Let Them See Clearly

Magic is just Science we don't understand yet. - Jane Foster in the movie Thor

My son is taking Algebra this school year. Algebra, a class we all remember. It had variables. We did equations. Each of us knows because we were there. We all took the class twenty or thirty years ago. We think we remember it but do we. To be honest, I don't. I remember FOIL. I remember variables. I truly don't remember the curriculum objectives or the activities. Mostly I remember where I sat in the class. So my son is taking Algebra and I really have no idea of what he is actually going to learn.

The Algebra story could be said for any course. Whether it's third grade (I think we were supposed to learn cursive and multiplication), Civics, Physics, or Global Studies, the story is the same, the name of the course obscures the meaning. So often as parents and students we see the big picture of the course name and the little picture of the individual assignments but don't see the middle steps - the curriculum objectives one is actually learning. It is here that meaning is established.

According to the "New Illinois Learning Standards", which can be found at http://isbe.net/common_core/default.htm  (New Illinois Learning Standards - feels local.... website link feels national, but hey, what's in a name) we learn to add and subtract fractions in fourth grade. I don't know that off the top of my head, when I think fourth grade math, I don't necessarily think fractions. Now that I know it's something I can wrap my head around, focus on, and support my child in learning. When I think adding and subtracting fractions, I don't necessarily think of each individual skill adding like fractions, subtracting like fractions, converting denominators, computing improper fractions, renaming whole numbers as fractions for computation, and converting mixed numbers into fraction for computation. When focusing on the concept, 4th grade math is too broad for me to understand what my child is learning. The daily lesson of computing improper fractions is a means both too numerous (170 individual lessons in the year) and too narrow (a 1-2 day skill) for me to generate meaning. However, the curriculum objective, my child can add and subtract fractions, is something meaningful that I can wrap my head around. If my child is successful in it, I know they can move on and have a tangible skill that will at least help them when they cook or bake. If they don't get it, then I can dive deeper and help them work on the 6-8 lessons underneath until they understand it. The curriculum objective is a meaningful chunk for me, my child, and the teacher. 

Grades and grading systems often serve more to obscure our understanding of a child's performance than to clarify it. What is an "A"? A child earned more than 90% on a test or in a class? Well, who was writing the test? What was the test on? What was learned in the class? Was the "A" on a curve? In one class I took, an a was 37% on a test because of the curve. Did anyone really learn anything in the class? Was what was assessed what was learned? The class was called "Physical Chemistry," what does that name mean to you? In reality, I as student don't need to be normatively ranked in the class. I can tell you who the faster and slower learners are without the grades. What my parents and I need to know is have I mastered adding and subtracting fractions. If so, great lets move on. If not, help me figure out how to understand it because I want to make homemade cookies later tonight.

My son is taking Algebra this school year. I love my child's math teacher. Each week he sends out a note to parents and students identifying the big idea the students will be learning this week. He flips his classroom with videos on how to do the concept so that the students can review and practice the concept until they feel comfortable with it. When a child doesn't master a concept, they can keep working on it until they get it. Last year, with this teacher, was the first year my child didn't know all the math instantaneously. Many times he had to go back to the drawing board to learn and relearn how to find surface areas or complete algebraic expressions (did you know we teach algebraic concepts well before kids take "Algebra). In the end, he had to issue a grade. Three months later, my son no longer remembers his grade. In his mind, it was an A or B, either way he passed. He does know he can calculate surface area and volume of unique objects. He is seeing learning clearly not because of the name of the class, not because of the grade, but because the teacher has turned Magic into Science. He has created meaningful chunks of learning for his students to master and let the students and parents see it.

I Can See Clearly Now

Its Not Over Until We Say Its Over - The End of Summative Assessment

I remember my last swim race. Senior year of college, a cold February Sunday in Holland, Michigan. I remember the brown bricks around the natatorium. Chatting with Brian Miller as we warmed up in the diving well adjacent to the pool. I remember the feel of the blocks beneath my feet. I remember the chill of the air as I stood ready to start, thinking this is my last race. I had been swimming since I was nine years old at Indian Boundary YMCA. I had stood upon the blocks of various pools countless times. I remember the rush of the water going past my ears as I entered the pool. The pull, the kick, and the pull again as I emerged swimming the 200 yard Breaststroke. I remember nailing the third turn. I don't remember the time. I don't remember the place. I remember Brian won the race. Mostly, I remember the feel, being proud of the time (maybe it was 2:21?), and knowing this was the end.

The funny thing is that for many of my friends college swimming wasn't the end. They swim masters races and triathlons. My Uncle Leo swam into his late seventies, competing in world level championship. Even though the constructs we had growing said this would be the end, it wasn't the end of the story but rather simply the end of this chapter.

In schools we teach this artificial idea that learning and experiencing are time bound. Now we are on the Kinetics chapter. Next month we are learning Thermodynamics. You need to complete and demonstrate that you have mastered Kinetics by the 28th as that's when we are having the summative assessment. We create artificial boundaries as to when children can learn a concept and when they have to master it by. We teach students that if they don't master it, the concept will go away and they just simply weren't very good at it. We construct the artificial notion that learning is time bound and all they need to do is have a "passable" result.

Children aren't naturally inclined to giving up. Only in school. Children aren't naturally inclined to produce mediocrity. Only in school. The time and number of attempts to learn something is only limited in school. Mostly because we say so. I watch my friend's daughter make pastries. She loves to be crafty. She is willing to make the tiniest of pastries with the most artistic of coverings. She will spend hours manipulating the frosting. Her sister will spend hours building her world in Minecraft. My son will spend hours recreating his construction in magnet blocks. Learning, recovering from repeated failures and making adjustments, is only limited by our industrial age vision of school. The course, the class, the grade, the summative assessment, and the ranking teach children to fail, be mediocre, and it will go away. In other aspects of their lives they learn resiliency and perfection.

It's time for us to say good bye to the summative assessment. The test at the end of learning. We need to think of the curriculum as skills students need to master and continue to work with them if they don't. It is not the Chemistry class that's important, but rather the concepts that make up Chemistry. Learning Thermodynamics but not Kinetics is a problem. Both are valuable, both are necessary, and both have equal merit. We may move on in the class from Kinetics to Thermodynamics, but it is my responsibility as teacher to help the children that have not mastered Kinetics to learn it regardless of the extra time and extra work. It is the student's responsibility to learn it regardless of the extra time and extra work. Just because the main learning has moved on doesn't exempt us from learning the concept.

Time is an artificial construct. In the elementary school district I work in now, we have at least nine years to have each of our students learn as much as possible. Even longer for children who begin in preschool. Learning a concept isn't over until they cross that podium in eighth grade and even then we pass the baton to our high school. Summative assessments imply that learning is complete. We as a system have a choice. We can choose to use the data from that assessment to influence the next opportunity to learn regardless of content area or concept. It's not over, until we say its over whether we are a parent or a student.

I remember working with a young man as an assistant principal. He decided not to do anything in class beginning in late April. It frustrated the teacher, the parents, and us administrators. He was going to wait it out. He knew school was going to go away in June. What he didn't realize was both mom and I worked for the district and I was working summer school. The school year ended and mom kept bringing the young man to school. After the first two days of summer at school, the work began and learning recommenced. He completed school June 23rd that year. It's not over until we all say it's over.

May Rufus Be Your Guide

The Kids Can Play

In many professions the assumption is that one can't count on individuals fresh to the profession to make key contributions to the organizations success. The idea is those new to the business need to learn how the business works, how the cogs connect in the wheel in order to make things run. In baseball, the rule of thumb is that you can't count on young teams to build success. Eventually youth will be over run by the wear of the year and the grind of the day to day journey.

In 1997, the Chicago White Sox were 3 1/2 games out of first place. They devastated their fanbase, committing the "White Flag Trade," sending 2 starting pitchers and an all-star reliever to the San Francisco Giants for a bunch of people no one had ever heard of. While San Francisco ran to a division title and the playoffs, the White Sox fell out of contention, ending the year 80-81. They floundered and carried low expectations for a couple of years to the point in which entering the 2000 season, the marketing department recognized that no one had heard of most of the club. Expectations were low as the White Sox had been bad in recent memory. The public relations folks put out the slogan "The Kids Can Play," and what do you know, they could. The team went an American League best 95-67 before losing in the playoffs.

While many people have not seemed to understand the Chicago Cubs plan, the organization has been quite clear, it was time to do something different. After battling in and out of the playoffs with high-priced free agent talent in the 2000's, the Cubs chose to bottom out in 2010. For the past 5 seasons, the Chicago Cubs have been cellar dwellers, rebuilding their organization on both the business and talent side. Reconstructing their minor leagues, international presence, and scouting operations. Not much was expected from the 2015 season aside from the Back to the Future II prediction of a world championship.

As of August 15th, the Cubs have starters in 3 key positions that didn't begin the year with them. In total, they have 4 rookies and 5 key contributors under the age of 25. By definition, they are a group discovering what they can do as they win games. Currently they are 18 games above .500, with a 66-48 record and tracking towards the playoffs. If they believed that young veterans and rookies couldn't do it, they would be tracking for the next several years of mediocrity. 

The reality is in all professions, the "Kids Can Play." Those entering the profession have joined the profession because they believe they have the ideas, capacities, and fortitude to be successful. Veterans stay in the profession not because of habit but because they believe they have value to add. Together, these groups can make a difference. While each group will go up the mountains and down in the valleys of successes and failures, they both eventually find success together. 

Necessary Roughness

300 Batting Averages & the Quest for Meaningful Numbers

Growing up, baseball was a thing. We listened to the Cubs and White Sox in the car. We had bats, balls and mitts at home. Every couple of weeks during the summer we would have something going on in the neighborhood involving baseball. Whether it was running bases, a makeshift game, 500, or simply catch. Growing up, I believed good ball players had a 0.300 batting average, or hit the ball 3 out of every 10 at-bats. The best of the best, Ted Williams had hit 0.400 but good players hit 0.300.  So the other day, I looked up who was hitting 0.300 in Major League Baseball this year. Twenty position players were currently hitting 0.300 or above within a minimum 338 plate appearances. Figure each baseball team has 7 regular starters and 12 -13 total position players on the roster, 20 players out of a possible 210 regular starters and 375 rostered players were hitting 0.300 or less than 10% of regular starters were hitting my mental level of being "good."

Well, maybe it's just this season. So I took a trip down to Baseball-Reference.com and discovered that the average Hall of Fame player had a batting average of 0.303, the acknowledged best of the best only on average barely made it over my "good" standard. Ty Cobb was the career leader at 0.366, Mr. 400, Ted Williams hit 0.344 and ranked 6th, the best hitter I ever saw Tony Gwynn is 15th at 0.338. In fact only 79 hitters in the Hall of Fame have a career average above 0.300. It seems 300 is not something every hitter does, but only the best of the best do.

This week I had the chance to listen to a webinar from the Illinois State Board of Education. In the webinar, they use words like "New Illinois Learning Standards," "College and Career Readiness," and meaningful assessment. They shared about a group of teachers and State leaders going to Denver to set cut scores for the PARCC assessment and how this test and these scores are going to provide an indication to parents, educators, and government leaders on how "college and career ready" our students are. The reality is we don't know if this test or any of the new assessments have any correlation with college success and won't know that for over a decade until this 1st group of students who took the test actually graduates from college. We won't know if it indicates they were career ready until this 1st group of students who took the assessment actually has careers. We do know that two years ago when they re-normed the ISAT, that they set the line that approximately 60% of the students would meet or exceed standards and then when the students took the test, approximately 60% of the students met or exceeded standards.

In the webinar, the state explained it's new calculations for at-risk schools/districts and for improvement. Essentially, schools/districts will use a combination 2015 PARCC and other assessment factors as their baseline number for % meets and exceeds standards. Schools/districts will need to cut the distance between this number and 100% meeting and exceeding standards in half within 6 years. Here are some examples:
     School A:
                         75% of Students Meet and Exceed State Standards in 2015
                         25% more need to get 100%%
                         half of this is 12.5%
                         by the 2021 PARCC, 87.5% of students need to Meet or Exceed State Standards

    School B:
                         54% of Students Meet and Exceed State Standards in 2015
                         46% more need to get 100%%
                         half of this is 23%
                         by the 2021 PARCC, 77% of students need to Meet or Exceed State Standards

Now, lets remember that the State set the statistical bar for 60% of kids to meet the criterion line the last time around. This is like the 0.300 batting average. It seems mentally good, mentally reasonable, but in reality only 79 Hall of Famers have hit that for their career.

SMART goals talk about the idea of Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Reasonable, and Time-bound goals. Yes, we should be working to improve. Yes, we should be giving parents, students, educators, and government officials quality accurate information. Yes, we should be preparing students for colleges and careers. However, none of these indicators provide this. In fact, they make the transmission of information more convoluted.

The National Football League has not changed the NFL combine assessment activities in nearly 20 years. Yes, each year, the average player is slightly bigger, stronger, and faster. By keeping the events the same, it allows for year to year comparisons of each athlete. Results are at least comparable. When we talk receivers, we think 4.4 speed is a solid result. Well, since electronic timing was instituted in 1999, only 17 players have ever run 4.3 or faster at the combine. Only 7 of those players were receivers.

As educators we want to improve, grow, and make a difference. Each day we have the opportunity to make a difference in a child's life and change the future. We seek to be measured and share our successes. Like all professions, we wish to be measured against an achievable bar and so do our students.

The Difference Between .250 and .300

What Does That Word Mean?

Lord of the Manor & the Constitutional Peasant

In most job interviews there is a question, "Why are you interested in this position?" I am sure personnel people around the world are used to hearing a wide range of eccentric answers. Its not the eccentric in education that worries me. Its the answer I hear approximately a third of the time. "I've always known I wanted to be a teacher. When I was a kid, I set up a little classroom in my basement and would have my siblings and their friends down their. We had a little chalkboard, I taught them things, and we did school." Individuals don't become accountants or pharmacists as primary school students. We don't hear I am going to be a wedding band singer or a plumber at that age. We hear individuals say I want to be teachers, police officers, and fireman from that age.

My worries are that 7-year olds don't see what any of these professions are. To a 7-year old, the police officer is someone in charge, telling others what to do and they do it. To a 7-year old, a firefighter is a hero who runs in to save lives. To a 7-year old, the teacher is queen of the castle, the lord of the manor, the one who runs the classroom, cares about others, and delivers information. Often this vision of teaching runs through the idea that I am going to say things and kids are going to do things.

We have known for a while that we often learn the most when the learner is doing the work. Whether it is researching the concept, seeking information, building a product, or cultivating a solution. When learners sit downstream of the information firehose, while they may take some of the information from the tap a large quantity streams right by.

When we start with new teachers this upcoming August, it will be a journey to help them realize the lord of the manor isn't one who dictates the tasks and responsibilities for learning, but rather one that gives others space to explore and make decisions. The classroom leaders that we need are ones that set up opportunities for students to investigate, explore, innovate, and develop solutions of their own. The classroom leaders that we desire have learning outcomes but allow for multiple paths and products for the learning to be accomplished. Growing up, we may have seen teachers as queens of the castle but in reality we need them to empower their peasants to decisions for themselves and the whole.

Constitutional Peasant

Curriculum: A Deliverable or A Set of Challenges?

Summer is briskly passing by. July is coming to an end. Soon administrators and teachers will be returning from their various adventures to begin the new school year. As we prepare for the August rituals of administrative leadership training, new teachers' week, and institute days, we look at the time available and ponder what learning opportunities can fit within. 

One would think in year four, their would be a formula for this. Here is what we do for this group and this is what we do for that group. Call this person to work with this team and that person to work with that team. However, each year our leaders are different. They may be the same individuals, but as we continue the journey, they change, they grow, their needs and their desires change. As such, providing the same learning opportunities in year one as year four would be insufficient. Our new teachers are different each year. Yes, they teach different subjects, but also hopefully we are hiring them with different skills and attributes to help our district move forward. Finally, our teaching staff changes. Each year our baseline understanding of the roles, obligations, and goals of the organization is hopefully more advanced than the year prior. Simply pulling out the same formulaic opening learning experience would be insufficient to meet the needs of our team.

If it's true that the adults in our organization change and advance both individually and collectively within the organization, is it possible that the students do also? Could it be that the 8th grade class of 2016 has significantly different needs than the 8th grade class of 2012 had or the 8th grade class of 2020 will have? Our 8th grade class of 2016 will be the first to have spent the last 3 years with a 1:1 device. Their resource utilization and problem solving capacity is very different than prior generations. How we support them, challenge them, and engage them is hopefully more personalized and more challenging than that of prior years. Hopefully as the learn with us, they also will help us grow.

Once we understand that students and adults are different each year, it requires us to question the very essence of our curriculum. Is our curriculum, whether it is staff professional development or student learning experiences, something we deliver to the learner or challenges that we engage the learner with to help them move forward? Curriculum that is delivered, a geometry course, local history topic, CRISS training, implies that all individuals will benefit from learning the same set of skills and concepts. Curriculum that is challenges such as investigate this phenomena, design a solution to this problem, research this concept, develop a lesson to meet the needs of these students, implies that our teams need tools but are independent and collaborative problem solvers. Curriculum that is delivered can be consistently applied and measured. Curriculum that is challenges promotes growth and cultivates capacity. In a delivered curriculum, the learner may or may not leave with new skills and capacities. In a challenge curriculum the learner builds upon skills they have, learning new capacities based on the challenges before them.

Is it time we rethink what we mean by curriculum? As we approach this year, whether we are working with adults or children, should our baseline skills and competencies be at the front of mind? Or should we be looking to develop more, should we be looking to help each member of our organization reach to infinity and beyond?

Not Always Does the Teacher Want To Train the Student

Value Added and Adding Value

 I remember sitting with them for the first time. Three of them, wearing white tops and jeans. The silver haired one looked across at me and said, "you know, what we do is important around here. Many of our kids, they wouldn't have much of anything to eat if we didn't make it. Their parents are working hard, just trying to make it. What we do, setting up breakfast and lunch, it's important. It might be the best they get all day." They were the lunch ladies. All three of them. And you know what, they were right. For many of our kids, those were the only meals they'd see that day. I'd walk in during the morning and the ladies would know each child by name. They knew what the child liked and what the child didn't. "Tommy, I know you don't like the carrots, but I have to put them on the side. Federal meal requirements." They found fun and humor with the kids. At times the kids were obnoxious or arrogant. However, most of the time they smiled. Walking forward a little brighter than they entered.

These three ladies were on the front lines. They'd all had jobs that made higher wages before this. This was a second, third, or fourth career. This was the career they weren't going to leave because it was here, serving Sloppy Joes and French Toast that they saw their legacy. Helping kids start their day on the right foot. Making them smile and helping them know someone saw them and cared.

I walked into a kindergarten room a couple of months ago and the teacher came over. She approached me about a student who had eight letters down. It was May and he had eight down. She was vigilant as she focused on what were we going to do to support the child. I looked over and asked her how many when he had entered the class. "Zero. But it's only eight now." This clearly is a child we need to support and are going to support. Lost in the battle for the future was the journey so far. The child had started at nothing and had begun the journey. How rare is it that a child truly starts at nothing? Or more worriesome how frequent is it a child truly starts with nothing? We need to celebrate the gains while being optimistic about the journey ahead. She had chipped away and begun to make the connection between abstract script and sounds. Sometimes the big hits we make are the little ones. Our work is not done, but it had begun well. It was our job to ensure the baton passed safely and the next teacher continued to accelerate the learning curve for this child.

I sat with a friend the other day. He, like many of my friends, lives in the corporate world. Dependent on bottom lines, gross margins, and corporate bonuses. He looked at his beverage and across the table and said, "you know all I really want to do is make a difference. I want to know my work has meaning and creates something valuable." I've seen him up late, running around, trying to make the next conference call. In the whole rigamarole of life, all he wants to do is create value.

Education is a changing place. During the past few years "value added" has meant a statistical measurement aggregating how children changed and performed on "valid and reliable" achievement tests. It is meant to give an indicator of how a child has grown during school and create accountability for the school and the staff to parents and the community. However, like pitcher win-loss records, the "value added" statistics are dependent on many more things than the pitcher or teacher can control. Jose Quintana is a pitcher for the Chicago White Sox this year. His record is 4 wins and 9 losses. Not very good. During his nine losses, the White Sox have scored the following runs: 1-0-1-1-1-0-0-1-1. While Quintana has not been perfect, his team has left him 3 times with no chance to win and 6 times required him to be perfect in order to win. Too often, our schools and classroom teachers are left in situations when they need to be perfect or close to perfect under the No Child Left Behind Act in order to meet achievement and growth targets.

It's time to rethink "value added." Test scores, like wins or RBIs, are some indicators but they are dependent indicators. Details that rely on a confluence of events and activities. As we look at learning and education, we need to dig deeper and cultivate metrics that provide insight towards the whole picture. Each day, there are people making a difference. What is measurable, is not always valuable and what is valuable is not always measurable. Lets add value.

Sometimes the big hits we make are the little ones