My seven-year old is now a Girl Scout, and is loving it. From selling cookies, to archery, to helping the community, she’s is all over every aspect of being a Girl Scout. I recently asked her what she loves the most about it, and her answer surprised me: “The badges,” she said. The badges. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have used merit and achievement badges for decades, and they are a proven method for honoring success, achievement, and growth. Much of our district’s transition to a proficiency-based learning model is based on this same model. Here’s a quick breakdown of the basics of our transition to a proficiency-based learning model:
Grades are different than badges. A traditional grade is an average of a whole lot of different factors. Badges are narrower in focus, but deeper in learning. Our proficiency-based learning transition is focusing on going deeper with our content and, more importantly, what our students can do with that content. In the era of Google, simply providing information isn’t enough; we have to teach our kids what to do with it. Badges tell a story. Proficiency-based learning is about communicating what the students have actually learned. It’s about honoring the learning of all students. It’s about reporting accurately what students can do as a result of the teaching. Badges in the Girl and Boy Scouts tell a clear, open, and transparent story, not only of what a student has learned, but what a student can do. Our transition to a proficiency-based learning model is focused on the same core principles. There’s more than one way to sell a box of cookies. Some Girl Scouts go door to door. Some Scouts give their parents the form to bring to work. Some Scouts create an online presence and sell them globally. Some Scouts sell to the Hollywood elite during the Academy Awards. What’s the goal: to sell the cookies the same way, or to learn how to sell cookies? Proficiency-based learning is about finding many ways to achieve the same goal. There’s not one way to learn anything; there are a million ways to learn everything. Traditional schools focus on one pathway; proficiency-based learning focuses on multiple. Badges are hard work, but fun. Learning shouldn’t be easy. School shouldn’t be easy. It should be difficult and challenging. But more importantly, schools should be environments that promote productive struggle. The best learning opportunities are never linear; they require mistakes, failures, “oops” moments, reflections, and imperfections. Proficiency-based learning models are based in the principles of learning, meaning that imperfection and error is expected. “If at first you don’t succeed: try, try again.”
0 Comments
So I just spent the last week in Disney. And I spent. And I'm spent. Spent sums me up at the moment. But something truly hit me our last evening there: the absolute power of dreams. Walt Disney World is a land where dreams, imagination, and creativity come to life. Literally. We met Mickey Mouse. (Several times, actually). We took a mission to Mars, flew along side of the Millenium Falcon, dined in the Beast's castle, traveled up Mt. Everest, rode the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, went Under the Sea, found Nemo, experienced the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, survived the Haunted Mansion, learned Bollywood Dancing, ate at a Luau, went to Infinity (and Beyond), and reminded ourselves that it is, indeed, a small world after all. It's the truth, it's actual. Life is Satisfactual. So as I was watching the "Celebration of Magic" and fireworks on our last night in the Magic Kingdom, the theme centered all around the power of dreams. Around the power of the mind and imagination. And how anything is possible; it just takes courage to step out and try. Courage. It's one thing to dream an idea; it's an entirely different realm to realize that dream. Add into it the millions of nuance life can throw at you when bringing that dream to reality. It's hard work. It's scary work. It's frustrating work. It can be so tiresome, annoying, and painful that it becomes easy to ask, "is this dream even worth all of this?" That's where another line from the "Celebration of Magic" hit me: "Let your conscience be your guide." Dream realization takes courage. It also takes patience. It takes stubbornness. But, more than anything, it takes belief. It takes a conscience to push ourselves through the muck and over the brick walls. It takes idealism. Idealism to see through the muck and brick walls and believe (truly believe) that what we're doing matters. Taking that idealism and making it into a reality can seem daunting, if not impossible.
But the Magic Kingdom reminded me: nothing is impossible. You only have to dream it. What are your dreams for your classroom/school/district? Adventures in Sketchnoting (Part 1 of ... ?)Over the last few months I've taken a deep dive into practicing Sketchnoting as a way to change my thinking process. Why? To push myself. To get myself over humps. So that when I am faced with a challenge, I will have several methods at my disposal to help me overcome that challenge. Logic models? Yup. Data analysis? Sure. Qualitative research methods? Done. Design thinking? Love it. Visual representations? That's where I'm at. This post is a summary/gallery of a few of the Sketchnotes I've done over the last month or two. I'm still learning, but I'm finding that it is helping me be a better listener; more intentional with plans and design; and is helping focus and clarify my meaning. At least, I think so. As always, feedback is welcome. Deeper Learning & Throwing Out GradesLearning is a process. Learning has no end point. Learning is a continuum.
These are principles of “learning” that must not only be understood, but applied effectively if we are going to have a meaningful and authentic discussion about “deep learning.” For fans of the movie Shrek, learning is like an onion. When you learn about something, a layer is removed. The point of learning something is to get to its core; its center. In the learning continuum, layers are continuously peeled off to get closer and closer to the center. So, what happens when you get to the center of the bulb? Break out the microscope, folks… there’s always more to go. That is the core component of learning. There’s always more to learn. And this should be a core value and belief in our educational system. The key word in that last sentence is: should. Our current educational system does not reflect this core value and belief, and the evidence of this has been under our very noses and hiding in plain sight for over one hundred years. All teachers have experienced the student who has done “well” in the unit, and then bombed the test. Or who has done well in the class, only to have forgotten everything the next day. Or who has met or exceed every expectation that we have thrown at them, only to struggle when we ask them to learn independently or autonomously. In fact, many teachers may have been some of those very students when they were in school. It’s been an “accepted truth” in our educational system. Look no further than the summer brain drain. It’s an accepted fact that students will not fully retain the learning and information from June to August. Why is this accepted? Why do schools continue to shrug their shoulders and simply accept that this happens? Teachers regularly have to intentionally and explicitly plan remediation for the first month or two of school. This poses the question, “to what extent did the students deeply learn what was taught the prior year?” The automatic response would be: “look at their grades and find out.” And there is the core problem of our educational system that is, unintentionally yet directly, preventing deeper learning in our students: grades. Going back to the initial premise: Learning is a process. Learning has no end point. Learning is a continuum. Grades are end points… and our students use them that way. Students who get “Cs” are often not intrinsically motivated to independently improve that grade. Granted some do, but remember that every generalization is false in the specific. If a student earns a “passing grade,” that student moves on, even if that student has not deeply learned the core material and/or proficiently proven the skills. Grades stop learning. They were intended to be an efficient system of feedback for students and parents, yet over the years have morphed into something based more on assumption than fact. That efficient system worked, but like all systems, there comes a time when that system needs either tuning, repair, or redesign. Grades are not a more efficient communication tool than email, social media, or texting. Grades come with symbols and interpretive skills that vary based on the individual student, parent, teacher, school, district, community, state, and nation. Grades were meant to be an easy way to communicate progress of learning, but ask any teacher, student, or parent what a “B-” or “C+” means regarding specifics of learning and ability, and the answers will vary from “meh” to “ok” to “I guess I did well enough to pass.” The real problem here is that no one is actually communicating what was learned. It’s way too vague, and in an era of globalized economies, instantaneous connectivity, and greater competition than ever before in the history of humanity, specificity, detail, and clear and effective communication have become some of the most important components of success and growth. Education is not outside of these rules and realities; in fact, we need to drive them. It’s time to throw out grades for a better system of feedback; one based on language, purpose, and meaningful conversation between teacher, student, and parent about the learning process. This won't be easy; but it's necessary. Check out AOS #94’s pilot/draft of a new proficiency-based scale: Image drawn by Matt Drewette-Card using @FiftyThree #madewithpaper They're similar, yet they are so very different. And that difference makes ALL of the difference. Standards-based vs. Proficiency-based. In Maine, we have a law (LD 1422) that is centered on "proficiency" based learning. I've previously written about a simple definition for proficiency that works, but in conversations, conferences, workshops, meetings, etc., I keep hearing "standards-based" being thrown around instead of "proficiency-based." So, I started digging around. I found that Maine is a HUB for the word "proficiency." New Hampshire uses 'competency;" Connecticut uses "mastery." Their intention is the same, but the words are different. OK. No big deal. Same thing with "standards-based" right? No. A system can be "standards-based" but not "proficiency-based." A student can advance in a standards-based system while not being proficient. How so? If the student fails to meet the expected level of complexity in the standard, then "proficiency" hasn't been met. Complexity is the skill-part of the standard... you know... when the standard says, "compare and contrast..." or "analyze..." or "identify...". That part. To be proficient, a student needs to prove the content at the level of complexity that's in the standard, and any assessment(s) need to mirror that complexity. Got it? Good. Because there's something else missing. A super-secret component that is often left out of the "proficiency-based" equation. And, I argue, it's probably the most important. Autonomy. We're very comfortable talking about content; we've been doing that for decades. We're marginally comfortable talking about complexity. That's an area that's been in our educational lexicon for decades, but we're still struggling with what it "looks like." And the extent to which our instruction, assessment, and curriculum are all aligned in terms of complexity. By content: sure. That's easy. By complexity: that's harder. So what about autonomy? In a rigorous learning environment, to be certified as being "proficient," or "competent" or having "met the standard," students should be expected to meet the learning goals independently. At that point in their learning, they shouldn't need teacher intervention, support, or direction. That should have already happened dozens of times. Autonomy is where students can look at a situation and know whether or not the taught/learned skill and content are appropriate for the situation, and then be able to apply that skill and content correctly and fluently. That's autonomy in a rigorous learning environment. So, how often are our students provided these authentic experiences to demonstrate autonomy and proficiency? How often, as a summative assessment, simply give the student(s) the learning goal and say: "Here you go. Prove you can do it. Show me what you've got."
To make our students more resilient to challenges, we have to prepare them to live in a world without safety nets. Our schools are great sandboxes to play with this concept, as school itself is a safety net. We can teach them independence. We can teach them autonomy. We can teach them that the core principle of a free society is knowing when to use a skill, as well as when not to use it.
It's been a while since I've written a post. Like, actually wrote something. I've felt like I wasn't sure what I wanted to say. I'm still new to blogging, and I know I need to be more disciplined... but I often find myself sitting down to write about something I'm working on, working towards, or dream about in the education-realm, only to push my writing aside for "something else." In terms of writing, I started to feel I was being too preachy. Too lecture-y. Too much of what I strive hard to teach others to eliminate. Not enough vulnerability. Not enough personalization. Not enough direction. Lacking in clear goals. In other words, I was lacking in leadership. Of myself. I can't define leadership. To me, it's something that's truly undefinable. I know I can Google "leadership" and find a definition, but, to me, a definition is only worthwhile if I can put it into action and make context out of it. This is why this post begins with a picture of Justice Potter Stewart. In Jacobelis v. Ohio, a 1964 Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment and the word "obscenity." In Stewart's concurrence, "holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity", he wrote: "I shall not today attempt to further define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." I look at leadership through the same lens and definition. Leadership exists in schools; at the administration level, at the teacher level, and at the student level. Leadership exists in sports teams. At restaurants. In politics. In corporations. In families. Leadership is everywhere. Yet it looks different in all of those places. It sounds different, too. It also feels different. And I believe that's because: leadership is naturally nebulous. So what happens when something that by its very nature is hazy, indistinct, or vague, yet that thing is needed in a time and situation that is already clouded, ill-defined, or unclear?
To narrow it down to a specific question: where's the leadership in our educational transition to a proficiency-based learning system? No one knows how a proficiency-based diploma will actually work. No one knows how a proficiency-based learning system throughout an entire state will actually work. We've barely begun to figure out how it works in a singular classroom, let alone all classrooms in all schools across the Pine Tree State. To do this we need clear leadership... an oxymoron if you've actually read this post in its entirety so far. This gets to the point of why I'm writing this today. I was feeling lost and vague and rudderless in how to approach this blog. So I let it go for a while. And as a result, guess what happened: Nothing. And I don't mean it in the way, like, "Hey, nothing bad happened." No, instead, more like: nothing. The blog just sat there and did... well... nothing. No change. No growth. In uncertain waters, leadership and movement is a necessity. Maintaining status quo in uncertain waters will only lead to more "floating", eventual stagnation, and eventually being left for dead. Guess what will happen if we maintain status quo in our educational systems: nothing. And I mean that in a bad way. Our students are struggling in terms of building intrinsic motivation to learn and be curious in schools. Our teachers are struggling to support learners of all differentiated abilities in schools. Our administrators are constantly being inundated with tasks and requirements that have little or nothing to do with student learning. Parents are nervous and frustrated. Colleges and Universities are shouting about student abilities (or lack thereof) coming from the K-12 schools. The business world is worried about long-term capacity, innovation, and competition. So, WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP? I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. I see it on Twitter all of the time. My #edchatme colleagues continuously inspire me locally to push the envelope for kids in my district, in my town, and in my home. My #sblchat colleagues provide direction in terms of resources, ideas, and challenges to address the flaws in our systems. My #dtk12chat colleagues challenge me to think about the world in different ways, and to use the power of people to promote ideas and change vs. the power of authority. I see leadership in my schools all of the time. I see it in my home (my wife is the kind of leader I aspire to be). I see it everywhere. Yet, it's nowhere at the same time. So maybe instead of our traditional ideas of leadership being in the hands of a few individuals who then distribute the "path" to the masses, #whatif we flipped that idea to a leadership model that is more distributive? Instead of looking outward/upward for direction, guidance, or information: look inward. Take charge. Make a change and see what happens. Be fearless. Maybe in this educational nebula we are in, perhaps the greatest skill and/or quality our educational leaders need to have is the ability to lack fear. What do you think?
Want to see how we are setting up our curriculum maps to design an effective proficiency-based learning system that is focused on learning, effective instructional strategies, research, and student growth?
Check it out: A common theme of my writing this year is about simplification.
Because sometimes we make things so much harder than they need to be. In my humble opinion, education is the HUB of acronyms and buzzwords. "Use NWEA or a DRA for AYP to meet NCLB in an IEP." "Differentiate using best-practices and research-based strategies with a mindset of data-driven decision making and customizable learning environments that use valid and reliable formative assessments." Where both of those statements are actionable and actual statements that can be heard in any school system across the country, we continually add more to the mix... to the point of over-saturation. The "educational eye-roll", I call it. When a policy-wonk or a head-in-the-clouds, idealistic and out-of-the-box thinking curriculum coordinator (hey... sounding too familiar here...) starts using this language, many teachers and educators have become accustomed to rolling their eyes back and letting the edu-babble wash over them. It's not conscious... it's due to over-saturation. Too much; too often; little actual applicability. The latest: Student Learning Objectives (SLOs). To honor my belief that time is precious and a gift, I'll spare you the time here of "defining" an SLO. Why? You can Google that yourself. The object of this post is not to define an SLO, but rather, to SIMPLIFY it. (Check out the end of this post for some of my top resources for SLO information, design, etc.). To simplify SLOs, it's important to break it down into simple understandable language. That means few words, and those few words need to be limited in complexity and difficulty. So if I could summarize and simplify SLO, it would be: good teaching. Huh? I thought an SLO was an assessment? It is, but all assessment is predicated in teaching. All assessment is based on learning goals/standards, and the instruction that leads to that learning goal. Assessment is the bridge between what is intended to be learned, and what was actually learned (ain't nuttin but a validity thang). An SLO is indeed an assessment that is based on good teaching practices. Wait... I think I just defined an SLO... didn't I say I wouldn't do that? OOPS. Anyway, an SLO looks like this:
Last time I checked, those 5 stages are the basic definitions and principles of good teaching. It doesn't have to be complicated. Keep it simple; keep it focused on learning and effective instruction. That's my $0.02. Or did I miss something? As promised, here are my favorite resources for SLOs: http://www.maine.gov/doe/excellence/documents/slo-framework.pdf https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/targeting-growth.pdf http://www.gtlcenter.org/learning-hub/student-learning-objectives https://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/Pages/Student-Learning-Objectives.aspx http://www.ctacusa.com/education/student-learning-objectives-slos/ https://www.engageny.org/resource/student-learning-objectives http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/evaluations/sample-student-learning-objectives-2-0.pdf Thank you, Steve Knight. Steve is a long time Chemistry teacher at Winthrop High School in Winthrop, ME. I worked for Winthrop High School from 2004-2009, and in that time I grew as an educator tremendously. One afternoon in 2006 (I think), Steve and I, who were collaborating as co-chairs of the NEASC accreditation process, were discussing our plans for the accreditation process, when Steve asked me, "Do you watch TED?" "Ted who... Danson?" (I don't remember if I actually said this, but given my snarky nature and SUPERB wit (can't you tell?), I can totally see me actually saying this) "No," said Steve, "TED.com. Every day during lunch, I need to get my TED fix. You should check it out." TED.com changed my world. For the better. And I eternally owe it to Steve for showing me that door. I'm not saying anything new, here. TED.com has been around for a long time, and has been referenced millions of times by educators. I know this. But everyone gets inspired. And everyone has their "go-to's" for inspiration. I am in the middle of leading some massive paradigm changes in our school district (AOS #94):
... to name a few. Many of the changes are slow to take hold. All of them come with a fight. The fights come from all sides, depending on the situation: students, parents, teachers, administrators, board members. These fights, though, are worth fighting, because the systems we are changing are in desperate need of updating and alignment. I am continually optimistic and idealistic that these changes will happen, given focus, drive, and consistent leadership. So, what keeps me idealistic? What drives that optimism? Coffee and comedy help. But so does TED.com. When I get to the point that I feel like I'm losing hope in these changes actually happening (and this happens to me regularly), I purposefully go to get my dose of TED.com... a source of inspiration that Steve Knight gave me. And then, I'm back. The optimist. The idealist. The optimistic-idealist that gets back to work to make these necessary changes actually take hold and work. Meaningfully. Systemically. For a long time. Since I love lists, here's my top TED talks. 1) Ken Robinson**OK... I admit to cheating here, giving two videos. But I couldn't pick which one I liked more, so... I chose both. It's my blog, and I can do what I want!
These videos both shocked and inspired me in terms of the need for creativity, depth, and innovation in our schools... and what are some of the potential root causes (unintentional and intentional) for why our students, teachers, and schools are falling behind in these areas. 2) Dan Pink
3) Angela Lee Duckworth
4) Carol Dweck** Do TEDx talks count? Yup! Again: my blog, my rules!
5) Todd Rose
6) Craig Messerman
7) Rita PiersonThis. Just: this. All day, and everyday. This. There's my list. What's in yours? B-B-B-BONUS!Reggie WattsBecause Reggie Watts.
I'm pretty new to the world of design thinking. I get most of my inspiration, learning, and support from the #dtk12chat crew on Twitter. They are my CONNECTION to the world of design thinking, and I encourage any/all educators out there interested in design thinking (from the nubiest of nubes to the Bob Vila's of the DT world) to connect, collaborate, and engage with this community, Don't thank me later... just thank yourself for taking the leap. This year I'm diving in deep. Everything I do in terms of curriculum design, professional development, systems organization, instructional strategies, etc. are focused on the principles of design thinking. There are many ways of doing design thinking... it's one of the best parts of it. There's no right or wrong way... there's just "way" (if you say that last line as Wayne and Garth, it'll be worth it). In keeping with my theme of keeping things SIMPLE this year, I have found that Mary Cantwell's DEEP design thinking framework works really well for me. I like it's simple, yet explicit construction and use. It's broken into four simple stages:
I use this framework all of the time now, because, for me, it just makes sense. Plus, it's easy to follow: not just for me (still nube-ish), but for those I work with. Recently, something happened in my weird brain that makes connections that aren't always there, obvious, or intentional. And it blew my mind. For a long time now, I've been deep (ha!) into assessment. In particular, assessment for learning. Learning and achievement are different things (achievement = product; learning = process). My work as a curriculum-instruction-assessment coordinator for AOS #94 has had me consumed with standards-based learning models, proficiency-based diplomas, effective and healthy grading practices, and (in particular) authentic assessment and measurement for learning. Our district has adopted the Marzano framework for instruction, and I have been working on connecting and aligning our instruction, curriculum, and assessment systems to the Marzano Taxonomy for going on three-years now. There are six-stages to the Marzano taxonomy (you can see it above in the beginning of this post), but for our K-12 purposes, we primarily focus on the first four-stages:
Sometimes, things get hidden in such plain sight. And then when you finally see them you think to yourself, "HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS BEFORE?????"
The RETRIEVAL stage of the Marzano taxonomy of cognitive complexity is all about Identifying, Recalling, Recognizing, and Executing in terms of specific information and execution of steps. Is this not the aligned level of complexity required for the DISCOVER stage in DEEP design thinking? According to the DEEPdt Playbook, DISCOVER begins with "opening your eyes," identifying where "the cracks in your environment," and lots and lots of "preflection." In terms of cognitive complexity: these two (DISCOVER - RETRIEVAL) line up directly and explicitly. Dude. Sweet. Well, what about the rest? COMPREHENSION is all about integrating, symbolizing, and describing. You can't fully integrate, symbolize, or describe an issue without the second stage in DEEPdt: EMPATHIZE. It's the whole, "put yourself in someone else's shoes" activity, but this alignment of complexity to process seems pretty blatant. In the EXPERIMENT phase of DEEPdt, you'd be designing questions around "how might we" (HMW), "what if," etc. This aligns with ANALYSIS, where you'd be comparing & contrasting, evaluating, critiquing, generalizing, deducing. and developing arguments. No product yet... just hypothesis generation. Trying things out. Seeing what might work; what might not. PRODUCE is KNOWLEDGE UTILIZATION. The ability to take the skills and content of what was learned, and design, create, and make something to address the issue at hand. So, how might we use this connection in classrooms, schools, and districts? Scaffolding curriculum based on complexity will support students in achieving deep understanding about the concepts and skills. Using the DEEPdt process in intentionally designing curriculum based on the levels of complexity will make the scaffolding that much more explicit, direct, and aligned to what matters most: learning. |
Matt Drewette-CardAOS #94 Curriculum Coordinator Archives
September 2019
Categories |