The Wrong Way to Bring About Change

Unfortunately, we have a long history of approaching change in schools from the wrong angles. We’ve tried to ‘force’ change to happen through deliberate policy and legislative mandates (think NCLB). We’ve experimented with external motivators (think merit pay). We’ve tried to improve the whole by focusing on growing the parts (think teacher evaluation). Finally, we have countless examples of implementing fragmented strategies.

At ‘face value’ all of the above approaches ‘seem’ like they might lead to the desired changes. Why then are our results so dismal?

Michael Fullan, renowned leadership expert would suggest they are the “Wrong Drivers.” The above approaches focus on external accountability, focus on individual versus group solutions, and tend to be piecemeal initiatives versus an integrated or systemic approach.

He would argue that the right drivers INSPIRE, but more specifically they inspire and engage COLLECTIVELY not individually. They tap into the intrinsic motivation of the people in the profession. It’s about 100% being involved in the systemic improvement process–students, teachers, schools, states etc. It’s about Professional Learning occurring on an ongoing basis not as an event on the calendar.

In short, the right drivers change the ‘culture’ of the system. They motivate people because they can’t imagine not pursuing the excellence.

Student Engagement

There seems to be more and more talk and focus on the idea of “Student Engagement,” which causes me to ask, “What is meant by the construct of engagement and how do you measure it?”

In a recent review of current thinking about engagement and student success, the American National Research Council (2003) concluded that focusing on the more immediate indicators of engagement, such as attendance and dropout rates, is valuable but, in the end, what must be achieved is “the more ambitious goal of deep cognitive engagement that results in learning.”

To borrow from the works of Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, we are probably talking about a state of ‘Flow,’ which is defined by Wikepedia as “the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.” Probably the best way to understand the concept of “flow” is to think about a time when you were so immersed and involved in an activity that you lost all sense of time. You probably felt a sense of deep satisfaction and were intrinsically motivated by the task at hand.

Measuring “deep cognitive engagement’ then is more than just observing students compliantly following teacher instructions. It should include attention to quantifying the extent to which students identify with and value schooling outcomes, have a sense of belonging at school, participate in academic and non-academic activities, strive to meet the formal requirements of schooling, and make a serious personal investment in learning.

Additionally, measuring student engagement should take into account the degree of enjoyment, interest, and motivation to do well as well as the extent to which students see these classes as relevant to their everyday life.

Do students have shorter attention spans today?

Talk to almost any educator, and they will support the idea that this technologically rich world is ‘re-wiring’ the brains of students. This makes perfect sense if you think about how the brain develops. Without a doubt, early experiences in life, wire the neural circuits. In fact, the synapses in a child’s brain are strengthened through repeated experiences, whatever they may be. On the flip-side, if a pathway is not used, it’s eliminated based on the “use it or lose it” principle.

So let’s think about the world of a toddler in an average middle class home. What are their likely early experiences, and how are these impacting their development? And for the purpose of this post, the bigger question is, “Do kids today have a shorter attention span as a result of repeated exposure to technology?”

The answer to the above question might surprise you. While it is true, that the ‘hard-wiring’ for today’s youth differs from a generation ago, there is no discernible difference in attention spans. In fact, if you think about it, there is a mound of evidence to the contrary. Kids (and even adults) will spend hours on end, focused and involved in things that ENGAGE them. (Think about the World of Warcraft game.)

What has changed are the number of demands competing for a student’s attention. In other words, a teacher is now competing with real-time interruptions via technology–From texting, to phone calls, to surfing the net, devices sometimes smaller than a deck of cards provide ample opportunity for students to attend elsewhere.

Impact of Technology on Memory Systems

Many years ago as the district in which I was employed prepared to move to a ‘block schedule’ at the high school level, we had outside speakers who provided training about effective instructional practices in longer blocks of time. The training included some insight into long-term and working memory systems. We learned that somewhere around the age of 14, individuals can handle about 5-7 chunks of information at a time. This was pertinent because obviously trying to ‘cram’ more than that into a lesson without a corresponding processing activity to move the knowledge into a longer-term ‘bucket’ was fruitless.

I was interested to hear David Sousa update this piece of knowledge at a recent conference I had the pleasure of attending. According to David, while it used to be 5-7 chunks that could be held in working memory, it is now 3-4 chunks.

Why the change? Speculation is that kids are now learning WHERE to find information rather than memorizing pieces of knowledge. This change of practice requires fewer cognitive processes.

Good or bad? I guess whether it is good or bad is a moot point. It is the new reality. Educators need to be aware of the ‘new reality’ because instructional practices should be reflective of the most current brain knowledge.

Misuse of Standardized Tests

By definition, standardized tests are administered and scored under clearly defined, uniform conditions. Most are commercially prepared for nationwide use, and they provide information about performance relative to others of the same age or grade.

To understand how standardized tests and their scores can be misused, it is critical to understand a little about the construction of such assessments. First of all, it’s important to note that in addition to providing a point of comparison, standardized assessments are designed to discriminate among students, which means there must be a spread of scores.

There are two kinds of questions that can ensure ‘spread’ exists. One is to design questions that are heavily influenced by socio-economic factors. (After all, socio-economic status is a nicely spread out distribution.) Students from middle class or upper class status are likely to do better on these types of questions because they are more likely to have encountered the content outside of school. (Yes, you read correctly, test items on standardized tests do not necessarily assess content taught in schools.)

The second type of question that can help ensure ‘spread’ exists are those that assess inherited academic aptitudes. If you are thinking to yourself, this is another example of testing something that is not necessarily supposed to be learned in school, you are right. In fact, some studies suggest that as much as 75 percent of the content assessed on standardized tests is not even supposed to be covered as a part of the school curriculum.

Finally, if you want substantial spread among the scores, items on the test will need to be answered incorrectly by about 50% of the test-takers. That’s right, you need about half of the students to miss questions so differences can be noted between and among students. It would seem obvious then, that questions which are designed to measure what I’ll refer to as ‘mainstream’ content are likely to be absent on such tests.

Now that you have a little better understanding of the role and construction of standardized tests, it should be obvious that such assessments should not be used to measure the effectiveness of a classroom teacher. After all, by design most of the questions on such test are not even designed to test content commonly taught in the classroom. Too many students would answer such question correctly, sabotaging the need for a spread of scores.

Commercially constructed standardized tests also have limited value as a formative assessment. It would be ludicrous to expect a test that measures very little of the content commonly covered at a grade level, to provide meaningful data to classroom teachers about mastery of the content.

Finally, when you consider that most of what such tests measure are inherent abilities, and experiences that students have outside of school, it should be obvious that they also have very little utility in measuring the quality of a given school. In reality if you want to judge the quality of instruction, a test should be designed to measure how well children were taught, not whether they’ve been fortunate enough to have rich life experiences outside of school.

College and Career Ready–Are they the same thing?

I’ve been giving a lot of thought lately to the dismal job we are doing when it comes to helping kids define and prepare for their path in life. It seems obvious to me that others are noting this too. After all, the first goal in the “Blueprint for Reform” is to ensure that all kids leave high school “College and Career Ready.”

However, everything I read leads me to conclude that there is a belief that what prepares you for one prepares you for both, and I’m just not convinced this is true. I am willing to concede there are commonalities. For example, both (college and the workplace) require high levels of communication skills (reading-writing-speaking), as well as the ability to understand and work with numbers. Both also require the ability to reason and make decisions etc. (There are obviously others but you get the point.)

However, while I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, I would argue that a College-Prep Curriculum prepares you for just that–College. More specifically, I would suggest that a College-Prep Curriculum is designed to prepare students for a 4-year university, not just any post-secondary learning option, and such curricula certainly is NOT designed around the needs of the workplace. Even the structure of such classes mimics college courses, not activities in a workplace.

Although learning irrelevant information is not necessarily harmful, it just isn’t all that helpful for students who don’t need a degree from a 4-year university to fulfill their career goals. As evidence to the irrelevant nature of some of the curricula, I would invite you to consider the works of Shakespeare or the ability to compute polynomial products. Most workplaces do not require their workers to know or do anything with these pieces of knowledge yet both are common in college-prep curricula.

If you need further evidence of the difference between the needs of the two environments, consider the fact that college-preparatory mathematics courses in “experimental,” “integrated,” “technical,” or “unified” curricula are not always recognized by admissions counselors in the post-secondary world. Yet, these are the very kinds of courses that employers are demanding.

I’m not advocating that one is better than the other, rather I’m suggesting that Career and College Ready are not the same things. One is not better or harder. They are just different.

Thoughts about iPads and Learning

We have a full house in the office today. In fact, over 120 educators have convened here to collaborate around the topic of using iPads in the classroom. Obviously much of what is being discussed applies to other digital mobile devices too.

I must admit, I’m a skeptic by nature. I rarely get excited by the ‘cool’ factor of new ‘glitzy’ toys. Those who know me will attest to the fact that I’m usually not excited about a new piece of technology until I see how it can do one of two things–Either allow me to operate more efficiently or make it possible to do things that weren’t possible before.

I’m not a Luddite. Really I’m not. I get the potential for technology to enhance if not transform teaching and learning. I’d have to be blind not to recognize how ubiquitous technology is in the world. I know it’s here to stay, and there’s no doubt technology has been and will continue to transform all aspects of our world.

But when I think about how we’ve embraced technology in education, I have to wonder about the cost to benefit ratio. Too many examples of technology being used to ‘automate the past’ exist. The potential of many devices have been neutered by overzealous filtering and security lockdowns on the network.

So as I think about the introduction of technology such iPads in the classroom, I automatically ask, “Why? What is the anticipated impact? ” To be clear, I’m not asking for a metric to focus on equipment itself. In reality, the iPad is akin to pencil and paper. It is merely a tool not curriculum. I’m interested in knowing what has happened as a result of introducing iPads (or other similar digital devices). In other words……

**How has student learning been impacted?
**Are students more ‘engaged’ with learning?
**What are students doing now that they weren’t doing before?
**Are students demonstrating higher levels of understanding?
**Are students using the tools to do things that weren’t possible prior to the introduction of the resource?
**In what ways have instructional practices changed?

What do students really need to learn?

With the announcement that states can submit waiver requests, it would appear that the No Child Left Behind legislation is for all intents and purposes coming to an end a year early. Most educators are NOT sad about this. In fact, they are relieved. It’s not that educators are opposed to accountability and certainly most aren’t opposed to high standards, but the idea that 100% of students will reach an arbitrary (yes, I really mean arbitrary) score on the same day flies in the face of efforts to differentiate instructional practices based on the needs of the learner.

First let me defend my use of the word, ‘arbitrary.’ I’m not suggesting that the ‘powers that be’ grabbed a random number and decided this was the target score that every student should achieve. I recognize that a lot more thought went into deciding what the ‘cut’ score should be–(i.e. the minimum score every student would be expected to achieve.) However, I am suggesting that the ‘cut’ scores varied greatly from one state to the next as did the content being measured etc. In my mind, the variation between the knowledge students were expected to master coupled with the variation in acceptable scores from one state to the next points to a somewhat random and arbitrary determination.

This brings me to the question at hand…. “What do ALL students really need to learn and be able to do IF they are going to graduate from our K-12 schools and become productive members of society?” I want to emphasize the word ALL in this question, because I believe we REQUIRE kids to do many things that may not support their individual path in life. Oh sure, ‘those things’ may be important for another student, but does it make sense to ‘standardize’ learning to the point that all students are expected to complete the same requirements even though elements of it don’t meet their needs?

OK… I’m sure you’re ready for me to tell you at this point what I believe all kids MUST know and be able to do. As much as I hate to disappoint you, the purpose of this post was not to define the minimum ‘curriculum’ but rather to draw attention to the need for us to work together and redefine it. I would suggest that high stakes tests should measure what we really believe ALL kids must know and be able to do. I would also suggest if these tests really measure important knowledge and skills, successful adults should be able to pass them.

States across the country are preparing their waiver requests from elements in the NCLB legislation. Many have adopted Common Core Standards and most of those have joined one of the consortiums charged with writing assessments to measure the standards. I’m just wondering if we’ll get closer to getting it right. It seems we should measure the outcome which we desire, and I’m wondering if we are committed to preparing kids for success in their life or to take assessments that measure content knowledge?

The successful graduate

What qualities lead to success in life? Is it high scores on standardized tests? Perhaps it is the ability to earn straight A’s in school. Or perhaps it is linked to a high IQ. Obviously, there are a host of interrelated factors that play into the success of any single individual. However, after considering a handful of highly successful individuals, I’d propose the following qualities as important:

**Goal Oriented
**Gumption (spirited initiative and resourcefulness)
**Adaptable
**Problem Solving
**Accountability

As shared in a “Number 1 Predictor of College Success”, one of the greatest predictors of success in college is having a goal or end in mind. After all, if you are just wandering aimlessly, when the going gets tough, it makes a lot more sense to retreat. If, on the other hand, you are clear about what you want to accomplish and if your goal is important to you, when the going gets tough, you are much more likely to choose to ‘get tougher.’

When I review the life stories of highly successful people, I find that most have experienced disappointments along the way, and many of them flat-out had failure after failure. Consider Henry Ford whose early business ventures left him broke five times before he successfully launched Ford Motor Company. Or how about Walt Disney who was fired by a newspaper editor because, “he lacked imagination and had no good ideas.” Then there was Thomas Edison who was not only told by teachers he was “too stupid to learn anything,” he was fired by two employers and had 1,000 failed attempts at inventing the lightbulb. What do these people have in common? I’d suggest, they had gumption, the ability and drive to pick themselves up, learn from their experiences and push ahead in spite of adversity.

As for adaptability, most people agree, we are in the greatest period of rapid change at any point in history. To fail to recognize the value of adaptability would be akin to suggesting the Pope’s not Catholic.

Regardless of the role at hand, we are all called upon to make decisions and solve problems. Some are complex, others not so much. Some problems have high stakes outcomes and many moving parts such as how to combat poverty, while others such as whether to have grape jelly or honey with my peanut butter sandwich are less critical. The point is, successful people have the ability to consider the pertinent factors, imagine options, evaluate potential outcomes, and then decide on the most prudent course of action. (This in no way suggest that every decision will be a home run.)

Highly successful people are also willing to take responsibility and be held accountable. They are not victims of their circumstances, rather than are the creators of their circumstances. When they get it wrong, they accept the responsibility, learn from the mistake and move on.

If you agree that above qualities are important and maybe even predictive of success in life, I have to ask. How are they being nurtured, and measured in schools?

Number 1 Predictor of Post-Secondary Success

We’ve all read the statistics….

—At least one in three, 4-year college graduates will end up taking a job they could have gotten right out of high school.
—Approximately 70% of high school graduates will seek a 4-year degree even though only about 23% of the employment actually requires this level of education.
—2/3 of all college students drop-out at least once and 91% of this group never actually finish a degree

So why such dismal results and how can we improve the retention and eventual completion of a certification or degree? Some will propose that success can be predicted upon things like:
—ability to read 200 or more pages a week
—high ACT scores
—accomplished note-taker etc.

I would propose that while those may all be desirable traits, in and of themselves, they are not enough. The real key in my mind boils down to “knowing why you are there.” It’s that simple. Too many students enroll in post-secondary schools with no real, goal, plan or purpose. They aren’t clear or committed to an end result. They don’t know what they want to do with their life and therefore, they really have no reason for being there. Some will finish degrees that don’t lead to any career opportunities and others will drop out.

When a person becomes clear about what they trying to accomplish, and they fully commit to making it happen, they are more likely to engage in behaviors that will lead to their success. They will:
–enroll in courses that lead to an end result.
–develop systems for success
–dig deep and find solutions for challenges that come their way
–will ask for help and serve as a self-advocate.

In short, students with a clear goal will do whatever it takes to realize the desired end-result.