Friday, March 13, 2015

What is the most critical element of a high quality lesson?

I realize that selecting the most critical element of a high quality lesson is akin to selected the most important food group (coffee). Each is critical - the lack of any single group leaves us unhealthy (cranky). But to this initial question there is a concrete answer.
Mike Schmoker, in his book Focus, has his answer. When outlining the essential food groups to a high quality lesson he identifies the following: “... a clear learning objective … teaching and modeling, guided practice, checks for understanding/formative assessment, and independent practice/ assessment.” A great list! Of these, however, he refers to “checks for understanding/ formative assessment” as “especially critical” and suggests that until this practice is common all other initiatives should be put on hold. Certainly his insistence on the importance of this step has merit; however, this is not the most critical step.
More important than checking for understanding is knowing what one is expected to understand. Determining “a clear learning objective,” a learning target, or daily learning outcome (whichever term you choose) is absolutely fundamental. The more explicit we are about what we want students to learn, the more likely they are to learn it.
Last week, while working with social studies teachers, I peered over one teacher’s lesson plan at his Daily Learning Target: Students will understand the causes of World War I. Historians have spent careers, and books have been written, on this topic alone. This teacher was expecting his students to grasp this by the end of a single lesson? Never mind that this target screams for a powerpoint and a lecture with the hope that students write down the teacher’s understanding of the causes of World War I, or perhaps, the textbook’s sanitized version of events
This teacher does not need to perform a check for understanding based on this Learning Target because I can already tell him that the more astute students will be able to regurgitate facts he provided them in the lesson or rely on prior knowledge. Most students, however, if asked to articulate their understanding would be at a loss. This target is broad enough to be broken down into several smaller learning targets - measurable chunks, especially when one considers the amount of background knowledge students need for this: Where are the Balkans? (Where is Europe?) What do the terms Nationalism or Imperialism mean? This is information I suspect many of these students do not have. Further, while Schmoker uses the term “check for understanding,” the term understand in a learning target is very difficult to measure.
Let’s consider what some alternative, focused learning targets might look like.  

  • Students will explain one cause of World War I.
  • Better yet: I can define Nationalism and explain how that was a factor in World War I.
  • Or, I can locate the Balkan peninsula on a map and create a key that explains its involvement in the start of World War I.


Now consider the “checks for understanding” for these targets, and consider the literacy- based process in which students could engage to gain this information.
Unquestionably, “Checking for Understanding” should get its just desserts, but before one can even consider dessert, there is the setting of the table through a bite- sized, measurable learning target.

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Vision Building through Conversation

Toward the end of Learning By Heart, Roland S. Barth describes the type of vision necessary for schools to flourish. It is a “vital, courageous, demanding, uplifting vision-where most educators and students are familiar with the vision, where day-to-day behavior is constantly scrutinized for evidence of congruity with that vision, and where the school is incrementally approaching that vision.”
Of course the steps toward developing that vision are arduous. First, one must decide who should help design the vision. Then that Blue Ribbon Committee of past, present, and future stakeholders must assemble over the course of several months to painstakingly and agonizingly mince and parse words until they have crafted something that sounds just right. Then, of course, they must present that vision before a district committee who will compare it to the district vision to make sure everything is in accordance. Once the re-visions are made, then it can be presented to the school and voila!
There are protocols and processes that must be followed, because how else could you do it? At least that is how most visions have been erected.
However, even if that process does manage to muster some vitality and courage, how many visions actually manage to remain at the forefront of those working toward it, “... where day-to-day behavior is constantly scrutinized for evidence of congruity with that vision.” Can you name your organization’s vision?
Barth’s vision for vision development is refreshing. The essential piece to his process is in one word: Conversation: “... conversation about practice, reflection and writing about practice, telling stories, sharing craft knowledge, and maximizing differences in order to maximize learning” constitute the most important steps in the process, according to Barth. How refreshing is that!
My teaching career blossomed through this same practice the day I began teaching at a North Carolina New Schools early college high school. I had experienced success prior to this and had generally enjoyed my work. However, teachers in the New Schools model were no longer focused entirely on their class practices and their students  - we were a part of something bigger. We were being charged with the task of redesigning what high school looked like.
Of course, there are plenty of defenders of the current comprehensive high school model, and many students succeed in such a learning environment. Does every child thrive, though? And for those that do fine, is doing fine good enough?
For me, the answer was and still is no. And when I was asked to join the conversation about what could make school better, I changed as an educator. I was more willing to take risks because I knew that might provide new insights. I read and argued with theory and discussed teaching and learning daily with colleagues and with students.
We all took our job seriously, We were being asked to create a vision - what should school look like?
As I work throughout my county as an ELA and social studies curriculum specialist, one of my main goals has been to draw as many voices into a similar conversation. What is our vision of a redesigned instructional model that develops skilled readers, writers and thinkers?
We are developing that vision, we will then check ourselves against it (and check it against ourselves) and work each day to achieve it. And since it will come from the collective conversations of those that carry it out each day, it will naturally be vital and uplifting.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Ed. Leadership: Primal or Visionary?

“Primal” is the adjective renowned psychologist and emotional intelligence theorist Daniel Goleman ascribes to great leaders. Their appeal, he posits, is essentially emotional. He cites Shaman and Chieftains as examples. They are the emotional guides, as well as the protectors when trouble calls.
This emotional task of the leader is primal—that is, first—in two senses: It is both the original and the most important act of leadership.”
No doubt, this is absolutely true! Anyone who has read Lord of the Flies witnesses as primal leadership takes over. Ralph lacks Jack’s ability to move others - they lose faith in him and gravitate toward face paint and blood. What could be more primal than that?
But this is where Goleman’s argument falters. Sure, Jack taps the boys’ emotional needs - food, adventure, and the hope for survival that does not rely on rescue. For that, he is awarded their loyalty. And look where that leads.
What Jack lacks, of course, is vision that serves the common good. More important than emotional appeal is this vision.
Consider this in terms of educational leadership. Let’s begin microcosmically - in the classroom. Whom would you prefer in your child’s room - Ralph or Jack? Many charismatic and well-intentioned teachers lead students toward Goleman’s ideal of “higher morale, motivation, and commitment.” (So did Jack - those kids were quite spirited.) But does this mean that students are achieving higher-level learning? Not necessarily. However, a clear vision of learning outcomes and the steps necessary to achieve those will lead there.
Likewise, a principal may be expert at motivating staff to stay late selling concessions or to chair the school safety committee, but without a clear vision for student learning, the school will lack the rigorous learning culture necessary for student success.
And at a district level, lack of vision leads to chaos- hopscotched initiatives, misspent time and money, and silo schools. Vision more than emotion provides direction and leads to broad student achievement.
To be fair, Goleman does imply the need for a vision by suggesting that the primal leader must “driving the collective emotions in a positive direction.” Logically, however, the positive direction must be predetermined and is therefore more important, or more primal, than the ability to move people.
Roland S. Barth, in his 2001 book Learning By Heart, suggests an alternative order for leadership. For him, effective leaders carry a “vision leading to a better way, can enlist others in that vision, and can mine the gold of everyone's craft knowledge to discover ways to move toward that vision.” Here the vision precedes the emotion.
Of course, though, the next obvious question - a question for another day, is where does this vision come from?

Monday, February 9, 2015

Are We Shifting?

We all know by know that the Common Core State Standards place new, steep demands on students. So steep, in fact, that parents whine about it for their children, and the same legislators and activists that once bemoaned the sorry state of US Education are harkening for the good old days when kids could get an A for effort.
To deeply understand increasingly complex texts, to synthesize and transfer that understanding, and to “ analyze, critique, communicate [and] present arguments with evidence” are literacy demands the Common Core places on students, according to Berger et al in Transformational Literacy.
Of course, almost any reasonable adult would admit that these are the kinds of things we want from our students - logical reasoning, using evidence to back up their thinking, the ability to read critically and write convincingly. What could be wrong with that?
Well, for many, this represents both a theoretical and practical shift in practice. What Mike Schmoker coined as “The Crayola Curriculum,” in his 2001 Education Week article by the same name is unfortunately not yet an anomaly for many students and classrooms despite his “enormous hope for dramatic, near-term improvements at every level of education.” Of course Schmoker’s optimism resides in the adage that “Acknowledging the problem is half the battle.” If students’ spending too much time on ancillary activities rather than the actual practice of reading and writing is the problem, then too many teachers are still stuck there.
Perhaps what Schmoker failed to recognize is the enormity of it - the other half of the battle. There are teachers everywhere! If the problem was as pervasive as he indicated in his article, then what solution could be as pervasive?
The Common Core, of course. Place higher demands on students and teachers will rise to the challenge.
Convincing all of these teachers, however, that their high-engagement, text- to- self activities are flawed is a theoretical battle in and of itself. Convincing hard- working diligent professionals that creating pictures representing the meaning of a short story or poem is wrong-headed, that assembling students into groups to create a collage of theme is ineffectual, that spending time on activities that don’t directly measure growth is wasted time, is a gigantic task.
Once that task is accomplished, however, then the “third half” of the battle begins: Teaching teachers how to make this shift, how to coach students to the higher demands, how to turn each moment into a productive moment of learning. And in truth, much of this will be in teaching English teachers to be reading teachers, as ironic as that sounds.
So where are we in this process?
In my most recent observations and conversations with teachers, some are earnestly in the midst of shifting. They are buying the vision laid out by the architects of the Common Core and such theorists as Schmoker, Berger, and Richard Allington - intensive focus on text as the centerpiece of a lesson, reading for 60 to 90 minutes per day, reading a high-volume of independent-level texts as well as struggling through teacher-directed close reads of complex materials.
Other teachers are asking questions: Where’s the fun in that? How do I engage students in this? Why should I believe them this time? They are venting frustrations: So much for the love of reading when all we do is focus on skills! My students no longer enjoy my class and neither do I! I want to transform lives, not just readers!
Their basic question is not where are we are on the shift, but is this a shift I want to make?
So, this is where we are. Working to convince some that these shifts are worth it while building capacity in those who are ready. Of course, test scores and data might compel some toward change, but a change of heart will have a deeper and longer lasting impact.
And as so often is the case with life, the skeptics are so critically important. Their questions will cause us to think deeper, to make sure that we are, in fact, on the right track. They will cause us to look not just at test results and growth data, but at the students behind the numbers. The reluctant among us are demanding proof of another sort - that this shift to a more rigorous, more academic curriculum can be made without sacrificing what we all came here for - the child.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Juxtaposition: Ed Theory and Ed Reality

Reading a top-notch theoretical treatise on pedagogy inspires us with the potential of powerful teaching and learning. It evokes images of highly engaged students dissatisfied by their first read of a text, demanding more - demanding closer reads, in-depth discussion, and analysis. It promises transformation for adults and students alike- the former recognizing new paradigms, the latter becoming motivated, informed citizens of our democratic society.
It is also confuses and frustrates with juxtaposed images of think tank learning cells versus thirty disengaged middle schoolers balking at the first read.
In short, where is the intersection between theory and reality in our classrooms and how do teachers direct traffic there such that their classrooms and students progress toward higher learning, deeper understanding?
Berger et. al, in their book Transformational Literacy, outline the seven dispositions critical for students’ success: “They demonstrate independence. They build strong content knowledge. They respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline. They comprehend as well as critique. They value evidence. They use technology and digital media strategically and capably. They come to understand other’s perspectives and cultures.”
This is accomplished through a text-based curriculum where students read and re-read, where they discuss, think and write about what they read. It’s an environment where teachers read and re-read the standards, where they too discuss, think, and compare standards to student work such that they know what it looks like when students do or don’t achieve the mark.
This is a learning community where school-based and district administrators provide teachers with “the support necessary to develop a new repertoire of skills and knowledge and to pursue with their colleagues a significant rethinking of teaching practice.”
Unfortunately, however, for far too many teachers this represents Utopia rather than Jefferson Middle School or King High School or …. Too many teachers are exasperated with professional demands beyond teaching and are exhausted by the volume of students as well as the diversity of student needs without adequate support. And Leadership is often lost because they lack the understanding or time or resources or other to create these learning communities.
Of course, authors such as Berger are not at fault. Their view is from beyond the cave; it is enlightened. They provide vision, and without that progress is impossible. And I have taught in this reality, in a public North Carolina early college high school where administrators, teachers, and students worked together toward the common goal of student success. It is possible, but is it possible everywhere and for everyone?
Certainly some circumstances are far more challenging than others - schools lacking learning cultures, overcrowded schools and classrooms with particularly difficult populations and inadequate resources.
Are these places beyond reach? Can theoretical visions affect these places and their overwhelmed teachers?
These are the questions that will accompany me as I work to join theory and practice over the next several weeks with middle grades ELA teachers across our district. Will dialogue and the development of a collaborative vision for instruction prove to be nothing more than a theoretical detour or will it create a dynamic learning culture that advances student learning?

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Instructional Time?

Time is the most important commodity teachers control. Think about it. We don’t choose our clientele; we are not in control of our budgets; and, though in many cases choosing resources is somewhat within our control, this is nowhere as important as those moments students are in our rooms. Not even close.  

Re-imagining how time is used in the classroom and the teacher’s role in that room is fundamental to more effective instruction, according to the Expeditionary Learning’s Transformational Literacy. What does this look like?

Their design is really quite simple (check out and comment on their graphic: EL’s Read, Write, Speak, Think Graphic). In their model, daily instruction is centered on examination of a “Worthy Text,” and students are provided a chance to “read about it, think about, talk about it, write about.” “Worthy Text” is basically defined as one that is complex and relevant.

Now, is this really a re-imagining of how classroom time is spent? For many teachers, probably not; for others - definitely.

Of course, anyone in a school can find this out by walking through the building at any given time - what are students doing? I do this regularly in secondary schools throughout my district. It is part of my job.

And in truth, what struck me most when I began doing this was how infrequently I actually saw students read or write - even in ELA classrooms! According to Mike Schmoker in Focus (2011),  “... in the United States, instead of reading and writing, … students spent their time preparing for multiple-choice tests or working on ‘projects’ where students were instructed to do things like ‘glue this to this poster for an hour.’"

Sure, I saw some of that - test prep and projects gone awry. And as a teacher, I facilitated some of that. But what I witnessed more than anything was students engaged in vocabulary instruction, vocabulary activities, grammar lessons, and grammar activities, generally out of context from any text study. Is it the tangibility of these tasks that makes them so appealing? Is it because the abused becomes the abuser?

I’m not sure, but I know in my vision of classrooms, the time is spent differently. Students read with pencil in hand marking for questions, reactions, connections to a learning target. They discuss their thinking and confusion with their peers and their teachers. They revisit the text -  thinking, scratching ideas, and then they explain their thinking in some type of writing that actually means something to them and to their intended audience. Through all of this they dig into words - vocabulary, and seek to understand how to communicate effectively and efficiently, which is really the entire purpose for grammar instruction.

They do this because they are in school, but also because they understand that they are growing as learners - they can see this when they compare their initial work with current work, and because their work has meaning - a solution to a problem, an opinion on a controversial topic, an epiphany (I know, striking high for some middle schoolers!).

And this is the other thing Ron Berger and the other EL authors note as fundamental for transformational teaching and learning, that teachers must raise “their vision of the capacity of students for high-level work.”

So, if this is not the reality for classrooms - for students, should it be? If so, how do we make it happen?

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Design your teaching and learning

"Deeper learning comes from great questions, not great answers."

The authors of Expeditionary Learning's  Transformational Literacy contend that the Common Core demands deeper thinking, deeper critical analysis, deeper understanding from students - in short deeper learning. 

Of course, plenty of debate surrounds these standards (anyone who follows Diane Ravitch on Twitter reads about this every day). Nonetheless, districts across the country are grappling with these demands, working through the shifts of these standards: Building Knowledge through Content-Rich Non-Fiction & Informational Texts, Reading and Writing Grounded in Evidence from Text, Regular Practice with Complex Text and Its Academic Vocabulary. 

Even Mike Schmoker, who - in his widely-read book Focus, jabs at national standards as overwrought, supports these shifts. His framework for instruction in ELA classrooms centers on reading, writing and talking. He emphasizes a balance between fiction and non-fiction texts, the use of challenging texts, and student use of evidence in speaking and writing, which should be primarily argumentative in nature. Most importantly, though, according to Schmoker, is that students read and write a lot (60 minutes of reading and 40 minutes of writing per day). Does it need to be more complex than this?

And that is the focus of this blog. As a curriculum specialist, my goal is to engage as many voices in designing a secondary (middle grade/ high school) ELA instructional model that achieves these demands, that makes these shifts, and that works for students and teachers. 

So, let's begin (consider any/all/none of the questions below when responding):

What does your ideal ELA lesson look like?
What does your perfect day in your classroom look like?
How do we get students to "deeper learning"?
How does word work and grammar instruction fit in to the ELA curriculum?
In short: What are the key elements to effective ELA instruction in the Common Core Era?

Join the conversation.