No Cambridge Lady

Being a Transformational Leader

I came across this article late last school year. Read it; it's worth your time.

The idea of transformational leadership was not new to me. Being a connoisseur of ideas and the words we use to make sense of them -- as well as a hopeless Pollyanna -- I've spent a significant amount of time and energy reading, writing, and reflecting on the actions and core values of transformational leaders. Unfortunately, it's another thing to be filed under "what we've known for nearly 40 years, but have yet to successfully apply in education."

However, at that moment, the article struck me in a way that I knew I needed to give the ideas a little time to steep. Like I do with all complexities I want to sit with, I scrawled the core ideas on the whiteboard in my office. I share this for those of you who appreciate a good old fashioned graphic organizer. 

Transformational leaders ignite a synergistic combination of empowerment, support, and challenge among their followers that spurs rapid growth and development. As a new year creeps upon us and many of us are putting significant energy into systems of teacher leadership, I thought it was a timely share.

Whether you're a veteran leader, one wearing the formal title for the first time this year, or one who leads with neither title nor position, think about the four things transformational leaders do: 

1. They inspire people to work together toward a common, worthy vision. What's your vision? How will you engage all the pieces of your system to collectively and decisively move from vision to action?

2. They make strong, individualized connections with each group and each individual. How will you engage with every person and every team to find the intersection of their passion, their interests, and your vision?

3. They challenge others to create and innovate. Innovation thrives within purposeful boundaries. How do you define the boundaries in your system? Where will you leave room for and encourage innovation?

4. They walk the talk. Will you commit to getting out of your office or classroom, rolling up your sleeves, and getting into the real work of developing kids who are healthy, safe, engaged, and challenged? What calculated risks are you personally willing to take this school year?

On the CCSS Debate

I appreciate that the upcoming legislative session will provide another opportunity for public discourse around issues that really matter. As with many issues, I suspect a lack of understanding of a truly complex issue may be at the root of the Common Core debate. I'll seize this opportunity to highlight a few of the most important areas of misunderstanding. 

Standards and curriculum are not the same thing: Standards simply serve to identify concepts and skills we want all students to learn and organizes them in a way that increases the likelihood that students who come through our system graduate with a base set of knowledge and skills that empower them to be successful in college, careers, and citizenship. Of course we can't nail down a finite list of what every student needs to know and be able to do; that’s incredibly presumptuous of us given the ever-changing world in which we live. However, from a system point of view there is value in having a common framework from which to build. 

I use the word build there because that’s the role of curriculum in this conversation. Curriculum is content, instruction, and assessment. We can either spend our time arguing over what students need to know and be able to do, or we can spend our time creating the conditions through which students can learn and grow as individuals with some common skill sets. Our teachers have spent the past three years putting the pieces of content, instruction, and assessment together to enable WSR students to not only gain a core set of knowledge and skills, but also to use them to solve problems, communicate, create, and collaborate.  

Standards must not be a destination, they must be a checkpoint: Standards do not have to be enacted through standardization. There are infinite ways into and out of a standard. The tech-rich world in which our students learn today enables multiple pathways into and out of common checkpoints. We have the tools to individualize practice. We have the tools to personalize content. We have the tools to bring real-world experts to our students at just the right time, and we have the tools to connect our students’ passions and interests to core learning. 

Just like in the non-school aspects of their lives, children only pass through a school system on their way to becoming adults. Our desire is that each of our students graduates with passion and a clear sense of self. We hope that each WSR graduate understands how to make both a life and a living and makes the world a better place along the way. When standards serve as the floor on which students stand, rather a ceiling that limits them, this is possible. 

Local choice in standards only matters to the extent that it is matched with choice in accountability: I’m not sure many people really understand the problem of an accountability system that relies on a test that is not aligned to standards. The current accountability system built on public shaming through a misaligned system is pure insanity. It’s easy to say we can choose locally to adopt Common Core State Standards, but unless that choice is accompanied by an assessment that aligns, we have no real choices but to scrap all the quality curriculum development work we’ve done in recent years and just teach to the test we have or invest time and energy defending the inevitable labels of accountability shaming. I understand state legislators have no control over federal accountability rules, but they do have authority to impact the measures we use for federal accountability. 

My tired analogy is this: We were told to teach the kids to walk, and so we did. We were told to test the kids on their ability to walk, and that test would reveal the quality of our district. Then we were told, “You need to teach these kids to swim to be successful. The world has changed.” We began teaching kids to swim, but our kids are still tested on their ability to walk, and that test is used to assess the quality of our district. I’m happy our kids are learning to swim — I just want our district to be judged accordingly. 

If we really want a system that nurtures and grows the unique potential of each child, the "Common Core or not Common Core" debate is the wrong conversation anyway. We have real work to do. Let’s not get distracted from it. 

Core, College and Career Ready and Competency Based Education

Lately I’ve been wrestling with some seemingly incongruous ideas. On one side of the dichotomy rest the notion that there is a core of learning that we must ensure all students attain and, related, the idea that every student must leave the PK-12 system college and career ready.

On the other side of this dichotomy is the intersection of a competency based education and personalized learning. I have also struggled to appropriately place the belief that we have to create a sense of hope and passion in each and every one of our students.

I’ve spent countless hours lately stewing about how we square these seemingly opposing ideas. Here’s what I’ve come up with. The central idea is constant renegotiation toward the ultimate goal of finding (and constantly reengineering) one’s place in the world. Learning and living are not linear. From the moment we’re born until the moment we die we are navigating inputs –often in the form of content, interactions, and experiences. These experiences and interactions drive our hopes and passions. Our hopes and passions shape our place in the world.

We pass through phases; there’s an ebb and flow. For a period of time the public education system has a role in this process. Children arrive in our system with these cycles already in motion. While they’re with us, we insert content, experiences, and interactions into this cycle.

The what and how of that impact a child’s hopes and passions – and shape his or her sense of place in the world. I reject the notion that our goal as a public education system is to ensure students are college and career ready. I reject the notion that our goal as a public education system is to ensure a standardized core of knowledge and skills for all students. I accept that these are outcomes of quality system, but they are not the goal.

I propose that our goal as a system of public education is to help each learner find and have the capacity to create and re-create a positive and productive place in our world. It seems to me that a quality system would be one in which learners are constantly renegotiating content and experiences as they pass through a core set of concepts and skills that prepare them for further learning, work, and life. Truly, there are infinite pathways into and out of this core learning if we accept them. By engaging in this process on an individual student level, we contribute to the constant renegotiation of passion and hope that help children define (and redefine) their place in our world.

A Call to the Middle

As our state legislature churns around the biggest educational issues that will be taken up this session, I’d like to invite everyone to the middle. Partisanship has driven us to our separate corners in a conversation where there is a tremendous amount of room for agreement. While I can appreciate the deeply held beliefs on which each side of the aisle stand, I’m asking you each to consider what one, two or three steps you can make toward consensus. Inaction is unacceptable and sentences our already floundering system to another year of churning and stalling. We can’t lose another year in the necessary work of transforming learning in Iowa. We can't let the pursuit of perfect get in the way of good. 

My two cents re: Governor Branstad's Ed Bill

Disclaimer: written on a plane in less than ideal conditions for my muse. Be kind.

I've now had a chance to read both the legislative brief shared by the Department of Education (DE) and the Governor's Ed bill. I think it's no secret that I didn't appreciate the way in which it was delivered, but I have to say that I'm mostly comfortable with the content, especially to the extent that it serves as a starting point for actually getting something done this year.

The bill isn't transformative, but does propose work that is likely beneficial and will not necessarily limit transformational work that needs to happen simultaneously -- if the details are handled carefully. I'm beginning to think I will be eternally frustrated that the heavy lifting of transformation has to land on the shoulders of isolated educators, schools, and districts. Please prove me wrong. I would be thrilled if we could get support for a systemic way of growing, studying, and sharing innovations within Iowa's education system. I understand the value of replicating what's already proven, but we'll never figure out new things that work if we don't have a way of exploring and studying them. There are certainly models to guide such efforts. I promise to share some actionable ideas soon.

I am disappointed by what I see as a glaring omission I hope our legislative allies will address by further supporting the momentum building in support of competency based education (CBE). As a member of the legislatively-mandated task force on competency based education, it has become clear to me that support within the Department of Education for CBE on a large scale is limited. I understand the reasoning behind that position, so I would suggest that the legislature act to support and fund necessary research and development work related to CBE outside of the the scope of the DE if necessary.

Overall, this year's proposal responds to some major issues raised during last year's process. Specifically:

There is a much more detailed and collaboratively-developed description of the teacher career pathways section.

This year's proposal is funded - with just one nudge toward reallocation of existing professional development funds.

Certainly developing Iowa's own online education system is the right way to meet the growing need for Iowa's students. Everything I know about ILO builds my faith that we can develop high quality learning experiences for students in blended and virtual environments. I would respectfully suggest that the powerful and related work of the IACoPi project be supported and developed in tandem.

Overall, I am optimistic about the parts of the proposal related to Promise diploma seals, as I value an outcomes-based system. At the same time, I urge caution in the details to ensure that the necessary approximations for learning are worthy approximations. History has taught me to be skeptical of our ability to identify and use data and assessments appropriately. I also urge caution in the development of details to ensure that necessary parallel work toward CBE is not hampered. For instance, we need to be careful when using constructs such as courses and credits into the future, as CBE will make many of them obsolete. If we allow future work to be grounded in fleeting constructs, we will inevitably limit innovation.

Coming to the proposal from the context of my own district, I feel confident we could do great things within a system of career pathways. The very best growth opportunities for our teachers are in meaningful collaboration with each other. We have talented teachers who have much to offer their colleagues. In our current model, we have a de facto system of lead, mentor, and master teachers that unfairly burdens our teachers by adding extra work to their already full workloads. We need them in these roles, but currently have no system for recognizing or compensating them.

I just have one concern related to the evaluation portions of the bill - the buck seems to stop at the desk of the Director far too often for my comfort. While positions may stay the same, the people who occupy those positions change. I recognize that too much bureaucracy gets in the way of progress, but I urge balance that leverages more collaborative decision making and some necessary checks and balances in this context.

I would expect no less than rigorous questioning and robust debate on the details of this bill (which I'm confident our political process will deliver), but my highest hope is that we not waste another year in this important work of transforming our K-12 system. While my strong preference would be an entire system redesign (which this proposal clearly is not), we can't let the pursuit of perfect prevent us from acting at all. Identify the big issues, address them, and then get something passed. Please. 

Can I ask a Favor?

The 2013 legislative session kicked off today. I've got a lot on my mind already, but I'll ask for just one simple favor  as we move forward with these critical conversations. I'm asking for a couple of changes in vocabulary. I know it seems nit-picky, but I actually think these are powerful changes. Could we please replace ACHIEVEMENT with LEARNING, as achievement has been connotatively defined as results on standardized tests? Our focus needs to be on ensuring each and every child experiences significant learning every single day. Can we also talk about TRANSFORMATION rather than REFORM? We don't need a new spoiler for the old Pinto; we need a new car. We've reformed this system beyond its usability. Can we please start defining a brand new system?

On Testing and Change

Last week I found myself in an interesting discussion via Twitter over Harvard’s recently released report on state and international achievement growth. This was the tweet that started it all:

…and then this was the tweet that really got me thinking and engaged in the discussion:

Like Scott, I also generally take a “so what?” kind of attitude toward standardized test scores. Anyone who knows me knows I’m not a fan. The general reason I’m not a fan is because I don’t believe the tests we currently have align well with the learner outcomes our society needs. I tend to value ingenuity, creativity and the ability to innovate, while the standardized tests we currently have tend to value knowledge and skills. Yong Zhao’s commentary on the double-think of creativity and testing resonates with me.

But I found myself arguing that we SHOULD, in fact, be alarmed by the conclusion that our state ranks dead last in terms of growth on international measures. Here are my general points:

~ I believe a quality education should result in important knowledge/skills. I still think we have a long ways to go in terms of getting real about what knowledge and which skill sets are actually important, but I believe standardized tests do a reasonable job of measuring whether or not students have gained some specific knowledge and skills. I have a problem with the fact that we widely claim to have taught the tested material, but many students apparently did not learn it. Minimally, we need to accept the challenge of asking more questions in response to these data.

~ I believe a quality education results in much more than knowledge and skills. I believe we’ve done a reasonable job of defining these in Iowa through the Universal Constructs. Many who dismiss achievement data do so by arguing that our goal is not simply knowledge and skills, but the kinds of outcomes described through the Universal Constructs. I agree with this position, but I have a problem with the fact that we have little or no evidence to tell us whether we are achieving these outcomes. We need different/better measures. In the absence of evidence, we can’t simply claim that our students are attaining these outcomes.

~ The easiest path to achievement (currently defined as test scores) is often through what I would consider poor pedagogy. Certainly the learning environments I value (for the sake of common understanding, described by the Iowa Core’s Characteristics of Effective Instruction) should also result in achievement PLUS the outcomes described in the Universal Constructs. Essentially, if we are providing high quality learning environments aligned to common (and tested) standards, we should still see test results.

~ We are fortunate in Iowa to have many districts pushing back against traditional education paradigms and attempting wholeheartedly to re-imagine school through good work around inquiry, project based learning, efforts at personalization, etc. Given that these efforts should result in knowledge, skills AND much more, I am concerned. Minimally, I believe we need to ask and answer at least two follow-up questions:

• Are our schools engaged in a quality, ongoing process of alignment? Is there alignment among our intended, enacted, and assessed curricula? Did our students learn what we believe what we taught? Maybe the test items our students didn’t score well on are aligned to learning goals we chose to let go of. Maybe not, but we’d better know either way.

• Are our efforts at implementing innovative learning environments effective? Are we monitoring their implementation to ensure the outcomes we intend? It is quite possible to “do” inquiry, PBL, and personalization poorly. Simply attempting is not good enough.

Please don’t think I’m saying that it’s time to pull back and go back to our old ways because they gave us test scores. Rather, I am saying that it’s time to pull together. We can’t continue to force the forward-thinking and innovative districts to go forward alone. None of us individually has the time, energy, or brainpower to get us over the tremendous hump of massive systems change. We need to work together and share the burden of developing a new system and new methods for monitoring a evaluating the new system.

Tablet vs Laptop?

I am constantly confronted with the question of WHY we chose to go with tablets instead of laptops in our 1:1 learning environment. It was one of those extended moments where I probably didn’t fully understand the answer until I had to articulate it succinctly. I figured it was worth sharing more widely, so here it is:

First, I will say that we never adopted a technology initiative. We had decisions to make about how we would allocate tech resources in a building, and 1:1 describes how we chose to allocate our tech resources. The focus of our 1:1 iPad program is to provide necessary tools and resources for a progressive learning environment characterized by flexibility, collaboration, personalization, creativity, and technology-rich learning.

This--like everything else we do--is a learning initiative. We are constantly striving to implement the Iowa Core, which spells out the characteristics of effective instruction:

• Student Centered Instruction--changing the role of teacher from "sage on the stage" to "guide on the side"

• Teaching for Learner Differences--meeting each student where she is and moving her forward

• Assessment FOR (rather than of) Learning--providing timely, meaningful feedback throughout the learning process, rather than testing what has been learned at the end of some period of time

• Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum--connecting essential content across content areas and to real world, unpredictable situations

• Teaching for Understanding--engaging students in a process where THEY construct deep meaning over time, rather than recite and recall information provided to them

These are our goals--and there is nothing I can see about a laptop that leads us closer to these goals than a tablet does—just different means to the same end. Remember, we are educating our children for THEIR future, which is quite different than our current reality. So, while I recognize that the world of work is largely dominated by desktop and laptop computers, I don't believe it will stay that way for long. In fact, many Gen Y-ers in the workforce (like myself) would say that our world is 3:1. I rely daily on (in order of use): a smartphone, a tablet, and a laptop. I wish we could provide that for our students, but we can’t right now. 1:1 will have to suffice.

So, after all the reading, conversations, and thinking I've personally put into this question, I've come to the following conclusion: the device is not what makes the difference between effective and ineffective learning experiences. Any arguments people make about some devices being for creation and other being for consumption are just misguided in my opinion. The gateway between those two is instructional design. Our students were creating and engaged in high quality learning long before they had iPads. The fact that they now have an iPad has opened new avenues for efficiency and creativity in a world of quality learning experiences.

Just my two cents…I’d love to hear yours.

Iowa's Blueprint: Clicks and Clunks

Longest. Blogpost. Ever. I know. Sorry. There's a lot  to think about.

As an undergraduate English major I used a reading strategy to annotate complex texts based on what made sense, or “clicked” for me, and what caused a disconnect, or a “clunk” in my thinking. What follows are my clicks and clunks as I read the Blueprint for Iowa’s Education Transformation, One Unshakable Vision: World-Class Schools for Iowa.

Click: Our approach has to be focused, sustained, and systemic. We’ve come as far as we can with isolated pockets of innovation and narrow, disconnected efforts at change. The kind of transformation we need will require the momentum of all of us working to address every aspect of our system simultaneously.

Clunk: The goals outlined on page 13 of the Blueprint seem largely steeped in where we’ve been, rather than where we need to go. Our goals need to be inspirational and provocative to change mindsets and spark serious action. We should look at our goals and think, “We can’t get there from here.” Unfortunately, I think we could get to many of these goals by tinkering with the current system. Not good enough. 

Great Teachers and Great Principals

Click:  No one can argue against the importance of teacher and leader quality. I support evaluation systems that depend on specific, frequent, and wide feedback. I particularly appreciate the acknowledgement that effective teaching and leadership is more than test scores and finite skills. There is an art to great teaching and great leadership—an “it” factor. We know it when we see it. I hope we can find a way to capture this.

Clunk: We have to run away as fast as we can from the “blame and shame” environment we’ve been working in. Evaluation and growth has to occur in a safe and supportive environment if our goal is having great teachers in every classroom. Though I’m sure there are a few out there, I’ve never yet met a teacher who has bad intentions. I can’t help but question how the peer evaluation aspects of the proposal impact the safe and supportive, growth-focused culture I see as non-negotiable.

Clunk: Required collaboration time. While, I’m an advocate of teacher collaboration, I just get a little uneasy when we start to talk about required collaboration. Collaboration is a culture, not a meeting. On the other hand, I do appreciate the air cover such a statement provides for those of us exchanging student instructional time for teacher collaboration time.

Click: The four-tier teacher system. I purposely left the word compensation out of there. I really don’t have an opinion on the compensation parts of the Blueprint—it’s not in my wheelhouse. Others will certainly pick up my slack here. Contrary to some of the concerns I’ve heard about the Mentor and Master Teacher tiers, I don’t see this as pulling great teachers out of classrooms. I see this as a way to keep great teachers in classrooms. Currently, the only real option for upward progress for great teachers is into administrative roles that take them completely out of classrooms. I may have chosen to stay in my classroom if I had a chance to be a Mentor or Master Teacher.

Click: Layoffs based on performance, certification, student and school needs rather than seniority. I’m not even sure I have to provide an explanation for this. Student needs should always trump adult needs. That sometimes leads to harsh realities, but those harsh realities should be faced by adults, not children.

High Expectations and Fair Measures

Click: The overall focus of this section on a systemic approach to alignment as an ongoing process to ensure our intended, enacted, and assess curricula support learning for every single student just makes my heart happy. This alone, if done well, has the potential to be transformational.

Clunk: The proposal to “design a rigorous ‘model’ curriculum by July 2013 that can be used as a starting point for schools and teachers” (p. 8). Did I suddenly switch documents and land on 2005 Senate File 245? Someone please tell me how this is different than the Model Core Curriculum created as a result of that mandate.

Click: Standards for art, music, and world languages. Yep, they’re important too. We need to continue expanding beyond our narrow focus on reading, math, and science. This is a great start.

Click: The many improvements to assessments and data systems. I appreciate the inclusion of formative and summative assessments, more responsive assessment methods, and improved alignment of assessments.

Clunk: My one caution in regards to assessment is that we must be careful to keep the measures in their appropriate place. We can’t let the measures become our goals. I see some hints of this when I look at the goals specified on page 13. Our goals must always be focused on student learning and development.

Clunk: ACT as the definition of college and career readiness. I have absolutely no problem with requiring all students to be assessed for college and career readiness. My issue is with the assumption that ACT is that assessment. I’ve seen all the research that shows that success on the ACT is a strong indicator of success in college, but I think there’s an assumption we need to challenge here. Specifically, we need to challenge the traditional learning environment of many institutions of higher education. I would offer that a collaborative conversation among K-12, higher education, and business and industry representatives could inform a more appropriate assessment designed to measure a focused set of skills and dispositions, rather than content.

Click: The entire New Accountability Section. I particularly like the underlying sentiment of trust with verification, as well as the Whole Child focus. I know some poo-poo the notion of measuring well-being, engagement, and hope, but I would argue (standing on Maslow’s firm footing) that without these needs being met, children cannot learn at their highest potential.

Clunk: Earned Autonomy. As someone who spent myriad hours of my life last year preparing for an accreditation site visit, I hesitate to say this, but we gained a lot from our site visit. It’s a remarkable opportunity for introspection and feedback, which leads to purposeful growth. If the official visits go away, I would hope a feedback mechanism would remain.

Clunk: Much of the third grade literacy proposals. While I wholeheartedly support the strong stance on the importance of early literacy, I have some concerns. I see the requirement to adopt a reading program as much inferior to quality implementation of a professional learning community that is engaged in constant, real-time alignment among the intended, enacted, and assessed curricula. When I read about the Iowa Center for Literacy Education, I can’t help but think of all the lessons we have (or should have) learned from the What Works Clearinghouse. Please don’t enact that debacle in our state. Finally, the notion of third grade retention is steeped in a factory model mindset. Let’s instead work to actually create and enact a competency-based system for learning.

A Spirit of Innovation

Click: “We need to pour fuel on Iowa’s spirit of innovation” (p. 11). I love the recognition that there is something smoldering in our state. Let’s figure out how to grow, scale, and multiply existing innovations while continuing to try new things.

Clunk: The competitive Innovation Acceleration Fund. I do understand the logic behind this. I am not anti-competition. I just worry about the unintended consequences of competition in the context of innovation. Our need to innovate is too high stakes to make it an issue of haves and have nots. Our ability to innovate at the rate we need to innovate will be dependent on our ability to collaborate—learning from the successes and failures of each other. Competition stifles collaboration.

Click: The charter school language. I know this will be a controversial area, but it looks like charters would be playing by the same rules and with the same resources as school districts. I support innovation that benefits students in whatever form we can get it. One thing I would like to see added is a responsibility for charter schools that are determined to be excellent to share what works with the rest of the state. Our goal should not be to create islands of excellence, but rather to leverage—by whatever means necessary—rapid innovation that can be scaled for all kids. 

Click: I appreciate the support for online learning, ending the factory model of education, and parent and community engagement networks. Absolutely. Of course we need to do these things.

Clunk: We get two pages on innovation, three on learning, and a little over four on teachers and leaders. There is significantly more detail fleshed out in the first two sections of the blueprint. I’d like to see some more depth in the section on innovation. It seems superficial to me at this point, and that speaks an implicit message about importance. 

Conclusions

If I had the choice to either sign on to this Blueprint today or walk away from it completely, I would sign on in a heartbeat. I can work with this. The intent and the spirit are right on. Certainly, there’s significant work to do in defining and operationalizing the details, but the right work is never easy. My biggest fear is that we let our small differences distract us from the major things we can all agree on. 

 

Putting Technology in its Place

I’m a verbal processor, which means sometimes I don’t really even understand something I know until the very first time I articulate it. I had a profound one of these verbal eureka moments last week as I participated in a panel discussion on technology in math and science education. The prompt I was to respond to was something to the effect of  “Describe some of the ways in which technology is being used in schools to support math and science instruction.” How I responded is as follows:

I get a little uneasy whenever the focus of the conversation is technology. That’s not where our focus should be. I think the reason we get so caught up in conversations about technology is that there is such a distinct lack of technology in many schools in contrast to the ubiquity of technology in the “real world.” So, to me, the goal of technology integration should actually be about making it fade into the background where it belongs.

I explained that it’s parallel to the way Daniel Pink describes money as a motivator. It only actually matters when there’s not enough of it. Pink suggests that we pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. Similarly, the goal of technology integration in schools should be to provide enough access to tech (and non-tech, of course) tools that we can take the issue of technology off the table and shift our focus to conversations about the things that actually matter.