LYS Teacher sent the following to a LYS Coach

Lesa,

I have a question that enters my mind every time I start analyzing data from our common assessments. Why do we not count the kiddos in our data that make between a 60 and an 80?

For example, with these tests being 10 questions, we have LOTS of kids make 70s. Since we focus on the kids that make 80% or higher, and 60% or lower, those kids get left out. Is there a reason we aren't focusing on them? Is it because they are assumed to be scoring "at mastery?" Please shed some light on this for me. It weighs on my mind every time we test!

Thanks!

P.S. Thank you (and Sean) soooo much for your "style." The entire LYS team is a breath of fresh air every time you guys are here! The data analysis and everything that comes with trying to be a better teacher for our kids comes with some extra work; but I am seeing the improvements! Just seeing my ELL kids' awesome scores makes me excited to get to the next test. On the flip side of that, I'm taking their failures more personal than EVER BEFORE! In turn, those failing scores gnaw at me until we can get it right! So thank you! :o)

LC Response

Great question and thanks for asking me! You are correct - the theory is that if kids are making 60's and 70's this early in the year, then we believe that with continued good instruction in class and tutorial support as needed, that these students will be successful on TAKS in the spring.

Students who score 80% or higher are the kids that you expect to score commended, and the students who are below 60% are those that we have to be most concerned about and we continue to offer any and all support that we have as long as they continue to strive. Remember, it's these students who really determine your rating.

Tracking data like this is a concrete way to see how close or far we are to the TAKS goal - we can determine raw numbers of students who are soaring, those who are on level, and those who are striving. So, it's not that we aren't "counting" the kids in the middle, it's that we HAVE to know those who aren't making it and move them up through great instruction. You also want to think of the highest achievers and reflect on the instruction that is resulting in such resounding success and replicate it for the kids in the 60's and 70's with the hope that it will result in higher scores for them too.

I appreciate so much your attitude and your willingness to inspect your instruction. The fact that the scores drive you nuts is a sign of a caring, dedicated professional, and I promise you that just like we tell kids that the amount of effort they put forth will result in eventual success, so too is the same for us. The more we persevere and never give up, the better off every kid will be.

Thank you for being the kind of teacher that gives kids the ability to have options in the future! You are a blessing for each of them.

LC

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

A Reader Writes... (Game On! Schools - Part 3)

In response to the 11/28/2010 post, “Game On! Schools Write – Part 2,” a reader writes:

OK. I'm convinced!! I've been reading about Game On! for a few weeks and I really want to know more about it. My campus is very poised for this type of PLC push. Where can I find out more about the details of Game On! so that I can begin with my students and teachers? We are ready...

SC Response

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but as any Game On! school will tell you, thinking you are ready and actually being ready are two different things. There are some specific campus and staff practices that need to be in place prior to implementation.

Partially because Game On! is proprietary, but mostly because bootleg versions of Game On! fail more often than they succeed, we limit the amount of information we release publicly. However, for anyone interested (including the writer who submitted this comment), you can call the LYS office at (832) 477-LEAD or send in another comment that includes your contact information.

Here’s what everyone needs to know about Game On!

1. All things being equal, LYS schools outwork their peers.

2. All things being equal, LYS schools outperform their peers.

3. All things being equal, Game On! schools outwork LYS schools.

4. All things being equal, Game On! schools outperform LYS schools.

5. Game On! is not a game. It is a campus wide commitment to work with urgency, reflection and transparency.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...