“I really nailed that lesson!” A teacher can have that feeling at the end of a lesson or school day and the smile of success feels wonderful. A “nailed” lesson is like eating a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie in which all the ingredients come together for a completely satisfying bite of life. And like a favorite cookie eaten and enjoyed, a teacher knows that all lessons are not created equally, so she savors the moment.

We cause children to learn with the lessons we teach. Our curriculum provides a continuum of learning targets that achieve larger educational goals for children’s education. Teachers make those targets into lessons that teach content knowledge, skills, and/or contexts for how students use knowledge and skills. Lessons are episodic because they fit into a singular place and time in a curriculum. We teach lesson in a unit once each school year and do not teach that lesson again until the next group of children are ready for that episodic lesson. Therein lies a rub.

Lessons, as clinical tools designed to cause specific learning, must be analyzed for their effectiveness after each time they are taught. It is like eating a hot just from the oven cookie – we bite into it, chew it, and taste it to verify that it satisfies. If we do not analyze lesson effectiveness, we do not know if lessons really cause the learning desired. Analyzing a lesson is biting into it and chewing with student learning as the taste that matters. Without analysis for effectiveness any old lesson will do, and instead of causing learning teachers are daycare providers.

What do we know?

Teaching and learning are cause and effect. We do not know the effect of the teaching until we assess for learning. After teaching a lesson, the teacher formatively assesses student learning with a test or performance or demonstration of learning. That assessment creates data about how well each child learned the educational objective of the lesson. The data is what decides if the lesson is a success, a failure, or if the lesson needs improvement. Every lesson a teacher teaches needs assessment and evaluation. If not, education stumbles around in the dark.

We also know that schools do not provide teacher time for lesson analysis. Nada! Schools treat lessons as “contracted line work” – one lesson follows another until a week of lessons and a semester of lessons and a year of lessons have been taught. There is no institutional time set aside for lesson analysis when lessons are line work.

After teaching a lesson, a teacher helps students with their independent practice, homework or other assignments stemming from this lesson, collect assignments and prepares to teach the next lesson. There is no school time nor expectation that a teacher will or should pause other work to evaluate the assessments of lessons taught.

We know that schools do give nominal time for teacher preparation of lessons. Daily prep time however is when principals, counselors, and parents talk with a teacher, or a teacher responds to their communications. Prep time is a teacher’s “bio” break time. And prep time is when a teacher actually takes a break in an otherwise fully packed school day of line work.

Schools also expect a teacher to “prep” on her own time. This may be before or after the school, but “own time” most often is at home wedged into a teacher’s family and personal time. Schools do not keep track of how much “own time” a teacher spends on schoolwork; it is assumed to be part of the job. Own time at home is not truly focused time for lesson evaluation. This assumption fails tests of best educational practice and contributes to teacher burn out and dissatisfaction with teaching as a career.

A better idea!

At first blush, providing teacher time for lesson evaluation really is a “no brainer.” Every artist stands back from their work to study what they have done, consider its form, function, and beauty, and returns with ideas of how to make it better. Why wouldn’t school leaders provide time for teachers to step back and conduct lesson analysis? Time is a logistical problem. How do we provide time for lesson study with children in school? Simple – dismiss the children. Teachers cannot give their mind and effort to lesson analysis during a school day with children in the schoolhouse. Also, few teachers can walk out of a classroom straight into lesson analysis knowing that they still have lessons to prepare for the next day.

Provide protected and dedicated time for lesson analysis to assure the teachers can give their best attention and efforts at lesson improvement. Add paid days to each teacher’s annual contract for this professional work. A month of days should suffice.

Second, collaboration and collegiality are needed for objective lesson analysis. Getting the cook’s thumbs up on freshly baked cookies is one person’s subjective opinion: most cook’s like their own baked goods. Getting opinions from other bakers provides objectivity and validation.

Within the protected and dedicated time, create small teams for lesson studies. Team members must have commonality in their grade level (child development) or subject area content or their comments are without evidentiary substance. At the same time, there can be no competition within a lesson study. In our era of “choice” – parents choosing teachers – teachers in the same grade level cannot be using lesson study to gain advantage over their peers. Best practice is “what is said in lesson analysis stays in lesson analysis,” the benefit of study shows in the next iteration of lessons.

Third, lesson analysis is data and evidence driven. When a teacher presents her lesson she also presents the formative and summative data related to the lesson. She talks of the cause and effect of teaching and learning so that she can improve the “cause” to get better “effect” next time. A lesson analysis without data is just anecdotal – there is no evidence of learning.

Fourth, all the rules of collaborative group work apply. This is professional work at its highest level and requires respect, integrity, and good will. After presenting a lesson and its data, the group pauses for each member to consider the presentation and make notes for their comments. Then the presenter becomes a listener, recording comments that make sense for the perfection of the lesson. There is no tacit agreement that a presenter will take all comments to heart. As a professional, she considers group comments as objective insights. In truth, if she uses only one comment to improve the lesson, the lesson analysis was beneficial.

Fifth, principals and curriculum directors have a place in lesson analysis. While some may feel that administrative presence discourages peer comments, it sanctions all comments. There is no teacher evaluation in a lesson analysis – neither of the presenter or of the commenters. An administrator is not a referee in the process but a contributor to and reporter of the process. Principals and directors can add larger data perspectives to the analysis of a lesson’s specific learner objectives. As importantly, they can report to district and board leadership on the tangible benefits of district commitment to lesson studies. Without their reporting up the chain of command, lesson studies happen in the dark and things that live there do not last long when district resources are limited.

The Big Duh!

Very few school leaders reading this or any other writing about the value of lesson analysis will support this work unless they believe that every lesson taught to children matters. If leadership is into the business of “line work” and daycare, lesson analysis is not their thing. But, if they believe that lessons cause children to learn and teaching is all about causing learning, then new conversations can begin.