change

Now is the Time to Strengthen Community and Parental Connections

June 1, 2021 by Stu Ervay

For twenty years America’s public schools have focused on complying with external standards. Most of those standards have been written by, or in cooperation with, state and federal governments. Accrediting bodies have also come up with standards.

In the early years of the standards movement the mandates or strong recommendations were not as well designed or worded as they are now. And they changed regularly, often confusing school leaders and teachers.

Reasons behind the standards movement were associated with an attempt to make schools more efficient, less expensive, and more accountable. Accountability was determined through the development and use of high stakes tests. Test results were recorded on massive data bases and used to make decisions about funding. And to compare school districts with each other.

That movement may have had good intentions. It possibly improved the quality of some school programs. But it also tended to interfere with the American tradition of building strong connections between and among schools, parents, and community patrons.

Local networking, so much a hallmark of American education, became overwhelmed with externally developed and required strategies to upgrade learning quality.

Now this nation is besieged by the Coronavirus Pandemic, an event that is changing the nation in many ways. Especially schools and colleges. Ways of doing things in the past seem hopelessly mired down.

The experience tells us much about ourselves and the institutions we revere.

Parents who once accepted the value of standards and high stakes tests are now in homes with children struggling to learn via an internet platform or some other kind of virtual connection. They can see what their children are doing or not doing.

They see the frustrations of both students and teachers as they struggle with everything from poor internet connections, to maneuvering through a lesson. They feel the frustration of students, either their own or others, who have difficulty understanding concepts or developing basic skills.

Far too many of those parents, as grateful as they are to teachers who try so hard, have concluded that this COVID era is when effective education has been put on hold. A warp in time that can only be repaired when everything “gets back to normal.”

But the question is, “What is the future normal going to look like?”

The Curriculum Leadership Institute has long advocated strong communication between and among local school stakeholders. Board members are fully involved or informed about everything being done to upgrade curriculum and instruction. Some of them serve on curriculum councils, along with selected others in the community.

All meetings of the professional staff are open to parents and community members, who sometimes participate in subject area committee meetings. Districts are encouraged to make parents and patrons aware of all actions taken to modify curriculum, instruction, assessment, and other matters relevant to the academic program.

Many client districts sponsor hard copy or online newsletters that explain the improvement processes they are undertaking. Some have a close and positive working relationship with the local media. They sponsor excellent web pages that describe what is being done in substantive terms.

“Substantive” means those districts share curriculum information, and the techniques they are using to ensure students succeed as much as possible even in these difficult times. They share documents like grade level and/or subject area curricula, that include clearly written “purpose” or mastery statements for EACH subject being taught. Under each purpose statement are listed unit outcomes.

Because both purpose (mastery) statements and unit outcomes are written using measurable verbs and specific content fields, parents can more fully participate as “guide on the side” teaching assistants. They can do that because what is being taught to mastery is not just “stuff to be covered.” A verb such as “describe” tells parents their student must articulate something orally or in writing, and a content field like “how a hypothesis is developed” means listing or even more detailed information as shown in an entire unit outcome.

Teachers and parents, working together, are continually testing students FORMATIVELY. That is a topic for another E-Hint, but the key idea is that ongoing assessment is built on a trusting working relationship between teachers and parents. And no longer dependent solely on high stakes tests and other forms of summative measurement of learning.

Could COVID-19 Spark Updates to Grading?

November 3, 2020 by Emily Makelky

Are you tired of talking about COVID-19 and discussing how this pandemic has set your students back? One of the common complaints from teachers who incorporate any virtual learning is that grading is more complicated and challenging to maintain than when students are learning solely in person. I can’t help but wonder if this could be an opportunity to fix some of the philosophically diverse grading issues keeping schools from moving forward with their grading policies and practices.

Robert Marzano, Ken O’Connor, and others have been encouraging educators to update grading practices for decades. It seems as though these shifts happen more easily in the elementary grade levels than they do in secondary schools. There are various reasons for this delay, most notably that parents are more comfortable with the typical A-F system, or 100% grading scale. Another is the fear that colleges won’t admit a student if their grades don’t reflect a traditional grading system. While I can’t speak on behalf of post-secondary institutions, I would like to address the confusion that students and parents have felt while learning/schooling remotely.

The discussion of updating grading practices begins with clarifying what a grade means or should represent. There’s a correct answer to this question, as it’s somewhat rhetorical. The answer is that a grade should represent learning, or what a student knows and can do. A considerable benefit of standards-based/standards-referenced/competency-based grading systems is that what a student knows and can do is clearly identified. Extra factors that could affect a grade, such as late work, extra credit, or student behaviors, are left out.

Additionally, grades align with learning targets or standards rather than assignments. So, if a student cannot succeed on a learning target on one assignment, they can show success at another time. Their grade for that target or standard can then be updated to accurately reflect their current knowledge or ability. When contemplating the purpose of standards-based grading, it’s a no-brainer. But, when factoring in the intended audience’s philosophical and emotional differences, updating grading practices can get a bit more tricky. But, that was before COVID-19. Things are a bit different now.

Here’s how to begin the conversation with your teachers. Ask them what difficulties they’re having with grading that are due to adding the virtual piece. Extend the conversation to parents, too. Is there a parent-teacher organization with whom you could discuss this? Or perhaps you could send out a survey to the parents of your online students. Identify the most significant challenges to grading and analyze whether switching to a standards-based grading system might solve some of these issues. I like doing a book study with Ken O’Connor’s A Repair Kit for Grading. It includes simpler fixes as well as more complex ones. You might be able to develop momentum by fixing some of the simpler issues while working toward shifting to standards-based grading.

The pandemic has forced us to change the way teaching and learning look in our districts. I have yet to meet an educator who claims that these changes have been easy. But, perhaps a silver lining to COVID-19 and requiring a virtual component to education, is that it provides an opportunity to re-evaluate our grading practices to communicate better what our students know and can do. It may give that extra push that some of us need to make the leap to standards-based grading.

The Why of CLI and How to Find Yours

January 8, 2019 by cliweb

Simon Sinek, marketing consultant, and motivational speaker uses a model for “inspirational leadership” where at the center of three circles is the “golden circle;” essentially, the “why.” With his book, Start with Why, Simon Sinek provides examples of how famous leaders communicated their why and were able to have success when others were unable. The principles they used can apply to individuals, small groups, or even conglomerates. For example, a company has a Why, each team in that company has a Why, and every individual on that team has a Why.

The WHY of any organization isn’t about making a profit. Instead, it is the purpose, cause, or overall belief of the group. It is not uncommon for an organization to confuse the WHY with another circle, the HOW or the WHAT. Members of the team may not even know WHY they exist because the focus is on making a product or how to provide a service. But, make no mistake that the WHY is the reason an organization exists. Clearly communicating the WHY is the best chance one has to get all interested parties involved.

The HOW sets an organization apart from others that share similar characteristics. It is a unique twist on a service or product that could provide a step above competitors. Most affiliated with the organization understand the HOW because there is considerable energy there to create the best WHAT possible.

Finally, the WHAT is known by all in the organization. Whether it is a product or service, people naturally look at the end result. In this case, the WHAT is the outer circle.

In all types of work, change must take place to keep up. Providing a strong reason for making a change, and communicating it clearly with staff, will ease much of the pushback from those the change will effect. Providing your “why” will hopefully inspire staff to follow because they will have a purpose.

The WHY of CLI

Identifying the parts of your Golden Circle can be easier by seeing a relatable example. Refer to the one below showing the WHY, HOW, and WHAT for Curriculum Leadership Institute.

Finding Your Own Why

Authors David Mead and Peter Docker have published the book Find Your Why to assist organizations in digging deeper to determine the Why. They believe a good Why statement is

Simple and Clear for understanding and sharing with others.
Free of Whats but includes the real reason people love the organization.
Includes a Human Service Component and Impact for Others.
In Affirmative Language to provide inspiring words.
Important to Feel Right.

The first step in creating a Why is to fill in the blanks: To _____ so that _____. The first blank should include the contribution intended for others, and the second blank should be the impact as a result of that contribution. It could take a few drafts to find that perfect Why, so have your pencil sharpened and revise until it resonates and feels right! Here is a shortened example from CLI’s Why to get you going. To impact learning for students through professional development so that students receive a quality education.

Why Even Have a Why?

While it may be difficult to determine your Why, it is critical for clarity of a focus and vision. There is a reason the Why is the golden circle in the center of all of the circles. Once the Why is identified, it becomes part of the culture. Developing strategies, hiring employees, and communicating with a purpose will be simpler once the Why becomes the focus for all.

Curriculum: A Catalyst for Change (Part Three)

January 8, 2018 by cliweb

This is the third segment of Curriculum: A Catalyst for Change co-written by Sara McGinnis and Kyla Slate. Sara is the curriculum director at Sheridan County School District #1 (SCSD#1) in Wyoming. Kyla is a former consultant with the Curriculum Leadership Institute (CLI) who worked with SCSD#1 over a 4-year timeframe to implement the CLI Model, a comprehensive, systemic school improvement model. Other contributors are noted within each part. Part 1 focuses on intentional change at the district level. Part 2 focuses on the role of principals as instructional leaders.

Teachers in Charge

Most teachers do not see themselves as curriculum developers, nor believe they have been adequately trained to write valid assessments. Serving on a curriculum committee may seem like a lot of unnecessary work to a teacher initially; however, once they go through the process, they realize that thoroughly studying, clarifying, and organizing standards into units of learning targets and then creating aligned assessments helps them to identify what students need to know and do and how learning will be measured. Clearly defined learning targets direct teachers’ instruction and student learning. When developing the curriculum, teachers also contemplated key targets locally that were not included in state standards, but were still important for students. They applied various proven educational methodologies such as Bloom’s Taxonomy (rev. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996, 2009) to build the curriculum—a foundational necessity for creating common assessments and aligned instruction.

Jill Fightmaster, department chair/teacher at Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School District #307:

“This process has brought about more collaboration among the teachers in the department than I have ever experienced. There are conversations daily regarding best practices in teaching, assessment strategies, and ways to engage students in learning. The process has made us truly “dig in” to our teaching and we have all become better for it in the end.”

As teachers collaborate with other grade level cohorts to create the final products, many are excited for change and the challenge of building a new culture in their district. Some are early adopters who believe reform is positive and can only help students. Others may be concerned about moving away from traditional roles or methods, don’t see the need for change, or see the work as overwhelming.

Tiffany, also from BBCHS#307 in Illinois gives some good advice for leading collaborative change initiatives and some reflections about possible reasons for resistance:

“Especially in the field of education, I think people are profoundly uncomfortable with change. Changing habits is hard work. Taking a look in the mirror and realizing that maybe what you have been doing might not be the best course of action is a hard realization for most. It hasn’t been until recently that this profession has supported and encouraged reflection and innovation as valued ways to spend time. As educators we always feel like we need to be right. To admit that we might need to change somehow admits that we are not good. Of course this is an illusion that we convince ourselves is reality. As our profession gets more collaborative and reflective this will change. Luckily, there are a few ‘innovators’ that thrive in the zone of change. It is those people that you need to help lead the change in a district. If you can get them on board along with some early adopters, it is much easier.”

In many cases, for the first time in their careers, teachers are afforded all the rights of a true professional. Once this happens, they realize their opinions as decision-makers are highly valued. They often need a little guidance in that role to become focused leaders and catalysts for change.

Kyla (CLI): “In my work with various districts, I am in a unique position to have witnessed the transformation of teachers who went from resistance, to understanding, to commitment, to being a leader. Sometimes the trans-formation is simply stunning and it can only take place because leaders within the district are not only asking questions and coaching teachers, but also providing support when needed (or getting out of the way when necessary!) and serving as living examples of the shift in culture.”

When teachers are placed in a group of their peers and lack confidence in their roles, they may retreat into themselves, fearful of voicing new ideas or opinions that differ from others, or may delay work completion efforts. These are natural and common responses to change. Michael Fullan (2001) states that we must listen to those resistant to the process. They often bring up ideas we may have missed and suggest alternatives that we hadn’t thought about. Don’t give up on teachers in this category… leaders can be built.

Sara (SCSD#1): “When someone struggles with this process, I try to discern what may be missing. In some cases, teachers don’t understand the vision. Others may understand the vision, but feel they lack experience or skill. Or, perhaps they don’t have resources in time, money, or support to be successful.”

Yes, we categorically believe that change IS possible. However, it isn’t always inevitable for everyone. We purposely focus on the positive aspects of change; but, it is important to realize that not all resistors convert into supporters. There is a point where persistent resistance transforms into refusal. The reality is that change is a choice—a choice that not everyone will make, no matter what supports are provided.

Tiffany (BBCHS#307): “I think this process has strengthened us as a family in that we are learning and growing together. However, with everything being new and different, we have had our growing pains. Changes in philosophy may mean losing staff; and that is okay.”

Curriculum: A Catalyst for Change (Part Two)

November 1, 2017 by cliweb

This is the second segment of Curriculum: A Catalyst for Change co-written by Sara McGinnis and Kyla Slate. Sara is the curriculum director at Sheridan County School District #1 (SCSD#1) in Wyoming. Kyla is a former consultant with the Curriculum Leadership Institute (CLI) who worked with SCSD#1 over a four-year timeframe to implement the CLI Model, a comprehensive, systemic school improvement model. Other contributors are noted within each part. Part 1 focused on intentional change at the district level.

Principals as Instructional Leaders

Since all district leaders were involved in creating the new vision for the district, they all needed a thorough understanding of the curriculum process and how to implement change. A number of the district leaders were selected to lead subject area committees through their curriculum and assessment work; thereby ensuring a common language and a common way of completing the work. Although facilitators can help districts, there is always much to be done between those visits. Building principals and curriculum staff were needed to provide the necessary on-the-spot feedback and support to keep the process moving forward.

Deb Hofmeier, Principal of Tongue River Elementary at SCSD #1: “Having been involved with curriculum development for many years as a classroom teacher, it wasn’t until I was involved with the CLI process as an administrator that I finally was able to put all of the pieces together. We had made many attempts at finding a working curriculum and each time it ended up on a shelf collecting dust as teachers continued to teach their favorite units. Going through the process from the beginning, to implementation and then evaluation of our work has helped to ensure that all of the students in our school district are getting a high quality education. Working side by side with the teachers who are in the trenches allows administrators to better understand the process. To say in the least, it was not an easy process; but, the final products and the assurance that all of our students will have the opportunity to learn was well worth the effort.”

Next – Part Three: “Teachers in Charge”

Look for the important ways in which teachers are uniquely qualified to collaborate with the curriculum development process, and best practices for encouraging participation.

Tiffany Kohl, Curriculum Director, BBCHS#307 (Bradley, IL): “Our district struggled with moving forward and making hard decisions. As a suburban high school district, we had different “schools” operating under one roof. Each department was at its own place in the area of curriculum. Some had been writing and rewriting over and over, some hadn’t started, and some were just neglected. We did not have a common vernacular for how we DID curriculum revision in the building. Now we have a system and a process that is clear for curriculum and assessment that supports PLCs and aligns with our district’s goals involving Charlotte Danielson’s framework. ”

A struggle for any district undergoing systemic change is finding time. The long range plans made in the beginning relate to change in a broad respect such as, “the math committee will create common summative assessments this school year.” At the building level, administrators were asked to consider time in terms of daily schedules and consider adjustments that would help meet completion goals. Releasing teachers to work collaboratively and attend training was a time consideration for all principals, especially when substitutes would be in their buildings. Sometimes it took a little “thinking outside the box” to accommodate the required time commitment for implementing a new system.

Sara (SCSD #1): “I don’t think any of us anticipated the amount of time it would take to complete the process for each subject area committee. We are on a 4-day school week and teachers work one Friday a month. Traditionally, Friday work sessions involved building or committee meetings. Instead of all day meetings, we adjusted the Friday schedule to give teachers more time to work with their grade level colleagues to complete curriculum tasks. Teachers also used FaceTime and Google to collaborate on shared documents.”

In terms of time, principals examined the workload for teachers and removed requirements that no longer aligned to the new district vision. Often in schools, tasks are added without the provision of additional time and support to accomplish them. An analysis of new and old processes helped administrators discover those that no longer align with the direction the district is headed.

Curriculum: A Catalyst for Change (Part One)

October 3, 2017 by cliweb

This E-Hint is the first of a four-part segment co-written by Sara McGinnis and Kyla Slate. Sara is the curriculum director at Sheridan County School District #1 (SCSD#1) in Wyoming. Kyla is a former consultant with the Curriculum Leadership Institute (CLI) who worked with SCSD#1 over a four-year timeframe to implement the CLI Model, a comprehensive, systemic school improvement model. Other contributors are noted within each part.

It’s been said that change is the only constant. This seems especially true in education. There is always a new initiative, textbook, program, policy, or new personnel coming and going within school districts. Sometimes it is difficult to preserve continuity in the midst of these types of random and frequent changes, no matter how well intentioned they are. It’s no secret that the trend in education is to do more with less, which leaves everyone asking the same questions…how and when?

The answers are elusive and districts can be immobilized by lack of vision, resources, or the training necessary to create a plan of action that generates buy-in and leads to success. All too often, when the status quo is challenged or when leaders in a district see the need for substantial changes, they are met with the kind of resistance that makes them wonder if the fight for change is worth it.

We want to assure you that positive transformation to increase student learning is always worth the struggle! It will come as no surprise that there is often hard work involved in changing anything within a school district. The surprise might be in how easy it sounds to do so. Sheridan County School District #1 (SCSD#1) in Wyoming and Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School District #307 (BBCHS #307) in Illinois have found success in their systemic changes because they include representative stakeholders when determining a vision and plan, use principals as leaders for change, provide time to implement change, and build on teachers’ strengths to increase capacity.

Photo Credit: Unsplash user / Ian Schneider

District Level: Intentional Change

Whole district reform must start with a clear vision that involves input from all stakeholders. SCSD#1 started with a steering committee comprised of district administrators, school principals, a school board trustee, teachers, and parents. This group of 23 people looked at data to analyze the current reality of the district. With the guidance of a Curriculum Leadership Institute (CLI) facilitator, many questions were asked and answered until a clear vision surfaced: become a professional community of learners to improve student learning. In order to achieve these goals, the decision was made to focus first on developing curriculum and creating aligned common district assessments. Once the vision was established, the steering committee built a long range plan for creating curriculum and assessments, identifying resources that would be needed, and establishing a timeline for meeting their goals.

Although curriculum and assessment development were not new to the district, prior efforts were disjointed; therefore, the initial analysis uncovered a need for a more systematic process to use. A CLI facilitator, highly trained in these areas, provided the step-by-step process needed to tackle the work.

Part Two: Principals as Instructional Leaders