To continue deepening the instructional
knowledge and expertise for administra- tors, formal Instructional Rounds have been implemented in 2012-13. The purpose of Rounds is to observe the “problems of prac- tice” identified by the teachers, and offer feedback on what was observed and what stu- dents experience instructionally throughout the school. By examining instruction from the learner perspective, administrators strengthen their skills in coaching teachers to the learning focus of Common Core State Standards and assessments, and increase their confidence in the transition that will be fully implemented in 2014-15.
A whole child/whole student appraoch Another important initiative for 2012-13
has been the implementation of Positive Be- havioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). This “whole child/whole student” orienta- tion enables each staff member to approach all students, and any individual student – including one that is misbehaving – with a constructive, supportive set of actions. School-wide behavior support systems and positive visual reminders are other impor- tant aspects of PBIS. A unique feature of PBIS in Beaumont is
the inclusion of strategies to address the ac- tions of adults who may be having difficulty engaging in the best possible interactions with a student – or each other. These issues arise every day, in every district across the country: A grumpy bus driver’s interaction with a child at 7:15 a.m. may cause the child to start off his school day in a state of retreat or aggression. A lawn mower outside a first- grade classroom during reading instruction may make it impossible for the students to hear the teacher, and the district lawn-mow- ing schedule may be an ironclad institution. An irritated administrator may interact
with a technician from maintenance and operations – such as the mowing machine operator – in a less than respectful manner, leading to resentment and poor customer service in the future for that school site, which negatively impacts the daily learn- ing environment for students. These are the usually ignored kinds of problems that un- dermine the loftiest mission statements and district goals.
Leading with ‘now’ in mind By George Manthey A
bout a year ago I had the incredible experience of reuniting with three students who had been in my second-grade class 35 years ago. My first impression: I was shocked by how tall they were. As I learned about their families and careers, I realized that as their teacher I had never given one thought about the adults they would be. I thought about them only as second graders – certainly not as the professional athlete, business owner or lawyer that each had become. Today, things are quite different. For example, the writ-
ers of the Common Core Standards started with what they believed were the skills that students would need to be
ready for college and/or the work force and worked backwards all the way to kinder- garten. In leadership courses and workshops we are taught to “begin with the end in mind.” The backwards mapping technique tells us to decide what is essential for students to know, and to design the assessment before designing the lesson. This makes perfect sense. But I’m wondering if our focus on the end may cause us to lose track of what may be most important right now.
Creating learning experiences that are “irresistibly engaging” The Common Core standards (I’m basically a fan of these standards) demonstrate
this issue. For example, one of the anchor standards for language arts is “analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.” That is an important skill for someone entering the workforce or college. But, in kindergarten and first grade this standard is “identify basic similarities in
and differences between two texts on the same topic.” I understand how comparing texts could be an interesting discussion even in kindergarten, but I’m wondering if that needs to be the “standard.” Perhaps if the first-grade standard is “expresses enthu- siasm for texts read,” it would be more likely that by eighth grade students were eager to analyze cases in which texts “provide conflicting information on the same topic.” While recently sharing her view on our new assessments, Linda Darling-Ham-
mond observed, “We should do less of spending money on assessment detached from designing learning and more of creating learning experiences that are irresistibly en- gaging.” What was missing for me when I taught second grade was an understanding of what students should be engaged in. But now we have standards that let us know. Recently I observed a group of second graders discuss a story. As their teacher led
them to cite the text that supported their conclusions, I noticed the joy of reading the story dwindling. I understand why the teacher wanted them to respond with “text- based” conclusions. But I couldn’t help feeling the real goal had been lost in the shift to the Common Core. As leaders we have a tremendous opportunity to re-create schools that are “irre-
sistibly engaging” around rigorous standards. Let’s not lose sight of “now” as we move to that “end.” I’m afraid that if we do, any visits from our students 35 years from now may not be joyous. n
George Manthey (ACSA’s former assistant executive director of Educational Services) is the co-founder (along with Jeanie Cash) of Lead Learner Associates.
January/February 2014 25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40