If you're new to the term "Jumping the Shark," it is defined by JumptheShark.com as "...a moment. A defining moment when you know that your favorite television program has reached its peak. That instant that you know from now on...it's all downhill. Some call it the climax. We call it 'Jumping the Shark.' From that moment on, the program will simply never be the same." Why the weird term? For you youngsters out there, "The aforementioned expression refers to the telltale sign of the demise of Happy Days, our favorite example, when Fonzie actually 'jumped the shark.' The rest is history."

There are several ways a program can show that demonstrate that it has run its course, many of which happen after the public is fatigued of hearing/reading/talking about the show---overexposure making the producers think they need something "fresh."

I got to wondering about whether or not this happens in education after reading Polski3's post about PLCs. If you haven't heard of PLCs, the acronym (we do luvs us some acronyms in education) stands for Professional Learning Communities. According to SEDL, PLCs are groups of "teachers in a school and its administrators continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn. The goal of their actions is to enhance their effectiveness as professionals so that students benefit." (As an aside, anyone who can find a single place on the SEDL website where they explain what their acronym stands for should get a big shiny gold star. It's apparently a State secret or something.)

There's nothing wrong with the PLC concept---in fact, there's a whole lotta right with it. Teachers talking about student learning and instruction? Downright awesome. But it is perilously close to jumping the shark when mass implementation occurs without the necessary structures in place. It becomes another one of those things that schools say they do, but---to borrow another perilously poised on waterskis term---don't "implement with fidelity." (RtI, anyone?) We toss out the idea of PLCs to teachers without working through issues of time for meetings, protocols for discussions, and coaching on which changes to instruction will move more kids forward. We assume that every teacher already has the skills and desire to make PLCs work. Worse yet, we think that PLCs will be a one-size-fits-all mode of staff development that will best serve all teachers. We do this because there is some good research coming out about the effectiveness of PLCs. Admins and teacher leaders go to conferences and drink the kool-aid. Some teams of teachers will thrive, others will implode due to personality conflicts, lack of administrative support, or other reasons.

It doesn't take a long time to find the grizzled veterans in a school---the ones who don't buy into anything new presented to them because they either believe "This, too, shall pass." as have hundreds of other initiatives over the years or because "Everything old is new again.": they've seen and done it before, only with a differently named package. Either way, they can smell a shark a mile away. Are there ways to prevent this? Education doesn't have a very good track record of starting something and then leaving it in place long enough to really determine if its working. With PLCs, you're talking about a significant change in the way many schools do business. Are we going to take care with how we do this...or are we just going to let it go and wait until the next feeding frenzy?

Labels: educationese, staff development

My job includes mediation between a lot of different stakeholders---all of whom think they know what's best for kids. And while their passion is welcome, the truth about "what's best" lies somewhere in the midst of all the various ideas. I have to try and tease out just what that might be and be the peacemaker.

I find that I can't keep things at an impersonal level. You see, I have my own ideas about what's best for kids. I admit that I have certain biases. I am far more likely to listen to a classroom teacher who is working with children every day than I am to a college prof who has never taught a single day in a public school in her life. There are those who are all about the science, and not about the realities of life in the classroom---and others who are entirely focused on instruction, but differ on content. As for me? I think I'm more of the latter. Make no mistake---my job is about science education; however, I feel like I am being naive if I don't consider the pre-k through 12 spectrum, connections with ed tech, literacy, and so on. I am more interested in talking about practical applications and realities and people who understand them than I am about the theory behind science standards. I think it's good to be able to state these various proclivities. I'd prefer to be up front with people and let them know that when they come to the table with me, they're far more likely to have my attention and support if they have their thoughts organized, and are ready to focus on what will make as immediate and positive difference as possible for teachers and students.

The reality is, of course, that what I want and what I often get are different things. I am learning to adapt. For those who are random thinkers (or the occasional Big Picture type of person who can't deal with details), I let them ramble. The jumbled course of conversation grates on me, but I channel my energy into taking lots of notes. I organize the information in a way which lets me take some control of it. Then, I take a break. (This job means I am doing an awful lot of walking at lunchtime. LOL) I make a series of very specific questions to ask the person based on the "holes" in the conversation. Then, I go back and get the clarification I need. This strategy is working very well.

What about pushy people whose egos barely fit into the room? The ones who are legends in their own minds? I have run across only a handful of them...and am grateful that they are a rarity. I can respect their opinions without catering to their whims. But making it clear that I am not going to kow-tow to certain demands requires a certain type of skill I've never had to exercise. My district position was such that I had all of the responsibility and none of the authority for the projects I was charged with. Now, I have both. That is not reason for me to abuse the level of authority that I have (any more than it is okay for the Ego Brigade), but it is comforting to know that I do not have to negotiate everything. I am good at give and take on a lot of things, but those rare few that I am willing to go to the mattresses for? My ace in the hole is to just be able to say "No." If the egotists want to have a hissy fit, so be it---nothing will change their view that everything in life is an all or none proposition. So far, I've only had to exercise my right to say "No." once, and there is nothing on the horizon which suggests that another similar situation is coming soon. I'd much rather compromise, and most other personalities would, too.

I'm learning to delegate, another skill which most teachers don't have to develop. We don't get secretarial support for our classrooms. There aren't people who take care of our travel, mail, copies, supply orders, and so on. With the new job, it's hard for the control freak in me to let go enough to trust someone with some of the tasks on my plate...and yet, there is no way I could possibly do them all. I need someone who understands how to navigate all of the bureaucracy and chase down the details. Fortunately, there is wonderful support in this area, and I am teachable. I'm getting the hang of having partners with the efforts. My problem, however, is I'm much more interested in getting in and getting my hands dirty. I want to do the professional development with teachers. I want to get out and work with coaches in classrooms. I want to participate with various groups. But my new role is one that is more heavy on the idea side---that I should come up with these things and then find people (and trust them) to properly carry out the work. I'm not ready to do that, yet. And, frankly, I'm not sure it's desirable. If I don't keep my feet in classrooms somehow, how will I ever know the changing needs of teachers and schools?

After three weeks on the job, the training wheels are starting to come off and I am being expected to manage the load given to me. It is a staggering amount of work and the scale is enormous. Slowly, but surely, I'm learning to balance the needs of competing stakeholders, job expectations, and my own vision for the work. I'd like to think that all of that can fit neatly with the rest of my life...that it will all just get along.

Labels: werk

A couple of articles to share this week...

First of all, Dan over at the Principal Learner pointed out Stanford News' piece on how Using Everyday Language to Teach Science May Help Students Learn. Anyone who's taught science at any grade level knows that vocabulary can be a major barrier to conceptual learning---even in constructivist situations. The study reviewed here approaches science vocabulary in a similar fashion to learning a new language. Simpler terms are used first until the concepts are understood and this serves as scaffolding for the scientific vocabulary. There are some definite limitations to this particular piece of research, as pointed out in the article, and I'm not wild about all of the word choices made...but then, I'm not so sure that a fifth grader really needs to understand photosynthesis, either. What I do like, however, is that this study focused on kids actually using terminology---not just memorizing it. I think that's a move in the right direction.

Dan might be interested in this recent Education Week article on how Principals Are Seen As Key in Science Instruction. I suppose the argument might be made that such leadership is essential for all content areas, but the authors assert that it is especially important in science.

Most teachers in the early grades are generalists who are expected to cover all subjects, including science, despite typically having had relatively little grounding in it. Even science teachers in the upper grades may be more comfortable in one science course, such as biology, than another, like physics. Struggling teachers may need help from colleagues to plan science lessons, and prodding to spend time on the subject. Principals can carve out the time for that planning. They can also do the necessary prodding.

Yet taking on that role requires principals to acknowledge that they need help with science content, and in developing ideas for teaching it to students, Ms. Rosen said.

“It’s important for the principal to make it clear to people that you’re not always right, and you don’t always have all the answers,” she said during a break from one of the academy’s sessions. Her goal, she said, is that she and her teachers “begin sharing, going in the same direction, learning as a group.”

The article focuses on The Academy for Leadership in Science Instruction, something I blogged here nearly three years ago. There is a similar academy here in Washington now, but it has not been in place long enough for any solid results to be seen.

What I think all of this will eventually mean is that starting with intermediate grade levels, science really should be taught by specialists. If good instruction in this area requires such a significant commitment to planning, content knowledge, materials, and concept development, is it fair to assume that any one teacher can give it the same level of attention as reading, writing, and 'rithematic?

That's all the science news fit to blog for now. Drop me a link if you see something I should have a look at.

Labels: articles, science

I was reading a mommyblogger's post about how she is homeschooling her two wee ones for their pre-school years and will send them off to public kindergarten when they're of age. Although other mommies she knows are not supportive of her choice, she isn't worried that her kids won't be ready for kindergarten. She buys different workbooks and educational materials and has "school" for an hour a day. I applaud all of this---from the time and attention she gives her children to the interest in supporting their knowledge base. I haven't a doubt that her kids will be among the best prepared for the academic side of kindergarten.

What I think the mommy doesn't understand is that pre-school is not just letters and counting. There are behaviors and routines that Early Childhood Education (ECE) is attempting to develop. I have no doubt that the family is a good model of social things such as how to stand in a line (when required) or wait for one's turn, but it is a whole different ball of wax to have to operate inside that model with a gaggle of one's peers. The conversations that occur during play are an important aspect of social learning---something you can't get from spending time at the kitchen table with mom.

I don't believe that children who stay home with involved parents during their pre-school years are being done any damage. My point here is simply that viewing pre-school as something purely academic is a naive way to look at things.

I was thinking about all of this again after I saw this blurb in Education Week:

Children who enter kindergarten a year after they are eligible do better in school initially than their younger peers, but the advantage tends to fade later in their academic careers, according to a study set to appear in the Journal of Human Resources.

The findings go against earlier research suggesting that age is a significant factor in student achievement. Many states have changed kindergarten-eligibility requirements to give younger students more time to mature before starting school.

“One way to think about it is that the oldest kid in kindergarten has about 20 percent more life experience,” said Darren Lubotsky, a economics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who co-authored the study with Todd Elder, an economist at Michigan State University. “But once they start, they basically learn at the same rate.”

The delay may be a disadvantage to older students later on, the study concludes, given the cost of entering the workforce late.

I recently read somewhere in my RSS travels that late start kindergartners have the highest drop-out rates from high school---and tend to drop out earlier than their peers. Although, I suppose "peer" is relative. Perhaps there is something about being significantly older than one's classmates that sets up a whole sense of disconnection from school? Is it possible that at 5 or 6 years of age, the differences in development are so great---from the viewpoint of the child---that it is too frustrating to start school late? A teacher understands that not everyone in a kindergarten classroom has the fine motor skills for cutting along lines...but do the kinders?

We also know that the gains made by students who get all-day kindergarten fade by third grade---and there is no difference in achievement vs. those who only attended kindergarten for a half-day. I know of one district in the area which is valiantly trying to fight this, having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars from a stressed budget to offer full-day K to its students from its high-poverty neighbourhoods. I'd like to think that they'll beat the odds, but I'm not feeling confident. Why not? One of the factors associated with low SES is high mobility. The mobility itself is not what will doom the kids---ed research bears that out. It's the fact that there will be quite the "mix" of half-day and full-day kinders in the system by that point. Schools will be focusing resources on getting the half-day'ers caught up...not pushing the full-day students onward. Sad, but true. There will likely not be a lot of change until every child is eligible for full-day kindergarten.

I'm not sure how we measure some of these intangibles associated with ECE...how we move from just observing the process to really digging into what is happening. What do we do---if anything---with statements such as "If a child isn't reading at grade level by 3rd grade, they never catch up." or "Predictions for the number of prison beds needed in the future is based on current 3rd grade achievement."? Even assuming these are vast generalizations, there must be a kernel of truth in there somewhere. How do we move from a guessing game about what the right age is for school to ensuring every child gets started on solid footing?

Labels: elementary

Like most (if not all) publicly funded institutions, my workplace has certain warnings about the electronic files we keep and where we work. Do work at home on your own PC? This is a big no-no. Because what if there was some sort of lawsuit someday and it was noted that you had work files on your computer or PDA or cell phone (including your calendar)? Ah, a judge might see fit to order your hardware confiscated. By bringing work into your personal space, you have now opened those up to public disclosure. (Mind you, someone said that there is a better chance of winning the lottery, but still, that means there's a chance.) My new employer is far more fussy about this than any previous ones, even though they have all been subject to same rules.

But this brings up some issues. First of all, I can't always have access to the servers at work...and with this particular job, I will be on the road a few days a month (at least). Actually "working" from 8 - 5, Monday through Friday is not always going to be possible...just as keeping "classroom hours" was never a reality. Sometimes, it's easier to work on a project evenings or weekends when you have some quiet time...or when a really great idea hits you. I also want access to my calendar when I'm not on a computer. When I'm at the dentist trying to schedule my next app't., I need to be able to see when I'm available...and yet, I'm not allowed to sync Outlook to my Palm without my PDA being opened up to public disclosure laws.

There are a couple of ways around this. First of all, a work-issued laptop and some software which allows me to remotely access the servers will take care of a lot of the file issues. The calendar? I think I can sync work to Google and then download from home---but what a pain in the ass: input-upload-download-sync vs. input-sync. However, if I just think about Google Apps for a moment, this could potentially solve a lot of issues. Why not just upload the documents I use most and then not have to worry about the whole which-machine-does-what sort of thing? I can work on a GoogleDoc to my heart's content and it won't matter one lick which computer I use. Nothing has to be stored or downloaded. If a court order wants to get the files from Google, more power to 'em.

All of this begs the questions of just how many copies of information one needs and the best places to store it. We talk a lot at how the volume of available info is doubling in shorter and shorter time frames, but if we just look at our personal piece of that...hmmm. Aren't we assuming a lot when we upload hundreds of photos to Flickr? It's an amazing platform, but it isn't bound to last forever. Are we better off leaving them on those servers...or should we be burning things to CD or DVD? Do we really need to think about how much documentation of our lives we really need? As long as I pay to renew my domain for this space, it's mine. But my hosting service could well go out of business. I build posts in Blogger, but that doesn't mean this format will be available in the future. When all is said and done with this blog, how will I make an archive for myself?

One of my friends recently referred to The Cloud of data we are leaving on-line. Public school districts and agencies might not like employees using social networking and web 2.0 tools, but they are certainly not going to be able to stop their use. Acceptable Use Policies should be updated yearly (not every 6 or 7 years, as most are now) with input from users, not simply IT people. While it is understandable that an employer has a right to set the rules with the hardware and bandwidth it purchases, tools like GoogleDocs, del.icio.us, and so forth are not their provenance. The litmus test should be whether or not the employee is using the tool to advance the work being done (vs. personal use). (As an aside, my favourite comment from the last few weeks was an observation that my previous employer's attitude toward web 2.0 was "Neanderthal." I couldn't have summarized it any better.) The tide has turned, the horse has left the barn---pick your euphemism. With the daily emergence of various tools, it would be wiser to focus on responsible use vs. denial of existence.

I don't mind the big stinky Cloud of information I'm leaving in my wake. I've made my peace with it. Someone else recently pointed out that "Just because someone is a trailblazer doesn't mean they should end up being burned at the stake." I think that in the past, that risk was much greater. It doesn't mean that it can't happen now or in the future, but the prevalence of use of Flickr, Twitter, Blogger, GoogleApps and other platforms means that most people aren't giving their users a second glance. It's an on-line world now. Time to accept it and keep on trailblazing.

Labels: technology

It's not one of greatest movies ever made, but They Live has one of the best lines ever written. In the film, Rowdy Roddy Piper (yes, the wrestler) plays a construction worker. He discovers some special sunglasses that allow him to see the real messages the government and media are pushing (e.g. "Obey" and "Conform"). Worse yet, some people aren't really people at all. Of course, Roddy has to make the world safe again for the rest of us.

In the best scene of the movie, Roddy walks into a bank wearing his sunglasses and carrying his selection of firearms stolen from a police car. He sees the attention he is creating, smiles, and announces to the people in the bank, "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick some ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum."

Let's face it. Working in education requires this sort of outlook. Most days, you've got to go into the classroom and walk that fine line between innocuous and hardnosed. Blogging can also be that way. It's your turf. It's your space where you define the rules of participation by yourself and others.

Are you an edublogger? One who is all out of bubblegum and kicking some ass? Leesepea thinks I do even though I can't rock the plaid shirt thing the way Roddy does. (Thank you!)


Personally, I'm groovin' on the elementary/primary blogs out there for the moment. Organized Chaos continues to be a major favourite (if you do nothing else today, please please go read her post on the future President she had in class) and who can resist Mimi over at It's Not All Flowers and Sausages? Did you see Unlimited's post about how her wee ones applied their view of the real world during story time? You cannot make up the stuff they post. It is both inspiring and heartbreaking all at once. And I, for one, feel a little better knowing that they're out in the world doing their thing in the classroom for kids and on their blogs for us teachers. You go, girls!

Labels: blogging

Now that I've been on the job for a couple of weeks, I'm getting a lot of questions about it. As in, "What is your job?" I'm still figuring that out, but am starting to get my mind wrapped around some pieces of it. When I'm asked about what I think of my new role and work, the best answer I can give is that "It's surreal."

You know those ed policymakers you see or read about in the news? These people are now at the table when I go to meetings. I might have heard Mr. Such-and-So's name hundreds of times during the years I've been in Washington; but until now, I never moved in the kinds of circles which would have provided contact with him...much less talked strategy and science. Teleconference with a well-known scientist? One you have to get a bit toe-to-toe with over some upcoming professional development? Um, yeah, I can do that. (And did.)

The days are a string of events like this, all wrapped up in the greatest amount of bureaucracy that I've ever encountered. I was warned that it would take two weeks to get a pencil. I fear that person may be right. Knowledge is assigned in very discrete units---no two support staff know the same things...and to get some information updated or changed nearly requires a legislative mandate. But, it's all good. I have no interest in fighting the system. As it is, I'm just marveling at the machinations. What a challenge it is to navigate, let alone, understand them.

While I can't speak to any specific examples, I will say that I am very impressed with the quality of people who work in the agency. That's not to say that everyone gets along---and make no mistake, starting a new job like this is akin to marrying into a very large family with both favourites and black sheep---but everyone is passionate about doing what is best for kids. This singular focus on students is a positive one. We might disagree now and then about what this will look like...or squabble over the limited resources to achieve the goal...but you can't fault people for keeping kids at heart. I respect that. If I could change anything about how people do business there, it would be to encourage them to step outside the "echo chamber," and network more. If I just stay in the science circle, then I've limited what I can learn and apply. I think teachers and kids deserve more from me than that.

I keep thinking that this job will sink in at some point. As teachers, we are often too humble about our profession. "I'm just a teacher." And while that is not the best approach to take, it does become part of our self-image. I am still a teacher, but I am also one in a very different kind of role now. As surreal as it may seem, I get to sit at the same table as some of the people who have had a hand in setting the course for classrooms around the state all these years...the "them" we sometimes shake our tiny fists at. I have to overcome the "just a teacher" mentality on behalf of my peers and do what I can to improve their classroom realities.

Labels: werk