Coach Up Front Instead of Fixing Problems Afterward

To get in front of teaching and learning problems, enroll every teacher in an instructional coaching program and attach a coach to every first-year teacher. The investment in “up front coaching” is a fraction of the cost of remediating ineffective teaching and unacceptable student learning and their associated public distress.

Public education historically stands with a mop looking at milk spilt on the floor wondering what could have been done to prevent the waste of talent, time and resources after the fact. We treat teachers and teaching the same way by always working from behind a problem. A majority of classroom teachers are competent instructors and capable of successfully meeting their student learning challenges. These teachers don’t make the mess, yet always wind up with the mop. Their colleagues who are less effective do make the mess and seldom are capable of the mopping. Looking back upon the mediocre instruction of less capable teachers and the lackluster learning demonstrated by their students, we wonder what can be done to make their instruction more effective and to raise the quality and equity of student learning. Invariably the response almost always includes initiatives with money, mandates dressed as guidelines, timelines and potential consequences for failure. And, here we go again.

This week the US Department of Education (USDE) issued new guidelines to the states for the addressing of “teaching gaps.” Teaching gaps refers to the distribution of teacher talent among school districts and schools. Recent data gathering indicates that low-income and minority children have a significantly lower access to the more effective instruction of talented teachers than do more affluent and white children. That is the mess. The mopping reads as follows – “States are not required to use any specific strategies to fix their equity gaps. They can consider things like targeted professional development, giving educators more time for collaboration, revamping teacher preparation at post-secondary institutions, and coming up with new compensation systems,”

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2014/11/ed_dept_states_must_address_te.html

Also this week, Harvard University announced a new fellowship program to better prepare seniors to enter the teaching profession. Teacher preparation programs are being called to participate in the mopping. “The students will take a reduced course load during that semester (second semester of their senior year) as they begin student teaching under a mentor teacher. For the following academic year, they will complete their school-based training and classes on subject-specific teaching methods. And finally, they will finish up with an additional summer of courses and mentored teaching. After they have become full-time teachers, the fellows will continue to be given feedback and coaching by Harvard faculty.”

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2014/11/harvard_u_initiative_will_prep.html?print=1

We know what working from behind the problem looks like. Not only isn’t it pretty, it also isn’t effective. By the time an ineffective teacher is “in the program”, her ineffective teaching practices have become ingrained in her routines. She is professionally hardened with these routines. Unlearning bad practices so that effective teaching practices can be learned is both a hard pill for her to swallow and harder for her to do. Worse, years of children in her classroom have been ineffectually taught by ineffective practices. What a mess!

Identifying teachers in a school whose daily teaching is lackluster and unacceptable is not difficult; just hard to prove. Students know. Parents know. And, fellow teachers know. Also, they know and can quickly identify teachers who are highly effective at causing all children to learn.

Sadly, the procedures for dealing with ineffective teachers outlined in most school district policy manuals is a three- to five-year process. Given the time it took to identify the teacher’s history of ineffective teaching, successful remediation stretches the professional mopping to a five to ten year stint – all the while, children are being taught by the teacher “in the program.”

So, why wait until there is milk on the floor to determine who the spiller is and how much damage the spill will cost to clean up?

Instead, create a new professional practice today. In most school districts, this only requires action by a resolute school board. Insert the following in your Employee Handbook:

• This school district is committed to providing a high level of quality instruction for every student. Pursuant to this commitment, the School Board employs instructional coaches to assist every teacher in exercising everyday effective teaching practices associated with higher levels of student learning.

• At the time of hire, each new teacher to the district will be assigned to work with an instructional coach for the purpose of assuring that the probationary teacher is informed about and trained in the use of effective teaching practices.

• Beginning with the ____ school year, every teacher in the district will be assigned to an instructional coaching program for the purpose of assuring that veteran teachers are informed about and trained in the use of effective teaching practices.

• Beginning with the ____ school year, the Teacher Evaluation Procedures will include 1) observations by the school principal to validate the teacher’s use of effective teacher practices on a continuing basis, and 2) analysis of the teacher’s student learning outcomes to validate that the teacher is causing all children to achieve significant learning.

There are no guarantees that every child will earn academic honor status every year. Very complex variables are at play. However, the variables associated with effective teaching and student learning can be significantly narrowed when schools get in front of problems rather than dealing with them afterwards. A proactive teacher coaching program is a very good way for a school district to address the variables within its control. Schools always will be engaged in some mopping up, but student learning need not be the major mopping problem it is today.

Public Ed Is Focused on the Wrong End Game

Public education is focused on the wrong end game. For too long the leaders responsible for public education have focused on the graduated student in an adult-world context. For the purpose of daily and school-year instruction this traditional end game is too abstract and too distant to meaningfully connect with everyday teaching and learning. The end game should be to cause every child to successfully learn their annual curricula on a weekly or monthly basis regardless of their learning conditions. This new end game is meaningful, measureable, and accountable and directly connects teaching and learning in ways that schools, teachers and students, and communities can see and understand. Change the end game focus to change the end game outcomes.

There is nothing wrong with a big picture end game when you are willing to wait until the “end” to understand your success. It is like leading a life for the purpose of going to heaven when you die. Such a purpose provides excellent tenets for living, but you won’t know the success of your life’s mission until you die.

Or, hearing a pre-school child say “I will be a fireman when I grow up” and having the local fire commander write in the station log “In fifteen years, following high school graduation and technical school training Tommy will be sufficiently educated to enter our probationary program.” Maybe and maybe not.

A long distance end game is not a good strategy for ensuring a high quality education for every child every day of every school year. The end game must be shorter-termed with clearly stated end-of-instruction learning outcomes. And, the end game plan must drive instruction so that every child successfully learns their curricula.

Imagine how this works. The school mission reads:

This year your child will successfully learn her (grade or subject) curricula. To accomplish this, her teachers will use best instructional practices including frequent assessments and reports of learning accomplishments.

Another way to understand the end game problem is to ask “And, whose success is the measure of interest?” When the district’s end game focus is to prepare graduates for life after school, it is the district’s rate and degree of graduation preparation that is of interest. When the end game is each child’s successful learning of an annual curricula, it is child learning that is of interest. Child learning is an appropriate and better end game.

Once again, change the end game focus to change the end game outcomes. The management piece for this new end game includes:

  • analyzing and dissecting the curricula into instructional segments,
  • pre- and post-assessments of each segment,
  • necessary pre-teaching and re-teaching to assure every child’s success with each segment,
  • a combination of personalized and grouped direct and indirect instructional sessions within each segment, and
  • advancement to the next segment only when learning indicates readiness for that segment.
  • Learning accomplishments will be recorded and reported to parents at the end of each segment.

The upside to this new end game is that instruction is directly connected to the immediate and annual learning outcomes. The connection is clear, measureable and accountable. It is not like the goal in a traditional outcome in which children are taught a curricula of Civics in 8th or 9th grade for the purpose of making them better informed citizens as adults. Admirable goal, but its outcome is disconnected from its instruction.

An upside to this end game is that each child is a successful learner regardless of their learning conditions. Exceptions are not made. Children who are not English-speakers are taught the vocabulary and concepts of their curricula before and as they are taught the curricula. Children who need special education assistance receive it in conjunction with their curricular instruction not in lieu of or in addition to. Children who need more time for their initial learning get more time for their initial learning; it is more effective and efficient to assure successful initial learning than it is to remediate learning later.

An upside to this end game is that as every child successfully learns their annual curricula they also are progressing toward the district’s graduation goals of college or career readiness, responsible citizenship, economic productivity, and community contribution. The district’s success in causing these summative goals is ensured by every child’s success with their annual curricular goals.

A downside to this end game lies in its incumbent accountability. When the school says that “every child will successfully learn their annual curricula regardless of learning conditions” this becomes the school’s and the teachers’ annual commitment. Sadly, very few if any schools have ever fulfilled a commitment to assure the learning success of every child.

This raises a really large question of “Why not?” The answer is that the traditional end game focuses upon distant learning outcomes disconnected from annual teaching and learning and that obscures the reality that many children do not successfully learn their annual curricula. Most learn just enough to “pass.” Schools and teachers were and are seldom held accountable for student success on clearer and shorter-term learning outcomes. Our obsession with student and school outcomes on statewide and international academic assessments is indicative of the current focus on the big picture end game and not timely and locally-measured student learning

A downside to this end game is that educational leaders need to be so connected to the instruction of every teacher and the learning of every child in their school that these leaders can assist teachers to make necessary adjustments to instruction when children are not successfully learning. This requires a significant change in leadership and the skill sets of instructional supervision. But, this also is the most significant upside to the new end game. School leaders and teachers will be immediately connected to their teaching and child learning in their school. This is an upside that can and must be achieved.

It may be impossible for public education to implement all of the mandates for educational reform that are currently being demanded if its leaders continue to use the traditional end game focus. If we can change the end game, we can improve the learning outcomes for every child. The improved outcomes of the new end game will change the way in which everyone, include educational reformers, looks at public education. Change the focus now!

Educator Effectiveness: What’s the Bottom Line? Is There an “Or Else?”

What is required often is determined by the bottom line. The bottom line sets the minimum expectancy that a person sets for their behavior or efforts in order to sustain a status. Said differently, the bottom line also is the maximum effort or behavior a person must exert or demonstrate in order to attain that status. Usually, meeting the bottom line is a quality point. Above the bottom line and a person is in relatively good standing. Below the bottom line is where the person is in bad standing.

In order to drive a vehicle, a person must complete and achieve a minimum score on a written driving test, a vision screening, and a behind-the-wheel driving test. A person does not have to be perfect on any of three to meet the minimum requirements for a driver’s license. In fact, a qualified driver in Wisconsin must answer 40 of 50 questions correctly or can miss nine of 50 test questions. The vision screening results must be at least 20/100 in one eye or 20/40 in both eyes. Bottom lines seldom require perfection or even close to perfection to qualify for a given status.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/index.htm

So, what is the bottom line regarding educator effectiveness? And, will “bottom lining” educator effectiveness make any difference in the quality of student and school achievement?

Establishing a bottom line for educator effectiveness purports to do three things. Effective instruction

1. ensures a higher quality of education of all children, especially in areas where child access to higher quality teaching has been difficult to achieve or sustain,

2. promotes higher student achievement, in particular in areas of national, state and local interest (improved standing on international academic assessments, STEM, creativity, and entrepreneurship), and,

3. provides all children with a better preparation for college and career readiness.

The means for improving educator effectiveness have been heavily influenced by government. Improving educator effectiveness are three words that appear in most state as well as the US Department of Education’s media releases. If you believe that funding provides direction, then the Dept. of Ed’s earmarking almost $2.5 billion indicates both the federal and subsequent state interest in improving educator effectiveness. The federal language includes improving “teacher and principal evaluation systems” and improving “the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need schools by reforming teachers and school leader advancement and compensation systems” and “promoting evidence-based professional development.” Bottom line – states will be induced by federal money to engage in these reforms.

http://www.ed.gov/teachers-leaders

In addition, the Dept. of Ed included the reform of teacher and principal evaluation systems as a criteria for states to qualify for waivers from the requirements of NCLB, in particular the penalties that schools would incur if they failed to meet the requirement that all children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Bottom line – states and school districts will engage in these reforms or suffer prescribed penalties.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html

To quality for and comply with federal funding, states have undertaken significant revision of their teacher professional development and evaluation systems. In Wisconsin, the Educator Effectiveness System (EE System) balances teacher practices (50%) and student achievement (50%) to create a numeric that represents a teacher’s effectiveness. While the DPI is very thorough in its provision of information and professional development regarding its EE System, it is equally careful to never, ever insinuate what a school district should do with teachers who do not achieve effectiveness as defined in the EE System.

The bottom line from the DPI is that “local districts and school boards will determine how to use data from the EE System within their own context. DPI recommends that districts consider quality implementation practices, research, district culture, AND consult with legal counsel prior to making human resource decisions.”

http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/ee/pdf/eeteacherevaluationprocessmanual-version4.pdf

Understanding the bottom line is important for teachers. In Wisconsin, Educator Effectiveness is reduced to a numeric on an X, Y axis that places a teacher in a graphic distribution of all teachers’ numerics for the purpose of distinguishing between higher and lower performing educators. Rewards and recognitions or remediation and improvement will be doled out accordingly. Professional development instructs teachers that on this scale, 4 is Distinguished, 3 is Proficient, 2 is Basic and 1 is unsatisfactory. This plan complies with the US Dept’s mandates.

ed metric

The bottom line for a teacher in Wisconsin is to achieve a numeric that places her EE at a (2,2) numeric or better. Or, to say it differently, the danger area of (1,1) must be avoided. This is what a teacher learns through the EE orientation and all subsequent professional development training related to educator effectiveness. This is the EE System plan and procedure for implementing educator effectiveness in Wisconsin.

It is not reality, however. Reality sets in when school boards decide how they will apply the EE System within their district’s continuing employment procedures. In the post-Act 10 era in Wisconsin, a district’s employment procedures are prohibited subjects of bargaining and the detail of these procedures is determined by school board action. After all is said and done with the federal incentives for improving educator effectiveness and each of the state’s initiatives relative to the NCLB waivers notwithstanding, the application of bottom line procedures rests with each state’s teacher dismissal statutes. And, the decision to take action relative to the EE System outcomes rests with each school board.

In pursuit of a bottom line regarding EE, a school board must fulfill two duties. The board must be compliant with its published procedures, and it must be complaint with WI Statute 118.24. The statute clarifies that the board alone has the authority to hire and fire teachers. Relative to discontinuing a teacher’s contract with the board, the statute outlines the due process standards for board action regarding teacher dismissal.

The history of board actions to dismiss teachers in Wisconsin is, as prescribed by the statute, confidential. Nationally, the statistics for teachers leaving their employment as teachers says that approximately 46% of the workforce turns over annually. Reasons for leaving the profession are many and include retirement, disenchantment with teaching, a change of professional interests and death, as well as dismissal. Non-renewal of employment represents one of the least frequent reasons for teacher turnover. For example, over a ten-year period in New York City, twelve teachers in an employment pool of 75,000 teachers were dismissed for incompetence. An unknown number of NYC teachers exited the profession rather than face dismissal procedures. However, if the NYC number is indicative, teacher dismissal in most states is a small number and in most school districts is a rarity and may have never been exercised.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/firing-teachers-mission-impossible-article-1.1615003

So,, what is the bottom line for educator effectiveness? It is remains mystery. At some date and place, a school board will take action to resolve its continuing employment of a teacher whose EE System metric is unsatisfactory and, despite district efforts to raise the teacher’s bottom line practices, has been unsatisfactory over time. At that date and time, an understanding of the bottom line will be temporarily affixed. No doubt, once that event has happened, other school boards will have a better understanding of how the EE System connects with continuing employment and will take action on its local bottom liners.

The mandate to improve educator effectiveness, at this time, is like a parent who makes a threatening statement to a child in the attempt to modify the child’s behavior. Frequently in that setting, a recalcitrant child looks the parent in the eye and asks, “What happens if I don’t?” Then the dance of parenting begins and, as often happens, the threat is withdrawn with small if any conciliation by the child. So it is with school boards and teachers and educator effectiveness. We don’t yet know how the bottom line for educator effectiveness really works because we don’t know how school boards will act if an employee persists in being ineffective.

Today, there is no bottom line to educator effectiveness improvement because there is no evidence of the “or else.”

Writing Instruction Without the Fretting

When the classroom assignment is to write, the teacher needs to listen and watch. Listen to the comments and mutterings of most children. “I don’t know what to write.” “I can’t think of anything.” “I hate to write.” Listen to those who struggle with and then balk with the idea of writing. In contrast, watch. Watch the other, fewer children who eagerly pick up their pencil or fire up their computer and begin putting words to paper or screen. What is the difference between these two groups of children? Why are some children writing and others not. You listened and you watched. What did you learn?

To unpack your learning, let’s examine several other commonplace classroom activities to understand writing and why children fret about writing. And, if children fret about writing, so do their teachers.

The teacher says,

“Take a minute to think back on yesterday’s trip to the museum. What one memory about the entire trip do you remember most clearly? Think and then tell the person on your right about your memory.” Some start talking immediately. Others look up, look down, look to the right and left and then start talking. Everyone is either talking or listening or talking over the talking. Talking is easy if not natural for most children.

“It’s almost lunch time. Your ticket for leaving the classroom is to write one sentence. In your sentence, tell me one thing that you learned from our reading and talking this morning about global warming. The first words of your writing could be, ‘This morning I learned that …’”

“Let’s have some volunteers go to the white board. Each will show and then tell us about their outline for our writing project.” Hands shoot into the air to volunteer but just as many or more dig into pockets as if to prevent their person from being chosen to do board work. Public review is anathema to many children.

As teachers of the language arts, we know many things about writing and speaking. Writing is a learned behavior. It is different than speaking which is universal and natural; everyone who is capable speaks. Infants are speaking, or it seems like speech, by their first birthday. Writing is a cognitive activity that is mentally acted out on paper or screen. Children typically write using letters to form what may seem like words after their third birthday or even later. Children speak at the drop of a hat but it often takes much more to drop to cause them to write. Writers are hemmed in by rules of grammar, structure, organization and vocabulary. Speakers go with the flow and use their listeners’ body language to guide their speaking. Writers receive a delayed feedback, if any, from their readers. Writers create sentences and paragraphs while speakers use phrases and idioms and body language to convey meaning that would be difficult to put down in writing. Speaking is almost never critically reviewed; writing almost always is analyzed for form and substance. We put up with many errors in speech that would be jumped upon if written. Hence, many children become reluctant or at least circumspect writers.

From our three examples, we know that cognition resulting in speech is free flowing, especially when the subject is loosely structured. Any memory of yesterday’s trip to the museum will do even if the memory was of the bus ride or lunch. Better if it was an exhibit, but the assignment was to remember something and speak about that memory. Easy.

We know that a brief writing assignment is good. A single sentence starts the words flowing. After lunch it will be easy to have the writer add another sentence or two or ten. Beginning with a first word is a start and once a child is writing words the next idea and words about that idea come easier.

Public exposure of writing and possible criticism are downers for reluctant writers. It is like standing in front of the class in your underwear; critiquing is a mental exposure that shuts down all motivation to write. Children who find writing easy seldom are bothered by a display of their writing. In fact, posting their writing on a bulletin board or in the hallway boosts their writer’s ego. For the reluctant writer, a display of writing shuts down the super-ego. Their writing may never be good enough for display. Why – because it is their writing.

If writing is a somewhat unnatural act, it also is a very idiosyncratic act. Google any article or report on the teaching of writing. Then, check the posted comments on the article or report that follow. The opinions and responses of others will cover the universe in their agreeing and disagreeing. One can find a study to support almost any conjecture about writing and all studies will contain some truths.

So, professional teacher you are charged with teaching children to write. Where do you start? First, you start with the knowledge that writing and improving writing skills are a life-long endeavor. Neither your singular assignment nor your school year of writing assignments will create a finished writer. Your instruction lies within a long continuum of work. Second, writing is in the eye of the reader. Unlike the evaluation of other academic work, an assessment of writing is subjective and most often judged with a holistic-type task. When ten readers examine the same piece of writing, they will generate a range of responses, usually similar but seldom identical. Third, writing is personal. Every child’s visit to the museum results in different mental images and memories. When children write from their experiences, it always will be idiosyncratic.

Back to the beginning of this article. Some of your children-charges will have no difficulty finding their words. For these children, get out of their way. Let their fingers and fists fly. Your work is not in starting their writing but in assisting them to contemplate what they have written afterward and consider if what they actually wrote is what they wanted or needed to write. And, perhaps, if they could find ways to improve their writing, given what they know about structure, grammar and spelling. Non-critically, they, at any age, can reread their writing for clarity and self-correction.

Regarding the reluctant writers, consider Forrester’s words to his protégé Jamal in the movie Finding Forrester (2001).

“No thinking – that comes later. You must write your first draft with your heart. You rewrite with your head. The first key to writing is to write, not to think!”

Seem wrong? Not. Too often children become brain-frozen by overthinking how to start. Unfreeze them – “Start writing, please. Don’t think about it too much, just tell me in your words what you are thinking.” Later on, when children know more about how language works, they can think about the quality of their writing.

Give reluctant writers an opening sentence. Like when Forrester gave Jamal a paragraph from his own writing as a beginning for Jamal’s writing, he said “Start typing that. Sometimes the simple rhythm of typing gets us from page one to page two. When you begin to feel your own words, start typing them.”

I have watched children sit on their hands when assigned to write in the belief that the clock and recess or lunch or going to music class will relieve them of their agony. I have watched these same children do this over and over again regardless of the subject or of the other incentives offered. For these children, professional teacher, you must prime their pump. If not with a pre-written first sentence, then use oral language to prime written language. “Tell me how the Earth and the sun and the moon go around. Help me to know which goes around the other. Tell me and I will write it down.” Then, a child can work with her oral words recorded through your writing. She is in motion as a writer.

I have watched children fret about writing and then watched fretting become their learned behavior. A fretting writer begets a fretting teacher who knows that if a child frets about easy daily assignments the same child will fret and freeze when given on-demand writing assignments in her annual academic assessments. Today, teachers have a lot at stake when children do not become fretless writers.

I also have watched insightful teachers remove the fretting for their reluctant writers by understanding what it is that makes writing difficult for a reluctant writer. And, I have watched these same insightful teachers relieve their own fretting because fretless writing also is a learned child behavior.

Your Pre-K Vocab Predicts Your School and Adult Vocab – Learn More Words Earlier

How many words did you know when you were three years old? If you knew that the strength of your adult vocabulary would be predicated on your three year old vocabulary would you have looked at words differently then? Will you look any differently at three year olds and their world of words now?

The urgency for developing word power for your children has been an under the radar work in progress for many educators. Social research and in-school observations support declarations that children of poverty and familial distress suffer many disadvantages when they enter school. One of the most significant learning disadvantages is their lack of word power – they are underexposed to vocabulary. Now, the Clinton Foundation and the Next Generation project have joined to form the Too Small To Fail initiative to improve the health and well-being of pre-school aged children. A part of their work addresses the word gap that burdens children of poverty.

“In fact, there is a startling gap between highly educated parents and less educated parents in the amount of time that parents spend talking to, reading to and engaging in other activities with their young children that support cognitive development. Robert Putnam and Evrim Alintas call this “Goodnight Moon” time, and their forthcoming research indicates that while “Goodnight Moon” time has increased for all families, it has increased most dramatically for those families with more highly educated parents. In the 1960s and 1970s, highly educated and less educated parents were spending similar amounts of time reading to their children; yet in 2010-2012, the total gap between high- and low-educated mothers’ and fathers’ time spent on “Goodnight Moon” activities was more than half an hour daily.8 This gap adds up over weeks, months and years to a significant gap in time investment in young children.

A key result of this gap is a troubling difference in children’s early vocabularies. Researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley found that by age four, children in professional families had heard an average of 30 million more words addressed to them than children in families on welfare, and 15 million more words than working-class families. This means that children from lower-income and even middle-class families often enter school with substantially smaller vocabularies than many of their peers. Unfortunately, inequities on display in preschool and kindergarten largely persist throughout life. Most of the high school achievement gap between poor, middle-income and wealthy students is already visible by kindergarten. And the children who have weak pre-literacy and numeracy skills in kindergarten are, on average, the same children with weak vocabulary and math skills in seventh grade. Similar trends can be seen when it comes to life skills: discrepancies in attention span during preschool predict relative levels of academic persistence, earnings, and family stability, even 20 and 30 years later. These lasting effects are no surprise: New brain research also shows how adverse childhood experiences linked to poverty can harm the development of the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which is associated with the ability to pay attention, exhibit self-control, organize and plan.”

word power

Percentage of children ages 3–5 who were read to 3 or more times in the last week by a family member by mother’s education, selected years 1993–2007

Give pre-school children a boost for a life time – teach them more words.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2s2f_framingreport_v2r3.pdf