Reconsidering or Rejecting Collective Teacher Efficacy and the Acceleration of Students Who are Academically Behind. Take the Bus, Get Off the Bandwagon (Part I)

Dear Colleagues,

[CLICK HERE for the Blog Version of this Discussion]

Introduction

   While some are on summer vacation, others are just finishing this unique 2020-2021 school year, and still others are preparing for or beginning summer school sessions, we—in education—are being flooded by newly-released reports and articles, social media posts and blogs, interviews and podcasts with experts and “experts,” and marketing-mails and solicitations (some concealed in “how-to” webcasts).

   If there is a consistent message (as in the past) that I want to share with educators and related service professionals in this emerging post-pandemic world, it is to:

   Critically evaluate the recommendations, testimonials, and research of the (so-called) experts in our field—including those from the:

• U.S. Department of Education, its funded National Technical Assistance Centers, and the State Departments of Education (that, remember, rely on federal funding);

• Non-Profit Foundations, Corporations, Organizations, Corporations, and Think Tanks—even the Gates Foundation, Edutopia—the George Lucas Foundation, CASEL, and others—that have their own educational and social beliefs, orientations, and political agendas); and

• Authors of curricula, products, and tests—many of whom are backed by For-Profit Publishing Companies and Conglomerates that sometimes blur science and efficacy with marketing and hyperbole.

   And please note: I am not saying that all of the research and recommendations from these groups are faulty or self-serving.

   Instead, I am saying that we, as educators, need to do our own independent evaluations to (a) validate their research and recommendations; (b) make sure that they are applicable to our students, staff, schools, and systems; and (c) ensure that they are time- and cost-effective, and that they can be implemented with fidelity, consistency, and the needed intensity and duration.

   Indeed, no professional worth his or her salt would discourage or be offended when questioned as to the validity, applicability, or utility of their work.

_ _ _ _ _

   In this and the next Blog, I will discuss five areas that are currently receiving a lot of (sometimes, self-generated) attention in our “educational circles,” briefly describe some research-based and common sense reasons why they should be carefully evaluated by schools and districts, and cite one or more recent Blog messages that provide a more comprehensive analysis and discussion of each area.

   In this Part I, we will first analyze a well-researched but still murky area that involves teachers and how they work together in effective, efficient, and collaborative ways to attain important student outcomes (i.e., Collective Teacher Efficacy). Then, we will discuss an emerging, but still unproven approach being recommended for the coming school year to teach students who have significant academic skill gaps due to the pandemic—Academic Acceleration.

   In Part II of this Blog Series, we will turn to the social, emotional, and behavioral side of the school and schooling continuum, addressing the areas of SEL and character education, meditation and mindfulness, and restorative justice programs and practices.

   All of these areas are vying for schools’ professional development,  American Rescue (and other federal COVID-19) Plan, and/or school improvement attention, selection, and support.

   And so, as always, we need to “look before we leap.” Indeed, if we leap too quickly, we may invest time, money, staff, and other resources in areas that will not result in the student outcomes that we need.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Collective Teacher Efficacy: No One Really Knows What it is or How to Facilitate It

   The Pitch. For the past five years or more, the importance of developing Collective Teacher Efficacy in schools has been touted—especially due to Hattie’s research which identifies collective teacher efficacy as having one of the highest effect sizes that correlationally (not causally) predicts student achievement.

   Significantly, there is a great deal of research to support this correlational effect. Indeed, based on a synthesis of more than 1,500 meta-analyses through his Visible Learning research, Hattie states that collective teacher efficacy is greater than three times more powerful and predictive of student achievement than their socioeconomic status, motivation and concentration, persistence and engagement, and home environment and parental involvement.

   The Glitch. There are at least three problems with this construct and its supportive research. NOTE that Collective Teacher Efficacy is a global construct that consists of a wide variety of teacher attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, interpretations, and processes.

   First, different researchers have used different definitions for Collective Teacher Efficacy. Thus, educators need to know who is using what definition, whether they agree with that definition, and whether the definition is applicable to their students, colleagues, and school settings.

   For example, some of the definitions in the research of Collective Teacher Efficacy include:

• When teams of educators believe they have the ability to make a difference in a school.

• When a team of individuals share the belief and confidence that, through their unified efforts, they can overcome challenges and produce intended results.

• A group's shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment.

• The beliefs that teachers hold about the ability of the school as a whole to successful impact are student achievement across different subject areas and in multiple locations.

   The second problem is that some experts believe that Hattie’s research— averaging others’ meta-analyses within a meta-meta-analysis—is flawed.

   Even if his research is sound, meta-analyses still involved Hattie’s subjective decision as to whose research to include in his analyses. That is, he decided whether others’ research validly, effectively, and successfully measured Collective Teacher Efficacy.

   Finally, because Hattie was statistically analyzing others’ research, he was integrating different researchers’ definitions, operationalizations, age-level samples, and ways to measure this construct.

   Thus, even if Collective Teacher Efficacy does (and we are not disputing the research) correlate with student achievement, educators have no idea which approaches, strategies, processes, actions, or activities have the highest probability of positively affecting their teachers or colleagues and, eventually, their students’ achievement.

   The Switch. Below is a link to a previous Blog that provide an extensive discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the meta-meta-analysis approach, the concerns of other statisticians relative to Hattie’s research, and the practical (and concerning) implications noted briefly above.

   Common sense would dictate that all schools want their teachers and support staff to be so involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating different effective school and schooling practices such that everyone believes and has the skills needed to be successful—especially on behalf of their students.

   But there is no Collective Teacher Efficacy “magic bullet.”

   And the vast majority of schools and districts do not need outside experts or consultants to come in with their own personal, potentially untested, or possibly damaging (to school climate, staff trust and relationships, and student instruction and supports) collective teacher efficacy framework or strategies.

   Effective school administrators, teachers, and support staff are the best ones to establish, support, and sustain their own efficacy and effective school and schooling practices.

Available Comprehensive Blog in this Area [CLICK ON DATE TO LINK]:

April 13, 2019

How Hattie’s Research Helps (and Doesn’t Help) Improve Student Achievement. Hattie Discusses What to Consider, Not How to Implement It. . . More Criticisms, Critiques, and Contexts

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

Academic Acceleration: An Untested Idea—Don’t Experiment on Your Students

   The Pitch. Many students, from preschool through high school, missed a significant amount of consistent, high quality, scaffolded academic instruction during the past 16 months of the Pandemic. Through no fault of their own, (a) some did not learn and/or master significant areas of grade-level academic content and skills this year; and (b) they find themselves unprepared to learn the content and skills in the coming school year due to these gaps.

   To address this “Pandemic Slide,” some educators are promoting a model known as “Academic Acceleration.” Here, students will be taught academic material at their new (2021-2022) grade-level, but teachers will provide them “just in time” supports or scaffolds when they do not have the prerequisite knowledge or skills to learn that material (due to this past year’s instructional or learning gaps).

   On the other end of the “spectrum” from Academic Acceleration are educators who plan to teach their students at their current skill and mastery levels—regardless of their current grade-level placements. This might involve, for example, an eighth grade math teacher focusing on mid-sixth grade math scope and sequence skills, because that is where her students are functioning relative to their skill mastery.

   This instructional approach is grounded by instructional research that reinforces the importance of having students progressively learn and master scaffolded academic content and skills, especially when the content and skills are prerequisites to more advanced grade-level learning.

   Significantly, Education Week reports that a number of national education groups are “embracing” Academic Acceleration. Others are not yet ready to jump on this experimental bandwagon.

   But everyone needs to make sound and defensible curriculum, instruction, differentiated grouping, support, and intervention decisions now so that they are ready to effectively teach students on Day 1 of the upcoming new school year.

   The Glitch. Critically, Academic Acceleration does not have a great deal of research support or validation—especially in conditions that fully mirror the complexities of the recent Pandemic.

   Given this, educators need to be careful to not use students as “lab rats” for untested approaches that may have additional damaging and long-term effects.

   Moreover, let’s do some reality testing here. . . .

   Educators also need to remember that it is unfair to measure students’ academic status this Fall based on the premise that they should have made a full year of progress during this past academic year. . . an outcome that no one should expect given the unique circumstances of that year.

   The Pandemic was unprecedented, and we need to take unprecedented steps—at least for the coming school year. We need to “work the problem,” not simultaneously create new problems.

   Thus, educators need to look individually at their students, and individualize instructional approaches to their status and needs.

   The needed instructional decisions, then, will not be universal, and they will not represent an either/or choice between Academic Acceleration and students’ Functional Skill-level instruction.

   The Switch. Below are links to two previous Blogs that provide extensive discussions on how to analyze and organize the academic instruction for all students in a school this coming school year, and how to arrange students into homogeneous or heterogeneous (or both) groups along the Functional Skill-level to Academic Acceleration continuum.

   Common sense would dictate that this cannot be a “one size fits all” decision, and that schools will need to strategically make data-driven decisions based on students’ needs, staff skill and availability, and other multi-tiered services, supports, and resources.

   Ultimately, where and how teachers teach will depend on:

• The academic subjects and grade levels where students are being taught;

• Whether the curricular content and skills being taught are foundational to later skills, or more self-contained, specialized, or unique in nature;

• Students’ current functional skill levels in each academic subject area and, if they are behind, why they are behind (e.g., attendance, motivation, a medical issue, a disability); and

• Students’ individual learning histories and, if they are behind, whether they were behind before the Pandemic began, they fell behind due to Pandemic-related issues or events, or they fell behind during the Pandemic, but not due to Pandemic-related issues or events.

Available Comprehensive Blogs in this Area [CLICK ON DATES TO LINK]:

November 7, 2020

It’s Not About the Size of the Pandemic Slide—It’s About Where to Start Teaching. During a Crisis, You Have to Change the Definition of Success (Part I)

November 21, 2020

Curbing the Pandemic Slide by Putting the Right Students into the Right Instructional Groups. Which Peas are You Going to Put in Your Pandemic Pod? (Part II)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   We in education are being flooded by newly-released reports and articles, social media posts and blogs, interviews and podcasts with experts and “experts,” and marketing-mails and solicitations (some concealed in “how-to” webcasts).

   Some of this deluge has been triggered by the impact of the Pandemic on students, staff, and schools, while some of this surge is occurring to take advantage of the billions of dollars in compensatory assistance made available by Congress to districts for the next year or more.

   In Part I of this Series, we analyzed a well-researched but still murky area of education that involves teachers and how they work together in effective, efficient, and collaborative ways to attain important student outcomes— Collective Teacher Efficacy.

   Then, we discussed an emerging, but still unproven approach being recommended for the coming school year to teach students who have significant academic skill gaps due to the pandemic—Academic Acceleration. We contrasted this approach with another approach on the “instructional continuum” where students are taught at their functional skill levels—regardless of their grade-level placements— based on the scaffolded academic skills that they have already mastered.

   In this Part II, we will turn to the social, emotional, and behavioral side of the school and schooling continuum, addressing the areas of SEL and character education, meditation and mindfulness, and restorative justice programs and practices.

   Regardless. . . the consistent message throughout this Series is that educators need to do their own independent evaluations to (a) validate their research and recommendations; (b) make sure that they are applicable to their students, staff, schools, and systems; and (c) ensure that their decisions are time- and cost-effective, and that they can be implemented with fidelity, consistency, and the needed intensity and duration.

_ _ _ _ _

   As always, we hope that our research-to-practice perspectives are useful to you, and that they motivate you to reflect on your plans—at the student, staff, school, and/or system levels—to educate everyone at the beginning of the coming new school year.

   Please feel free to contact me with your questions or reactions at any time. And please remember my standing offer for a free, one-hour consultation to discuss these or related issues with you and your team.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE for the Blog Version of this Discussion]

 

Maximizing Meeting Participation and Productivity: Is Everyone “Bringing It” to Your (Virtual or In-Person) Meeting?

 Why Be There if You’re Not There?

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   As a consultant to many school districts across the country (and world), most of my “engagements” focus on helping students, staff, schools, and systems go “to the next level of excellence.”

   Because this focus is both process and outcome oriented, I need to build strong relationships with my (new) colleagues, and understand the history, dynamics, and complexities of their system and its “moving parts.”

   If a project, for example, involves strategic planning at the leadership level, or a needs assessment for a special education department or social-emotional learning initiative, I may work with a district or school for two or more months.

   If the project, however, involves systemic change where we are building the infrastructure and capacity needed for long-term, sustainable outcomes, I may work with a district or school for one or more years.

   Currently, I have the honor of working with twenty schools in three diverse communities in three different states as the Lead National Consultant on three five-year federally-funded School Climate Transformation Grants. We are currently in the middle of Year 2—a year, due to the pandemic and other national and world events, that has been unlike any other year I’ve experienced in my 40 years as a school psychologist and educator.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Meetings. . . And More Meetings

   During the past few weeks, I have spent most of my consulting time in two types of (virtual) meetings:

• Meetings where administrators, staff, and others are analyzing the data from this past school year to determine the progress, accomplishments, current status, and needs (for the next school year) of students, staff, committees/teams, and/or schools.

• Meetings where we are strategically planning for the beginning of the coming new school year—aligning students and staff, curriculum and instruction, resources and technology, and services and supports—so that everyone and everything is ready for “Day 1.”

   Of course, given the past 16 months of the Pandemic, some of the data are non-existent or “fuzzy,” and we are continually trying to differentiate whether students’ academic and/or social-emotional gaps (a) existed before the Pandemic; (b) occurred during or are due to conditions related to the Pandemic; or (c) are new, but unrelated to the Pandemic.

   Critically, most of my meetings these past few weeks have been “productive.” Some could have been “more productive.” And in a few meetings, the meeting did not seem to be “productive” for everyone attending.

   And while we did not ask participants to evaluate and share their meeting experiences and perceptions, I always wonder if my evaluation that a specific meeting was “productive” is universally shared by everyone else who was at the same meeting.

_ _ _ _ _

   Indeed, at a few meetings, valued colleagues were admittedly (or not) multi-tasking. Some, in fact, were in two meetings at once!

   As an aside, it is interesting that—unlike a conference room where everyone is physically present—in a virtual meeting, you are more aware of participants’:

• Attentional Presence (and whether they are engaged in the meeting, or reading or working on something else);

• Physical Presence (for example, when they momentarily move to another part of their office to file or pick something up—assuming their camera is actually on); and

• Interactional Presence (and whether they are in a muted conversation with someone else in the room with them).

   These three factors contribute to meeting participants’ engagement.

   And this engagement (a) communicates their commitment to (or prioritization of) the meeting, (b) affects others’ feelings regarding the quality and collaborative nature of the meeting, and (c) predicts the productivity of the meeting.

   And it’s not that the same multi-task or “off-task” behavior doesn’t also occur in in-person meetings.

   It’s just that we all need to be evaluating the quality and productivity of our (virtual) meetings this past year—especially as many districts and schools will likely use both in-person and virtual meetings this coming year.

   Indeed, just as our staff and schools will use this past year’s data to improve different educational processes next year, we also have an opportunity to re-calibrate and improve the expectations, norms, and interactions in our meetings next year.

   This will ensure that their productivity and outcomes will move “to the next level of excellence.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Evaluating and Improving Meeting Participating and Productivity

   Whether you work in a large or small organization, department, or team, at some point, you need to attend and participate in meetings.

   If you are a CEO, department head, or team leader, you often are chairing or facilitating those meetings.

   But even as a meeting participant, we should leave every meeting explicitly asking ourselves:

• Was the meeting productive relative to its actual or potential outcomes, and to the time invested in preparing and participating?

• Was everyone attending fully committed to meeting—and the colleagues there—relative to their personal preparation and participation?

• Was I fully prepared for, and present, participating, and productive at the meeting?

• Am I excited about preparing for and participating in the next meeting of this same group?

   At times, you may want to spend the last five minutes of every (most) meetings discussing the answers to, implications of, and improvement steps resulting from these questions.

   But for right now, schools, districts, and other educational agencies or organizations can ask these essential questions in an evaluative way to determine what needs to be added, modified, or changed to improve the quality of your meetings next year.

_ _ _ _ _

   But beyond these questions and this (self-)evaluation, let’s remember that there are some expectations and norms that create the foundation for all effective meetings. 

   We discussed these a few Blogs ago when we differentiated between group members who have a “Me-First” attitude or perspective, and team members who have a “We-First” attitude or perspective.

[CLICK HERE for April 17, 2021 Blog]

   The foundation for all effective meetings involves Team Members who:

• Come prepared and on time

• Listen to each other with interest

• Participate actively in discussions
  

• Keep side conversations to a minimum

• Treat everyone with respect and in a dignified manner

• Interact positively and productively with others

• Ask questions for clarification when they don’t understand

• Encourage different points of view

• Are honest and open to the ideas of others

• Focus on issues and content, not personalities and personal agendas

• Are willing to compromise

• Check for others’ readiness before finalizing decisions

• Keep the best interests of their constituents in mind

• Commit to supporting all final decisions—even when disagreements exist

• Follow through on agreements and action items

• Review the effectiveness of each meeting at the end of the meeting, making suggestions to improve the group process in the future

   In a virtual meeting world, this includes (a) requiring everyone to keep their video cameras on; (b) making sure (ahead of time) that everyone is trained and skilled in using the technology; and (c) ensuring that everyone agrees to stay only on meeting-relevant documents or websites.

   In an in-person meeting world, this includes (a) turning off all hand-held devices; and (b) a commitment (once again) to stay only on meeting-relevant documents or websites (if computers need to be on at all).

   In addition, it is always important to have a written Meeting Agenda (that was shared ahead of time), someone taking notes or summarizing decisions on a virtual or physical whiteboard, and someone else taking Meeting Minutes as part of a permanent record of the meeting.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   After reviewing countless websites, reports, and articles on “How to Run an Effective Virtual Meeting,” my primary conclusion is that it is more about running an effective meeting, and then adapting—as needed—to a virtual platform.

   And thus, I recommend that you start with the essential post-meeting questions and the fundamental characteristics of an effective meeting above, and then decide what modifications are needed. These modifications may be specific to the people who are attending your meetings, or the fact that some of the meetings are virtual.

   In addition, I strongly recommend that you begin the new school year with a discussion (not a lecture) of the Meeting Norms above, why they are important, how they will facilitate participation and productivity, and when they will be evaluated during the year.

   You can also post these Norms in any (conference) rooms where most of your meetings will occur, and remind people of the norms at the beginning of each meeting.

   Finally, you may want to discuss appropriate and productive ways to address situations where one or more people are not fully following the expectations and norms—so that there are norms even for “how to disagree” or “deal with difficult people” in a meeting.

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that the suggestions in this Blog are useful to you. Given the number of meetings some of us attend in a typical week, and their importance to the effectiveness and outcomes of most organizations, it is important to periodically re-calibrate this process so that we can truly move to the next level of excellence.

   For districts and schools, a logical time for this is at the beginning of the new school year. But this must be a planned event that is focused on the future but guided by the past.

   And so, at the “end” of this school year, it is a good time to think about how you will approach this in the coming months.

   If there is anything that I can do to add value to this discussion and process in your setting, please feel free to contact me.

   As always, I am happy to provide a free, one-hour consultation or “chat session” on how to apply these (and other) ideas to best meet the needs of your students, staff, schools, and system.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to view this Article as a Blog]