As I reflect on my 25-year career as a middle level administrator, one of the high points was the creation of an alternative learning environment for a group of seventh grade students. Realizing a growth bubble was heading towards the middle school, a partnership between the school district and a state-operated farm museum became a reality that offered a school-within-a-school opportunity for almost 30 students while reducing class size in the traditional middle school.
Modeled after the long successful Radnor (PA) Watershed program, the brainchild of Mark Springer, the program got off to a flying start as three dynamic middle school teachers were chosen to staff the program. The first year of the program was very successful, as evidenced by the quantity of interested students requiring that participants be selected by lottery. Spending a bit less than fifty percent of their instructional time off campus was clearly a draw for non-traditional learners. (For more about this program, read "Capturing the Obvious," Principal Leadership, May 2003).
As the program headed towards the mid-point of the year, plans were generated to allow the group of students to remain together in their eighth grade year under the umbrella of a second non-traditional program that would operate as an outdoor environmental program.
Despite the hoopla surrounding the implementation of these two new and exciting initiatives, within three years of their inception, and with a change in the school’s administration, both programs were eliminated. Another team was added to the instructional organization of the school to absorb the number of students who were previously served by the two initiatives. Unlike the long running Radnor program, these programs were essentially decommissioned and the teachers reassigned.
A post mortem of these programs may afford principals who think out-of-the-box some insight as they contemplate taking the road less traveled in their attempts to create non-traditional learning environments for their students.
Change is inevitable
Regardless of an organization’s structure, there are no assurances that its culture will remain constant as school and district personnel, policies, and philosophies go through the natural evolutionary process. Demographic shifts, emphasis on state-wide assessments and related benchmarks along with a community's perception of what programs reflect best educational practices are factors that impact the longevity of a program or course of study.
Nothing is as simple as it appears
From the time an idea is conceived until it realizes fruition the journey is not simple. To think otherwise is unrealistic and will prevent the concept from taking flight. The hurdles encountered are usually cleared with the involvement of many individuals at various levels within the organization.
Finances fuel the engine of change
Unless substantially underwritten by outside funding sources, programs thought to be non-essential will be short-lived. In today’s cash strapped economy, school boards, administrators, and teachers are expected to do more with less. Programs that remotely smack of elitism or are non-traditional in design and structure are at greatest risk for being eliminated.
Let go of ownership
Once developed and operational, a program's ownership becomes that of the school or district. Despite the investment of time, energy, and ego, a school’s program is not personal property. Embracing this thinking is healthy for all stakeholders in the development process.
Stay clear of naysayers
The inherent risk of creating a start-up program is not usually embraced by negative people. Rather than seeing the beauty of implementing a new program, there are some who, quietly or not, sit on the sidelines waiting for failure to take place. In designing a new program, involve people who have positive energy and can serve as resources or go-to people along the creative pathway.
Individuals who are capable of affecting change through innovative program design are usually risk takers who are highly motivated. Remaining creative and productive often means repeating the creative process of defining a need and determining how to best address it. After a program has been developed and instituted there are usually a string of other needs waiting to be addressed by out-of-the box thinkers. Allow the process to begin anew by earmarking a specific need and designing an appropriate response to it. Repeating the creative process, while sometimes tedious is invigorating and gratifying.
The process of being retrospective and analyzing the success or failure of a program is an opportunity for self-exploration and discovery. Take time to be reflective both individually and with your school or program team. This reflection time will help you identify concepts and ideas and formulate strategies and plans to address those concerns that will impact the educational environment and ultimately the students you serve.
Robert Ruder, Ed.D., is an educational consultant and author, and has been a middle grades administrator and advocate for more than 25 years. E-mail: email@example.com
We want students to remember the positive lessons we teach.
Middle grades educators spend almost all their time and energy dealing with what is taught, the content that is presented in classrooms and courses. This is understandable, given the great attention placed on cognitive learning/academic achievement.
But the school is so much more than a physical facility in which teachers present lessons; it is a laboratory of living where ongoing practices and relationships educate. Educators should stop every now and then to consider the lessons the school may be teaching via its programs, policies, rules, and regulations—by its way of life. When doing so, they may be surprised—and chagrined.
A discouraging percentage of what is taught explicitly in the formal curriculum is forgotten in a matter of months. This is a recognized and accepted reality. But the lessons that the school teaches implicitly remain, because they become internalized, subtly but certainly, as students over time live under the school's tutelage.
William Heard Kilpatrick, often considered America's greatest teacher, claimed, "We learn what we live, and we learn it to the degree that we live it." And noted educator Eliot Eisner wisely reminded us that "Schools teach much more—and much less—than they intend to teach."
Much of the "more" that the school unintentionally teaches is positive, and an entire article or two might well be given over to acknowledging and elaborating on the significant, life-changing lessons individual teachers transmit just by being in relationships with students. Indeed, when all is said and done, the influence that the teacher as a person has on the attitudes, values, and behavior of a student may be the most certain and significant "take-away" from a year spent in that teacher's classroom.
The Hidden Curriculum
Fortunately, even though newspaper stories about education seem to be concerned exclusively with reporting on the cognitive side of an education as indicated by test scores—as if that were all a real education was about—most parents do recognize and appreciate the impact that a teacher has on a student apart from the formal cognitive lessons.
However, a good many of the lessons unintentionally taught by the school run completely counter to a school's stated objectives and to the middle school philosophy. It is those undesirable lessons, part of the hidden curriculum, that a faculty needs to recognize, think about, and then consider a way to down-play or counter. Many of these lessons evolve from long-standing practices that are deeply ingrained in our culture and cannot be altered immediately or easily. However, by being conscious of these undesirable lessons being taught, teachers can help students understand the background of practices and gain a needed perspective.
For example, consider the undesirable lessons inherent in most schools' grading systems. Doesn't our uniform, single-standard grading scale run counter to our purported goal of helping all students build a positive self-concept? What conclusion can some students come to when time after time they are expected to excel where all their prior school experiences have demonstrated they cannot possibly place in the top group?
What does the heavy emphasis on grades lead students to conclude about the goal of education? When you stop and think about it, you must recognize that a school via its grading practices actually teaches some kids that they are dumb!
Although it certainly isn't a school's intention, ability grouping practices inevitably teach some undesirable lessons. They teach that some kids are worth more than others. When some students are identified as "gifted," and dealt with in special ways, all other students automatically become "non-gifted"—a label we don't want to place on students who are in the process of becoming.
Consider also a school's typical discipline code and policy. Isn't it based on negative assumptions about the nature of young adolescents? Doesn't it specify consequences for assumed misbehavior rather than confirm positive expectations? Does it often encourage kids to learn ways to beat the system? Do students learn, regrettably, that adults don't trust them?
Food for Thought
In almost all middle schools, we must face the unfortunate truth that lessons that conflict with the school's commitment to providing the best developmentally responsive education possible for all students are inadvertently being taught. The ways we manage, sort, label, instruct, and assess students convey messages. We know that during these malleable early adolescent years, youth are developing the self-concepts and personal standards, values, and attitudes that will direct their behavior in the years ahead, so it does seem most important that the undesirable lessons the school teaches should be faced and educators should take actions to counter them.
Think about it. Consider taking time in team meetings and faculty sessions to tackle this important issue.
John H. Lounsbury is a long-time middle level advocate and dean emeritus of the John H. Lounsbury College of Education at Georgia College and State University, Milledgeville, Georgia.He is a featured presenter at AMLE2014. firstname.lastname@example.org
Published in AMLE Magazine
, September 2014
Findings from research studies suggest that school leadership accounts for fully one quarter of total school effects on pupils, making it second only to classroom instruction among school-based factors affecting student achievement (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004). While a considerable body of research has analyzed effective school leadership in general, remarkably few studies have examined the leadership of middle grades schools in particular (Anfara, Roney, Smarkola, DuCette, & Gross, 2006), despite the fact that students’ performance in the middle grades has been linked to later life success (Balfanz, 2007). The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze middle grades principals' perceptions of effective school leadership. We focus within this article on leadership dispositions in particular, in the interest of space and because the domain remains particularly unexamined within the middle grades literature. We begin with a brief overview of related research and the theoretical framework that grounds our study. We then describe the qualitative methodology employed to pursue our purpose. Next we examine two key areas of our findings on middle grades leadership dispositions: developmental responsiveness and relationship. Finally, we consider the implications of this work for policy, practice and future research.
Published in Research in Middle Level Education Online, 2014.
Students sit down face to face to confront bullies and bullying.
Bullying isn’t what it used to be. In the age of social media, taunts and gossip are now posted on the Internet for all to see. When those comments become bullying that affects our students, educators require a new approach—one that is simple, honest, and to the point. We must let the students take the lead.
At Punta Gorda Middle School in Florida, we empowered students to push back against bullying and educated the entire community about the problem.
To address the problem of bullying, we started with group meetings. Students who were having trouble with bullies or were concerned about the learning environment met in a classroom during homeroom to talk about the issue and brainstorm resolutions. Those who were being bullied often invited their tormentors to join in the discussion. The group met for about 15 to 20 minutes. All interested students could attend; they simply needed permission from their homeroom teacher. Attendance varied between 10 and 80 students per session.
The group gave the students an opportunity to sit down with their peers whom they perceived as bullies. When confronted, some of the bullies said they didn’t want to be bullies; others said they didn’t know why they bullied. Many of these students began to recognize the negative effects of their behavior and continued to participate in the group sessions.
Some bullies said their teasing was all in fun and opted to not participate. Before they left the room, however, the other students had a chance to share their concerns and to remind them that they could change their behavior. Being confronted by their peers rather than by administrators was powerful and did make an impression on many of the perceived bullies.
Based on earlier success we had filming students talking about school safety, we decided to film the students talking about their experiences and air the videos schoolwide. We called the program The Roundtable, reflecting the idea that all students have an equal voice.
Students who participated in The Roundtable met twice a week at the beginning of homeroom to discuss their thoughts about bullying in school, on the bus, at the bus stop, in the locker room, and so on. All students were invited to attend.
Each filmed session was edited to highlight the student’s voice. We aired the 15-minute videos over the cable system once or twice a month at the beginning of homeroom, encouraging teachers to continue the discussion in homeroom. We also made the videos available to teachers on DVDs so they could show them at convenient and appropriate times.
Teachers were not required to show the videos, and some opted not to, but allowing students to take this leadership role created new relationships among students and affected students where it matters most—in the heart.
Unlike generic public service announcements that last 15 seconds and are forgotten, Roundtable videos are unscripted and feature students in classes talking about what matters to them. They hope to make the environment in which they live and learn safer for everyone, including the adults.
Everyone is responsible for ensuring a safe, nurturing school environment. Don’t wait until someone loses a life. Be on the side of prevention, not reaction.
Sean M. Brooks, a former middle school teacher, currently teaches at Charlotte High School in Punta Gorda, Florida. email@example.com
This article was published in AMLE Magazine
, April 2014
Education is indeed a noble calling. Among and between the frustrations, red tape, glacial speed of change, monotony, and normal emotional fallout of “crucial conversations,” there are those wonderful, magical moments when we know exactly why we do what we do.
But, like anything, we sometimes find ourselves falling into a catatonic routine of stand up and deliver, of sit down and correct, of coloring within the lines. In essence our routines dominate and demotivate.
I had the luxury of spending two hours with the staff at an incredible startup technology company. I was brought in as a consultant to provide some insight to a group of talented, motivated Millennials. Yet I was the one who walked away with the insight.
The lessons I learned can be applicable to educators and change agents in every industry.
- The company is flat. Clearly, there was a pecking order in title and responsibility, yet I could not tell who was in charge of anything. People collaborated in one large open space without cubicles or doors separating people or preventing access. The energy was palpable; the structure of power or chain of command was not.
Someone once told me that the legendary headmaster at Deerfield Academy had his desk in the main hallway of the school. Even if this is urban legend, it makes us wonder if school leaders may be missing an opportunity to be more accessible, more in the fray.
Several years ago, I worked at a charter school where all the teachers worked in “pods,” where several desks were pushed together in grade teams in one large room. The energy was amazing.
- Questions are the drivers. I sat in a meeting where I was peppered with questions—specific ones, general ones, hypothetical ones, probing ones. Clearly, the work of these entrepreneurs is to seek solutions. Looking for the next big question seemed like a part of the ethos, the mission-led approach to providing outstanding customer service.
Framing questions also helps organize the impressive amount of qualitative and quantitative research that goes on in this company. Honest feedback from experts, ordinary users, and “power” users is critical.
Walls were covered with whiteboards, which in turn were covered with running conversations in marker—ideas, diagrams, more questions, some answers. The incessant scribbling was like an organic exhibit of mission, action, and collaboration on a canvas of dreams, hope, and sweat.
Might asking clear, specific questions help educators improve the student experience? Might students be a great resource, since they are the ones “living” the educational experience?
Maybe education leaders should set question goals per day and per week to gather as much data as possible. One must know what is going on to be able to change what is going on.
- Professional trust—not rules—is key. At this company, I saw staff putting golf balls on synthetic turf and wearing jeans and rock band t-shirts. The office would not have won any neatness awards. The creative energy in the place was overwhelming, and in between their short mental breaks from work, serious work was being done.
It was as if the boss had said to the staff, “You are talented, you are trusted. Do your work well, and be who you are. Work hard and long. Have fun. Solve problems. Let me know when you want feedback.”
Talk about motivating!
In Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan address many of the same ideas: trust, expertise, autonomy. Perhaps there is a way to make education more entrepreneurial, to capture the spirit of the world I witnessed and recruit and hire some of its brightest people.
Jason Larocque is middle level director at St. John’s Prep School in Danvers, Massachusetts. www.stjohnsprep.org
A new survey sheds light on keys to successful implementation of Common Core State Standards.
Think about the Common Core State Standards as an ambitious remodeling project happening all over the country. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have adopted new shared goals for what their students should know and be able to do in literacy, and middle grades schools all across the country are figuring out how to bring instruction “up to code.”
Will schools take a “pre-fab” approach to the remodel, dropping in off-the-shelf components and hoping they will fit and function? Or will they take a custom approach, relying on the skilled craftspeople on the front lines of instruction to make adaptations to suit the needs and contexts of their schools?
Exciting new survey results from the National Center on Literacy Education (NCLE) demonstrate the power of the custom approach, and in particular the power of teacher collaboration, in driving Common Core State Standards (CCSS) implementation.
The survey was conducted online in October 2013 among members of organizations in the NCLE coalition (which includes AMLE) and garnered responses from almost 5,700 K–12 educators, including more than 3,000 classroom teachers (nearly 900 in middle grades schools). The survey was limited to respondents in states and roles actively implementing the CCSS in ELA/Literacy.
Successful Transitions to CCSS
The transition to the CCSS seems to be most successful when teachers are highly engaged in the process and have time to collaborate to leverage their collective professional expertise to bring all students to higher levels of literacy. This is great news for middle grades schools, where teaming structures provide a framework for doing the kinds of interdisciplinary work called for by the CCSS.
The nearly 900 middle grades teachers who responded to our survey reported a wide variation in how their schools are approaching the change, but send four clear messages for making the transition a success:
1. Accelerate the changes by keeping front-line educators engaged in designing how literacy skills can be taught differently.
Middle grades schools across the country are taking a range of different approaches, some dependent on purchased materials, some much more teacher-driven.
We asked middle grades teachers how engaged they are in several aspects of the CCSS transition. Is this a change they are driving, or a change that is being done “to” them? We discovered that three specific kinds of teacher engagement are crucial to how well the CCSS transition is going:
- Planning how their school will implement the standards.
- Having time with colleagues to work on the standards.
- Identifying and/or creating their own materials and approaches.
From having a voice in planning how their school would implement the standards, to having time with colleagues to dig into the meaning of the standards and implications for classroom practice, to being trusted to exercise their professional judgment in terms of what materials will best help their particular students reach the standards, engaged teachers are making more progress at every step of CCSS implementation: supporting the standards, feeling well-prepared to help students meet the standards, and actually making changes in their classrooms.
2. Make collaboration time purposeful professional work by focusing on real instructional tasks.
One of the most powerful predictors of progress with implementing the standards was teachers having time to work through them with colleagues. Middle grades teachers have an advantage here compared to teachers at other levels, reporting more built-in time for team work than elementary school or secondary school teachers.
Compared to teachers who are doing it on their own, teachers who participated in collaborative work with colleagues around the standards were twice as likely to rate themselves as well-prepared to help their students meet the standards and also much more likely to report having already made moderate or significant changes in their teaching in response to CCSS goals.
Table 1 illustrates the impact of collaboration on CCSS implementation, showing that teachers who have opportunities to collaborate around the standards report being better prepared to implement the standards and are already making more changes in their practice. Clearly, with fewer than half the teachers who responded feeling well-prepared, we are at an early stage in this transition. Providing time for teachers to work through the standards together is one of the most powerful ways to raise the level of preparedness.
Middle schools across the country are investing huge amounts of time and money in professional learning around the new standards. But what kinds of learning experiences do teachers tell us really make a difference in their ability to implement the standards? As Table 2 illustrates, among middle grades teachers in the NCLE survey, hands-on planning time with colleagues was the clear winner.
The survey also provides a window into what teachers do during that time that makes a difference for student learning. Teachers who reported that they frequently engaged in the following CCSS-related tasks with a collaborative team were making the most progress:
- Co-creating lessons
- Co-creating assessments
- Examining student work together.
For example, teachers who reported that they frequently had the opportunity to spend time with a team looking at real examples of student work relative to specific standards were twice as likely to rate themselves well-prepared to help their students meet the standards.
Research suggests that this relationship is so strong because professional learning that is embedded in the real work of instruction is far more likely to lead to desired changes. Such tasks let teachers pool their insights and experiences and adjust their practice in real time. Investing in the time to do this kind of practical, applied work will pay off in remodeled instruction that is more coherent and structurally sound.
3. Bring educators in all disciplines and roles together in shifting literacy practices.
Middle grades teachers have always understood that literacy is central to student success across the curriculum. In the 2012 NCLE survey, 80% of middle grades educators in all job roles and subject areas agreed that “Developing students’ literacy is one of the most important parts of my job.”
The Common Core builds on that existing shared ownership of literacy development by providing a structure of common goals, a more concrete description of what it means to be literate in the 21st century that educators can work toward together.
Our data show that middle grades teachers across subject areas are shifting practices in response (see Table 3). Majorities of teachers across subject areas report shifts, but teachers of natural and social sciences were more likely to report an impact on how they teach than on what, suggesting they are getting the message that CCSS are not asking everyone to become English teachers, but rather to be more conscious of and strategic about literacy development within their own content area.
4. Build teacher ownership of the change by providing space and support for them to innovate and design the lessons and materials that are right for their students to meet the CCSS goals.
Some of the most striking findings in our survey have to do with the role of textbooks and other materials in the transition to CCSS. When asked if the “main curricular materials” (presumably textbooks) they were currently using are well aligned with the new standards, 59% of middle grades teachers say they are not. Under a model of educational change driven by teachers sticking to a script, this would be a problem, the assumption being that without an aligned textbook to follow, teachers will not shift their literacy practices in the desired direction. In fact, just 25% of teachers rated finding instructional materials aligned with the standards to be a major challenge.
It seems that teachers have a much broader definition of materials than purchased textbooks. As envisioned in the standards document, teachers are drawing on a wide array of resources from classroom libraries to newspaper and magazine articles and especially lessons designed by other teachers near and far. The transition to the new standards coupled with digitally literate teachers has led to an explosion of sharing and adapting of instructional materials, some on education-specific platforms but many more through the use of broader technologies such as YouTube, Pinterest, and Twitter.
Last fall, almost 90% of middle grades teachers reported that in their district, teachers are identifying and/or creating their own materials and approaches to meet the standards. This is exciting news: sustainable change comes from the bottom up, powered by the insight and ownership of those on the front lines.
A Teacher-Powered Transition
Data from the 2013 NCLE survey suggest that most middle schools are taking a “custom” approach to this huge remodeling job, drawing on the talents of teachers to bring the general code of the CCSS to life in ways that make sense in their specific context.
District and school leaders can continue to support a successful, teacher-powered transition by:
- Involving teachers in planning for the change.
- Protecting time for teachers to collaborate on standards implementation.
- Focusing collaboration time close to the classroom: on designing, testing, and revising lessons and assessments.
- Keeping the collaboration interdisciplinary.
They can also give networked teachers the autonomy to create and design the materials that will get their students to the shared goals of the standards.
Catherine Awsumb Nelson is an evaluation and research consultant for the National Center for Literacy Education. firstname.lastname@example.org
This article was published in AMLE magazine
, March 2014.
Most of the headlines following the latest results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) focused on the fact that the performance of 15-year-olds in the United States has remained flat for the past decade while the performance of their peers in other nations improved. As a result, the United States is now ranked 26th out of 34 industrialized countries in mathematics, 17th in reading, and 21st in science.
At first glance, it might seem as if the PISA results are not that instructive. After all, U.S. educators don’t need yet another test to tell them that their students rank below their international peers. But PISA doesn’t just tell us where U.S. students rank internationally, it also offers important insights into policies and practices that can inform educational policy going forward.
One specific challenge for the United States that emerged from the PISA results is the nation’s declining performance in an important area: the proportion of students who performed at the top levels.
As an Alliance for Excellent Education report (http://all4ed.org/?p=18019) that analyzes the PISA results finds, 8.8% of U.S. 15-year-olds performed at the top levels in mathematics, compared with 10.1% in 2003; 7.9% performed at the top levels in reading, compared with 12.2% in 2000; and 7.5% performed at top levels in science, down from 9.1% in 2006 (that decline was not statistically significant).
By contrast, several high-performing nations had far higher proportions of students at the top levels, and many increased the proportions of students who scored high. Shanghai-China had far and away the most high performers, with 55.4% at top levels in mathematics, 25.1% in reading, and 27.2% in science. Singapore, Korea, Japan, Canada, and Switzerland, among other nations, all had considerably more students at the top levels than did the United States. Poland’s proportion of top performers rose substantially, from 10.1% to 16.7% in mathematics and 5.9% to 10% in reading.
The fact that so few U.S. students reached top levels—and that the number who have done so is dropping—is worrisome. These levels indicate that students can use their knowledge to think critically, solve complex and
novel problems, and communicate effectively—precisely the deeper learning competencies that are essential for their future. Unfortunately, they are also the skills that far too many U.S. students lack—a fact that the nation’s teachers already understand and are working to correct.
What the PISA results do not capture is all the hard work that educators, administrators, and students are currently doing to improve U.S. performance in the next round of PISA exams, in 2015. The Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics place a strong emphasis on core content knowledge as well as the ability to use knowledge to think critically, solve problems, and communicate effectively.
The challenge for the United States is to implement the Common Core State Standards and assessments effectively so that teachers receive the support they need to teach those abilities effectively, and all students have the support they need to learn them. Improving PISA performance, and more important, improving the nation’s civic and economic strength, depends on whether the nation can meet that challenge.
Bob Wise is president of the Alliance for Excellent Education, Washington, D.C. email@example.com
This article was published in AMLE Magazine
, March 2014.
A basic plan of action can help education leaders ensure success for all students.
Today’s school leaders are challenged to ensure their schools are effective—providing a quality education for every student—but they must do that with fewer resources than in the past. They need an action plan that ensures success for all students.
In the past 15 years, research studies have identified the characteristics of effective schools. Those characteristics that seem to show up in all the findings include high expectations for students, a safe and orderly school climate, frequent assessment of student progress, parental involvement, collaboration among faculty and staff members, and focused and sustained professional development.
Attending to these basics can go a long way toward creating effective schools that meet the needs of all students.
Three factors stand out from the research that guide implementation of this component of effective schools.
Faculty and staff must truly believe that raising the bar will increase student achievement. The teachers in the classroom must be willing to increase the rigor of instruction and the administrators must be willing to support these efforts. Just saying you have high expectations for students is not enough; faculty and staff members must put their beliefs into action.
Faculty and staff must communicate their high expectations to the students on a daily basis. Teachers do this by raising the bar for all students in the classroom and then doing whatever it takes to help the students succeed. Raising the bar without additional support is setting students up for failure. Administrators support the “culture of high expectations” by providing staff development, resources, and support for the efforts of the teachers.
- Faculty and staff must have high expectations for themselves as well. This means faculty and staff members must increase the rigor of their instruction, be willing to learn and try new instructional strategies, and be available to provide additional support for students to ensure their success.
A Safe and Orderly Climate
It is important to create an environment where all stakeholders feel secure. A safe and orderly school has a positive impact on student achievement.
- An effective school safety program focuses on prevention, intervention, and emergency response. School leaders can take several steps to create this type of learning environment.
- Make sure students have a clear understanding of the behavioral expectations on the campus. Students also should be taught proper behavior. This is a responsibility of all faculty members.Establish personal relationships with students. Personal relationships are especially important on campuses with large numbers of economically disadvantaged students.
- Have regular emergency drills and be able to respond quickly to reports of unsafe conditions or emergency incidents. All staff members should feel confident in their ability to deal with multiple forms of emergencies. Students should also be instructed in proper response to multiple forms of emergencies.
- Establish a school-wide program to deal with bullying, violence, and harassment. An effective program is proactive and emphasizes prevention. A safe procedure for reporting incidents should be in place.
To create and maintain an effective school, education leaders should guide teachers in the use of multiple forms of assessment. Teachers should use data to inform their instructional decisions. And, they should have opportunities to work in teams to develop pre-assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments.
Pre-assessments are one of the most important elements of differentiated instruction. Pre-assessments can inform teachers not only about what concepts the students have already mastered, but can also bring to light misconceptions students may have about the concepts. This knowledge allows teachers to differentiate instruction based on student readiness.
Formative assessments are given during instruction to determine how well students are meeting the learning goals of the lesson. Teachers use formative assessment data to determine if they need to adjust their instruction.
Summative assessments assess how much of the content the students mastered at a certain point in time; summative assessment data is usually an important part of the grading process. Summative assessment can help evaluate instructional effectiveness and determine if re-teaching is necessary.
Schools cannot sit back and wait for parents to come to them. Parents should be invited onto campus and involved in decision making when appropriate. Parents who feel welcome are more likely to become involved.
Communication between school and family should be consistent and it should involve school administrators as well as teachers.
Teacher collaboration creates a culture of high student expectations, promotes sharing of best practices, and cultivates a sense of belonging.
The first step in developing a culture of collaboration is to build a core team to begin the process. The core team should include teachers and administrators who have a collective commitment to improving student achievement and are well-respected on the campus. This group will be responsible for developing the implementation plan for the campus.
The next step is to build the collaborative teams. Team members must be compatible and willing to work together. All team members must understand that they will be expected to fully participate in the collaborative team. Once the teams are built, they establish individual member roles and team norms.
Because it has a direct, positive impact on student achievement, principals should promote collaborative opportunities for teachers by building a master schedule that gives teachers time during the school day to meet together. In a perfect world collaborative teams would meet every day. However, if that is not possible, the teams should be provided opportunities to meet at least weekly.
Focused, Sustained Professional Development
For many years staff development was presented in a “one and done” method, presented only at the beginning of the year. To positively affect student achievement, professional development should be an ongoing learning experience.
Determine areas of need for the campus. All staff members should have input into this needs assessment to ensure the staff development plan is focused and effective.
Find experts who are well respected to present the staff development. Some staff development will be presented by campus personnel, some by district personnel, and some by outside vendors.
We know now that effective staff development is continuous and provides faculty and staff members many opportunities to learn about, discuss, and implement the new ideas.
There’s no one-size-fits-all method for creating effective schools, but research has identified common characteristics of effective schools. Schools that aspire to improve instruction and student achievement should embrace these characteristics. It is the role of campus leaders to determine how these characteristics look on your campus.
Kenneth Cummings is the principal of T.H. McDonald Junior High School in Katy, Texas. firstname.lastname@example.org
The article was published in AMLE Magazine, February 2014.
Technology has made nearly everything in modern life more efficient, accessible, richer, and faster, yet students are frequently asked to check their smart phones, laptops, and other devices at the door when they enter a classroom. That will change on Wednesday, February 5, when millions of students join tens of thousands of teachers, librarians, principals, and other educators across the nation for the third annual Digital Learning Day.
Started by the Alliance for Excellent Education in 2011, Digital Learning Day is a national celebration of innovation in education, centered on the belief that every child deserves the opportunity to learn in a robust digital environment that supports quality teaching every day.
Every child deserves a sound education foundation, and Digital Learning Day promotes the concept that technology joined with teachers is, and will continue to be, a key part of that foundation.
Digital Learning Day is not about technology for technology’s sake—simply slapping a netbook on top of a textbook will not move the education needle very much. Instead, Digital Learning Day is about combining innovative teaching and digital learning—any effective application of technology that raises student outcomes—in America’s schools to support teachers, improve learning, and help students achieve at their highest potential.
The Alliance recently profiled school districts that have shown bold leadership using technology effectively to improve learning for their students, including Cajon Valley Union School District in California, Quakertown Community School District in Pennsylvania, Dysart Unified School District in Arizona, and Mooresville Graded School District in North Carolina. The time has come for many more districts to follow their lead, and many are taking the challenge.
No matter the approach, grade level, subject, geographic location, or teacher’s comfort using technology, Digital Learning Day will enable education professionals and policymakers, explore new strategies, make supporting proclamations, improve lessons, and create plans to use technology to improve teaching and learning.
Take the Challenge
There is a growing national consensus that commonsense, effective applications of digital learning in the classroom can provide students with a rich, personalized educational experience and dramatically improve student outcomes.
I urge you to add your voice to the emerging numbers of parents, teachers, administrators, and policymakers who are embracing digital learning in the classroom. Digital Learning Day is a great opportunity to use the attention from national and state awareness campaigns to highlight local digital learning efforts to media, community leaders, and local policymakers.
Here are three meaningful ways to participate in Digital Learning Day:
Add your voice in support of digital learning in schools at http://digitallearningday.org/join.
Plan an event at your school and add it to our national map at http://digitallearningday.org/events/state-and-local-celebrations.
- Spread the word; invite friends, family, and colleagues to join the movement at http://digitallearningday.org/participate/spread-the-word.
The nation has a moral and economic imperative to ensure that every child graduates from high school with the skills necessary to succeed in college and today’s highly competitive job market. Let’s help teachers “power up” learning through effective application of technology.
Bob Wise is president of the Alliance for Excellent Education, Washington, D.C.email@example.com
This article was published in AMLE Magazine, February 2014.
For years, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has
demanded that our nation pay ever closer attention
to school evaluation (Schmidt, 2008; Stanik, 2007). Never before have the stakes of evaluation been so
high. School and district jobs, funding, and local
control of educational policy and practice are all more
directly jeopardized by unfavorable evaluations than
at any other time in our country’s history (Schmidt,
2008; Stanik, 2007). These high-stakes consequences
demand that educators be evaluation experts, fully
prepared to take part in the debate about U.S.
education and school evaluation.
Choosing which objectives are evaluated and which
are not is a particularly contentious point in this
debate, especially when considering the unintended
and often negative impact these decisions can have
on schools. High-stakes NCLB school evaluation
has successfully focused national attention on what’s
being evaluated—math and reading scores, initially—
but may have done so only at the expense of other
top priorities (Stanik, 2007). Examples of these
important, but now frequently overlooked priorities,
include efforts to meet the broader developmental needs
of the whole child, and school social services designed
to support struggling or disadvantaged students.
Although many examples show that heightened
attention to NCLB evaluation has directly contributed
to some schools' redoubling of their efforts and
successfully improving student reading and math
scores, many equally valid examples can be provided
in which focus on NCLB outcomes has resulted in a
diminishment of other critical parts of the curriculum
or school services (Stanik, 2007). Many of these
priorities may have been rightly determined to be
outside the scope of national evaluation efforts but
are still deserving of adequate attention and resources
from local stakeholders.
This article describes one middle school’s efforts
to use model building and school self-evaluation to hold itself accountable for its own priorities. These
priorities were established by local administrators,
teachers, and students, in addition to those
established by NCLB. Further, this article discusses
this school’s efforts to make evaluation a more
valuable and meaningful part of the work of all
school professionals—particularly their efforts to
use evaluation to enhance outcomes related to the
whole student—and to develop a strong “rigor-in-practice”
culture within the school. It concludes
with a discussion about the role of evaluation in
middle schools and recommendations for evaluators
interested in implementing similar practices.
Published in Research in Middle Level Education Online, 2013