Monday, February 21, 2011
Universal Constructs
<div class="prezi-player"><style type="text/css" media="screen">.prezi-player { width: 550px; } .prezi-player-links { text-align: center; }</style><object id="prezi_gyvue04mmmea" name="prezi_gyvue04mmmea" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="550" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swf"/><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"/><param name="flashvars" value="prezi_id=gyvue04mmmea&lock_to_path=0&color=ffffff&autoplay=no&autohide_ctrls=0"/><embed id="preziEmbed_gyvue04mmmea" name="preziEmbed_gyvue04mmmea" src="http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="550" height="400" bgcolor="#ffffff" flashvars="prezi_id=gyvue04mmmea&lock_to_path=0&color=ffffff&autoplay=no&autohide_ctrls=0"></embed></object><div class="prezi-player-links"><p><a title="The “Universal Constructs†were identified following an analysis of the competencies and habits of mind needed for future successes in careers, college and citizenry." href="http://prezi.com/gyvue04mmmea/universal-constructs-essential-for-21st-century-readiness/">Universal Constructs: Essential for 21st Century Readiness</a> on <a href="http://prezi.com">Prezi</a></p></div></div>
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Being a Bridge is Tough
I've been watching the protests that are sweeping across WI, and my gut reaction is simple: it's much tougher to be a bridge. We have difficult issues to solve, but making extreme statements on one side or another makes it difficult to find a win-win solution. It's only when a center ground is reached that change becomes possible. Bridges must stand against strains from both sides, and it is tempting to let go before the work is done.
This does raise the question of whether a system can totally be thrown out. Wouldn't it be great to totally reinvent education? To stop working within the status quo? Of course it would, but we don't live in such a system. Every time you speak of throwing out an old system, you come smack up against the personality dynamics found in most schools. While we all fantasize about it, we are wasting our energy.
Here's a better way to spend your time: do you know the Kiersey, or Myers-Briggs, or Color Temperaments of your staff? Once you know that, you can better plan your strategy, because schools contain large numbers of personality types that are _NF_, to use Kiersey or Myers-Briggs language. These are the teachers that have devoted their lives to one district, and serve as coach, as unpaid class sponsor, who come to ball games and donate their own money to buy lunch for a hungry kid. They want the kids to succeed, but change is difficult for them, because so many reforms have come and gone. We need to consider them if we want change to succeed. Based on your personality distributions, you can know how to re-frame the debate to meet their needs. Give those teachers who are Kiersey Inventors and Generals a leadership role, but don't ignore the loyalty of those teachers who are NF personalities.. Take the time to listen to them, to give them the information needed to make the hard decisions, and talk about the health of the District. It's that type of persuasion that will move you along as you consider the future.
This is the reality that faces us. And it means that we MUST get teachers involved in the process and work of the Iowa Core, especially in Outcomes 5 and 6. You MUST be the bridge, standing in the middle, encouraging your teachers and providing the resources and research that will let them meet the needs of the community in which they teach. You are not the top, you are the middle. Rinse. Repeat.
I'm sure this is not the only pathway that works, but I also know that overthrow of the system is not possible. Start with your own BLT, with your PLCs, and see where they are at. We all know that flexing our muscles can be done in a myriad of ways, but when we all pull together, we are more likely to win.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Questions to Anticipate in SBAR for Waukee
Waukee did a brave thing when they announced their standards-based grading system to the press. To hear the resulting hulabaloo, they did something that never had been considered before in Iowa.
Except that simply is not the case. A large number of schools use standards-based rankings. Price Lab is one of many that have been experimenting with this in grade books, following the leads of elementary schools. Districts such as Wahlert, and Iowa City have had extended discussions on eliminating class rank, defeating the formula of the public Iowa RAI score for the state universities. Teachers who have been trained in the CLI model, including West Delaware and Independence and some of the schools in Southwest Iowa know that standards grading is a refinement of the first OBE, or outcomes-based education model that were proposed fifteen years ago and subsequently adopted by the Archdiocese of Dubuque. Reteaching is a critical part of Tier I and II IDM /RTI intervention, and I am sure that the time and resources are in Waukee's plan, also.
SBAR can be a rich and rewarding way to look at student knowledge, and IMO, certainly more valid than an A to F alphabet grading system. So as we have the conversations with others about SBAR, what roadblocks do we need to plan for? When we do this, we have a better opportunity to sidestep them with an alternative route for the teacher and students.
Perhaps the most important conversation is what to do in your district when your students aren't meeting the standards you establish. Obviously, you reteach them, but what will that do to your classes and your final grades when you run out of time...on that very last day of school, when a standard hasn't been met? Will there be summer schools? A hold-back? An INC applied? This will eventually happen, and if the matter hasn't been thought through and accommodated with time and/or financial resources, it will become a public relations' issue.
How will credit be assigned to students in high schools that have an SBAR system in place? This is a question my own district had to grapple with as they considered the problem. For years, we agreed that we would reteach; students who did not pass a standard would not pass the class. But how do you explain to a parent that a child has 80+% and is going to fail a class because of a summative assessment? Design issues become critical.
Does the standard of proficiency represent a minimum critical amount of knowledge or a maximum point of acceptance? If you choose a minimum standard, you must differentiate for the student who accomplishes that proficiency in advance of others. And the state must grapple with the issue of seat time Carnegie Units vs. mastery competencies.
Finally, how will districts using SBAR anticipate the students who are early adopters of the get-rich-quick philosophy? In such a philosophy, savvy(?!) students take the summative assessment the first time without preparation, learn what is really on the assessment, and then retake it for mastery. It's a great way to avoid the need for study, at least from the perspective of a student who is not intrinsically motivated by grades. Even better, at least from the perspective of the reluctant student, it drives teachers nuts!
The way of SBAR embodies the ideas of radical constructivism. But constructivism needs many, many, repeated opportunities for entry into the learning. And that repetition means that district who do not anticipate the rich continuum of concerns may be blindsided, rather than seeing SBAR as the ultimate student-centered learning, where kids can advance at their own place. After more than a dozen years dabbling in such systems myself, I would hate to see such an ideal short-circuited by not anticipating the perils.
Except that simply is not the case. A large number of schools use standards-based rankings. Price Lab is one of many that have been experimenting with this in grade books, following the leads of elementary schools. Districts such as Wahlert, and Iowa City have had extended discussions on eliminating class rank, defeating the formula of the public Iowa RAI score for the state universities. Teachers who have been trained in the CLI model, including West Delaware and Independence and some of the schools in Southwest Iowa know that standards grading is a refinement of the first OBE, or outcomes-based education model that were proposed fifteen years ago and subsequently adopted by the Archdiocese of Dubuque. Reteaching is a critical part of Tier I and II IDM /RTI intervention, and I am sure that the time and resources are in Waukee's plan, also.
SBAR can be a rich and rewarding way to look at student knowledge, and IMO, certainly more valid than an A to F alphabet grading system. So as we have the conversations with others about SBAR, what roadblocks do we need to plan for? When we do this, we have a better opportunity to sidestep them with an alternative route for the teacher and students.
Perhaps the most important conversation is what to do in your district when your students aren't meeting the standards you establish. Obviously, you reteach them, but what will that do to your classes and your final grades when you run out of time...on that very last day of school, when a standard hasn't been met? Will there be summer schools? A hold-back? An INC applied? This will eventually happen, and if the matter hasn't been thought through and accommodated with time and/or financial resources, it will become a public relations' issue.
How will credit be assigned to students in high schools that have an SBAR system in place? This is a question my own district had to grapple with as they considered the problem. For years, we agreed that we would reteach; students who did not pass a standard would not pass the class. But how do you explain to a parent that a child has 80+% and is going to fail a class because of a summative assessment? Design issues become critical.
Does the standard of proficiency represent a minimum critical amount of knowledge or a maximum point of acceptance? If you choose a minimum standard, you must differentiate for the student who accomplishes that proficiency in advance of others. And the state must grapple with the issue of seat time Carnegie Units vs. mastery competencies.
Finally, how will districts using SBAR anticipate the students who are early adopters of the get-rich-quick philosophy? In such a philosophy, savvy(?!) students take the summative assessment the first time without preparation, learn what is really on the assessment, and then retake it for mastery. It's a great way to avoid the need for study, at least from the perspective of a student who is not intrinsically motivated by grades. Even better, at least from the perspective of the reluctant student, it drives teachers nuts!
The way of SBAR embodies the ideas of radical constructivism. But constructivism needs many, many, repeated opportunities for entry into the learning. And that repetition means that district who do not anticipate the rich continuum of concerns may be blindsided, rather than seeing SBAR as the ultimate student-centered learning, where kids can advance at their own place. After more than a dozen years dabbling in such systems myself, I would hate to see such an ideal short-circuited by not anticipating the perils.
The Change Process and the Shut Down
Here's a thought to all the change advocates here talking about the #iowacore and #iowareformation. Do you remember the number one law of the change process? Change is SCARY. It's a paradigm shift. It's messy.
There are definitely strong voices on the Iowa Tweet Line. Many of you are 30 somethings in the midst of being digital pioneers and I am all for it!! Let me hear your ideas. But from what I've heard privately and from direct tweets offline in the last two weeks, I have a suggestion...don't let your ideas get in the way of your network building.
Here is the thing that bothers me, at least a little. I've been a personal user of twitter for years, but the value of using it for personal development this year seemed to be a good idea. I've heard lots of suggestions. Still, just because I bring up a counter-point does not mean that I am against your idea; I'm not a cynic, in fact, I'm probably as big a cheerleader in this whole process as you are. But with a few years experience in the training arena, I have lost some naivete. I'm a realist, I've been through many of these innovations once already, and I have some questions. Blithely shutting them down does not mean that they go away. And for people perhaps less-passionate and/or stubborn than myself, it slams the door on what should be a constant conversation.
Assessment, including formative and summative? It's been in Iowa since 1995, when the first Stiggins' institutes were held. Mastery education and SBAR? I've been through it three times, in three Districts, starting with the OBE philosophy of a previous Branstad administration. Cell phones in the classroom? I gave my first presentation on it three years ago. Inquiry and project-based learning have been around as long as Dewey and are standards in my own classroom.
This type of experience is available to you from a wealth of--ahem--mid-career professionals who have seen the promise of what you propose, but still have another 15-20 years in the classroom. And they are just starting to come on Twitter--as settlers, not as pioneers. So here's what I'd suggest. The next time someone asks you a question and you want to respond immediately with an answer that resembles "we don't need that type of stakeholder, because there are many of us who do want change," stop and think. Try responding instead with a comment like, "that's a good point to to keep in mind" or "how did your system handle that problem?"
In the end, we don't want to stop change because of the cynics, the "stay-at-homes" or the "rocks-in-the-river," but we also need to develop a rich conversation with the teachers of Iowa. Our work is too important for our children not to do so.
There are definitely strong voices on the Iowa Tweet Line. Many of you are 30 somethings in the midst of being digital pioneers and I am all for it!! Let me hear your ideas. But from what I've heard privately and from direct tweets offline in the last two weeks, I have a suggestion...don't let your ideas get in the way of your network building.
Here is the thing that bothers me, at least a little. I've been a personal user of twitter for years, but the value of using it for personal development this year seemed to be a good idea. I've heard lots of suggestions. Still, just because I bring up a counter-point does not mean that I am against your idea; I'm not a cynic, in fact, I'm probably as big a cheerleader in this whole process as you are. But with a few years experience in the training arena, I have lost some naivete. I'm a realist, I've been through many of these innovations once already, and I have some questions. Blithely shutting them down does not mean that they go away. And for people perhaps less-passionate and/or stubborn than myself, it slams the door on what should be a constant conversation.
Assessment, including formative and summative? It's been in Iowa since 1995, when the first Stiggins' institutes were held. Mastery education and SBAR? I've been through it three times, in three Districts, starting with the OBE philosophy of a previous Branstad administration. Cell phones in the classroom? I gave my first presentation on it three years ago. Inquiry and project-based learning have been around as long as Dewey and are standards in my own classroom.
This type of experience is available to you from a wealth of--ahem--mid-career professionals who have seen the promise of what you propose, but still have another 15-20 years in the classroom. And they are just starting to come on Twitter--as settlers, not as pioneers. So here's what I'd suggest. The next time someone asks you a question and you want to respond immediately with an answer that resembles "we don't need that type of stakeholder, because there are many of us who do want change," stop and think. Try responding instead with a comment like, "that's a good point to to keep in mind" or "how did your system handle that problem?"
In the end, we don't want to stop change because of the cynics, the "stay-at-homes" or the "rocks-in-the-river," but we also need to develop a rich conversation with the teachers of Iowa. Our work is too important for our children not to do so.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
ICN meeting for Iowa IRIS schools
So we met again to figure out how to take 'the next step' with our intentional non-learners.
Dates to Remember
February 15: meetings in Western Iowa
##focus on accountability plans during this time##
Case study approach: a) what is working, b) what is unique c) how can we change?
March 14 Union, Summer, Bellevue, and Davenport North
March 15 PM West Delaware, Central Clinton
Intervention tools: We have data collection tools for attendance and behavior. We NEED data collection tools for math and reading
West Delaware: We have added extra struggling learners and assigned them mentors for weekly checks. We are looking at a systematic Tier 3 structure for next year, and the conversation is in process.
West Sioux: mentor/mentees are in place; follow mentor meeting schedule. Updated data within the Learning Criteria process. 30 minute meetings for struggling learners happening at the middle school. We are looking at information for the intentional non-learner.
Union: mentoring program is a work in process, and have met with schools that have established projects. Our mentors are designed to be community members. BINGO game for staff interaction and motivation. Reading, Teach Like a Champ, Teacher advocates are trying to help struggling learners. We need to have ways to motivate and continue the momentum.
Manson: Finalized process and learning teams are talking about interventions, a struggling learner survey.
30 minute meeting next week. We need to motivate the intention non-learner
.
Sumner: Mentoring program is in place. Working on Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for system-wide adoption. 30 minute team meetings.
AHST : In transition, with a new administration. Intentional non-learner focus needs to happen.
Bellevue
Davenport
Dewitt
General questions about ICLE conference attendance and/or presentations.
RTI in Chicago Conference, can Warren pass this information along?
Concerns about funding were raised. This is an issue for the future that we have, but hopes are high for funding.
Dates to Remember
February 15: meetings in Western Iowa
Statewide meeting on 24th and 25th at the Schemann Conference Center in Ames,
- starting at 10 am and going to 4-4:30
- starting at 8 am and being done about 1:30
##focus on accountability plans during this time##
Case study approach: a) what is working, b) what is unique c) how can we change?
March 14 Union, Summer, Bellevue, and Davenport North
March 15 PM West Delaware, Central Clinton
Intervention tools: We have data collection tools for attendance and behavior. We NEED data collection tools for math and reading
West Delaware: We have added extra struggling learners and assigned them mentors for weekly checks. We are looking at a systematic Tier 3 structure for next year, and the conversation is in process.
West Sioux: mentor/mentees are in place; follow mentor meeting schedule. Updated data within the Learning Criteria process. 30 minute meetings for struggling learners happening at the middle school. We are looking at information for the intentional non-learner.
Union: mentoring program is a work in process, and have met with schools that have established projects. Our mentors are designed to be community members. BINGO game for staff interaction and motivation. Reading, Teach Like a Champ, Teacher advocates are trying to help struggling learners. We need to have ways to motivate and continue the momentum.
Manson: Finalized process and learning teams are talking about interventions, a struggling learner survey.
30 minute meeting next week. We need to motivate the intention non-learner
.
Sumner: Mentoring program is in place. Working on Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for system-wide adoption. 30 minute team meetings.
AHST : In transition, with a new administration. Intentional non-learner focus needs to happen.
Bellevue
Davenport
Dewitt
General questions about ICLE conference attendance and/or presentations.
RTI in Chicago Conference, can Warren pass this information along?
Concerns about funding were raised. This is an issue for the future that we have, but hopes are high for funding.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The Pitfalls of Analyzing RTI Data
Here's a guilty little secret: I like to know the ending of books ahead of time. See, it's the one time during life that I can peek at the back page and know whether or not it will all turn out ok. I don't look for details other than the quick answer of whether the main character lives or dies. And that's the problem with RTI. We've set this system up, we're working on data, but I don't know how to say for certain that we've succeeded. It's the worst part of action research for me.
A little background is probably needed. My District has been part of the Iowa IRIS project, and we've been working on the process of learning and implementing RTI/IDM. One of the first things we realized was that we needed a wide base of involvement for our teachers. Over a quarter of our teachers were trained in the model initially, and we've used professional learning communities to help others get on-board, learning together in teacher-focused PD and from one another. After long discussion, we identified a group of 24 students who we felt were struggling and got ready to pilot our model. My administrator empowered our BLT to set up the structure of interventions, and another teacher and I set up the process and are running the pilot program. We've been collecting data for two quarters.
When I first looked at the data, I simply counted up the numbers of D+, D, D-, and F for each grade and put it in a matrix.
But this way of looking at data is not good enough. Even though I tried to see patterns, the n(students) is not constant from grade to grade. This makes comparisons ineffective, although trends may be seen, perhaps, from quarter to quarter.
Next, I tried a comparison of Ds and Fs in graphical form, but I decided that wasn't really the best usage of data for a myriad of reasons. For one, we use a mastery system, so if a child passes all of the standard assessments, we feel that they have a minimum standard of knowledge in the coursework, even if they get a D-. Grading scales are another discussion, but just for now, I decided to focus on Fs just for struggling learners, to see if the average number of Fs was decreasing over time.
This showed the data in a different light. I can see that term 2 is worse than term 1 for most grades. Perhaps it's because the newness of school has worn off, but it was a relief, I think, to see that term 2 is historically more difficult for kids. But this was inadequate. I was only looking at n(struggling students), and those numbers were not consistent from grade to grade.
At this point, my husband interjected a comment (perhaps seeing me tear at my hair was having an effect), suggesting that we take a look at the total population of each group, and then use a pareto study to normalize the numbers to account for the n(students) of each grade. I'm so glad that his quality background lets him see the value of statistics! So I ran the numbers.
So, in Term 2:
9th: 18/119 kids had a F for a 15% problem
10th: 10/132 kids had a F is a 7.5% problem
11th: 11/134 kids had a F is an 8.2% problem
Hey, that means we have something happening with our pilot kids in 10th grade (it also means we need to act, because our 9th graders need added to the pilot as quickly as possible). Because of the analysis, and the data shown to teachers, we have added another forty kids to our tracking procedures.
Finally, I looked at the pareto study. I tracked this year's 9-12 graders for 4 quarters---terms 1 and 2 of last year and terms 1 and 2 for this year. My data is longitudinal, so the 9th graders for this year have no high school data for two of the four terms. This is what resulted.
This also prompted some realizations for me. Last year, even though we identified this year's 10th graders because we wanted three years of data, we really should have identified lots of this year's 11th graders. And this year's data tells us, loudly, that the 9th graders need some help. This is powerful information to share with our teachers, and by doing so, we continue to reform the way we do business
To summarize:
I would be interested in your thoughts on what other data I should be collecting. My husband, the quality guy, suggested a capability study, because it will tell us if our RTI program is having an effect on all students, pushing up the number of students with As or Bs over time (which would appear to be an indicator of being intrinsically motivated).
I'll talk about exactly WHAT we are doing for struggling learners in my next post.
A little background is probably needed. My District has been part of the Iowa IRIS project, and we've been working on the process of learning and implementing RTI/IDM. One of the first things we realized was that we needed a wide base of involvement for our teachers. Over a quarter of our teachers were trained in the model initially, and we've used professional learning communities to help others get on-board, learning together in teacher-focused PD and from one another. After long discussion, we identified a group of 24 students who we felt were struggling and got ready to pilot our model. My administrator empowered our BLT to set up the structure of interventions, and another teacher and I set up the process and are running the pilot program. We've been collecting data for two quarters.
When I first looked at the data, I simply counted up the numbers of D+, D, D-, and F for each grade and put it in a matrix.
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | TRACKED | |
| D+ | |||||
| D | |||||
| D- | |||||
| F |
But this way of looking at data is not good enough. Even though I tried to see patterns, the n(students) is not constant from grade to grade. This makes comparisons ineffective, although trends may be seen, perhaps, from quarter to quarter.
Next, I tried a comparison of Ds and Fs in graphical form, but I decided that wasn't really the best usage of data for a myriad of reasons. For one, we use a mastery system, so if a child passes all of the standard assessments, we feel that they have a minimum standard of knowledge in the coursework, even if they get a D-. Grading scales are another discussion, but just for now, I decided to focus on Fs just for struggling learners, to see if the average number of Fs was decreasing over time.
At this point, my husband interjected a comment (perhaps seeing me tear at my hair was having an effect), suggesting that we take a look at the total population of each group, and then use a pareto study to normalize the numbers to account for the n(students) of each grade. I'm so glad that his quality background lets him see the value of statistics! So I ran the numbers.
So, in Term 2:
9th: 18/119 kids had a F for a 15% problem
10th: 10/132 kids had a F is a 7.5% problem
11th: 11/134 kids had a F is an 8.2% problem
Hey, that means we have something happening with our pilot kids in 10th grade (it also means we need to act, because our 9th graders need added to the pilot as quickly as possible). Because of the analysis, and the data shown to teachers, we have added another forty kids to our tracking procedures.
Finally, I looked at the pareto study. I tracked this year's 9-12 graders for 4 quarters---terms 1 and 2 of last year and terms 1 and 2 for this year. My data is longitudinal, so the 9th graders for this year have no high school data for two of the four terms. This is what resulted.
This also prompted some realizations for me. Last year, even though we identified this year's 10th graders because we wanted three years of data, we really should have identified lots of this year's 11th graders. And this year's data tells us, loudly, that the 9th graders need some help. This is powerful information to share with our teachers, and by doing so, we continue to reform the way we do business
To summarize:
- Data-driven education is not just for administrators--it's for teachers, teacher-leaders, and for the effectiveness of students. While I've done this for assessments, this is the first time I've applied statistics to the needs of a class.
- This is action research, and it's in-process. I'll be taking the time to look at more data before I am confident with the patterns. I'll continue to look at the data in different ways
- Data doesn't always follow a perfect trend line. In that case: collect more data to get your answer.
- In the past, we've just noticed kids were struggling, but we weren't systematic in addressing the weaknesses. This data shows us exactly where we are headed, and who we need to target for intervention next.
- Teachers can use data to make decisions, and schools will benefit as a result. That is what we hope to accomplish with RTI...a way to use data to make decisions.
I would be interested in your thoughts on what other data I should be collecting. My husband, the quality guy, suggested a capability study, because it will tell us if our RTI program is having an effect on all students, pushing up the number of students with As or Bs over time (which would appear to be an indicator of being intrinsically motivated).
I'll talk about exactly WHAT we are doing for struggling learners in my next post.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Blended Learning for Iowa
As we move into the second generation of e-learning, it is imperative that we have teachers who are qualified to teach in this new and different way. Over the past 22 years of my own education, there have been all sorts of distance learning opportunities. Book study, cassette tapes, early efforts by IPTV to correlate coursework to weekly video programs, WebCT, ICN, Iowa Learning Online; especially for people in remote locations, e-learning is convenient and brings resources to a community that would not be available otherwise.
Out of curiosity, I asked the question on Facebook: "How would you feel if your child could take half of his/her classes in an online environment?" Boy, did I get feedback! Parents and teachers told me that their students needed face-to-face contact, a teacher for motivation, and/or a teacher to help the children understand difficult content. Online classes, they told me, are a problem because kids lack discipline and self-regulation, and they often 'cheat'. Blended classes, including formats like Adobe Connect or ICN, still struggle to maintain connectedness with students, and some parents were concerned that their children would have to do dangerous experiments without supervision in online science classes.
The first factor for Iowa schools, of course, is the parent. Without parental buy-in, we are dead in the water. What good is developing large amounts of courses for the high school environment without considering the comfort level of parents who do not commonly use webcasts or forums in their daily work? I would suggest that we develop a series of 6 hour classes through the DE or through AEAs on common topics and market them to parents. Once parents see a good, interactive, student-centered learning environment, they are more likely to let their children enroll in an online class. While Moodle or Blackboard are often used as large platforms, I would see a value in exposing consumers to a variety of resources; perhaps a combination of Google Forms, Wiggio and ClassMarker can be used for discussion, assessment and interactivity. This could be a win-win for the state, especially if there were mini-courses on Love and Logic, study skills, or 21st century expectations for students.
Secondly, we need to consider the motivation of the student. This is a factor, of course. As we transition to 1:1 environments, we need to realize that the research on multitasking does matter: kids think that they are better at multitasking then they actually are. Social networking during time that should be spent in classwork should be focused ON the classwork, so we need to build that socialization factor into our simulations or discussions, along with other activities that play to the strengths of today's global learner. In addition to video and images, analytical learners could benefit from text, but with the web, this is no problem, as multiple images and formats of the content can be uploaded, and differentiation can naturally occur.
Finally, though, we need to train teachers to utilize the web effectively, and to assess in a variety of ways to remove the stigma of 'cheating.' The Department of Education is piloting this type of teaching option, and I hope it is expanded to each AEA. From robust options like the Certificate in online education available through UW-Stout, or more modest options like the online certification program I am taking for teaching at my community college, teachers cannot expect the online class environment to be the same as the regular classroom. At this point, my own family has taken more than 20 classes online, or through blended environments like the ICN and Moodle/Skype. Many have been effective (my core classes in science education were delivered this way); others have been disastrous for my husband and kids. The complaints I heard were not because of technology (we were able to deal with disruption or glitches), but about the quality of the teacher, or the quantity of homework (in one case, the teacher felt that quantity replaced face-to-face interaction).
Is online education perfect? No, it's not. If it were so, anyone with a DVR could become a gourmand simply by watching Iron Chef. But with a shrinking rural population, it's something Iowans need to take advantage of to prepare their kids for the future. Innovation is where we need to be focusing our efforts in a time of shrinking resources.
Out of curiosity, I asked the question on Facebook: "How would you feel if your child could take half of his/her classes in an online environment?" Boy, did I get feedback! Parents and teachers told me that their students needed face-to-face contact, a teacher for motivation, and/or a teacher to help the children understand difficult content. Online classes, they told me, are a problem because kids lack discipline and self-regulation, and they often 'cheat'. Blended classes, including formats like Adobe Connect or ICN, still struggle to maintain connectedness with students, and some parents were concerned that their children would have to do dangerous experiments without supervision in online science classes.
The first factor for Iowa schools, of course, is the parent. Without parental buy-in, we are dead in the water. What good is developing large amounts of courses for the high school environment without considering the comfort level of parents who do not commonly use webcasts or forums in their daily work? I would suggest that we develop a series of 6 hour classes through the DE or through AEAs on common topics and market them to parents. Once parents see a good, interactive, student-centered learning environment, they are more likely to let their children enroll in an online class. While Moodle or Blackboard are often used as large platforms, I would see a value in exposing consumers to a variety of resources; perhaps a combination of Google Forms, Wiggio and ClassMarker can be used for discussion, assessment and interactivity. This could be a win-win for the state, especially if there were mini-courses on Love and Logic, study skills, or 21st century expectations for students.
Secondly, we need to consider the motivation of the student. This is a factor, of course. As we transition to 1:1 environments, we need to realize that the research on multitasking does matter: kids think that they are better at multitasking then they actually are. Social networking during time that should be spent in classwork should be focused ON the classwork, so we need to build that socialization factor into our simulations or discussions, along with other activities that play to the strengths of today's global learner. In addition to video and images, analytical learners could benefit from text, but with the web, this is no problem, as multiple images and formats of the content can be uploaded, and differentiation can naturally occur.
Finally, though, we need to train teachers to utilize the web effectively, and to assess in a variety of ways to remove the stigma of 'cheating.' The Department of Education is piloting this type of teaching option, and I hope it is expanded to each AEA. From robust options like the Certificate in online education available through UW-Stout, or more modest options like the online certification program I am taking for teaching at my community college, teachers cannot expect the online class environment to be the same as the regular classroom. At this point, my own family has taken more than 20 classes online, or through blended environments like the ICN and Moodle/Skype. Many have been effective (my core classes in science education were delivered this way); others have been disastrous for my husband and kids. The complaints I heard were not because of technology (we were able to deal with disruption or glitches), but about the quality of the teacher, or the quantity of homework (in one case, the teacher felt that quantity replaced face-to-face interaction).
Is online education perfect? No, it's not. If it were so, anyone with a DVR could become a gourmand simply by watching Iron Chef. But with a shrinking rural population, it's something Iowans need to take advantage of to prepare their kids for the future. Innovation is where we need to be focusing our efforts in a time of shrinking resources.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Training Teacher-Leaders to Make the Difference
I like to think of myself as a teacher-leader, but that is a process that has taken years and years to develop. It’s time for Districts everywhere to develop their own leaders, and administrators need to step up, encourage their teachers, and accept cooperative leadership.
1. Use your curriculum director. Thank GOD for good curriculum directors. In particular, people like Cheri C., Wayne W., Luann B., Sue D., and Robin M. have made a huge different in my own life. They identified opportunities and they give me a chance to go to conferences, present to others, or to ask my opinion on an issue. Without their encouragement, I never would have participated in formation like Toolkit 95(an early Rick Stiggins assessment package), Eisenhower Institutes, local presentations. They showed me the importance of moving beyond my own classroom and looking at the state and national trends in education. Have your curriculum director identify several leaders in your building, and encourage them through conversation.
2. Use your AEA. My biggest frustration with the current financial climate is the suggestion that we drop funding from AEAs, which is one of the things that distinguish Iowa from other states. Let me be clear: AEA consultants are invaluable. They will come into your classroom, not just once, but over time, give you suggestions for student-centered teaching, work with you to integrate technology, and suggest leadership strategies. My most important formation as a teacher leader came from AEA opportunities, including inquiry institutes, technology integrations, and membership in Every Learner Inquires. Encourage your staff or colleagues to utilize the AEA, and ask them to invite consultants into their classroom.
3. Regional Opportunities. Each year, look for an outside opportunity. Some of these will fall into your lap through serendipity—a flyer in the teacher’s lounge, a chance email, or a glance at a professional website. For me, this included Eisenhower Institutes, the DEN network, Quarknet, and This opportunity usually includes a stipend or a credit as an enticement, but gentle encouragement on the part of co-teachers and administrators can tip the consideration into a definite commitment.
4. Outreach from Local Universities. UNI, Iowa, and Iowa State have all been part of innumerable summer opportunities and I’ve taken advantage of them. They’ve allowed me to network with others across the state, and gather the thoughts of people who have devoted their lives to education reform and change. Eventually, the change I experienced led me to pursue an advanced degree. Here, I think it is important for more-experienced teachers in a department to encourage newer teachers, and administrators, to take advantage of these chances. What are you waiting for—start looking!
5. Shared Leadership. The reality is that we still have pockets of permissive leadership in schools. Your job is to make sure that your staff shares in the decision-making through a strong Building Leadership Team and through relational leadership; although it is a more complex dynamic, the conversations are richer, the teacher growth is phenomenal, and the leaders benefit. Promote shared leadership at every opportunity.
6. Online Community. I know that this seems obvious to you, but that does not mean that it is obvious to your staff—many still use the Net as a newspaper, not as a 2.0 collaborative. Developing an intentional online community is a priority for you and your District, as it allows a movement from local concerns to state and national conversation. One of the best building communities I have seen has been developed by @Shawn_Holloway and his teachers at #mnwcougars; ask your building tech, a teacher, or a student to help you show off Twitter and RSS readers.
I’ll leave you with an example of an unintentional teacher-leader—Ms. Q, whose call for dietary reform at http://fedupwithlunch.blogspot.com have brought national attention to an issue, and were fueled by simultaneous efforts by Michelle Obama, Jamie Oliver, and a national debate. Although none of us plans to save the world, sometimes it’s an unintentional consequence. J
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Note to Jason Glass
Jason,
I’ve been following your tweets for a couple of weeks now; I think that you are a quick learner, and you do what I often do: you embrace the moment. As I watch you focusing on innovation and tech integration, I wonder how Iowa will assimilate it all. Are you prepared to dig in, build consensus, encourage buy-in and set up systemic structures for change and spend 5 years doing the legwork? That’s what I hope you mean when you talk about Leadership, Innovation, and Service to your state team.
When you first came to the state, I listened to your interviews about the Iowa Core and I felt you had only heard the sound bytes, rather than seeing the whole of the process. This is not uncommon; after years of working with Every Learner Inquires, I have lost count of the number of time legislators and principals have said to me: “You mean it’s not just the curriculum?” I don’t care what we call it, but we need to move forward on the structure we’ve set up. That being said, I think that the underlying intent of the Iowa Core is spot-on: content based on national expectations, professional development, student-centered, instructional decision making and 21st century skills delivered in a constructivist fashion. It’s simply too bad that intent has not matched execution.
I want technology and blended learning—but I want quality, like Shannon C’DeBaca or Gail Wortmann teaching their Iowa Learning Online courses. I don’t want lower level skills, and instructors steeped in worksheet and busy work, as I have seen in other online classes. How do we control this? How do we avoid the ‘online high school’ problem from a few years ago that focused on the Carnegie Unit? How do we convince other school leaders to embrace the 1:1 concept, unblock social networking, and teach kids using student-centered methods? How do we expand Senior Year Plus, and expand the number of dual-credit courses I teach to move our kids to a better place?
I want teacher-led PD, and I have worked for the last twelve years to prove that we could do JUST THAT. I have stayed in the classroom when I could have moved up and out, but my administrator has treated me as a leader and honored my efforts to advance my education and make a difference in the district to both students and teachers. Building teams of teachers and letting them share their ideas and focus through a teacher-leader model will meet the needs of the students much better than one-shot consultants coming in and out. PLCs need development and the teachers on them need to know that we will work to help kids, whatever it takes, so mastery can be achieved at some level. If teachers don’t want to do that, it’s time to gently encourage them to find a new vocation.
Service to others is the focus of character counts, and one of Covey’s habits. Without a realization that we all must depend on the efforts of one another, we can’t make a better Iowa. And that’s what I’m all about. I believe so passionately in all of this that I want it to happen, now! And I want you to get us there, but I remember other shining ideas that got side-tracked.
You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned money, and it’s because I don’t know how you’ll get control over it. As an outsider looking in, you see the possibilities, but this state has a long history of local control, and salary matrices and tenure are splashed across the pages of the IAPERB contracts. Unless you are willing to go to a state payment model for salaries in their entirety, I wonder if you should waste energy on it; perhaps it’s just a red herring that will irritate the status quo and take energy away from the real issues you can control.
So welcome aboard, Jason; come visit me and lots of other exemplary teacher leaders at the Iowa IRIS February meeting in Ames on the 24th or 25th. Let’s take this pocket of excellence and build on it, so all students really can start to feel that they can learn. I look forward to our conversations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)