Sometimes, we make things so much harder than they need to be. My goals this year for my work with educators is based on two simple principles: SIMPLIFY and CONNECT. This post is intended to SIMPLIFY. That doesn't mean it'll be easy. In fact, it'll be difficult at times. Any task can be broken into four separate quadrants (adopting this from Steven Covey): In my work to simplify everything we do, I have come to a realization that part of the reason there is a huge disconnect in understanding the principles and applying a standards-based learning model, is caught up in the word: alignment. Educators have been working on alignment for decades; vertical alignment, horizontal alignment, interdisciplinary alignment, standards alignment, etc. It's not a new concept to educators. In fact, many hear the word alignment and think, "here we go again." Or, "didn't we do this already?" Or, "why bother? What we align to now will change in 5 years? What's the point?" Schools and education systems seem to be continually aligning, which, by default and logic, means that they are constantly, in part, misaligned. It's natural; as systems grow and evolve, things change and courses need to be slightly corrected. It happens with planes, trains, and automobiles... everywhere, And if the targets keep changing, it's easy to understand the frustration and anxiety alignment can bring to educators. We're busy enough, and the last thing we need is more busy-work that we believe will have no impact on my classroom. Sound familiar? Maybe the issue, then, isn't alignment itself, but how and what we are aligning. All educators I talk to agree that vertical, horizontal, interdisciplinary, and standards alignment is necessary, but the frustration in doing redundant work impedes true progress. This is were I say: perhaps it's because we haven't been really been aligning to what's most important: complexity. Educators have always aligned to content. In mathematics, the alignment of content is concrete. Number Sense, leads to Addition and Subtraction, which leads to Multiplication and Division, which leads to Fractions and Decimals, etc. In English/Language Arts, it's about phonemic awareness to word recognition to sentences to paragraphs to tone and point of view to grammar and finally to at all costs avoiding run-on sentences because the reader needs to take a break which is why commas, ellipses, semicolons, etc., were invented so get on with it already! If you track most curriculum from K-12, you will find that the alignment is (and has mostly) been based on content. My contention is that this is the WRONG way to align. I know I shouldn't say WRONG because it's judgmental and opinionated and strong, but it's how I feel. And not just how I feel, but there's evidence backing it up too. We should be basing our curriculum, instruction, and assessment systems on COMPLEXITY over content. Content is the frosting on the cake; it's yummy and sweet, and oh-so-delicious, but if you want cake and just get a plate of frosting... something's going to be missing, and you're going to feel cheated. COMPLEXITY is the cake; content is the frosting. Here's what I mean: Take the equation for measuring Newton's second law of motion (F = ma). A student can IDENTIFY or USE the equation. In terms of the Marzano Taxonomy, that's very low level cognitive thinking. It's clear that the student has a basic/foundational grasp of the content by meeting this level of complexity. The alignment question should be: is that complexity level high enough? If the standard is written at a Retrieval level on the Marzano Taxonomy, then our curriculum-instruction-assessment is aligned. But what if the standard is written at an Analysis level on the Marzano Taxonomy? And what if our instruction and assessment only asks students to perform at a Retrieval level? Has the student "Met the Standard"? Is the student "Applying the Standard"? From the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): "PS2-1: Analyze data that supports Newton's Second Law with Force, mass, and acceleration." Part of the reason our students aren't retaining information lesson-to-lesson, unit-to-unit, or year-to-year, isn't because our curriculum-instruction-assessment is misaligned in terms of content. In fact, I believe we throw TOO MUCH content at them. In a word: SIMPLIFY. Align to complexity. Base the curriculum-instruction-assessment systems off of complexity. Here's what you need in order to do this:
That's it. Simplify. The content can be measured at a low level of complexity, and a high level of complexity. If we only align to content, then one grade level (or multiple classrooms within that grade level) might be measuring at a higher/lower levels of complexity, meaning the depth of understanding and application of the content varies year to year, student to student. Start here. End here. Alignment isn't challenging. It shouldn't be frustrating. Base everything off of COMPLEXITY. Simple.
0 Comments
Image from paul4innovating.com For far too long, my school district (AOS #94) has looked at professional development (PD) in very uncoordinated terms. This is not uncommon, either. PD is often looked at as workshop days or early releases, professional learning community (PLC) times, or conferences. However, PD happens all the time. Common planning time; faculty meetings; Twitter chats, and more. There are hundreds of PD opportunities and options available to educators all of the time, but it is imperative that a district have and adopt a PD plan. This DOES NOT mean simply planning themes for the workshop days, but rather have explicit and meaningful goals for all educators to demonstrate proficiency of at the end of the school year. This is the obvious intention of any evaluation system that is focused on educator development, but PD should be explicit and have measurable outcomes. If PD is designed to improve instructional effectiveness and affect student achievement, then our PD system's design and expectations should mirror that of an effective and affective classroom. Check out this information from the Marzano Center at Learning Sciences: Notice the two areas that show the highest percentage in student achievement: Tracking Student Progress and Using Scoring Scales and Setting Goals/Objectives. PD should be designed using these same principles. If your district PD is hodgepodge (to put it delicately), then bring this up to leadership. What are the goals/objectives? How will we track progress? Further, how does our PD EXPLICITY align to implementing and measuring these strategies in the classroom? Here's how we are doing this in AOS #94: We have established three major goals for PD for 2015-2016: RIGOR, PROFICIENCY SCALES, and FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT. Every/Any PD that our educational staff (Administrators, Teachers, Ed Techs, etc.) need to EXPLICITLY align to these goals. This is a non-negotiable. Further, at the end of the year, all educators should be able to demonstrate proficiency in the nine expectations that are aligned to the three goals. This system of proficiency is the exact same that we are placing on our students. It's a "what's good for the gander" situation. Here's our set plan for workshop days and early releases: Further, our other teams and work that may not be directly related to PD should also align to these goals. For example, here's our plan for our school-based and district-wide data teams: Alignment of PD doesn't have to be difficult. It just needs to be explicit and coordinated. It needs to bleed into everything we do, because everything we do in education is, in one way or the other, improving us as educators. Setting goals/objectives and tracking progress of those explicit goals can only suffice in increase achievement of those goals. Open the attached .pdf (below) to download the full aligned plan & use for your own district. Sharing is caring! How is your district's PD organization and effectiveness? Leave me a comment and let's talk about it!
This post is designed to stay within my 2015-2016 school year themes. I love cheesecake. It's the best dessert option... ever. People can argue with me about apple pie a la mode; ice cream sundaes; baked Alaska; tiramisu; creme brûlée; or warm chocolate chip cookies. All of them are delicious... all of them are amazing. They are as almost good as cheesecake, but not quite. The texture, flavor, and satisfaction that comes after enjoying a piece of cheesecake surpasses the emotional responses had from those other desserts. Of course, feel free to disagree with me on this... this is my humble opinion, of course... but stay with me, here. Since I love cheesecake so much, you can imagine my excitement going to The Cheesecake Factory. This restaurant is the epitome of deliciousness. It is the epicenter of yum. The HUB of culinary satisfaction. And it is this restaurant that has sparked one of the biggest controversies in my married life. Before, when I wrote that I love cheesecake, I purposefully left out that I like plain New York Style cheesecake. No sauce. No fruit. No peanut butter, Oreo, or pumpkin blend. Plain. On its own. By itself. "Why are we coming to the Cheesecake Factory, where there are hundreds of cheesecake combinations, when ALL you want is plain? It makes no sense!" This is what I've heard for years. From friends, family, and my brilliant wife. They don't understand why I'd pass on the extravagant and go for the plain. It confuses and frustrates. In a word: simple. I like it this way because I believe that the more stuff you add to something that is already delicious, you take away from its essence. If I add strawberry sauce to my cheesecake, it changes the flavor of the cheesecake from "cheesecake" to "strawberries & cheesecake." In my mind, that gets in the way of my goal: eating cheesecake. Good cheesecake doesn't need frills, additions, or addenda. It doesn't need to be hidden under other flavors. Good cheesecake should be able to stand on its own. It's a common theme in food: making the simple complicated. Adding more; combining new things to create new ideas. I'm not opposed to this, by the way. Taking the existing and making something new is how innovation occurs, and innovation is wonderful and necessary. However, I do also believe that there is tremendous strength and merit in the simple. The foundation. If the basics aren't strong and good, then how good can the rest of the products/outcomes truly be? So when I work with teachers, administrators, parents, and students about the word "proficiency," I am amazed at the mountain of other "stuff" gets brought up. Report cards, eligibility, honor roll, grading, rubrics, scales, scholarships, diplomas.... oh, my. I agree, there's a lot. And those things are really important. They will wind up being the innovation and face of our system, but if the foundation isn't there, then everything falls apart in the end. When transitioning to a proficiency-based system of learning, what is the foundation? What is the "plain New York Style Cheesecake" of proficiency-based learning? I believe it starts with proficiency, and having a common, easily-understood and measurable definition. I feel that one of the fears of a proficiency-based learning system is in the unknown; that it brings requirements or changes that we don't understand, so to understand this system, let's come to agreement on a simple definition of proficiency: ProficiencyIndependently applying all expectations. That's it. It's really that simple. The rest of it (report cards, assessment, diplomas, etc.) all feed back to this one principle: the definition of proficiency. If you and your teams find that the policies, practices, or systems you are developing stray from this definition: proficient you will not reach. Everything in a proficiency-based learning system comes back to this definition. Independently applying all expectations. Start here; end here. Keep it simple. Just like cheesecake.
I walked into my school today to hear the sounds of kids. Lots of kids. Nervous tears of new Kindergarteners.. Middle schoolers laughing, reconnecting, and recollecting inside jokes. Excitement. Chatter. Curiosity. And then, there were the teachers. Hearing the sound of true joy from a teacher as s/he is meeting the children for the first time. The smiles and sympathetic faces, helping confused, lost, or worried kids find their way to their home-away-from-home for the next nine months. High fives. Nervous energy. Anticipation. Excitement. Chatter. Curiosity. Education is a big job. Teaching is hard to quantify, and being a teacher is even harder. If we were to remove the reason we show up everyday (the kids), the mountain of challenges, obstacles, and requirements we face are enormous... overwhelming, even. I heard last year someone say (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Our plates were full, so they dumped the stuff on our plate onto a platter to make it not look as full. Well, guess what... now our platter is full. What's next?" I can sympathize. I can empathize. Even though I'm out of the classroom now and serve as a district administrator, the metaphor of "building the plane while flying it" holds ever so true in our profession. There's so much to do. Never enough time. So much to process. Never enough time. So much to create, design, assess, monitor, evaluate, predict, judge, research, and investigate. Oh, and then implement. And then do it all again. And while we're teaching (hence the building while flying metaphor). What makes it harder, is a silo-mentality and approach to the myriad of tasks that need accomplishing. When our lives get boiled down to nothing more than a "checklist," purpose gets lost. We are here because we love kids; we love learning. And the other stuff shouldn't get in the way of that So, it's with that in mind, I present my two major themes of school year 2015-2016. Everything I do will relate to these two themes to make our lives more effective.
Every year, before the school year begins, I create some goals for myself. My district (AOS 94, ME) is in full transition to a model and an environment of proficiency-based learning, but changing to this new model takes lots of little steps, time, patience, and a willingness to embrace mistakes so they can be learned from. Below are my district-goals for 2015-2016. What are your goals for this school year? SY 2015-2016 Goals RIGOR
Formative Assessment
Proficiency Scales
Other
On August 12, 2015, 50+ educators and policy makers from across New England gathered in Dexter, Maine to collaboratively problem solve issues of proficiency-based learning. Using the EdCamp model of "creating the conference in the room," the educators built an agenda to discuss challenges, concerns, and successes as schools transition to a proficiency-based learning model. I love the EdCamp model for professional development as it puts the learners at the center of the conference. If we are to make a student centered learning environment, then let's also change our professional development environment. Schools and Districts should become learner centered. Their mission statements and vision statements should be learner centered, and with that, whether the student is the learner, or the teacher is the learner: the learner is the center... not the presenter. Check out the MooseCamp website(below), and save the dates for MooseCamp 2016 (probably sometime during the last week of June). MooseCamp Website JumpRope Blog on MooseCamp |
Matt Drewette-CardAOS #94 Curriculum Coordinator Archives
September 2019
Categories |