You may have seen the “Brace Yourselves…More Meetings are Coming” meme inspired by Game of Thrones.  I’ve seen that one circulate the hallways.  A couple of years ago I also saw a copy of Lencioni’s book “DEATH by Meeting” prominently displayed in a few conspicuous spots around the office.  It was a not-so-subtle hint from staff.  While the entertainment industry provides us with a wide selection of office-inspired comedy choices, I’m surprised there isn’t even more.  Meetings at work are such an easy target for a good laugh.  And yet, in the world of organizational health and governance of human systems, meetings are unavoidable, if not sometimes essential.  In fact, a recent piece I read in the New Yorker entitled “Was E-mail a Mistake” tells the history of e-mail and how some companies are going back to meetings as the communication method of choice.  While the relative merits of asynchronous versus synchronous communication will continue to be debated (I, for one, am exhausted by the nonstop email tsunami), there is still room for improvement on the quality of our meetings.

In the education space, perhaps the most common meeting is a school’s Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) meeting.  The ILT is typically comprised of administrators and key staff members who come together periodically to, as the name suggests, provide instructional leadership at the school site.  In fact, in some states an ILT is required by law.  While the ILT meeting might be ubiquitous in schools, those meetings vary tremendously in the degree to which they actually address instruction.  In many cases, the ILT functions much more like a faculty senate, where conversations more closely resemble negotiations or event planning, rarely pushing into the much more contentious terrain of addressing instructional practice in classrooms.  Members on the ILT are usually happy to provide input and opinions about how to run the school.  Addressing the quality of instruction in other classrooms can be much trickier business.

On one level, the typical ILT focus on school logistics is absolutely fair.  There is a lot going on in schools, with a lot of stakeholder needs and perspectives to consider.  School events, procedures, and decisions about investment of scarce resources are matters that absolutely require input and consideration from a more distributed decision-making body than the principal or admin team alone.  Often, the ILT becomes the de facto governing body of the school, where concerns are raised and ideas about improvements are deliberated and discussed.  There needs to be a designated space for this type of work to happen.

The unfortunate thing, however, is that decisions about logistics and management of the school often crowd out any focus on what should matter most, which is the quality of the learning experience for students.  City et. al (2009) famously outline the concept of the instructional core, that posits, among other things, that student learning can only improve as a consequence of “improvements in the level of content, teachers’ knowledge and skill, and student engagement.”  In other words, everything else happening in schools is secondary to what happens in classrooms.  Ironically, what is happening in classrooms does not always make the ILT agenda.

As a high school principal, I found much the same challenge at times with our “Lead Team.”  My Lead Team was a talented group whom I really did see as valuable instructional leaders.  Yet I too found that the majority of our planning time together was dedicated to matters of school administration and logistics.  Even though I wanted to change this, it proved surprisingly difficult to focus the majority of our time on matters of instruction.  My frustration with this finally led me to make a structural change, which was to add a second leadership team that would focus exclusively on instruction.  Yes, we even called it our “Instructional Leadership Team.”

In theory, this was a step in the right direction to ensure that more of our leadership resources were focused on improving instructional practices in classrooms across the school.  As is usually the case, reality proved to be a bit more complex.  The primary challenge was that now we had two leadership teams, and that led to some confusion about priorities and who really had the authority to make decisions.  In schools, being designated as a member of a leadership team by an administrator does not necessarily give you authority to make decisions on behalf of your colleagues.  My Lead Team still held tremendous authority amongst their peers, and so the work of the ILT by default still needed the consideration and approval of the Lead Team if it wanted to go anywhere in practice.

Whatever the structure, it takes consistent dedication and courage to keep your eyes on instructional quality.  It requires a vision for what quality teaching and learning looks like.  It requires continual analysis of student work, peer observations, and courageous conversations about what is working well and what constitutes the next level of work.  It requires a healthy professional culture that welcomes scrutiny and analysis.  The pursuit of that type of professional culture starts with the ILT.  It’s a meeting that says a lot about what is most important to the decision-makers at the school.

Learning objectives have been around for a long time.  With roots in behaviorism and the response of subjects to external stimuli, learning objectives were introduced into public school classrooms to define the impact that teaching had on what students learn.  Beginning in 1962 with the publication of Robert Mager’s Preparing Instructional Objectives, learning objectives have been a popular topic for both education researchers and reformers.  From “SWBATs” to “Aims” to “Learning Targets,” learning objectives are often seen as an entry point for improving classroom instruction.    

While there are arguably multiple ways to write strong objectives, I think there is power in choosing one method and using it across the school as a united adult community.  My personal preference is the Learning Target approach as I find it the most student-friendly.  Below, I share some of the key components of strong objectives, drawing on the work of Moss et. al (2011).

The objective should specify what a student can do as a result of a lesson/project task

Ex. “I can define evolutionary theory and identify examples from nature that support the theory.”

Ex. “I can introduce myself to another student in Spanish.”

Note the student friendly “I can” language used to introduce the objective.  Moss et. al (2011) argue that students “can’t see, recognize, and understand what they need to learn until we translate the learning intention into developmentally appropriate, student-friendly, and culturally respectful language.”  When we write our objectives we should repeat it back to  ourselves and ask whether it makes sense from a student’s perspective. 

The objective is also not too broadly defined.  Instead of outlining what a student can do as the result of an entire unit of study, these objectives are narrow enough to inform students about what they will be able to do as the result of a lesson or project task.  Leahy, et. al (2005) refer to the ideal objective as a lesson-sized amount of learning.

It is important to note that in a PBL setting, student learning will be informed by broad essential questions that guide the entire unit or project, as well as the more focused objective (written using the Learning Target approach) associated with each project task.  When writing an objective, make sure that it is written narrowly enough to be completed within a typical lesson period. Let’s look at an example:

Ex. “I can create my own cartoon character”

This objective might be appropriate for a single lesson or project task.  However, if the teacher envisions this as a project that occurs over several days, then the teacher would need to craft a series of objectives or project tasks that could be assessed in smaller chunks.  Using more narrowly written objectives helps inform the teacher’s instructional design and provides students with more opportunities for feedback and reflection through each lesson or task associated with the project.   

Ex. “I can outline an original cartoon character in pencil”

Ex. “I can add color to an original cartoon character outline”

Ex. “I can add shading and contour to an original cartoon character”

The objective should be used/referred to with students during class

Moss et. al (2011) openly admit that objectives “have no inherent power,” but are only effective to the degree that “educators commit to consistently and intentionally (share) them with students.”  We all know that having an objective written on the board does not ensure that students will understand the purpose behind the lesson.  Two powerful ways to refer to the objective are to frame the lesson using the objective during the introduction, and to refer back to the objective following the outcome of the lesson. 

Ex. “I can define evolutionary theory and identify examples from nature that support the theory.”

Teacher (during introduction): “Okay everyone, I’m going to quickly define evolutionary theory for you to jot into your notebooks, and then we will watch a short 10 minute clip that contains multiple examples from nature that support the theory.  While it is important to know what evolutionary theory is, you also have to prove that you can find real life examples that support the theory.  Remember, at the end of the period I’ll show another clip and you’ll have to spot the examples of evolutionary theory on your own.”

Teacher (following outcome assessment): “All right, you’ve all had the opportunity to choose an example from the clip and defend your selection on your exit slip.  Joey, can you remind us what our goal was for class today? student reads the objective.  That’s right, you were supposed to be able to define evolutionary theory and find examples of it in nature.  With a thumbs up or thumbs down, how many of you think you reached our goal for today?”

The objective should be assessed

I often refer to the formative assessment at the end of each lesson or project task as the “outcome” of the lesson.  Since the objective should be backwards-mapped to the desired outcome of instruction, a well-written objective gives students clear information about how the learning of the day will be assessed.

Ex. “I can introduce myself to another student in Spanish.”

Using this objective, students can clearly see that at the end of the lesson they will be asked to introduce themselves to another student entirely in Spanish.  Teachers should not only take care to write objectives that can actually be assessed, but they should also plan time in their lesson to carry out the assessment. 

Teacher (introducing formative assessment at end of lesson): “While the rest of you get started on the homework assignment I’ve listed on the board, I will be coming around and listening to you introduce yourselves in Spanish with no notes.  I’ll be assessing how well you perform based on the oral expression rubric that we use regularly.” 

Some teachers ask if it is truly necessary to include an assessment at the end of every lesson or project task.  The short answer is yes.  However, an accomplished teacher can use a wide variety of formative assessment techniques, both formal and informal, to assess the learning of the day.  There is no need to always rely on a lengthy or time-consuming assessment strategy. 

While we desire that students be able to consistently articulate both what they are learning and how they will be assessed for that learning, we also want students to understand why it is important in the broader context of the class.  Our ultimate goal is to get students to go even one step further as they learn to recognize and explain the importance that the learning has to the development of their academic identity and future success. 

 

Around the turn of the century, most Santa Ana Unified high schools had graduation rates in the mid 70s.  As with most large urban school districts, Santa Ana struggled tremendously to meet the needs of students on the brink of dropping out.  Fast forward to today and you see most schools with 4-year cohort graduation rates in the mid 90s, with a district-wide average over 90% that is on par with other Orange County districts.  Of course we celebrate this dramatic shift.  A major component of that shift has been the investment in our EdOptions schools.  These programs, commonly referred to elsewhere as continuation or alternative schools, provide students with access to non-traditional pathways to a high school diploma.  At one point, one in every six graduates in the district had been serviced by an EdOptions program, whether via a formal transfer of schools or through picking up credits through an Independent Studies or Credit Recovery course.

But our past success is not enough, and our Board of Education has challenged us to develop and implement a graduation support plan that will ensure 100% of our students make it to graduation.  90% is not acceptable.  We don’t want to lose a single student along the way.

  

With that planning in mind, members of our leadership team recently visited Columbus High School in Downey Unified, a school that has been dubbed a model continuation school by the state of California.  While we believe we have already developed some tremendous EdOptions programs and pathways, we are always eager to learn from colleagues across schools and districts who are doing great work in this area.  While there were many features at Columbus that caught my attention, there were a few that struck me as particularly essential:

Assessment Periods

For a student struggling to find meaning and purpose at school, a semester can be an eternity.  Often, poor performance during the first few weeks of the semester can lock students into the nearly impossible statistical task of raising a grade to passing.  With a dim hope of passing the class, students may sit for weeks, if not months, with little incentive to participate and engage.   

The hallmark innovation at Columbus, in my opinion, is their practice of shortening the semester into much more manageable month assessment periods.  Instead of 2 semesters during the academic year, or even four quarter-length assessment blocks like we use in Santa Ana, students at Columbus are assessed for credit every month.  The impact of this structural change cannot be overstated.  Students can set shorter term goals, as well as bounce back more quickly from a tough couple of weeks at school.  At Columbus, each month students have the opportunity to earn credit and see their progress.  The school has gone to great lengths to build culture and tradition around these month-long blocks, with monthly excellence assemblies and transfer opportunities.  The school uses a practice of granting partial credit for students transferring into the school, allowing them to maintain credit in classes they were passing at the time of transfer while reducing unnecessary waiting at home schools for students to finish out a semester so they can secure credit in those classes that they are passing.

Getting Progress Data into Student Hands

One critical element of student-centered learning is trusting that students can and will make decisions that are in their best educational interest.  While we all know that human beings are not always rational actors – especially in adolescence – good decision-making at any stage is dependent on having good information.  Columbus goes to great lengths to provide students with clarity about their academic standing and what is required to either transfer back to their home school and/or graduate.  This democratization of progress data is essential, helping students take control of their trajectory, as opposed to relying completely on the adults in the school to continually report and interpret students’ progress and current standing.  The school has developed a customized monthly report card and credit report that students are taught to interpret.  In addition, the school has a tiered “step” system that clearly communicates to each student whether they are on track and eligible to transfer back to their home school and/or graduate from Columbus.  This system integrates each student’s attendance patterns into their current status.  Students are always aware of where they stand, with updates on a monthly basis.

Flexibility and Instructional Skill

Master schedules are a beast.  Trying to match together the needs and interests of students with graduation requirements, teacher credentials and staff preferences is a major endeavor where it often seems nobody wins, including the administrators tasked with building the schedule.  In many schools, master schedule decisions are driven by a subtle hierarchy of power, where requests for courses and prep periods flow to those with more influence.  The goal for many teachers is to reduce variability – both in the number of different subjects being taught as well as the variation in student skill within those classes.  This is an understandable request given the challenge of planning to teach multiple subjects while addressing diverse learning needs.

At Columbus, the master schedule is clearly designed with flexibility for students in mind.  Teachers may have students in different courses during the same period.  For example, a social studies teacher may be teaching some students Economics, while other class members are taking a Government class.   Many EdOptions schools are small, and this type of flexibility allows students more opportunities to get the classes they need the most.  With students constantly switching classes as they gain credits due to the monthly assessment periods, it is essential that the master schedule maintain tremendous flexibility to facilitate student course needs.  While I might argue that hosting multiple subjects and courses in the same classroom is not always the ideal scenario, for a continuation school trying to help students get back on track with credits, it is essential.

Language and Stigma

The way we talk about alternative pathways to a diploma is critical.  In many districts, the way students, teachers, and counselors have historically talked about EdOptions schools is highly critical.  Sometimes, the threat of a transfer is used as a strategy to motivate or scare a student into turning things around at the home school.  Not only do we know that threats of this nature are typically not effective, it has the negative side effect of reinforcing a negative stigma around some of our most innovative and student-centered schools and programs in the district.

As students see our EdOptions programs as a legitimate and even desirable pathway to a diploma, more students and parents will be willing to give it a try.  Our staff spend a tremendous amount of time and energy working with the student and parents who are hesitant to make a switch, only to later realize that the smaller, more personalized learning space was exactly what the student needed.  While many of our students do want to transfer back to their home school, just as many decide they want to stay and finish out high school at the EdOptions site.

The structural differences at Columbus are augmented by ongoing efforts to celebrate students at the school.  Students soon realize that any hesitancy to come to the school was unfounded, and they quickly learn to appreciate the additional supports, enhanced communication, and often more personalized relationships at the school.   

Usually when we think about educational innovation we think about transformation of instructional and pedagogical practices in the classroom.  We rightfully ask ourselves how we can create more student centered classrooms, how we can increase academic discourse amongst students, and how we can genuinely engage all students in meaningful learning.  Indeed, in education, any innovation that doesn’t ultimately lead to the transformation of instructional practices and student engagement in the classroom will fall short.

But innovation in education must extend beyond the classroom if it has any hope of being sustained.  Frankly, our work to launch and sustain a superschool has required us to dig deep into innovations across multiple support divisions.  Providing next-level facilities, ensuring safety (and liability coverage) for students constantly on the move, or managing labor relations when schedules and work hours might shift on a monthly if not daily basis, all require vision, genuine collaboration, and creativity.   

For example, a driving force behind our school design is the belief that in order for students to break out of the cycle of inter-generational poverty, they need access to social capital beyond what the school can offer.  Students need to build relationships with community partners, business leaders, and other potential advocates who can help our kids map future possibilities and navigate the post-secondary worlds of college and career.  They need a support network.  They need people who can open doors and write letters of recommendation and share meaningful advice and insight.  That is why one of core innovations of Círculos is place-based learning.  The idea is to provide a school experience that is not confined to a physical school space.   Our Circulos students are pursuing projects in partnership with community organizations and businesses, which takes them off campus with regularity.

That all sounds great in theory, but imagine the logistical demands of planning what equates to multiple field trips every week. At some point, you have to develop new systems to accommodate the logistical needs of such an endeavor.  Just this week, we brought together our Circulos team with Risk Management & Transportation to talk through the limitations of the current system and continue planning how our small program might pilot improvements that can benefit all of our students and schools.  Together, the team is designing new processes for securing permissions and ensuring better safety.

The same can be said of flexible learning environments.  One of the historical hallmarks of the high school experience over the past century has been the primacy of the traditional bell schedule.  Students rotate from class to class in predictable time increments, usually a different class each hour.  The idea of more flexible schedules, where students can spend more time in areas of greater interest or greater need, is often at the top of the school reformers agenda.  But the logistical task of designing systems that are robust and responsive enough to identify those needs, match them to teachers and classrooms, and communicate promptly to all stakeholders has been daunting.  Technology is definitely helping.  But technology alone cannot account for the tremendous testing and learning that must happen at the student, staff, and school levels to ensure that all of the moving parts come together seamlessly.  Just imagine the planning demands on teachers who work in such flexible environments – where different time blocks for learning, shifting student cohorts, and multiple physical spaces might all be in flux simultaneously.

Another area of logistical innovation has to do with personnel. We’re talking about how we recruit teachers, how we interview and onboard teachers, and how we define our ongoing working conditions and labor relationships with staff members who work in non-traditional educational spaces.  Our team has thought deeply about our process for recruiting, interviewing, and hiring our staff for the school. We wanted the hiring experience and practices to reflect the values and practices that we hope to see at the school and in our classrooms.  With a school name like Circulos, we want to ensure that our students are regularly engaged in academic discourse and reflection with each other.  We therefore designed an interview process that would integrate and model this type of practice with our candidates. In essence, we want to socialize potential employees from the very beginning in the organizational values and practices that we hope to see and expect to see. We perhaps did not realize how much of an innovation this would be in comparison to current practices.

In all of this, one of the most essential ingredients is not innovation or technology at all.  It has been the essential need for humility and perseverance.  Each week our team uncovers new challenges and obstacles.  Each week the depth of the messiness of student-centered learning and the logistical systems around it, reveals itself.  It has been deeply rewarding to witness our team of students and staff who persist in their pursuit of a high school worthy of the title “superschool.”