The following article was published in the March/April  issue of TEPSA News. It has been reproduced on this site with permission from TEPSA News and PLC Associate, Thomas W. Many.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age
of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…”
-Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

We live in the Information Age, when never before has so much data on student learning been so readily available. It is the best of times…

And yet, to harried principals struggling to make sense of the mountains of assessment data, the Information Age may feel like the worst of times…

Mining those data mountains for information that teachers can use to improve student learning is a daily challenge for principals. The problem is not a lack of data, but rather managing all the data in a way that is meaningful to teachers. I am not aware of any guidelines about how to process all the information—that is, how to decide exactly what information is needed or who needs the information to make decisions; however, I did encounter “rules” for using data during a conversation with Damon Lopez, former principal of Los Penasquitos Elementary School in San Diego.

Lopez believes that in order for teachers to maximize the impact of data gleaned from assessments, principals should honor three rules and ensure that data is 1) easily accessible, 2) purposefully arranged, and 3) publicly discussed. In those schools where “making meaning” of assessment data is a powerful experience, principals take responsibility for creating the necessary structures associated with the first two rules and insist that teachers commit to the last. Rather than working individually to make meaning of assessment data, the most successful principals have discovered it is far more productive to create the conditions under which teams of teachers can make meaning of the data.

Easy Access

For data to add value to our efforts to improve student learning, teachers’ access to the data must be timely. In addition to figuring out who needs to know what and when, the key question for principals to ask is, “What is the most efficient way to get assessment data back to teachers?”

As Kim Marshall, publisher of the highly regarded Marshall Memo, suggests, “When turnaround time after interim assessments is long, the results are stale and outdated by the time teachers sit down and discuss them.” Data loses its impact whenever it takes more than 48 hours to return the results of a common assessment to teachers.

Outdated information makes it more difficult for teachers to be effective in adjusting instruction, identifying students who need more time and support or coordinating remedial or enrichment programs among teachers on the team. To improve the accessibility of data, principals need to shorten the turnaround time for reporting data.

Purposeful Arrangement

The second rule for maximizing the impact of data calls for assessment data to be purposefully arranged, that is, for the assessment data delivered to teacher teams to be presented in a format that is complete, accurate, and straight-forward.

Data should be organized in simple—not simplistic—ways. There are many software packages that quickly, almost instantaneously, provide assessment results in tables, charts, or graphs and make it easy for teachers to digest the results of interim assessments. Author D. M. Griffith observed, “If the message the information is trying to communicate fails to get through to the reader, [the information] is useless. It’s better to be simple and understood than complex and ignored.” What is important is that the data is returned to teachers in a format conducive to further discussion.

From time to time, teachers may create their own tables or graphs or request additional formats for organizing assessment results, but the initial data should be received in an arrangement that allows teachers to focus on the results—not the presentation format.

Public Discussion

While principals can address the logistics of making data easily accessible and arranging it purposefully, teacher teams are uniquely equipped to meaningfully engage in the public discussion of assessment data. Indeed, teachers and principals need to embrace the critical importance of publicly discussing the results of assessments. Each time they discuss an assessment together, teachers benefit from the collective wisdom of their team. Not only do they gain deeper insight into how their students are learning, but also reviewing results as a team has the added benefits of allowing teachers to deepen their content knowledge and to sharpen their pedagogy.

To paraphrase Griffith, assessment data and information on student achievement are relevant, and therefore needed, only if they are used to make a decision. In fact, nothing justifies the giving of an interim assessment—and with it the associated loss of instructional time—unless teachers discuss the results of the assessment and adjust their instruction accordingly.

The Age of Wisdom or Foolishness?

To be sure, the ready availability and discerning management of assessment data can go a long way in contributing to making this the Age of Wisdom for educators seeking to improve students’ learning. Principals who are successful focus their energies on ensuring that the data is 1) easily accessible and 2) purposefully arranged and insist that teachers spend their time 3) publicly discussing the results to ensure that all students learn.

References

Marshall, K. (2008, September). “Interim Assessments: A User’s Guide.” Phi Delta Kappan. pp.64-68.
Griffiths, D. M. (2006, March). “Are You Drowning in a Sea of Information? Managing Information: A Practical Guide.” Available at www.managing-information.org.uk.

During the course of a career spanning more than 30 years, Dr. Thomas W. Many has served as a classroom teacher, principal and superintendent—all at the elementary level. With a passion for promoting the development of high performing schools, his district was recently recognized as one of the highest achieving - lowest spending elementary school districts in Illinois.

I received an interesting question from a teacher regarding recommendations for whether or not homework should be graded. He described a scenario in which a student demonstrates proficiency on every quiz, test, and exam but refuses to do homework each day. If, on a daily basis, the student receives a zero for not doing homework, the student would fail the class. If, on the other hand, homework is optional, he fears most students won’t complete it. So, he asked, “How should I approach homework in determining grades?”

This relatively straightforward question actually raises several significant issues such as, “What does a grade represent in our school?” “Should homework be required or optional?” “Should homework be graded?” and “Is it appropriate to give a zero if a student does not complete a homework assignment?”

In most schools, what a grade represents remains in the eye of the beholder of the individual teacher. Some teachers grade homework; some do not. Some allow students to retake a test; some do not. Some provide students with additional time and support; some do not. Some provide extra credit for tasks unrelated to the curriculum; some do not. Some consider behavior, participation, and promptness in determining a grade; some do not. It is time for educators to grapple with the question, “What does a grade represent in our school?” in a more meaningful way.

I have asked thousands of educators across North America what they feel is the single most important criterion for determining a student’s grade at the end of a course. Their inevitably overwhelming answer is, “The student has demonstrated the achievement of a clearly defined standard.” If a team of teachers has clarified 1) what students must know and be able to do and 2) the indicators they will use to monitor student learning, the grade at the end of the course should be based on the student’s success in achieving the intended standard. Ironically, many of those same teachers would justify failing a student who clearly demonstrated mastery of the essential learnings because of missing homework assignments.

In his outstanding synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement, John Hattie found that homework can improve achievement, particularly for older (high school aged) students when the homework involves rote learning, practice, or rehearsal of the subject matter. He also found, however, it can actually have adverse effects unless the teacher carefully and promptly monitors each student’s work because homework often causes students to internalize incorrect responses and strategies and can actually undermine student motivation. The more complex the task or the learning, the less value homework offers. Furthermore, different home environments play a role in the varying ability of students to complete work successfully. My friend and colleague Bob Eaker elected to stop having all fifth graders in the school he was leading complete the annual homework project of building a replica of a frontier fort because, as he put it, “We discovered some Dads just built better forts than others.”

Therefore, I submit the following propositions:

1. Homework should be given only when the instructor feels it is essential to student learning. If, for example, the teacher believes that by practicing a skill and receiving prompt and specific feedback students will learn at higher levels, homework is very appropriate and should be assigned.
2. The teacher then has an obligation to monitor the homework carefully and provide individual students with precise feedback based on their specific needs.
3. If the work is deemed essential to a student’s learning, that student should not have the option of taking a zero but instead should be required to complete the work. This necessitates a coordinated, schoolwide approach to responding when students do not complete their work because there are limits as to what an individual teacher can require. The schoolwide response should be timely, directive (non-invitational), systematic (not left to the discretion of individual teachers), and should never require the student to be removed from new direct instruction. (For examples of such a systematic approach, see Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn by DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek and/or Pyramid Response to Intervention: RTI, Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn by Buffum, Mattos, and Weber.)

Let me offer two different scenarios regarding homework. In the first, the teacher is attempting to help students learn how to write a research paper–a very complex task. After providing instruction on the various elements of this task, he assigns students to complete a draft of the first two pages of their research paper. He assigns this work because he hopes to 1) determine the levels of understanding of each student, 2) provide each student with specific feedback regarding his or her initial efforts and offer strategies for improvement, and 3) identify any areas where many students seem to be struggling so that he can reteach those areas with a different instructional approach. He believes this assignment is vital to student success in this very essential skill. He does not grade this work because it is initial practice, nor does he allow a student to take a zero instead of completing the assignment. Because it is vital to learning, the student is required to do the work.

In the second scenario, a high school math teacher tells students that she will be assigning homework each day because she believes the daily practice and prompt feedback are essential to their learning. She also advises them, however, that students will not be required to continue practicing each day when they have demonstrated they are mastering the content. There will be daily homework for all students for the first two weeks of school, at which time a unit test will be given. Students who earn an A or B on the test will not be required to complete daily homework during the next unit. For them, homework will be optional. All other students will be required to continue doing their daily practice. This procedure provides an incentive to students to become proficient. Students with a B will work hard to maintain it from unit to unit; students with a C+ will put in extra effort to raise their grade. The goal for these students becomes proficiency in essential skills rather than completing homework to avoid punishment. Once again, students who had not earned the prerequisite grade would be required, not invited, to complete homework through a schoolwide system of intervention.

I contend the approach to homework of these two teachers is aligned with the commitment to learning and focus on results of a PLC. I hope more schools will begin to adapt their homework practices accordingly.

Like most schools that begin implementing PLC practices, the faculty at Pioneer Middle School learned about the importance of common formative assessments and decided to utilize this powerful tool to help us focus on learning.  Unfortunately, as time progressed, our departmental teams experienced varied levels of success; some teams felt they gained significant benefits from their common assessments, while other teams were far less enthusiastic with their results.  As principal, my first thought was to question whether every team was truly using common assessments, or were they just “going through the motions” to appease me.  After asking these questions at a faculty meeting, I was pleased to find that every team was frequently administering common assessments–in fact, every team said they also use our site assessment software, which produces powerful reports to analyze the results.

At this point, I was perplexed. If every team was giving common assessments and had access to the same types of disaggregated results, then why were our teams experiencing such varied outcomes?  Upon further consideration, I realized that I was asking the wrong question; that is, it was not a question of “Are we giving common assessments?” but “What are we doing with our common assessment data?”  When we discussed this question, we found great differences from team to team, with some teams digging deeply into their common assessment data and other teams doing almost nothing with the information.  Based on this revelation, we discussed why we give common assessments and determined that common assessments provide essential learning information that enabled each team to:

• Identify specifically which students did not demonstrate mastery of essential standard(s). Because we give common assessments to measure student mastery of essential standard(s), common assessments should identify students who need additional help and support.  Additionally, if an assessment measures more than one essential standard, then the test results must provide more than an overall score for each student and also delineate specifically which standards each student did not pass.
• Identify specifically which students did demonstrate mastery of essential standard(s). Because we give common assessments to measure student mastery of essential standard(s), common assessments should identify students who met or exceeded our mastery target.  Those students will be provided with extension and enrichment learning experiences.
• Identify effective instructional practices. Because our teachers have autonomy in how they teach essential standards, it is vital that common assessment data help validate which practices were effective.  This can be done best when common assessment results are displayed in such a way that allows each teacher to compare their students’ results to other teachers who teach the same course.
• Identify patterns in student mistakes. Besides using common assessment results to identify best instructional practices, this data should also be used to determine ineffective instructional practices.  When analyzing the types of mistakes that failing students make, patterns emerge that can point to weaknesses or gaps in the initial instruction.
• Measure the accuracy of the assessment. Through a careful item analysis of the assessment, a team can determine the validity of each test question.  Over time, this will build a team’s capacity to create better assessments.
• Plan and target interventions. The ultimate goal of any PLC is to ensure high levels of learning for all students.  If a team uses common assessments to identify students in need of additional help, determine effective and ineffective instructional practices, and measure the validity of the assessment, then they should have the information needed to plan and implement targeted interventions to assist the students who need help.

Once we realized that giving common assessments is not an end in itself, but instead a means to better measure our teaching and student learning, we decided that whenever a team reviews common assessment data, they would ask the following guiding questions:

• Specifically, which students did not demonstrate mastery?
• Which students met or exceeded our mastery target?
• Which instructional practices proved to be most effective?
• What patterns can we identify from the student mistakes?
• How can we improve this assessment?
• What interventions are needed to provide failed students additional time and support?
• What will we do to extend and enrich the learning of students who demonstrated mastery?

By asking these questions, we believe that we can get the most out of our common assessments, which, in turn, allows us to give the most to our students.  In the end, we learned from this experience that the power of common assessments comes not from giving them, but from what we do with them after we give them!

Pioneer is one of eight schools in the nation featured in the video The Power of Professional Learning Communities at Work: Bringing the Big Ideas to Life. Pioneer’s standardized test scores rank first of all the middle schools in Orange County and in the top 1 percent in the state of California. Additionally, Pioneer was named a California Distinguished School in 2003 and 2007 and a NCLB National Blue Ribbon in 2008.

We received a question from an educator interested in the kinds of questions she might use to determine if a candidate is a good fit for a professional learning community. We suggest that you ask questions that would get at the person’s alignment with the Big Ideas of a PLC. For example:

A. The purpose of our school is to ensure that all students learn, rather than are taught.

1. I’m going to present you with four statements. Which is closest to your personal philosophy? “I believe all students can learn…

- based on their ability.”

- if they take advantage of the opportunities we give them to learn.”

- something, but it is more important that we create a warm and caring environment than fixating on academic achievement.”

- and we should be committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure all students learn at high levels.”

2. If at the end of the first semester, you discovered that 50 percent of your students were failing, would it trouble you? (Then drop the percentage—how about 25 percent, 15 percent, 10 percent?)

3. We have all run into a student who simply does not want to work, but is not a behavior problem and is not interfering with the learning of others. How have you responded to that student?

4. One of your colleagues states that there is little a teacher can do to help a student who is just not interested in learning. Would you respond, and if so, how would you respond?

5. How do you respond to this assertion: “The major causes of learning do not fall within the teacher’s sphere of influence. Student learning will be determined primarily by factors such as innate ability, parental support, the socioeconomic conditions in which the student lives, and the beliefs and behaviors of the student’s peer group.”

B. If we are to help all students learn, we must work collaboratively and collectively.

1. Which of these statements is closest to your personal philosophy?

- A teacher is a professional who deserves wide-ranging autonomy regarding what to teach, how to teach, how to assess, and how to run his or her classroom. I would not presume to advise another teacher how to run his or her classroom and I would not be receptive to a teacher offering unsolicited advice to me.

- The challenge of helping all students learn demands a collaborative and coordinated effort. Teachers need to stop thinking in terms of “my kids” and “your kids” and work interdependently to promote the success of “our kids.”

2. Think of a time when you were part of a group or team that led to better results for its members and a more satisfying professional experience. Think of another time when you were part of a group or team and it was a negative experience. What factors contributed to the difference?

3. If you were assigned to a teaching team and encouraged to collaborate, on what questions or issues do you believe the team should focus its efforts?

C. It is important to focus on results, rather than intentions.

1. What is your understanding of the term “formative assessment”? Can you cite examples of when and how you have used formative assessment in your teaching experience?

2. What is your reaction to this statement: “Teachers of the same course or grade level should use common assessments so each member of the team can determine the achievement of his or her students compared to other students attempting to acquire the same knowledge and skills.”

3. What is your reaction to the statement: “Teachers and students benefit when evidence of student learning is easily accessible and openly shared among members of the teaching team.”

4. Have you ever participated in a process where teachers worked together to establish the criteria by which they would judge the quality of student work and then practiced applying the criteria to examples of student work until they were certain they were providing consistent feedback? What is your reaction to that process?

I’ve got an interesting admission to make: I’m a HORRIBLE guy to have on a learning team!

Kind of strange, isn’t it? I mean, how could a trained Solution Tree associate and author who has written about the beauty of professional learning communities for years possibly be bad to have around the ole PLC meeting table? You’d think that somewhere in the thousands of pages I’ve churned out, there’s got to be at least something valuable to learn.

Ask my colleagues and they’ll tell you that my knowledge of the learning community process isn’t the problem. Instead, it’s my complete inability to keep my mouth shut for more than 30 consecutive seconds during meetings!

You know the type: We’re completely wired 24 hours a day. We’ve got ideas (read: strongly held opinions) about EVERYTHING! We’ll tell you exactly how we feel about lesson planning, student assessment, parent conferences, font styles, student schedules, locker assignments, homework policies, discipline plans, remediation, enrichment, after-school activities, teacher certification, state budgets, the Major League Baseball steroid scandal, the wisdom of wearing white after Labor Day, Oprah’s Book Club, Brangelina…

(Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)

And while there’s nothing inherently evil about our incessant desire to share everything that we know with anyone who will listen during the course of every single meeting, it sure makes it difficult to get a word in edgewise!

You dance around us, don’t you? Sometimes, you’ll poke your way into our one-sided conversations with a comment or two when we pause to catch our breath. Other times, you decide that it’s best to nod your head and agree just for the sake of getting through the meeting agenda in less than an hour.

The problem is that when faculties let a handful of individuals dominate conversations, it’s difficult to build consensus and community! Bright people end up sidelined and feeling marginalized while bloated filibusters like me ramble on for hours. Eyes ALWAYS roll when schools rely on “the loudest voice wins” approach to decision making.

Which is where Voicethread—a free digital tool that allows a group of users to engage in ongoing, asynchronous conversations about topics of interest—comes in. While digital dialogue may seem initially strange in a profession driven by human relationships, I’d argue that electronic forums can make conversations on challenging topics more approachable to all faculty members.

So what exactly can a Voicethread conversation between members of a learning team look like?

Check out this Voicethread presentation that is being used to focus conversation around the vision statements of a learning community:

(click image to open conversation in a new window)

Pretty powerful stuff, huh? Did you notice how the participants in the conversation were freely challenging one another’s thinking? That is the kind of collective dialogue that is often missing from full staff faculty meetings. Also interesting is how some participants chose to use their real names, while others chose to work with pseudonyms—and how participants used text, audio, and video comments to make their points.

Why does this matter?

Digital conversations can provide the members of your faculty with multiple avenues for participation that align with their personal levels of comfort—both with technology and with their peers. Digital conversations also allow school leaders to get a better sense of the general thoughts and understandings of their entire faculties—and provide teams with a permanent record of their developing thinking and collective decisions.

By structuring Voicethread conversations around key decisions, schools can level the playing field between the assertive faculty members who aren’t afraid to speak out in conversations and the more reserved minds who are seldom heard.

Think about how similar conversations can benefit the work in your building.  Would your teachers embrace digital opportunities to interact? Would having time to think through responses and interactions result in more meaningful contributions to your building’s professional conversations?

Do some members of your learning team end up isolated in full faculty discussions by more assertive teachers? Do you find that teachers shy away from sharing controversial opinions for fear of alienating colleagues? Would participating become “safer” electronically?

Or am I just crazy in thinking that digital conversations can play a meaningful role in the work of professional learning communities?

This is the time of year when we move into interview mode in schools. Having just exited one of these, something the candidate said caused an aha! moment for me.

The question to the candidate had to do with a dream classroom and if given the choice, what level would he teach. His response was profound for our school, which operates as a PLC. To paraphrase: I believe that within each classroom, teachers have students with a wide variety of needs, at different levels, don’t they? As a teacher, I must be prepared to meet the needs of the children where they are, using data to guide instruction. So, I cannot say what my favorite grade would be as I will be working with students whose needs will be from all grade levels. WOW, I could not have said it better myself! But, that comment begs the question, How ARE we going to address the needs of each student, from where they are, and ensure high levels of learning for each student? For schools operating as PLCs, we have the vehicles to take our students to those levels.

In a PLC, our essential learning should be clearly outlined by professionals at each grade level/subject area. What standards have leverage, what standards have endurance, what standards provide readiness…these questions are answered by teachers so they have a firm footing in what each student must learn. Once indentified, teachers can go about the all-important job of teaching our students using best practices. From early identification and pre-assessment to post-assessment for a specific unit of study, we can effectively answer question 2 of a PLC: Are the students learning?

From an educator’s standpoint, I believe schools have taken some initial steps to address these questions. Look at any set of state standards or at curriculum guides and curriculum mapping tools, and there is evidence that some attempt has been made to identify what students should learn. Report cards purport to answer the question, Are students learning? However, in most schools the questions that are rarely considered on even a superficial level are questions 3 and 4 of a PLC: What are we going to do for students who don’t learn? How will we extend the learning for those who are already proficient? Effective PLCs give us an excellent process to address these two questions, which aides us in the identification of what students need.

Schools must begin building protocols for teachers and using them to look at student data. Then, educators can move past questions 1 and 2 and into what we do for children (i.e., provide directive, specified, timely interventions). It is not enough to speak to all children learning. To quote Rick DuFour, “What are you DOING for these students when they don’t learn?” If teachers, individually and collectively, subscribe to the attitude that our young interviewee had, that working with students whose needs will be very different in any grade level, and if schools operate as true professional learning communities to create the structures to support both teachers and students, how powerful the learning would be. We would truly be ensuring that all students learn at high levels.  The interview question regarding a dream classroom would be obsolete.  It would be great to mark that from our list.

The following article was published in the January/February issue of TEPSA News. It has been reproduced on this site with permission from TEPSA News and PLC Associate, Thomas W. Many.

When visiting a school in the early stages of developing Professional Learning Communities
(PLC), I heard the principal explain, “Our PLC teams meet twice a month.” He continued proudly, “When our PLC teams are meeting on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month, our school is totally devoted to the idea that all kids can learn.” I am confident this principal did not intend for his statement to spark my curiosity, but it made me wonder what his teachers are “totally devoted to” when they aren’t meeting in PLC teams.

I have never understood the rationale behind designating a team as the “PLC” team. Paul Farmer, a national consultant on developing Professional Learning Communities, observed that once faculty title a team meeting a “PLC” meeting, teachers talk about those meetings as if they are “magical,” but the notion that labeling a team or team meeting is somehow transformational misses the mark.

The truth is that teachers are members of all kinds of teams: grade-level teams, departmental
teams, job-alike teams, child study teams, problem-solving teams, and a myriad of other teams. Simply adding “PLC” to the team name does nothing to improve a school. All it does is create another team!

When I asked this principal why designate these new team structures as PLC teams, he suggested that labeling the teams serves to create greater clarity around their purpose. Though in theory this approach sounds good, in practice it has just the opposite effect. When we create separate labels for teacher teams, we invite confusion, not clarity.

Creating a new team structure inevitably generates questions. Teachers wonder, “Who will be on the new team?” “When will these new teams meet?” “What will the new team do?” All of these questions come from the teachers’ legitimate desire to understand how this new PLC team will affect their professional lives.

It takes time to articulate, clarify, reiterate, and respond to all of the questions. In fact, people create their own reality and if their questions and concerns are handled poorly, misinformation and misunderstanding can result. The upshot may be too much ambient information floating around the school.

Michael Fullan states, “Information overload breeds more confusion and clutter, not clarity”. (Fullan, The Six Secrets of Change, p. 94) Sooner or later, the debate begins about whether the issue at hand is appropriate for the PLC team or some other team. Confusion and frustration seem to follow inevitably,
along with cynical observations like, “See?…PLCs don’t work!”

What is clear is that meaningful changes in practice—not labels—are the reason teams in a PLC are more successful. DuFour observed, “The pertinent question is not ‘Are teachers collaborating?’
but rather ‘What are teachers collaborating about?’ ” (DuFour et al., Learning By Doing, p. 91) We know effective teams focus on improving student learning, so why not simply utilize existing team structures and focus on what effective teams do to help all kids learn?

If the fundamental purpose of a team is learning, the research is clear: effective teacher teams—whether labeled as PLC teams or otherwise—focus on clarifying essential outcomes by class, course or grade level. They spend time developing common formative assessments and establishing targets and benchmarks for their students. They come together to analyze assessment results and use the data to plan appropriate interventions and instructional improvement strategies.

We know students benefit when teachers work collaboratively toward the common goal of high levels of learning for all. Specifically, students benefit when teams of teachers focus on clarifying what kids should know and be able to do, create common formative assessments, design systematic pyramids of intervention, and provide more time and support to those students who don’t learn in the course of initial instruction. Finding answers to these critical questions is the work of an effective teacher team.

Students and teachers benefit when principals devote their energies to designating protected time for teams to meet during the school day, supporting the creation of smart goals targeted at improving student learning, and designing strategies for monitoring the work of teams in order to articulate, protect, and promote what is important.

Creating new team structures with new names puts the focus on the wrong things. Principals should forget about what a team is called and focus instead on creating the conditions that maximize the effectiveness of the existing team. Likewise, principals should not allow the fact that PLC teams do not yet exist to delay the implementation of practices that improve student learning.

With his familiar words “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” Shakespeare reminds us that what something is—not what it is called—is what matters. Instead of creating another team, labeling it the “PLC” team, and attempting to define what this new team is supposed to do, principals would do well to help existing teams focus on promoting those activities that help all children learn.

******************************************

During the course of a career spanning more than 30 years, Dr. Tom W. Many has served as a classroom teacher, principal and superintendent; all at the elementary level! With a passion for promoting the development of high performing schools, his district was recently recognized as one of the highest achieving - lowest spending elementary school districts in Illinois.

We received a query from a high school principal about the failure rate in algebra in his school. At the end of the first quarter, 44 percent of students were receiving grades of D or F. At the end of the first semester, the rate had increased to 55 percent. When the administration met with the teachers to offer support, teachers took the following positions:

1. The problem was caused by the fact that middle school teachers were not giving students the necessary skills.
2.  The teachers had no aggregate data on the achievement of their students because there was no point in the team creating common assessments or reviewing evidence of student learning together. The teachers were already working very hard individually and did not have the energy to work together on this task.
3. There was no need to arrange for reteaching skills because if students did not learn the skills in the first semester they could do so in the second semester.
4. There was no easy way to aggregate data on student achievement because Scantrons, which could readily provide the data, are not conducive to math assessment.
5. Although the teachers agreed it was beneficial to have students make corrections on problems they had missed, they did not require students to do so.

The principal asked for advice. Here is what we said:

There are several things that the math team can do if it wants to reduce the failure rate. The first is to acknowledge that 1) reducing the failure rate is important and 2) changes in the teachers’ own practice will contribute to reducing the rate.

Here are some of the things that are being done in schools around the country, all of which have teachers who work hard and are pressed for time:

1) The team should work with eighth-grade teachers to establish the prerequisite skills students must have in order to be successful in algebra and create an assessment to identify whether or not an individual student has those skills. Each middle school teacher should receive the results of the assessment showing how his or her students performed compared to the total group. Middle school teachers can then identify where their students struggle compared to other similar students and can begin to address those problems. If your teachers contend the problem is in the middle school, then you should establish a partnership with those teachers to address the problem rather than allowing it to continue.

2) It would appear from the notes that there is a pre-algebra course in the school. Students who are very deficient in essential skills should be assigned to that course to ensure they acquire the skills. It must be aligned with the algebra course so that exiting pre-algebra students are ready for algebra.

3) Students who are deficient in only a few skills should be placed in algebra, and the first few weeks of algebra should be a review of essential skills. Benjamin Bloom’s research on math classes showed that when teachers began with clarifying the most essential skills, assessing students on those skills, and then teaching the essential skills, they were ultimately able to cover more material and student achievement was dramatically higher.

4) The idea that if students don’t learn an essential skill in the first semester they can pick it up in the second (rather than arranging to give them another opportunity to learn in the first semester) is illogical and refuted by the team’s own evidence. The failure rate, which was horrible in the first semester, was worse in the second. Teams must begin to develop common assessments and review the data to identify immediately when students are having difficulty and who on the team seems to teach that skill better. Teachers must be willing to learn from one another, and there is abundant research on the benefits of common formative assessments in raising student achievement. The argument that Scantrons are not suitable for math is not valid. Adlai Stevenson High School math teachers, who have lowered the failure rate in their courses to 1 percent, use Scantrons constantly to get immediate feedback on where students are having difficulty. Teachers can use homework and individual teacher quizzes to review the students’ work leading to the answer, but students are constantly assessed in math (at the local, state, and national levels) in a format amenable to Scantrons.

5) The team’s argument that there is no benefit from looking collectively at evidence of student learning is only valid if they have no intentions of making any adjustments in their practice or creating plans for providing additional support for students who are struggling. The research on the benefits of this practice is abundant, and I would ask them to explain why that research does not apply to them.

6) I assume the greatest cause of failure is that students are not completing homework. Therefore, the school must create incentives for students who complete homework and require those who do not complete it to lose privileges until it is complete. For example, some schools make homework optional if a student is receiving an A or B. Students work to achieve those grades so they won’t have to do homework. All other students must complete homework as assigned, and if there grade dips below a C, they are assigned to a place where they must complete homework during the school day. In some schools, all freshmen are assigned to a study hall in recognition of the difficulty of the transition from eighth grade to high school. Those students are moved into an intensive guided study hall where someone monitors their homework each day. Others give up their lunch period and go to a working lunch study hall until they are passing. If your school gives students the option of not doing their work, many will choose not to do it. You must be more assertive as a school in taking away that option.

7) If the team agrees that correcting tests is an important tool for learning, it is inconsistent to then leave it up to students as to whether or not they will do the corrections. This should be a standard practice in all classrooms if it will help students learn, and students should have incentives for doing that work.

8) The school should have a process in place that requires students who fail a test to receive additional tutorial support on those skills. The team should have a process in place that allows students to take another assessment to demonstrate that they have achieved the skill. If a student fails a unit test after three weeks, he should remain in math class working on the next skill but be required to put in additional time on the skills he failed. If he can pass the test after continuing to work on the skills, then he should receive the higher grade. That is what formative testing is all about—identifying students who don’t get it, requiring them to keep working on the skill, and giving them another opportunity to demonstrate proficiency. The team can’t make this happen alone. It will need the support of the school and structures put in place to ensure students keep working.

9) Instruction should engage students, and teachers must become more skilled at checking for understanding each day in their classroom. One observer said he did not see students doing many problems in class, but teachers said they are checking each student’s work multiple times during class. Which is it?

Here is the crux of the matter. Algebra has been called the single most important course in high school. It represents the window of opportunity through which students must pass to have access to higher education. The majority of students in your school are having that window slammed shut, and your teachers seem unwilling to accept any responsibility for doing anything about it. They call themselves a team, but they are not. They are not working interdependently to achieve a common goal for which they are mutually accountable. They are not developing common assessments to monitor each student’s learning and to inform and improve their practice. They are allowing students the option of failing and shrugging off their failure. They are rejecting suggestions for addressing the problem despite the evidence of the dire results of their current practice and the research in support of those recommended practices. My answer to the question about whether other departments were having secretaries call home would have been, “Other departments don’t have your dismal results, but you are right. This problem won’t be solved by a secretary; it must be solved by you.” I would consider the situation you describe as a genuine crisis, and any school that is committed to the students it serves must work together to address that crisis. I have no doubt that the math teachers in your school are working hard, but they have abundant evidence that continuing to do what they have done in the past will result in failure for students. Working hard individually is not enough; the team must begin to work collectively at the right work.

Read Whatever It Takes: How Professional Learning Communities Respond When Kids Don’t Learn. Look at the math results from Stevenson described in Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work™: New Insights for Improving Schools. You will learn of a department that helps more students earn honor grades in calculus than any school in Illinois, a school where every BC calculus student earns an honor grade every year, a school where the mode grade is 5, and a school that has dropped the failure rate in all math classes to 1 percent. This did not happen because teachers were detached from the results. Read about Whittier Union High School District on the AllThingsPLC.info website. These schools have a student population that is much more challenging than yours, but they have been spectacularly successful in raising student achievement. Teachers in those schools believed their practices could help students learn to be successful in math, and they committed to searching for the practices that led to that success. A frank and honest assessment of the current reality in your school as depicted by the information you sent suggests your teachers have not made that commitment.

One of the most frequently asked questions we hear is, “I am the only one teaching this course. How can I be part of a collaborative team?” This question has been addressed numerous times in previous blogs, yet the uncertainty remains pervasive.  We think the following story from the White River High School in Buckley, Washington, is a stellar example of how a singleton can be a contributing member of a collaborative team.

Mr. Mothershead and Advanced Placement Statistics

Since embarking on the journey to become a high-performing professional learning community, White River High School staff members have initiated a number of measures to stretch the aspirations and performance levels of their students. They have encouraged all students to undertake a more rigorous and challenging curriculum. The faculty has also made a commitment to provide additional time and support to assist students in being successful in their courses. This cultural shift is having a remarkable effect. In the 2008–2009 academic year, the number of students taking advanced placement (AP) courses has nearly tripled, and the number of AP courses offered has increased each year.

Statistics, one of the new AP courses, is taught by Cody Mothershead.  Since Cody is the only person teaching this new course, one of the challenges facing him is obvious: “With whom do I collaborate? How can I be a contributing member of a collaborative team when I am the only person teaching this course?” Cody realized that although he would continue to be an active member of the math team, he would have to be creative in his approach to teaming with other AP statistics teachers.

Reaching Out

White River is the only comprehensive high school in the White River School District. However, Buckley, Washington, is only one of a number of small towns and communities located south of Seattle, near Mt. Rainier. Since he is the only AP statistics teacher in the White River School District, Cody decided to find out if there was an AP statistics teacher in a nearby district. Luckily, Cody located a teacher in Enumclaw, a district that borders White River. After initially interacting by Internet and then by telephone, Cody and his counterpart in Enumclaw met in person. They quickly realized that meeting face-to-face on a regular basis would be beneficial. They agreed to meet monthly to share ideas, learning activities, and materials. Cody said that it is amazing how much support he feels with these interactions. When they first met, Cody got information about pacing, what kids struggle with on the AP exam, and techniques to help get the information across to students.

The AP statistics teacher from Enumclaw mentioned that he knew of an AP statistics teacher in the Sequim School District. They agreed to invite him to collaborate as well. Cody also communicates with an AP statistics teacher that he met at the summer AP training. He is an experienced AP statistics teacher in Maine who, in addition to teaching the course for a number of years, serves as a reader of AP exams. Cody contacted this teacher and he proved to be most helpful, especially in terms of curricular emphasis and the development of a pacing guide. More important, the teacher in Maine agreed to stay in touch with the Washington group and help in any way he could. The teacher in Maine also uses the same textbook as Cody. This teacher is able to guide him on what needs to be emphasized for the exam, and what is perhaps overemphasized in the book.

Cody will tell you that he is amazed at how effective connecting electronically can be for a team.

Cody’s situation as the only teacher teaching a course or subject is not unusual. Obviously, there are many teachers who happen to be the only teacher of a particular course or subject. However, Cody’s response to his situation is instructive.

First, Cody took action.

Although Cody wasn’t exactly sure what to do or what the results might be, he decided to reach out and locate other AP statistics teachers. The point is this: Sometimes we try to have a perfect solution to the teaming issue before we go forward. Cody did not know where his inquiries would lead, but he got started and good things began to happen.

Second, Cody focused on the right things.

Cody’s primary motivation was not to become a member of a team, but to learn ways to become a more effective AP statistics teacher and to improve the learning levels of his students.  Rick DuFour reminds us in his presentations on collaborative teaming that there is a huge difference between “co-blabbering” and “co-laboring.” Cody developed a team for all the right reasons. He found others with whom he could “co-labor.”

Third, Cody and his partners set a schedule in order to collaborate on a regular basis.

Cody did much more than “connect” with another teacher who happened to be teaching the same course. He desired regular communication, so he and his partners set a specific schedule for ongoing conversations. Occasionally, a teacher may seek out another teacher with whom to collaborate, but after an initial conversation or Internet exchange, the relationship declines. Let’s face it, teachers are very busy, and unless plans are developed for regular collaboration, the quality of the collaborative efforts will be iffy at best.

Fourth, Cody will continue to seek out others with whom to collaborate.

While it is admirable that Cody has developed a team with teachers from Enumclaw, Sequim, and Maine, he realizes that the status quo is never enough. He will continue to seek other teachers with whom he can learn and share. Cody is a perfect example of the idea, “Get started, and then get better!”

Fifth, Cody set the example for other singletons at White River.

As we mentioned earlier, how to be part of a collaborative team is a pervasive issue. Cody is not the only singleton in White River. He serves as an excellent example to others who feel that “I cannot be part of a collaborative team since I’m the only one teaching this course.” In short, Cody demonstrates that it can be done.

There is no right way to form collaborative teams. There are many creative teachers who collaborate in creative ways. The central point is that much is to be learned when the traditional barriers of teacher isolation are broken down. Perhaps the more important point is this: Not only do teachers benefit from meaningful collaboration, but ultimately the learning levels of students are impacted in a positive way.

difference between lexapro and celexa, performance enhancement prednisone accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working levitra dosage lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; levitra sale difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline what is prednisone symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; zoloft withdrawal symptoms prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, lipitor and grapefruit accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working side effects of taking prednisone lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; cipro lyme difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline zoloft alcohol symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; accutane hair loss prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, accutane attorney columbus accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working ultracet next day lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; accutane results difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline levitra website symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; side effects of prednisone in dogs prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, phentermine prozac accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working online prozac lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; clomid success rates difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline nexium side effect forum symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; ultracet side effects prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, lexapro generic accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working lasix eye surgery lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; lexapro medication difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline lexapro facts symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; accutane dosage prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, generic levitra accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working clomid success rate lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; clomid online difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline medication lexapro symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; nexium dr john abramson prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, prednisone accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working prednisone 10mg side effect lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; xenical hgh phentermine quit smoking detox difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline accutane attorneys california symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; lexapro dosage prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, lexapro 10 mg accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working levitra woman lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; lexapro vs cymbalta difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline connecticut accutane attorneys symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; side effects of cipro prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, clomid ovulation induction accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working atlanta accutane lawsuits lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; secret side effects of zoloft difference between lexapro and celexa,
accutane timeline lipitor and alcohol symptoms of zoloft working
lipitor drug cost; prednisone dosage prednisone stopped taking side effects;
difference between lexapro and celexa, prednisone poison oak accutane timeline
symptoms of zoloft working zoloft hair loss lipitor drug cost;
prednisone stopped taking side effects; prednisone side affects difference between lexapro and celexa,

It is rare that an individual in our profession would present an appeal to colleagues to re-examine traditional assumptions and practices. It is much easier to fly beneath the radar and remain in the comfort of our individual classrooms and schools. It seems to me, however, that if we are to meet the challenges confronting public education we need individuals to step forward as champions of effective change who enlist others in the effort until we reach the tipping point that signals new beliefs and practices have spread throughout the organization. As Margaret Meade once wrote, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that has.”

From: Ballantine, Sara
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:49 PM
To: All Teachers and Staff
Subject: The Problem With Education in America: An Autobiography

Dear Esteemed Colleagues,

I would like to take this opportunity to say, well, to say that we suck. Don’t believe me? Ask Rob, he’ll show you the numbers. Now please take a minute to compose yourselves, grab a tissue, call your mom/spouse/brother/sister/accountant/etc. to wallow in self pity.

Done? Let’s move on.

The question still remains, who is to blame?

No, scratch that. That isn’t the question. The question remains, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I do need to preface this by saying that I have no misgivings about my talent, as well as my shortcomings. I believe it would be safe to say that we, in fact, all have talent, as well as shortcomings. So again, just to be clear, I write this not to determine who is the “suckiest” out of all of us, but rather, as a call to action.

We are all aware that our first semester numbers were pretty dismal to say the least, and the budget situation is about as pretty as we could expect the offspring of Steven Tyler and Janet Reno to be. I don’t feel the need to outline all of the barriers in our way; we are all well aware of the current state of things in our country, our district, and our school.

Thus, I propose that we stop focusing on the things we can’t change, and concentrate on the things we can.

Let’s stop blaming the social demographics of our students, the apathy of parents, the lack of motivation in our students, the skills that they “didn’t come in with,” the middle school teachers, the elementary teachers, the birth control that the parents of our students didn’t take, the fact that we didn’t have any coffee this morning, the union, admin, each other, and start taking responsibility for the job that we were hired to do.

Let’s change our focus from the curriculum that is not available, the money that isn’t there, the challenges imposed by the “block” schedule, and start looking to each other as our greatest resources.

Let’s put the idle gossip, sidebar conversations, personal attacks, etc. aside, and start engaging in constructive criticism that serves only one purpose-us getting better for our students and for each other.

Let’s recognize that we can no longer wait for the system to work out its own flaws, our admin to lay the hammer down, our union to fight our battles and make a commitment to our students and one another to be accountable for our actions.

Let’s build, from within, a system in which we are accountable to each other, and most importantly, our students.

Let’s stop using data to point fingers, place blame, whine about what we are unable to do (whatever the reason), and start using it to inform our teaching practices.

Let’s identify the talents that lie within us, capitalize on them, and use them to compensate for the areas in which each of us is weak.

Let’s establish a culture in which students recognize that failure is not an option and so do our teachers.

Let’s put an end to the mockery of what’s become of our profession, and take the steps necessary to replace nobility in what it means to be a teacher.

So, how can we do this?

I propose that we start engaging dialogue that is candid, honest, respectful, and leads to solutions rather than creating even more problems.

I propose that we not spend one more precious minute of COLLABORATION time talking about budgets, the trash on campus, what we perceive to be the incompetence of those around us, our marital/family/pet/car/etc. problems, and start using the time to focus on what we are going to do to improve student achievement.

And then, let’s do it.

I propose that we recognize the fact that we all of have different ideas of what it means to have a collaborative culture, and stop spending our Monday afternoons hiding behind the closed doors of our rooms with only the colleagues we trust, and convene in the library, with all of resources (primarily each other),  and start fixing what is, and has been for too long, broken.

The issue is critical, more so than some of us care to admit, and the time to take action is now. Actually, it was yesterday, and even before that, so it must be NOW.

I understand that I am saying things that many of us don’t want to hear, presenting issues that we would rather not confront, and making suggestions that we fear we will not be able to fulfill. I understand that this letter will make me unpopular among some of you, and expect some criticism. And to be frank, I really don’t care. I say that with conviction because this isn’t about me, it’s not about you, it’s about the 900 lives that we are charged with five days a week, 180 days a year, and the job we elected to do.

Some of us will be convening in the staff lounge (in the cafeteria) tomorrow at lunch to begin this dialogue and create and action plan; however, I hope to see ALL of us there. Let’s face it; we don’t have until next week, next month or next year.

So, Esteemed Colleagues, I propose that we do everything we can to make us not just “Better than Good,” but  that we do whatever it takes to be more gooder.

No, scratch that. Let’s be great.

Sincerely,

Sara Ballantine