7 Statements We Cannot Accept in Education

Seven, fingers-down-the-blackboard, cringe-worthy statements that we cannot accept from any educator. 

 

1: That’s how I’ve always done it.

The best teachers constantly reflect on their professional practice by asking themselves, “How can I do this better?” As education reformer John Dewey stated, “We don’t learn from experience. We learn from reflecting on experience.”

As teachers, we must constantly reflect and adapt. We must harness the power of reflection in our daily practices. Failing to reflect leaves the teacher—and thus the students—in the dark. Oppositely, reflective teachers constantly question their choices so they can become more effective.

2: I’ve taught it, they just don’t get it.

Highly effective teachers create a positive atmosphere in their classrooms. Carol Dweck categorized teachers into two categories, those with a growth mindset and those with a fixed mindset. Those with a fixed mindset immediately and permanently place students into preset categories with the responsibility for meeting their unique learning challenges on the students. Those teachers with the growth mindset viewed learning as a shared responsibility. Needless to say, in classrooms where teachers have a growth mindset, student gains are significantly higher with even the lowest-performing students making significant gains.

When students don’t get it, instead of saying, “I’ve taught it, it’s on them now,” we must instead ask ourselves, “What do I do now to make sure they’ve learned it?”

3: I don’t believe in redos and retakes. They’ve had their chance.

Again, I’ll go to the seminal work of Dweck. If we teach students that their intelligence can increase, they’ll do better in school. Failure is part of the learning process and provides an opportunity to improve. We must teach our students to rise to the challenge of our high expectations, to continuously learn, and we must reward students for their sustained efforts.

4: My responsibility is to teach the content.

Before reaching our students’ minds, we must reach their hearts and souls. Great teaching starts with building personal relationships with our students. Each student enters our classrooms with unique needs, strengths and differences.

Learning doesn’t happen in a vacuum. We must take the whole student into account to ensure the success of each student.

We cannot ignore these differences if we want students to reach their potential.

5: The student doesn’t have the prerequisite skills.

We must take the time to pre-assess and teach students and prerequisite skills they lack. Assessing and addressing student performance must occur prior to full-blown instruction.

Doing so requires additional and creative planning and often it requires a school-wide effort. Whether it’s through differentiation or devoting extra time, energy or resources, plowing ahead without ensuring students possess the prerequisite skills is futile.

6: The student has no support outside of school.

While impactful, we can’t use lack of support, socio-economic status, or a student’s family situation derail what we do. We have tremendous ability to overcome these obstacles simply by believing in our students and their abilities. Equally important we must believe in our abilities as teachers to make a difference.

7: I can’t be held accountable for each student.

We ARE responsible for each student in each of our classes. It’s an incredible responsibility, but one the best teachers embrace.

              

Never Allow Students To Teach Class

In my early years of teaching, occasionally I divided units up and assigned each mini-unit to a group of students who would later be required to teach the class.  My directions were pretty simple: Your job is to present your material to your classmates in an engaging and exciting way and to create an assignment and an assessment to ensure they understand it. The student-led lessons usually took up the entire 45-minute class period.

Undoubtedly, some of the presentations were great, some were average, and some left much to be desired. But did the best student-taught lessons equal what I was capable of?

I surely hope not.

As a teacher, I—not the students—am the curriculum and pedagogical expert.

To teach, one must know.

We must be to translate our expertise and understanding of the subject matter into classroom practice so that it understood by our students. Terms like gradual release of responsibility, formative assessments, differentiation, and check for understanding are foreign to our students. As experts, we’re able to anticipate, diagnose and adjust our teaching to the fluid nature of our classrooms.

If teaching truly requires expertise—it does—we can’t relinquish that responsibility to our students. Surgeons, mechanics, CEO's, etc. never allow laypersons to take over, so why do teachers? It devalues our profession and cripples student learning.

This is not to say that students shouldn’t make presentations, nor am I saying that students shouldn’t work collaboratively to teach other.  Both have tremendous value. I’m simply saying that delegating the responsibility to students to teach an portion of a unit should never occur.

When we delegate the responsibility of teaching to students, we diminish our value as educators and student learning suffers.

Ten Time-Saving Tips That Maximize Feedback and Learning

Increasing class sizes, adopting new standards, and rigorous, new teacher evaluation requirements all add to the daily requirements of today's teachers.

With limited time, teachers are constantly looking for ways to maximize their efforts; ways of getting the most bang for the buck. 

Knowing feedback is integral to the learning process, teachers can save time without sacrificing feedback's value by using the following strategies.

Ten Time-Saving Grading Tips That Maximize Feedback

1.     Selective commenting. Focus on only a couple of things per essay

2.     Minimize your writing/comments. Require any student who scores below a B to see you (before/after school, during non-teacher directed class time, etc) and/or rewrite and/or defend their writing

3.     Color-coded grading in which you use different highlighters to signify different look-fors or another system (*, circle, underline)

4.     Peer editing

5.     Group work in which the students collectively start the writing process and work together to improve their own writing

6.     Have students write online (blogs, discussions, etc) and comment on each others' posts

7.     Have students grade their own work using the rubric. This is tremendously valuable in so many aspects (metacognition, feedback, increase understanding, time-saver, etc).  

8.     If students disagree with a grade (and because feedback may be limited) give them 48 hours to defend their paper to you. Limit their defense to a couple of minutes.

9.     3-column grading. Using a class or teacher created rubric (column 1), students grade themselves according to the rubric (column 2), and the teacher records his/her grade in third column. Using this method, the teacher can more intently focus on areas where the student and teacher disagree.

10.  Comment rather than correct and grade.

 What suggestions do you have?

We Owe It to Our Students and Our Teachers to De-emphasize Standards

As a high school history teacher, I struggled to balance Virginia's state standards (SOLs) standards with bringing history alive, instilling creativity, developing higher-order thinking skills, and building 21^st-century skills.

When push came to shove, the standard always won out. It was a constant source of frustration. 

As an administrator, I don't want my teachers to feel the same pressures to teach to the test. I've encouraged them to take risks, stretch themselves, try something new and sometimes even reinvent themselves. 

I owe it to them and we all owe it to our students to make school and learning enjoyable and engaging. 

Below is part of my weekly message to my staff.

Please know that I have complete confidence in you. In this era of standards and accountability, risk-taking can be daunting, but I’ll come back to a simple question, “Why did you become a teacher?”

I’m willing to bet that none of you answer, “So my students can pass a multiple choice test?”

So as you enter the second term, take a risk. Step out of your comfort zone. Bring your subject alive. Create lessons that embody your spirit, your passion and show why you became a teacher.

As we go forward, lets make it a goal/expectation that each of us tries one brand new lesson this term. Please invite me into your classroom when you try this new lesson.  I look forward to seeing your passion come alive.

Recently, I’ve seen several teachers—and more importantly, students—go beyond the standards.  These teachers recognized that the standards are simply a framework that shouldn't restrict our teaching. Their lessons were filled with creativity. The questions being asked didn't have right/wrong answers. The end result: students who were enthusiastic about learning and a classroom filled with pride and passion.

In addition to applauding your efforts, I want to encourage you to take risks. Step out of your comfort zones. Try something new. Diverge from the pacing guide. Challenge yourself and your students. 

So as you enter the second term, take a risk. Step out of your comfort zone. Bring your subject alive. Create lessons that embody your spirit, your passion and show why you became a teacher.

As we go forward, lets make it a goal/expectation that each of us tries one brand new lesson this term. Please invite me into your classroom when you try this new lesson.  I look forward to seeing your passion come alive.

Standardized Tests: The Movable Target?

A couple of weeks ago, a Washington Post article stated, “Reading scores for the Virginia Standards of Learning test dropped by double digits following the introduction of a new, more rigorous exam this past year.

A couple of years’ ago, it was Virginia’s math scores that dropped as a result of newer, more rigorous standards.

Meanwhile D.C. Public School students made impressive gains in math and reading tests, but math officials reported that the gains were in part tied to the division’s decision to “score the tests in a way that yielded higher scores even though D.C. students got fewer math questions correct than in the year before.”

Virginia and D.C. are by no means alone as they try to balance tougher standards with consistent scoring. In 2012, seeing scores plummet, Florida state education officials decided to lower the passing cut rate/grade. A couple of months ago, the debate played out again with the Florida State Board of Education again voting to prevent school grades from dropping more than one letter grade. Even Board Member Kathleen Shanahan, who was a driving force behind the school grading system that “served as a model for other states,” commented, “I am struggling with the integrity of the accountability system…and the reliability of grades.”

As the debate plays out amongst politicians and state boards of education, it is teachers and students who are caught in the middle.

Should standardized tests enable educators to compare student performance from year to year? Yes.

On the other hand, standardized tests should challenge all students. But, at what expense? In Virginia, the more rigorous tests and scoring resulted in significantly lower student scores. State officials talked up the results as a temporary price to pay as Virginia shifted to higher standards.

But who paid the price? Students. Students, who in essence served as guinea pigs, and as a result may not earn and Advanced Diploma or even a Standard Diploma.   

Like too many classroom grading systems, proficiency on state tests seems immeasurable and perpetually alterable based on the whims of a few elected or appointed officials. Instead of being based on teacher instruction and student learning, passing rates and standardized testing have become politicized (the consequences range from the grade the school receives, to funding, to accreditation,  to employment decisions, to student graduation) while failing to galvanize meaningful educational reform.

We cannot expect our teachers and students to hit a moving target.

What Works In Education: How Educators Can Make A Difference

Through a meta-analysis of over 900 studies, John Hattie’s Visible Learning evaluated the impact of many factors on student achievement. Using “effect size”, Hattie ranks factors from family structure, teaching practices, socio-economics, school policies, and more on student learning.

An effect greater than .40 is seen as above the norm and leading towards greater-than-expected growth. An effect size of .40 is the expected progress a student should make within a year. An effect size of .6 means that the relationship between one factor and student achievement was 60% of one standard deviation.

Effect size = Average (post test)- Average (pre-test)

                              Spread (standard deviation)    

While schools only have our students for 7 hours a day, Hattie’s meta-analysis proves teachers have an amazing ability to influence learning—and even overcome factors beyond teacher control.

Influence	ES
Student expectations	1.44
Formative assessments	.90
Feedback	0.75
Teacher clarity	0.75
Teacher-student relationships	0.72
Creativity programs	0.65
Professional development	0.62
Not labeling students	.61
Concept mapping	0.6
Mastery Learning	0.58
Student-centered teaching	.54
Full vs pre-term birth weight	.53
Socioeconomic status	0.52
Availability of resources at home	0.5
Parent involvement and achievement	0.49
Overall teacher effects	0.32
Ethnicity	0.32
Homework	0.29
Family Structure	0.18
Ability grouping	0.12
Male-Female Differences	0.12

Red: influences beyond teacher/school control

We cannot continue to make excuses. There is no place in our schools for teachers who speak fatally: “His family life is horrible; he’s not going to be successful” or “My students aren’t motivated” or “He’s dyslexic”. Such cynicism has no place in our schools.  We need teachers who are up to the challenge and believe in their students and their own abilities.

While factors beyond our control influence student achievement, expert teachers focus on the 45 factors that have a greater influence than socio-economic status.  Of these, teachers and schools control and influence all but 2 (birth weight and home environment).    

Good teachers believe in their abilities. They maximize their impact by using research-proven methods. They know they can will make a difference. They don’t label their students (.61 effect size).  Good teachers don’t use a student’s disability, background, ethnicity, family, etc. as an excuse. Instead they embrace a growth mindset, a belief that good teachers make a tremendous difference.

We make a difference.

Sadly, Hattie’s research also illuminated how many teachers, schools, and policy makers continue to support policies, programs and interventions that don’t work, or actually negatively impact student learning.

Only influences above .4 are considered above the norm, leading to more-than-expected growth.

Some examples of educational movements that have low—and in the case of retention, negative—impacts:

Charter schools: .20

Gender-based instruction: .12

Whole language learning: .06

Open classrooms: .01

Multiple intelligences/Learning styles: .17

Retention: -13

If we are to move education forward, we must fully embrace research. We must confront what really matters. We can no longer make decisions based on our beliefs, anecdotal “evidence” or “that’s the way it’s always been.” The past two decades have seen an explosion of educational research, which we must embrace. No excuse exists for educational leaders continuing to make ill-fated decisions based on instinct or personal convictions.

Let’s ask ourselves: What can we do better? How can we progress? How can we make learning visible to the teachers?

________

Hattie, John. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Grading Group Work in a Standards-Based Classroom

The other day, Ms. Snider approached me with a simple query, “Do you have a minute to discuss grading of my group project?”

The ensuing conversation centered around two questions:

1.     Should the group be assigned one grade?

2.     How can we assess for individual learning and provide meaningful feedback to each individual?

We began with a resounding “NO!” to the first question.

Both of us believe that a grade stands for what each student learns, so this was easy. But, as we explored the subject in more detail, we soon realized that assigning the group one grade actually defeats the purpose of a cooperative assignment. Ms. Snider shared a story of her daughter, a high-achieving student, who often felt pressured to pick up her group mates slack. Like many students, her daughter felt it easier to do their work than to wait for them or to work with them.

Is it any surprise that a lot of our top students, cringe at the thought of group work?

We had our starting point: individual students will be responsible for their own learning and will receive their own grades.

Our next challenge was to determine how students would be held individually accountable while still relying on each other to successfully complete the assignment. Although this was a new project for Ms. Snider, she knew exactly what she wanted the students to learn and what skills they would acquire. That led us to our next question:

How can we assess learning and provide feedback?

After much back-and-forth, we stumbled upon the following idea. Periodically, each student reflects on his/her own contributions to the group and on his/her own learning. (Sometimes this might be daily and at other times it might be weekly.) We immediately began to craft a rubric, but then another idea hit us. Why not have the students share their own experiences and have the class create their own group participation rubric.

This, of course, led us to our next problem. Ms. Snider teaches some of our best students—students who are highly grade-motivated. Some would undoubtedly grade themselves harshly, while others would unfairly inflate their grades. To counter this, Ms. Snider came up with an outstanding idea: After each self-reflection, lets allow the students time to share their own rating and give the other members of the group time to provide feedback.

For the student who grades herself harshly, this would be easy. For the student who inflates, his/her grade the task would be more difficult for the group mates, but the ability to provide truthful and honest feedback is an important skill. Additionally, this would take some of the pressure off of students having to actually assign their peers a grade (an idea we nixed).  Again, we could use the same student-created rubric to help this process.

While great ideas were flowing from our conversation, we hadn’t yet discovered a way to accurately assess student learning. We were getting closer though.

Last year, I remember watching Ms. Mathews’ students create a Rube Goldberg machine. Along the way, she peppered the students with individual questions, and after presenting their machines, students were asked more detailed questions. Her questions required students to demonstrate their knowledge; their reflective nature also shed light on the entire group experience.

Ms. Snider took Ms. Mathews’ ideas to the next level, “You know what? That’s a great idea.” With increasing enthusiasm, “I think we can go one step further. Why not have the other students in the class ask questions—and I mean real questions after each group’s presentation?”

Finally, we started to discuss two very important individual components. First, all students would be asked to grade themselves according to the class-created rubric. Finally, each student would be required to demonstrate his or her knowledge of the assignment through an additional assessment—perhaps a test or an essay.

We were definitely on to something. As the project progresses, I’m sure Ms. Snider will improve upon the ideas we generated.

What started as a simple conversation morphed into something much more complex. Our focus centered around 4 basic, research-supported premises:

1.    No group grade will be assigned

2.    Students will not be told to grade each other. Students will, however, provide meaningful and honest feedback to their group mates.

3.    Reflection is critical to the learning process.

4.    Targeted, well-crafted and specific questions will be used to assess student learning. This will provide meaningful feedback and can be used as both for both formative and summative assessment.

****

By the way, I need to give Ms. Snider’s project a plug. This is not a group project in which students simply gather facts, arrange them neatly on a poster or PowerPoint, and then spit them out during a presentation. Ms. Snider’s project required students to think for themselves, to pose questions, to think creatively to solve problems and to rely on each other. I can’t wait to see the end results.