Archive for the ‘“New Hope for Schools”’ Category

New Hope for Schools: Tower of Babel ☹, 19 + 1 = 18 ☹, and RoundTable ☺

January 21, 2015

Public education is a wonderful creation of human society. However, in our times, it’s troubled by two main obstacles, illustrated in a metaphor and a mathaphor.

#1 Obstacle: The Tower of Babel Effect 

Like people on the Tower of Babel, school decision makers (including teachers, parents, administrators, researchers, government policy makers, textbook authors and publishers) all speak different languages—even though they are speaking English.  They is due to the fact that they have:

  • little opportunity for collaboration, and
  • very different viewpoints, purposes, and expertise.

#2 Obstacle: The 19 + 1 = 18 Effect

The Mathaphor:  School quality is 19, add a new demand (+1), school quality goes down to 18.

Explanation: Ever-increasing demands on teachers leave them less able to address their students’ learning needs or to collaborate with colleagues. So, school quality goes down. Then, desperate new policies are mandated every year-–too quickly for teachers and schools to keep up. It’s a cycle of increasing negative outcomes.  Over three years, the process looks like 19 + 1 = 18 … 17 …16.

A Proposed Remedy: the 30/30 RoundTable

A 30/30 RoundTable is proposed for busy schools.  This carefully designed activity relieves these two main obstacles in that:

  1. 30 people have equal turns to give their viewpoints  in 30 minutes, reducing the Tower of Babel effect by increasing communication.
  2. There are no new demands because educators use it for their own purposes in their own existing groups–perhaps weekly in classrooms and monthly in meetings.

For More Information

My new book, New Hope for Schools: Findings of a teacher turned detective, explains these and other obstacles, remedies, and more. More details on the GEMS RoundTable can be found in blogs, posts and pages on this site.  My website, gemslearning.net, describes RoundTable and other programs and offers author demonstrations, consulting, and workshops.

Advertisements

Increases in Imbalances in Technological and Social Advances

December 2, 2014

For a half dozen centuries now, science offers useful laws for how things behave, that is, the hard sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and math. We know how to make water of one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. We know about the laws of gravity. We know that 9 + 1 = 10. On the other hand, science offers conflicting models for how people behave. Thus, there are the soft sciences: psychology, management, education, and sociology. And there are the soft social systems, such as families, schools, and workplaces.

In our postmodern times, there is an even greater imbalance in our technological and social advances in instructional theory and methods in schools and workplaces. I group technological advances as those advances in our understanding of how things behave. Social advances are advances in our understanding of how people behave.

ONE REASON for the enormous imbalance is that we do not yet fully understand that Things, People and Outcomes have very different behavioral laws and predictability– as clarified in TPO Theory, (TPO refers to Things/People/Outcomes).  Otherwise stated, we are still struggling with the principles and applications of the old directive paradigm,  the new collaborative paradigm, and a unifying systems paradigm.

A SECOND REASON is captured in the figures below, using a scale metaphor. The first image below illustrates that many decades ago, institutions (e.g., schools, corporations, governments) were relatively balanced.

balanceThe next image below illustrates that, today, modern institutions (e.g., schools, corporations, governments) are experiencing a massive imbalance due greatly to amazing one-sided growth.

imbalanceIt is important to assert that the imbalance is not due to modern ignorance in the soft or social sciences. A great deal of knowledge is available regarding learning and performance theory, and a great many advances have been made. On the other hand, it is true that this large amount of knowledge is not adequately unified, but dispersed among a variety of fields or disciplines.

However, the imbalance is additionally due to the amazing gains that have been made in the last fifty years in technology. Today, modern institutions (e.g., schools, corporations, governments) are experiencing growing pains due greatly to amazing one-sided growth and a resulting massive imbalance.  These topics are developed more fully in my book, New Hope for Schools: Findings of a teacher turned detective  See also my website gemslearning.net.

The Complex Role of the Urban School Superintendent

October 23, 2014

Schools of today, and especially large urban schools, are scorching hot topics!  So are discussions of the urban school superintendent’s role. An interesting interview and article on NPR entitled The Short Shelf Life Of Urban School Superintendents [1] clarified different points of view regarding their role.  I will briefly identify them and link them to a systems and thermostat approach to management.

Superintendent as Reformer

Deasy, former superintendent of LAUSD, spoke of reform-minded superintendents as wanting “to shake things up quickly.” Regarding how much time it takes to turn around a struggling district, Hornbeck, superintendent of the Philadelphia schools in the 1990s, suggested four years:

“The first year … is hiring and getting a team in place. The second year provides baseline test scores and time spent developing a plan. The third year is for putting that plan in place, and the fourth year provides scores that should be expected to show improvement.”

In the big picture, such reformer points of view may be shortsighted.

Limitations of “shaking things up.”  Urban school reform as shaking things up is flawed. I explain this in a “mathaphor” as the 19 + 1 = 18 effect. Example: If school quality is 19, add a new demand (+1), school quality goes down to 18.  The explanation: Ever-increasing demands on teachers leave them less able to address their students’ learning needs or to collaborate with colleagues. So, school quality goes down. Then, desperate new policies are mandated every year-–too quickly for teachers and schools to keep up. It’s a cycle of increasing negative outcomes. Over three years, the process looks like 19 + 1 = 18 … 17 …16.

Limitations of district test scores. District test scores are a weak indicator of real success. Experienced teachers have comprehensive goals for their students–including learning, performance, and appreciation—of their subject matter. Otherwise stated, this means students’ cognitive, psychomotor and affective development (CAP)– their head, hands and heart (HHH). In contrast, emphasis on district wide test scores can reduce the meaning of learning to the student’s ability to:

  • select the best answer among five choices (cognitive/head),
  • bubble in circles (psychomotor/hands).

Superintendent as Laissez-Faire Manager

Many superintendents simply trust the expertise of their administrators and  teachers. In busy urban schools, where educators are overburdened with nonstop demands, this is a very appropriate approach. Matt Wunder, the CEO of Da Vinci Charter schools, discussing teacher evaluation and building good school programs said: “I just hire good teachers and then get out of their way.” [2]

Superintendent as a Systemic Change Manager 

Drummond proposes “Perhaps what a superintendent can do is create an environment (stable leadership, adequate resources, freedom from labor strife) that will allow the people who actually make a difference — teachers and principals — to do their jobs. That is, if they’re given enough time.”  Before building on Drummond’s “systems’ views,” I want to clarify that the important factor is not time, but the superintendent’s assumptions or paradigm. In other words, if we still assume that the sun revolves around the earth (an old paradigm in astronomy), no amount of time will result in improved understanding and results.

A Systems Paradigm and Thermostat Metaphor for Instruction/Management

The old paradigm assumes that learners (i.e., students, staff) are empty vessels to fill, that the leader (i.e., teacher, principal, superintendent) is the sole agent.  In reaction, an emerging not-fully-specified new paradigm understands that learners are active agents in their learning, and the leader’s role is unclear or laissez-faire.

A systems paradigm subsumes the old and new paradigms and clarifies dual agency: The leader is agent of the design, delivery and adjustment of the policy/agenda/subject matter; and the learner is agent of pickup and mastery. Thus, adjustability is the key to effectiveness. The old paradigm empty vessel metaphor, perhaps the reformer, is thus replaced with a thermostat metaphor—a more useful visual for a superintendent. Fig. 7.5 from my book[3] illustrates.

therm

The thermostat metaphor is also valuable as it illuminates three modes for the school leader (superintendent, principal, teacher)

  • OFF: School is not in session– Open the windows and let in refreshing ideas and consider new policy;
  • ON: Manual: School is in session and resources are being distributed–Close the windows to avoid excess heat or cold entering and losing resources;
  • ON: Auto: Resources delivered, let people do their work– Watch that the environment remains in the optimal range (cf:, 67 – 72 degrees) and adjust on need.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Retrieved 10/21/14 from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/10/21/357629164/the-short-shelf-life-of-urban-school-superintendents

[2] Gabriele, S. (2014). New Hope for Schools.

[3] Ibid.

Thoughts about the Common Core Curriculum, Standardized Testing, and Accountabilty

October 15, 2014

Testing and assessment are hot-button issues nationwide. Most everyone has strong feelings on standardized testing, the common core state standards, and accountability. I would like to point out the benefits and the problems surrounding these issues in light of some key assumptions about learning and mastery.

Making Explicit some Key Assumptions (and CAP, HHH)

Learning and mastery is complex. First, knowledge and skills are acquired when the learner is able to (cognitively and physically) and wants to (affectively) achieve them—when there is an adequate match of the input to the learner’s CAP–cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. More simply, we could say that successful instruction, testing, and policy need adequate match to the head (cognitive), heart (affective), and hands (psychomotor) of each learner.

Second, all people are learners. Thus, the first principle–learning depends on the match of the input (test, task, policy, or lesson) to CAP or HHH applies to all people. Students, parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and policy makers, have different degrees and areas of mastery, experience, and skill.

Benefits

Common core standards, test scores, and accountability, whether nationwide or even statewide, are helpful for the big picture. Common core standards and accountability criteria set a standard or ideal for educators. Standardized test scores allow researchers to have enough data to make general comparisons and conclusions.

Problems

The common core standards and assessment policies have often resulted in educators feeling pressured to apply them immediately without proper alignment with HHH. One teacher told me her story. Her district administrators rushed to create worksheets to go with the common core standards and assessments for her grade level. The worksheets are over her students’ heads (cognitive/head mismatch). She has to spend all her time covering the difficult material (psychomotor/hands mismatch). The students do not feel successful, and the teacher is not able to use the wonderful textbooks and stories that engage the students (affective/heart mismatches).

Standardized text scores are not useful to assess real learning and mastery. In fact, overdependence on them is harmful. It could be argued that multiple-choice exams test only two things–whether a student can use a pencil to make bubbles, and whether he or she can guess the best answer between five alternatives. Tests and assessment at the classroom level are more important for developing the whole learner (i.e., CAP and HHH).

Accountability is complex as well. The most successful schools are learning communities, where students and teachers are able to develop meaningful and satisfying experiences with the subject matter and each other. When there are too many demands from the outside—whether, government, state or district policy—individual educators need to address these demands at the expense of their students, and the classroom and school community suffer the consequences.

Solutions

I have a two-pronged solution for this discussion. First, let high level policies be ideals and guidelines–rather than mandates–for educators on the front lines. Educators can then apply them appropriately, at their own rates, according to their own expertise, without decreasing school or classroom quality. Second, let educators add regular 30/30 RoundTables–weekly to their classrooms, and monthly to their meetings. Such RoundTables would serve as a user-friendly, refreshing new way to develop their goals and subject matter and to gather everyone’s thoughts and experiences.

Clarifying Two Key Problems in Schools

September 19, 2014

Public education and schools are complex systems that may appear to vary from school to school, city to city, and country to country. Nevertheless, in my book, New Hope for Schools, I identify two key systemic problems, 19+1=18 and Tower of Babel.

19+1=18:

If school quality is 19, and a new policy is added top down, school quality goes down to 18. It’s a cycle of increasing negative outcomes. Here’s how it works:

  • There are more and more external demands on teachers.
  • Teachers become less able to address their own students’ learning needs.
  • School quality goes down.

Then, desperate new policies are mandated every year –too quickly for teachers and schools to keep up. Over three years, the process can be illustrated as 19 +1 = 18 … 17 …16.

Tower of Babel:

School decision makers speak different languages because they have different expertise. Experienced teachers know how to teach. Administrators manage school business. Educational scholars know how to theorize. Educational lawmakers know law. These are very different skills.

New Hope for Schools explains this in detail, with examples. It provides new “systems” theory and a new, user-friendly participatory practice–the RoundTable– to clarify and address these problems.

Let’s talk about New Hope for Schools!

September 12, 2014

Hi, and welcome!  My name is Sue Gabriele, author of New Hope for Schools: Findings of a Teacher Turned Detective.  I’m so happy to have you as a visitor to my blog about my new book.  This project is very special to me, and I hope to share some of that excitement with you here.

New Hope for Schools tells my story of how I developed the GEMS RoundTable, then a three-pronged approach for systemic school (and workplace) renewal.  Rather than systemic change, my approach is systemic renewal to foster change/enrichment/transformation that comes from within the organization, and from within the individual.

I’ll be using this blog to interact with you about New Hope for Schools, expanding on some of the topics in it and posting on some of the ideas related to my book.  This is a great place for you to get to know me, and I’m looking forward to getting to know you, too.

What did you think of New Hope for Schools?  What questions do you have for me?  How do you relate to my book?

I’ll be returning here frequently with new posts and responses to feedback from you.

Until next time, please tell me a little bit about yourself.  Thank you!