There are “Many Roads to
Rome”—but You Need an Address and a GPS to Get There
Dear
Colleagues,
As the saying goes, “There are many roads to
Rome.” And that is true.
But after traveling in Italy this summer, I
can assure you that you do not want to go to Rome. Not to be coy. . . you want to go to specific
places in Rome.
To expand this metaphor: if you are traveling to Rome from, let’s say,
Florence, you want to travel South/Southwest.
However, that is only a direction that will leave you (hopefully)
somewhere in Rome- - or, if you are unlucky, just on the outskirts of the city.
In contrast, if you are traveling to Rome- -
instead of a global direction, you really want to go to a destination, a
specific place, in Rome. For
that, you need an address and probably (if you know Rome’s topography
and lay-out) a GPS.
So. . . what does this have to do with
education ?
Too often, when doing strategic planning, schools
and districts end up with global goals that only reflect a set of directions. The best case scenario here is that they end
up going in the “right direction,” but they never reach their student-specific destinations. Another typical result is that their
successful students maintain or extend their success, but their needy or
unsuccessful students stagnate and remain the same.
In contrast, what schools and districts need
to do is to identify their specific, desired destinations- - that is,
the objective and measurable academic and social, emotional, and behavioral
outcomes that they want for all students from preschool through high
school. These destinations should
reflect the content, skills, processes, and subject-specific and
trans-disciplinary applications that students need to learn and master at
every grade level.
If “outcomes-based” strategic planning is
used in place of “standards-based” strategic planning, schools and districts
will be able to set their strategic “GPSs” to the path of least
resistance. The clear result is that
they will then have a much better chance of meeting their goals and attaining
their outcomes.
As they say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans
do.”
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Using a Top-Down “Standards-Based” versus
a Bottom-Up “Outcomes-Based” Approach to Strategic Planning
Earlier this past week, I was on a
conference call with some district-level colleagues discussing the emerging
strategic planning directions in their large urban/suburban county school
district. Together, we discussed their
superintendent’s interest in developing social, emotional, and behavioral
standards for their students. Critically,
we could have just as easily been discussing the district’s academic standards
in literacy, math, and/or science.
My colleagues shared that their superintendent
wanted to develop district-wide standards to guide the implementation of a
whole-district, multi-tiered approach.
My assumption was that these social, emotional, and behavioral standards
would be connected to the district’s academic standards, creating vehicles
toward the county’s strategic commitment to increase high school graduation and
all students’ “college and career” readiness.
After the first minutes of the call, my first
response was to ask my colleagues:
“What
social, emotional, or behavioral competencies and skills do your students need-
- from preschool to high school- - in order to facilitate graduation and help
them to be college and career ready?”
My second question was:
“Wouldn’t
you be better off identifying the specific outcomes that you want, and then
generating your standards based on and aligned to these outcomes?”
_ _ _ _
_
As alluded to earlier, while most school
districts employ a top-down “standards-based” approach to strategic
planning, my work in the field has demonstrated that a bottom-up
“outcomes-based” approach works better- - relative to actually achieving
the desired student-based outcomes. This
is true whether we are talking about academic or social, emotional, and
behavioral outcomes.
Consider the following: When the national Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) website first went on-line, there was a prominent statement on its Home
Page. The statement basically said:
“These are just standards. Individual school districts will need to (a)
operationalize these standards, (b) drill them down to academic scope and
sequence progressions, (c) identify specific and measurable outcomes, (d)
ensure that they are taught effectively using sound curricular materials and
differentiated instruction, and (e) assess them formatively and summatively
with reliable and valid measures.”
Unfortunately, many districts, schools, and
teachers have not done this.
Instead, they are using the CCSS as their
curricular, instruction, assessment, and evaluation templates. Moreover, they are compounding this problem
as teachers in the same school at the same grade level are creating their own different
CCSS lessons, teaching them “their own way,” and evaluating their outcomes
using vastly different approaches.
This inconsistency ultimately undercuts
instructional fidelity and accountability, and we do not get the collective
student outcomes that we want.
Critically, the same thing has
happened in states that have social, emotional, and/or behavioral standards- -
largely because specific outcomes have not been described and defined. This has been left to the districts, schools,
and staff- - resulting in a
standards-based mess.
_ _ _ _
_
My point again is:
If districts, schools, and teachers need to eventually
identify students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes, why
would we not START by:
* Identifying the outcomes first;
* Then writing the standards to fit the
outcomes;
* Then generating the additional standards
that might have been
missed; and
* Finally, “looping” back down to finalize
the specific outcomes ?
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Examples of Academic and Social,
Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes
From an academic perspective, a
bottom-up outcomes-based approach would focus on, for example:
* The specific content, skills, processes,
and subject-specific and trans-disciplinary applications that students need to
learn and master- - from preschool through high school- - in identified
academic areas (e.g., literacy, math, oral and written expression, science and
civics, the arts and humanities).
To accomplish this, an integrated
scientific, developmental, and pedagogical perspective is needed. For example:
* The current research and practice in
literacy, identifies five functional, interdependent skill areas- - phonemic
awareness, phonetic decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
* Each of these areas needs to be
operationalized- - for example, what types of comprehension skills and
questions do we want students to learn, master, and apply (in different types
of texts) at the preschool/kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school
levels?
* Then, each of these areas needs to be
developmentally validated- - for example, at what age and/or development range
or levels can students learn different types of comprehension questions?
* Then, instructional progressions need to
be developed where prerequisite knowledge and skills are identified, differentiated
instruction templates are developed, formative and summative evaluation indicators
and criteria are detailed, and available accommodations and modifications are
embedded.
_ _ _ _
_
Critically, and consistent with this
discussion’s theme, the guiding focus is on what we want students to be able
to independently demonstrate.
For example, integrating science, literacy,
mathematics, history, and ethics, we may want high school students to be able
to (a) read and understand the purpose and steps of a chemistry experiment on
pollutants in the atmosphere; (b) predict and prepare for the different phases
or events that will occur during that experiment; (c) anticipate, respond to,
and measure the outcomes of the different phases of the experiment; (d)
generalize the results to a theory or set of universal principles; (e) apply
these principles to one or more past historical events; and (f) frame the
principles into an ethical dilemma contrasting the present benefits of an company
that produces an important product, but that nonetheless releases small amounts
of pollutants into the air, versus a boycott that might put that company out of
business but benefit future generations.
While my example is complex (isn’t life?),
the identification of the different science, literacy, mathematical, and
ethical outcomes (and their prerequisites and progressions) is not. This is not rocket science. In fact, many schools, districts, states, and
national professional associations have already done this work.
_ _ _ _
_
From a social, emotional, and behavioral
perspective, a bottom-up outcomes-based approach would focus on
competencies and skills that I have discussed in previous Blogs. That is, among the competencies that students-
- from preschool through high school- - need to develop are the following:
•
Social
Competencies
Listening, Engagement, and Response Skills
Communication and Collaboration Skills
Social Problem-Solving and Group Process
Skills
Conflict Prevention and Resolution Skills
•
Emotional
Competencies
Emotional Self-Awareness, Control, and
Coping
Skills
Awareness and Understanding of Others’
Emotions and Emotional Behavior
Positive Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, and
Self-Statement Skills
•
Cognitive-Behavioral
Competencies
Self-Scripting, Self-Monitoring,
Self-Evaluation,
Self-Correction, and Self-Reinforcement Skills
Social, Interactional, and Interpersonal
Skills
Classroom and Building Routine Skills
Instructional and Academic Supporting Skills
Drilling these competencies down to a more
functional level, below are twelve social, emotional, and behavioral skill
clusters that all students also should learn and master progressively and
before they graduate from high school:
Listening, Following Directions, Staying On-Task
Accurately
interpreting Non-Verbal Cues and Voice Inflection
Being Positive, Motivated, and Persistent
Communicating Clearly, Constructively, and Courteously
Knowing how to Discuss, Interrupt, Debate, Agree, Compromise,
and
Disagree
Cooperating with and Accepting Others’ Opinions
Respecting Others, Being a Team Player, Taking on Different Group
Roles
Knowing how to Ask for Help, and Accept Frustration or
Consequences
Knowing how to Accept Failure, Losing, and Being Wrong
Showing Confidence, Dealing with Peer Pressure, Standing up for
Self/Others
Controlling and Expressing Emotions, Responding to Others’
Emotions
Demonstrating Goal-oriented Planning and Time Management
Once
again, these skills need to be taught in a developmentally- sound way, using
effective differentiated instruction, and sound, field-tested curricular and
pedagogical approaches. Moreover, once
learned, we know that these skills will positively affect students’ academic
performance, teachers’ classroom management, and schools’ climate and outcomes.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And
so, Back to Strategic Planning
PLEASE
hear me clearly: I am not
saying that we do not need standards.
I am simply questioning the directionality of how we generate
standards while recommending an approach that will result in better outcomes.
In
summary, when districts and schools begin their strategic planning process from
a bottom-up outcomes-based perspective, they will identify the multi-tiered
curricular, instructional, assessment, and evaluation outcomes that students
need to demonstrate from preschool through high school. But in addition, this bottom-up approach will
more directly and immediately connect the professional development and
training, coaching and supervision, resource and technology, and services and
supports needed so that the student-focused outcomes can be attained for all
students.
Critically, we have pretty much proven that the top-down standards-based
approach does not work. For example, the
Institute of Education Sciences released two new reports this past week
describing surveys of Race-to-the-Top (RTT) versus non-RTT states, and School
Improvement Grant (SIG) schools- - analyzing their implementation of the
policies and practices promoted by the U.S. Department of Education as a
condition of receiving the billions of tax dollars awarded.
[CLICK HERE for these Reports]
While it is important to read the specifics in these (and earlier) RTT/SIG
evaluation reports, the “bottom line” is that:
*
The states and schools that received grant money implemented more of the
recommended policies and practices than unfunded states and schools- - but they
did not implemented all or even most of the policies and practices;
*
Most of the practices were incredibly global in nature (see below)- -
reinforcing the earlier point about vague strategic directions versus
laser-focused student outcome destinations; and
*
The results from the RTT states and SIG schools thus far are unimpressive- -
with, for the SIG program, a third of the schools showing worse student
achievement results over time, and two-thirds of the schools showing just
marginal levels of academic improvement.
And,
once again, what are some of global, top-down RTT and SIG practices recommended
by the U.S. Department of Education? To:
* Use
data to evaluate instructional programs
* Use
data to inform and differentiate instruction
* Use
benchmark or interim assessments at least annually
*
Implement strategies to ensure that ELL learners master
academic content
*
Require student achievement growth as a component of teacher
evaluations
*
Provide multiple-session professional development events
*
Replace the principal
* Use
financial incentives to recruit and retain effective principals
*
Change parent or community engagement strategies
*
Change discipline policies
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
If
we are really committed to better, high and achievable outcomes for all
students, we need to rethink our strategic planning processes and how we
identify our needed and desired goals and outcomes. To a large degree over the past decade or
more, we keep “doing the same things” somehow expecting “different results.”
But
we are not getting the different results.
The
results we are getting include frustrated students, parents, staff, and
schools.
Moreover, we keep looking at new “Band-Aids”- - charter and magnet
schools, eliminating teacher tenure, creating “smaller” schools- - when we need
to focus, once again, on student outcomes and the services, supports,
strategies, and programs needed to get to the outcomes. [Note that there are lots of charter schools,
work-at-will staffs, and small schools that do not produce positive student
outcomes- - because these are not causal factors that directly affect
student achievement.]
For
those of us who did not grow up with GPSs (never mind MapQuest), we continue to
be amazed by this phenomenal technological innovation. For those students who are growing up in
schools that are not working, we need to apply the strategic approaches and innovations
that DO work, and reset our GPS's.
It
is time to get to our destination- - instead of just wandering in the “right”
direction.
_ _ _ _ _
I
hope that you will reflect on this message’s information and thoughts. Know that I
appreciate everything that you do as educational leaders in our country. I look forward to YOUR thoughts and comments. Let me know how I can help your state,
regional cooperative, district, or school to move to the next level of
excellence.
Best,
Howie
No comments:
Post a Comment