INSIGHT—Winter 2006 by Texas Association of School Administrators

TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL

WINTER 2006

INSIGHT

Winter 2006 Volume 21

No. 3 FEATURED ARTICLES

p. 12

p. 20

p. 24

Schools as Learning Communities

by Richard DuFour Focuses on learning rather than teaching, working collaboratively, and holding yourself accountable for results

Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making

by Julie P. Combs and Stacey L. Edmonson Emphasizes that test scores are not the only important or viable source of quality data

Victims of Our Own Success

by Richard Erdmann Reminds us that change is the constant and success is the variable

High School Reform and Work: Facing Labor Market Realities

by Paul E. Barton Examines information on the abilities and qualities needed to enter employment with a high school diploma

WINTER 2006

Ofﬁcers DEPARTMENTS Upcoming Events at TASA

President’s Message

Executive Director’s View

Featured Guest Educator: Fenwick English

Book Review: “Don’t Bother Me Mom— I’m Learning”

TASA Headquarters Staff Executive Director Associate Executive Director, Administrative Services Assistant Executive Director, Communications & Information Systems

Johnny L. Veselka Paul L. Whitton, Jr. Ann M. Halstead

Design/Production

Emmy Starr

Editorial Coordinator

Karen Limb

INSIGHT is published quarterly by the Texas Association of School Administrators, 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701-2617. Subscription is included in TASA membership dues. © 2006 by TASA. All rights reserved. TASA members may reprint articles in limited quantities for in-house educational use. Articles in INSIGHT are expressions of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of TASA. Advertisements do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the Texas Association of School Administrators. INSIGHT is printed by Thomas Graphics, Austin, Texas.

INSIGHT

Kay E. Waggoner, President, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD Thomas E. Randle, President-Elect, Lamar CISD Rick Howard, Vice-President, Comanche ISD Alton J. Fields, Past President

Executive Committee Arturo Guajardo, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD, 1 Henry D. Herrera, Alice ISD, 2 Larry W. Nichols, Calhoun County ISD, 3 Leland Williams, Dickinson ISD, 4 Gail Krohn, Nederland ISD, 5 Mike Cargill, Bryan ISD, 6 Mary Ann Whiteker, Hudson ISD, 7 Eddie Johnson, Harts Bluff ISD, 8 John Baker, Seymour ISD, 9 H. John Fuller, Wylie ISD, 10 Jerry W. Roy, Lewisville ISD, 11 Rod Townsend, Hico ISD, 12 Ryder F. Warren, Marble Falls ISD, 13 Kent LeFevre, Jim Ned CISD, 14 Alan Richey, Bronte ISD, 15 David G. Foote, Dalhart ISD, 16 Mike Motheral, Sundown ISD, 17 Michael Downes, Big Spring ISD, 18 Paul L. Vranish, Tornillo ISD, 19 John Folks, Northside ISD, 20

At-Large Members Rose Cameron, Copperas Cove ISD Patricia A. Linares, Fort Worth ISD Ron Peace, Dallas ISD Alicia H. Thomas, North East ISD

Editorial Advisory Committee Kay E. Waggoner, Grapevine-Colleyville ISD, chair Thomas E. Randle, Lamar CISD Virginia L. Collier, Texas A & M University H. John Fuller, Wylie ISD Rick Howard, Comanche ISD Patricia A. Linares, Fort Worth ISD Mike Motheral, Sundown ISD Ron Peace, Dallas ISD Alicia H. Thomas, North East ISD

Upcoming Events at TASA Excerpts from TASA’s Professional Development Calendar

Starting in

January 2007 Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction for the THINKING Classroom with H. Lynn Erickson January 15–16

Changing the Lens of Instructional Leaders Walk-Throughs and Follow-Up Conversations with Sharon Koonce

For locations and other information about any of these workshops/trainings, please call TASA, 800-725-8272, or go online at www.TASAnet.org

g Who Should Attend • Curriculum and Instruction Administrators • Curriculum and Instruction Specialists • Teacher Leaders g What You Learn • The Structure of Knowledge and how it can help us raise the bar for curriculum and instruction. • The difference between two-dimensional and three-dimensional curriculum and instruction and why we must shift our

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • District-Level Administrators • Principals • Assistant Principals

January 17–18

iPods and Podcasting in Education January 23 & 24 February 27 & 28

Aspiring Superintendents Academy with John D. Horn Session 1: January 29, 2007 (During the TASA Midwinter Conference) Session 2: March 28, 2007 (During the TASA Legislative and Public Policy Conference)

INSIGHT

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • Central Ofﬁce Administrators • ESL and ELL Coordinators/Directors • Campus Administrators • Lead Teachers

g Who Should Attend • Aspiring Superintendents g What You Learn • Session One—The Public School Superintendency: Real-World Roles, reviews what superintendents do; typical career paths to the superintendency; and career satisfactions/opportunities

emphasis in design if we want thinking classrooms. • How to write powerful Enduring Understandings that reﬂect the deeper intent of TEKS/TAKS. • How we can work with different kinds of learners to help them reach their potential. • How we can create an “intellectual synergy” to engage the minds and hearts of our students. • Why the conceptual mind is the key to increasing motivation for learning at all levels.

g What You Learn • A powerful supervision strategy for observation, focused on determining the curriculum objective being taught and effective teaching practices. • How to plan for and engage in highly successful feedback through the use of reﬂective questions

g What You Learn • How to download and manage resources with iTunes, sync the iPod, and access materials from the iPod • How to use the iPod's capabilities to support teaching and learning • How to create a podcast and make it accessible to a community of learners

• Session Two—Superintendents “In the Making” or “Growing in Place,” discusses job experiences that cause growth, outside activities that stretch, and personal learning that counts

Mentoring the Reﬂective Principal, Session One with Jan Jacob Session 1: February 15–16

Courage to Lead with Ed Tobia

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents • District-Level Curriculum and Instruction Administrators • Principals • Team–Principal Supervisor and two or more Principals g Who Should Attend • Administrators—All Levels

February 19

g What You Learn • The background and rationale for the Courage to Lead program, a process for reconnecting to one's own identity and integrity through an exploration of the inner landscape of a leader's life.

SchoolView: Gathering Trend Data on Curricular and Instructional Classroom Practices

g Who Should Attend • Superintendents * Central Ofﬁce Supervisors of Principals * Principals

with Darryl Cross February 27–28

g What You Learn • How to collect data by groups of teachers or a given teacher

g What You Learn • Session 1: Role of the supervisors and other district-level staff in mentoring principals and monthly supervisors’ school visitation

• A process for moving beyond the personal, inner work to develop the kind of trustworthy relationships required to create a positive school culture in which teachers and students ﬂourish. • The connection between this inner work and improved outcomes for students.

• How to calibrate the taught curriculum with the district/state curriculum • The various types of reports that can be generated from classroom observations • Technological enhancements that are in design using a computer table and PDA trustworthy relationships required to create a positive school culture in which teachers and students ﬂourish.

Curriculum Management Audit Training, Level 1 with Jan Jacob March 6–9 g Who Should Attend • District-Level Curriculum • Instructional Staff • Principals g What You Learn • How to prepare participants to examine and evaluate deep alignment issues in order to take steps in a district and/or school to raise student achievement. • How to embed external assessments into the curriculum along with real-world expectations and examine equality and equity issues in curriculum design and delivery

WINTER 2006

Offering Our Best Efforts PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE “Leaders don’t force people

As educators, we are fortunate to be able to celebrate two New Years every year: the start of a new school year and the start of the new calendar year—two opportunities for fresh beginnings and new resolutions. As we begin 2007, I’d ask you to take a moment to reflect on the many opportunities you have to demonstrate exemplary leadership in your district, community, and state. The challenges of leading a school district are enormous, encompassing issues that occupy a great deal of our time and energies. But these challenges also offer unique opportunities to ensure that the leadership we provide is truly meaningful and in the best interests of our students. A positive attitude and calming presence when speaking with and listening to our community, parents, and staff can help keep everyone focused on improving student achievement in the face of daunting challenges. The same attitude applies when dealing with our legislators as the 80th Session of the Texas Legislature convenes—together we can be a driving force toward ensuring that state policy decisions serve the best interests of a growing, diverse student population.

to follow, they invite them on the journey.”

Exemplary leadership comes into play when we model school systems in which everyone—superintendent to student—is a learner and everyone is a teacher. This means not neglecting our own professional learning. TASA’s Midwinter Conference (January 28–31) is the perfect place to put good intentions into practice! This conference gets better each year, gaining a strong following and serving as the centerpiece for professional learning for education administrators in Texas. This year’s Midwinter Conference features individuals who have provided exemplary leadership in the business and education professions. Rich Teerlink, former chairman of Harley-Davidson, Inc. and current chairman of the board of QLD—Quality Leadership by Design, shares the process of leadership that moved Harley-Davidson from a “command-and-control” culture to an open, participatory learning environment. Rick DuFour, former principal and superintendent in Lincolnshire, Illinois, shares his success strategies for building effective learning communities in a nationally recognized and awarded school system. Mae Jemison, former mission specialist aboard the Shuttle Endeavour and founder of the Jemison Group, Inc. shares her focus on advanced technologies and human potential in the developing world. Distinguished Lectures include: Marc Prensky, founder and CEO, Games2train; Marta Tienda, professor, Princeton University; Richard Erdmann, president, Syfr Corporation; Rebecca DuFour, educational consultant; and Fenwick English, Robert Wendell Eaves Sr. Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina. A diverse and dynamic group of speakers befitting an outstanding conference! As you continue to look for ways to provide exemplary leadership for your schools and communities, consider this quote from Charles S. Lauer: “Leaders don’t force people to follow, they invite them on the journey.” It’s an invitation each of us can extend to those who look to us for direction and support, offering our best efforts on behalf of the children in our care. Thank you for all you do; I look forward to seeing each of you in Austin later this month.

WINTER 2006

Stay Tuned, Stay Involved, and Stay in Touch EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S VIEW

When the 80th Legislature convenes on January 9, legislators are likely to have a wealth of advice on education policy issues to consider. The early focus for the upcoming session is on programmatic issues, as evident in early bill filings, the Senate Education Committee Interim Report, and conversations with key legislators. The Interim Report recommends a value-added measure of student performance that, coupled with the TAKS vs. end-of-course testing debate, should provide many opportunities for lively discussion. The report suggests that all students should be required to take the ACT or SAT. Additionally, the report addresses technology issues, recommending that the definition of instructional materials should include curriculum content in any media format. Legislators will be presented with a broad range of recommendations from a growing number of business coalitions and other organizations representing private sector interests. The Texas Business and Education Coalition (TBEC) is focused on Early Childhood Education, the needs of at-risk students and English Learners, and effective teaching and compensation, along with Career and Technology Education and secondary-postsecondary connections. In addition, TBEC will advocate that, by 2008, the Recommended High School Program should be the minimum requirement for admission at all four-year higher education institutions. The Texas Education Reform Caucus (TERC) will focus its efforts on pay-for-performance measures, professional development, and teacher mentoring. TERC’s most significant recommendations would incorporate the first two years of college in the 11th and 12th grades and emphasize restructuring of the technology allotment; a funding mechanism for eLearning; electronic assessment; and funding for electronic, digital instructional materials, and subscription-based instructional materials. The recently formed Texas Institute for Education Reform is focused on raising standards and promoting value-added assessment and performance-based compensation, an overhaul of TEKS, end-of-course testing, and phasing in to a 90 percent proficiency standard in the accountability system. Texans for Fiscal Responsibility will advocate returning the “$15 billion surplus” to taxpayers, reducing the impact of the business tax, protecting the spending cap, reforming the appraisal system, and promoting transparency in spending. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Texas Association of Business, and Dr. James Leininger’s Texans for School Choice will again seek to advance their legislative agendas. Ultimately, perhaps the most influential among all of these groups will be the Governor’s Business Council which is expected to build on its recommendations from previous sessions, details yet to be announced. All of this activity signals the need for Texas school leaders to monitor ongoing developments and for TASA and other groups that represent Texas school leaders to be active and aggressive in pursuing a legislative agenda that best serves the students in our public schools during the coming session. Stay tuned, stay involved, and stay in touch with your own legislators as we embark on another legislative journey. We look forward to seeing each of you at the TASA Midwinter Conference, January 28–31.

WINTER 2006

INSIGHT

Schools as Learning Communities What Is a “Professional Learning Community”? To create a professional learning community, focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and hold yourself accountable for results. by Richard DuFour The idea of improving schools by developing professional learning communities is currently in vogue. People use this term to describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in education—a grade-level teaching team, a school committee, a high school department, an entire school district, a state department of education, a national professional organization, and so on. In fact, the term has been used so ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all meaning. The professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture, one well known to those who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this all-too-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed to bring about the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for the next promising initiative. Another reform movement has come and gone, reinforcing the conventional education wisdom that promises, “This too shall pass.” The movement to develop professional learning communities can avoid this cycle, but only if educators reflect critically on the concept's merits. What are the “big ideas” that represent the core principles of professional learning communities? How do these principles guide schools’ efforts to sustain the professional learning community model until it becomes deeply embedded in the culture of the school?

WINTER 2006

continued from page 13

Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn. This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning—has profound implications for schools. School mission statements that promise “learning for all” have become a cliché. But when a school staff takes that statement literally—when teachers view it as a pledge to ensure the success of each student rather than as politically correct hyperbole—profound changes begin to take place. The school staff finds itself asking, What school characteristics and practices have been most successful in helping all students achieve at high levels? How could we adopt those characteristics and practices in our own school? What commitments would we have to make to one another to create such a school? What indicators could we monitor to assess our progress? When the staff has built shared knowledge and found common ground on these questions, the school has a solid foundation for moving forward with its improvement initiative. As the school moves forward, every professional in the building must engage with colleagues in the ongoing exploration of three crucial questions that drive the work of those within a professional learning community: • What do we want each student to learn? • How will we know when each student has learned it? • How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning? The answer to the third question separates learning communities from traditional schools.

Here is a scenario that plays out daily in traditional schools. A teacher teaches a unit to the best of his or her ability, but at the conclusion of the unit some students have not mastered the essential outcomes. On the one hand, the teacher would like to take the time to help those students. On the other hand, the teacher feels compelled to move forward to “cover” the course content. If the teacher uses instructional time to assist students who have not learned, the progress of students who have mastered the content will suffer; if the teacher pushes on with new concepts, the struggling students will fall farther behind. What typically happens in this situation? Almost invariably, the school leaves the solution to the discretion of individual teachers, who vary widely in the ways they respond. Some teachers conclude that the struggling students should transfer to a less rigorous course or should be considered for special education. Some lower their expectations by adopting less challenging standards for subgroups of students within their classrooms. Some look for ways to assist the students before and after school. Some allow struggling students to fail. When a school begins to function as a professional learning community, however, teachers become aware of the incongruity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and their lack of a coordinated strategy to respond when some students do not learn. The staff addresses this discrepancy by designing strategies to ensure that struggling students receive additional time and support, no matter who their teacher is. In addition to being systematic and schoolwide, the professional learning community’s response to students who experience difficulty is Timely. The school quickly identifies students who need additional time and support. Based on intervention rather than remediation. The plan provides students with help as soon as they experience difficulty

rather than relying on summer school, retention, and remedial courses. Directive. Instead of inviting students to seek additional help, the systematic plan requires students to devote extra time and receive additional assistance until they have mastered the necessary concepts. The systematic, timely, and directive intervention program operating at Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, provides an excellent example. Every three weeks, every student receives a progress report. Within the first month of school, new students discover that if they are not doing well in a class, they will receive a wide array of immediate interventions. First, the teacher, counselor, and faculty advisor each talk with the student individually to help resolve the problem. The school also notifies the student's parents about the concern. In addition, the school offers the struggling student a pass from study hall to a school tutoring center to get additional help in the course. An older student mentor, in conjunction with the struggling student’s advisor, helps the student with homework during the student's daily advisory period. Any student who continues to fall short of expectations at the end of six weeks despite these interventions is required, rather than invited, to attend tutoring sessions during the study hall period. Counselors begin to make weekly checks on the struggling student's progress. If tutoring fails to bring about improvement within the next six weeks, the student is assigned to a daily guided study hall with 10 or fewer students. The guided study hall supervisor communicates with classroom teachers to learn exactly what homework each student needs to complete and monitors the completion of that homework. Parents attend a meeting at the school at which the student, parents, counselor, and classroom teacher must sign a contract clarifying what each party will do to help the student meet the standards for the course.

WINTER 2006

Stevenson High School serves more than 4,000 students. Yet this school has found a way to monitor each student's learning on a timely basis and to ensure that every student who experiences academic difficulty will receive extra time and support for learning.

their classroom practice. Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher levels of student achievement.

Like Stevenson, schools that are truly committed to the concept of learning for each student will stop subjecting struggling students to a haphazard education lottery. These schools will guarantee that each student receives whatever additional support he or she needs.

At Boones Mill Elementary School, a K–5 school serving 400 students in rural Franklin County, Virginia, the powerful collaboration of grade-level teams drives the school improvement process. The following scenario describes what Boones Mill staff members refer to as their teaching-learning process.

Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of learning for all. Therefore, they create structures to promote a collaborative culture. Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in isolation. Even in schools that endorse the idea of collaboration, the staff's willingness to collaborate often stops at the classroom door. Some school staffs equate the term “collaboration” with congeniality and focus on building group camaraderie. Other staffs join forces to develop consensus on operational procedures, such as how they will respond to tardiness or supervise recess. Still others organize themselves into committees to oversee different facets of the school’s operation, such as discipline, technology, and social climate. Although each of these activities can serve a useful purpose, none represents the kind of professional dialogue that can transform a school into a professional learning community. The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve 16

INSIGHT

Collaborating for School Improvement

The school’s five 3rd grade teachers study state and national standards, the district curriculum guide, and student achievement data to identify the essential knowledge and skills that all students should learn in an upcoming language arts unit. They also ask the 4th grade teachers what they hope students will have mastered by the time they leave 3rd grade. On the basis of the shared knowledge generated by this joint study, the 3rd grade team agrees on the critical outcomes that they will make sure each student achieves during the unit. Next, the team turns its attention to developing common formative assessments to monitor each student’s mastery of the essential outcomes. Team members discuss the most authentic and valid ways to assess student mastery. They set the standard for each skill or concept that each student must achieve to be deemed proficient. They agree on the criteria by which they will judge the quality of student work, and they practice applying those criteria until they can do so consistently. Finally, they decide when they will administer the assessments. After each teacher has examined the results of the common formative assessment for his or her students, the team analyzes how all 3rd graders performed. Team members identify strengths and weaknesses in student learning and begin

to discuss how they can build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. The entire team gains new insights into what is working and what is not, and members discuss new strategies that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student achievement. At Boones Mill, collaborative conversations happen routinely throughout the year. Teachers use frequent formative assessments to investigate the questions “Are students learning what they need to learn?” and “Who needs additional time and support to learn?” rather than relying solely on summative assessments that ask “Which students learned what was intended and which students did not?” Collaborative conversations call on team members to make public what has traditionally been private—goals, strategies, materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results. These discussions give every teacher someone to turn to and talk to, and they are explicitly structured to improve the classroom practice of teachers—individually and collectively. For teachers to participate in such a powerful process, the school must ensure that everyone belongs to a team that focuses on student learning. Each team must have time to meet during the workday and throughout the school year. Teams must focus their efforts on crucial questions related to learning and generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of essential outcomes, different kinds of assessment, analyses of student achievement, and strategies for improving results. Teams must develop norms or protocols to clarify expectations regarding roles, responsibilities, and relationships among team members. Teams must adopt student achievement goals linked with school and district goals.

Removing Barriers to Success For meaningful collaboration to occur, a number of things must also stop happening. Schools must stop pretending that

merely presenting teachers with state standards or district curriculum guides will guarantee that all students have access to a common curriculum. Even school districts that devote tremendous time and energy to designing the intended curriculum often pay little attention to the implemented curriculum (what teachers actually teach) and even less to the attained curriculum (what students learn) (Marzano, 2003). Schools must also give teachers time to analyze and discuss state and district curriculum documents. More important, teacher conversations must quickly move beyond “What are we expected to teach?” to “How will we know when each student has learned?” In addition, faculties must stop making excuses for failing to collaborate. Few educators publicly assert that working in isolation is the best strategy for improving schools. Instead, they give reasons why it is impossible for them to work together: “We just can't find the time.”

“Not everyone on the staff has endorsed the idea.” “We need more training in collaboration.” But the number of schools that have created truly collaborative cultures proves that such barriers are not insurmountable. As Roland Barth (1991) wrote, Are teachers and administrators willing to accept the fact that they are part of the problem? . . . God didn't create self-contained classrooms, 50-minute periods, and subjects taught in isolation. We did—because we find working alone safer than and preferable to working together. (pp. 126–127) In the final analysis, building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community is a question of will. A group of staff members who are determined to work together will find a way.

Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results

Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together to improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress. The focus of team goals shifts. Such goals as “We will adopt the Junior Great Books program” or “We will create three new labs for our science course” give way to “We will increase the percentage of students who meet the state standard in language arts from 83 percent to 90 percent” or “We will reduce the failure rate in our course by 50 percent.” Schools and teachers typically suffer from the DRIP syndrome—Data Rich/ Information Poor. The results-oriented professional learning community not continued on page 19

WINTER 2006

INSIGHT

continued from page 17

They (educators) must stop assessing their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead to ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most important to us?” only welcomes data but also turns data into useful and relevant information for staff. Teachers have never suffered from a lack of data. Even a teacher who works in isolation can easily establish the mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency every time he or she administers a test. However, data will become a catalyst for improved teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison. When teacher teams develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher can identify how his or her students performed on each skill compared with other students. Individual teachers can call on their team colleagues to help them reflect on areas of concern. Each teacher has access to the ideas, materials, strategies, and talents of the entire team. Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributes its success to an unrelenting focus on results. Teachers work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with state standards. They develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all students at the same grade level at the conclusion of each instructional unit, roughly once a week. Each quarter, the teams administer a common cumulative exam. Each spring, the teams develop and administer practice tests for the state exam. Each year, the teams pore over the results of the state test, which are broken down to show every teacher how his or her students performed on every skill and on every test item. The teachers share their results from all of these assessments with their

colleagues, and they quickly learn when a teammate has been particularly effective in teaching a certain skill. Team members consciously look for successful practice and attempt to replicate it in their own practice; they also identify areas of the curriculum that need more attention. Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from one of the lowest-performing schools in the state to a national model for academic achievement. Principal Clara Sale-Davis believes that the crucial first step in that transformation came when the staff began to honestly confront data on student achievement and to work together to improve results rather than make excuses for them. Of course, this focus on continual improvement and results requires educators to change traditional practices and revise prevalent assumptions. Educators must begin to embrace data as a useful indicator of progress. They must stop disregarding or excusing unfavorable data and honestly confront the sometimes-brutal facts. They must stop using averages to analyze student performance and begin to focus on the success of each student. Educators who focus on results must also stop limiting improvement goals to factors outside the classroom, such as student discipline and staff morale, and shift their attention to goals that focus on student learning. They must stop assessing their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead to ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most important to us?” Educators must stop working in isolation and hoarding their ideas, materials, and strategies and begin to work together to meet the needs of all students.

Hard Work and Commitment Even the grandest design eventually translates into hard work. The professional learning community model is a grand design—a powerful new way of working together that profoundly affects the practices of schooling. But initiating and sustaining the concept requires hard work. It requires the school staff to focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement. When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will rise. If they fail to demonstrate the discipline to initiate and sustain this work, then their school is unlikely to become more effective, even if those within it claim to be a professional learning community. The rise or fall of the professional learning community concept depends not on the merits of the concept itself, but on the most important element in the improvement of any school—the commitment and persistence of the educators within it. Richard DuFour recently retired as superintendent of Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He currently resides in Moneta, Virginia, and may be reached at (540) 721-4662; rdufour@district125.k12.il.us. His forthcoming book is Whatever It Takes: How a Professional Learning Community Responds When Kids Don’t Learn (National Educational Service, in press). REFERENCES Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123–128. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

WINTER 2006

Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making by Julie P. Combs and Stacey L. Edmonson

One of the most-used buzzwords in today’s educational world is data-driven decision making. In an era of No Child Left Behind, issues of accountability drive many, if not most or all, decisions that superintendents and school administrators make. But what exactly does data-driven decision making mean? Also referred to as evidence-based education, data-driven decision making means just what its name implies—decisions are based on the results and outcomes of certain types of data. These decisions can focus on areas concerning personnel, instruction, curriculum, or student achievement (Creighton, 2000), and more often than not these decisions result in the allocation of district resources towards specific programs designed to increase or enhance performance in any of the aforementioned areas. And when most people speak of using data for their decisions, they tend to define these data as standardized test scores. Although test scores, such as those obtained by the TAKS, offer some indication of how students are performing and directly impact a district’s accountability rating, test scores are not the only important or viable source of quality data, and not all data are created equal. Test scores, like a snapshot, offer data taken at one point in time. Basing important decisions such as how to allocate resources, what curricular changes to make, what programs to offer, or what personnel to add, simply upon a set of test scores, is a very limited, single-dimensional way of making these decisions. In fact, it is counter

to what true data-driven decision making should really be about. Data come in all shapes and sizes. While test scores, particularly TAKS scores, are the most obvious form of data available to school districts, they offer a very limited amount of information upon which educators can make sound decisions. Other data sources, including qualitative data, should be considered in effective decision making. Considering teacher, administrator, parent, and even student perceptions are critical to making decisions that will contribute to the success of a campus and district. Without these viewpoints, decisions are made solely on numbers and can essentially be meaningless. Numbers are just that, numbers. Without meaning behind them, the numbers tell you virtually nothing. For example, TAKS results will tell you that a student failed a specific objective in math, but these data will never tell you why. It takes a qualitative perspective— talking to real people and gathering data from the personal side of education—to actually understand and plan appropriate ways to help the failing student. Thus, administrators must consider the quality of the data they gather, not just the quantity. More data do not equate with good data or better decisions. Rather, it is the quality of the data that you gather that helps ensure that the decisions you make are good ones. Data are an important component of effective decision making; thus, it is critical to consider issues that impact the usefulness of decisions that are based upon data. In continued on page 22

INSIGHT

â&#x20AC;&#x153;More data do not equate with good data or better decisions. Rather, it is the quality of the data that you gather that helps ensure that the decisions you make are good ones.â&#x20AC;?

WINTER 2006

continued from page 20

essence, the ease of decision making is related to the quality of data that is available within a given context and timeframe. For example, when purchasing a new car, how much data do you require before making the purchase? What type of data about the car do you most desire? Some shoppers desire safety ratings; others want to know what the cost of the vehicle is as determined by a consumer group or car pricing index. Still others rely on family tradition, past experience, or word of mouth. All of these—costs, safety ratings, word of mouth, prior experience—are data points. The general rule is that the more data points considered, the better the decision. Yet, most experienced administrators know that time and urgency prohibit the consideration of numerous data points and agree that having all the desired data is a rare occurrence. Although some car shoppers have the advantage of collecting data over several months, most decide within days. And such is the experience of administrators making decisions in their school. Given that time is often a critical variable in administrative decision making, we offer some guiding questions to help you determine the quality of the data that is being considered: • What are the specific data needed for the decision? • What data are available? • How were the data collected? • Are the data appropriate to answer our questions? The data needed for a decision can be directly related to the question being asked. We have found great benefit in analyzing and probing to bring greater clarity to the questions being asked. For example, an administrator or school board member may ask “Is the XYZ program working for our students?” When asked why, the administrator may want to know if test scores are increasing. The school board member may want to know the program’s benefits in relation to its costs. As you can see, the questions, as they are clarified, will summon a variety of data sources. The administrator’s question could be answered by a comparison of pre- and post-assessments, provided that the 22

INSIGHT

assessments are appropriate measures. The school board member’s question would involve several data sources, which may include state test scores, perceptions of teachers, and program expenditures. In this example, there are two primary categories of data—quantitative and qualitative. Simply, quantitative data are measured and represented by numbers (i.e., tests, expenditures, WADA); qualitative data are represented by words and are often collected on a more informal basis through discussion and observation. We believe that the intention of No Child Left Behind and the rhetoric of data-based decisions are primarily based upon the consideration of quantitative data, specifically in the form of state assessments. However, wise administrators use both types of data and recognize that both are necessary for effectively solving problems. The administrator, interested in the program’s results, initially reviews test scores. After closer inspection, the administrator often asks questions that only qualitative data can answer, usually in the form of “Why?” For example, why do 7th grade students have the greatest gains? Often, “why” questions cannot be adequately answered with test data but rather rely on collective perceptions of students, teachers, parents, and campus administrators. In addition to the types of data and the number of data sources available, administrators should inquire as to how the data were collected. Many individuals are simply too trusting of the data or believe you “cannot argue with the numbers.” The “numbers” are subject to bias and distortion and are highly related to the instrument used, the conditions present, and the individuals providing the data. The administrator in the above example, relying on a school’s average passing rate on the state assessment, may not have considered how well the assessment matches the program’s goals and objectives. Perhaps the program supports the mastery of a few of the state objectives, but such progress may only be measured by 4 items on a 40-item assessment. Unless the administrator identifies the program’s objectives and matches to test items, the quality of the data source is questionable

for this application. Following this example, the school board member may have talked with several community members regarding the program and found few supporters. Obviously, the data are suspect and there are more valid ways to collect perceptions. In fact, current research shows that “interpretation and application of data by educators, and by the public, are often woefully inadequate and sometimes very wrong” (Earl & Katz, 2005, p. 18). To truly engage in datadriven decision making, a school district’s leaders must do the following three things: • Gather and distribute appropriate and accurate data that address a question in need of answering • Use different types of data to inform their decisions • Train their faculty in how to appropriately use and understand data (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2006) Perceptions, as data sources, are frequently used and vary greatly in data quality. To increase the validity of these perceptions, administrators should consider ways to improve the collection of these data. Surveys and interviews are the most common methods used. The construction of a quality survey takes time and careful review. The wording of each question and the answer choices influence the results, as does the length, instructions, and visual appeal. The conditions surrounding the survey also influence the data quality. Steps should be taken to encourage honest responses, such as not asking for identifying information such as names, campuses, grade levels taught, etc. In addition, the use of random sampling as compared to surveying those readily available (i.e., a convenience sample) most often results in more representative data. Many factors influence the quality of data that are collected from surveys and interviews, and we have mentioned only a few. For more information, see the resources listed at the end of this article. Perceptions are also gathered through interviews and focus groups, both formal and informal. As with surveys, interviews can offer valuable qualitative data that fill

in the gaps left by numerical data. When conducting interviews or talking with people, avoid using leading questions or comments. For example, if an administrator is interested in the quality of a program, he might ask a teacher, “What do you think is wrong with this program?” By asking what is wrong, the administrator has already implied to the teacher, intentionally or not, that he expects to hear a negative answer. People’s perceptions, while extremely valuable, can easily be skewed or biased and must thus be collected and interpreted with care. When dealing with this type of data, administrators must ensure that people’s perceptions are relevant and appropriate to the question they are trying to answer. In recent times, administrators have been called to make data-based decisions. In reality, adept administrators have used data for years. Our hope is that administrators will see that data-based decisions are not superior if the data are a result of biased methods. Data quality are impacted by a variety of external and internal factors, including the match of the data sources to the questions asked and the methods used to collect the data. The instrument, conditions, and context all can impact the data quality. So, in the urgency of making decisions, remember what our mothers said best—“consider the source.” Julie P. Combs is an assistant professor and Stacy L. Edmonson is an associate professor at Sam Houston State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, in Huntsville.

SUGGESTED RESOURCES Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons Hess, F. M., & Pertilli, M. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind Primer. NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Holcomb, E. L. (1999). Getting excited about data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lauer, P. A. (2006). An education research primer: How to understand, evaluate, and use it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. REFERENCES Creighton, T. (2000). Schools and data: The educator’s guide for using data to improve decision-making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2005). Painting a data-rich picture. Principal Leadership, 5(5), 16-20. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2006). Indicator: Data-driven decision making and accountability. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/framewk/sys/data/sysdatpr.htm

WINTER 2006

Victims of Our Own Success by Richard Erdmann

There is a public sense that companies are great internal innovators capable of changing to meet the times. In reality, companies are no different than any organization— they become victims of their own success. The cycle is predictable: a new company with new ideas emerges to address the same market dominated by a successful older company. More often than not, the older company fails to exist either through acquisition or bankruptcy. There is a phrase used in economics to describe this process of corporate churning— creative destruction. Even when the very existence of a company is threatened, it is very, very difficult for it to successfully change to meet the challenge. The more successful the company, the more difficult it is to change because past successes validate the continued use of past practices.

American Educational Successes and the Resultant Problems If anything, American public education has been successful. It is not an accident that the United States was one of the first knowledge economies in the world. American public education created the knowledge worker that made such an economy possible, but the result is a double-edged sword. In a knowledge economy, employers value education and are willing to pay for it in their employees. Today, they pay approximately an 80 percent premium for college-educated workers over high school gradu24

INSIGHT

ates, but cannot get them in the numbers needed—demand for collegeeducated workers in many fields exceeds supply. The creative destruction process that works in market-driven economies also works between countries. Other countries have seen the success of American public education and are investing in very successful education systems of their own. Their educational successes will eventually be reflected in product innovation and invention, scientific research and papers, patents and intellectual property, and accelerated economic growth. While their corporations and national economic infrastructure develop, their education system will have graduated workers competitive with our own, willing to work at a lower cost and capable of performing at the highest levels. As we have already seen, our jobs will leak overseas for as long as educated workers in America are in short supply relative to demand. We certainly will have become victims of our own success. The escalation in income for the educated worker comes at a particularly tough time for students from lowincome families. For decades we have witnessed the narrowing of education gaps based on income, race, and ethnicity. About 15 years ago that narrowing stopped. Just at the time when educational attainment pays a hefty premium, success with the continual improvement of our most vulnerable

students stops and the penalty paid by them as adults is substantial.

The Curriculum Challenges To further complicate the issue, the very substance of what we are teaching is

being challenged. The computer now allows individuals to work with far more data than ever before, analyze data with tools never before available, and communicate to a wider audience with more sophisticated tools than ever before.

Frank Levy, an economist at MIT, and Richard Murnane, an economist at Harvard, wrote a book, The New Division of Labor, in which they predict shifting rewards in the form of personal income based on the skill sets required by

WINTER 2006

computers. The graph to the right illustrates the percentage change in income over the years based on the skill set of the employee. In this analysis, earnings from complex communication and expert thinking have substantially outgrown earnings from anything routine (which is increasingly done by computers), as well as anything manual.

The New Division of Labor:

“One head of broccoli can be full of nutrition while the other

Frank Levy and Richard Murnane

can be virtually void of it. How can this be?”

Murnane and Levy believe that technology will compete with labor for routine and manual jobs resulting in lower wages, while at the same time expanding the demand for more complex jobs requiring a college degree or higher. This enhanced demand will continue to drive higher wages for those jobs. Another economist, Alan Krueger of Princeton, believes that already the premium paid for an educated worker with computer skills is about 15 percent higher than the same worker without computer skills.

failure is one of students not having the “opportunity to learn.” When our students take the tested science content, they do reasonably well, but they simply don’t get sufficient exposure—physics being a good case in point. Math scores result in similar accusations about math curriculum. Even social studies are not exempt, and a simple example suffices: the four largest countries in the world are China, India, the United States, and Indonesia. To what extent does our social studies curriculum reflect that the two largest of these countries comprise over one-third of the world’s population while the United States contains less than 5 percent? In addition, Indonesia probably does not make the course of study at all.

While technology is competing for time and resources in our curriculum offering, our traditional courses are also under scrutiny in part because of technology— in part because we are competing globally and in part because they are out of date. Comparisons on international tests indicate that science instruction in the United States is lacking. An analysis of our science content indicates that our

Learning to Change Our challenge is substantial. We are expected to raise the standard and performance level for all students, close equi-

ty gaps, and modify our curriculum all at the same time. How will we do it? Measurement. I am an avid listener of National Public Radio, and a few weeks before Thanksgiving I was listening to a conversation on the radio about the nutritional value of vegetables—for me, not a riveting subject. My attention changed when they began to discuss how little research has been done on the nutritional value of vegetables. It turns out that the difference in nutritional value between two heads of broccoli sitting in the same grocery bin can be quite substantial. One head of broccoli can be full of nutrition while the other can be virtually void of it. How can this be? Apparently, almost all of the research on growing vegetables has focused on crop yield and physical appearance because those two variables have economic value. Very little research continued on page 28

INSIGHT

WINTER 2006

continued from page 26

has focused on developing broccoli with better nutrition because the nutritional value of broccoli was always assumed. As I sat in the driveway, my mind wandered and I thought about the lessons from this story for education. First, we cannot expect to change things without measuring them. Measurement is a necessary step in both beginning the change and evaluating the end result. I do some work with the College Board, and understanding Advanced Placement™ participation provides a good example of using measurement to both begin change and evaluate results. Assume that a district wants to improve the number of students successfully taking Advanced Placement™ courses. Measuring students in their freshman or sophomore year with something like the PSAT or PSSS almost always results in substantially higher numbers of successful Advanced Placement™ students in their junior and senior years. The measurement more easily creates change because it provides evidence. Simply asking

INSIGHT

“Measuring students in their freshman or sophomore year with something like the PSAT or PSSS almost always results in substantially higher numbers of successful Advanced Placement™ students in their junior and senior years.” teachers and counselors to recommend more students without any supportive evidence is justifiably an uphill battle. Second, we need to be careful to ensure that we measure the right things, the right way, and use multiple metrics. Doing any one of these things wrong can lead to disastrous consequences. Third, we need to be more careful with our assumptions. We know that there are students in our schools who do not value learning, will not work toward college and, in fact, do not ever see themselves in college. We cannot assume that simply going to school will change their attitude, so we need to work at it intentionally. We know that there are some very bright students in our schools who are not challenged. We cannot assume that they will somehow take care of themselves.

People. A few years ago I listened to Jim Collins at an AASA convention as he went through his characteristics of successful organizations. He said that if he could bet on only one thing in an organization to create change, it would be people. An organization needs to have the right people. In general, our leadership comes from the ranks of classroom teachers, and our student performance is dependent on the teacher still in the classroom. Getting the right people in the classroom has a threepart answer. The first, and probably easiest, is recruitment. We recruit between 3 percent and 7 percent of our teaching staff every year. Over a five-year period, we can make a profound difference in our teaching staff by creating a better teacher prospect.

Any given district tends to recruit from a limited number of colleges. We have the ultimate incentive with which to influence their decision making. We have the job. What if we contacted students when they declared their majors? We could inform them that we want them as our employees but we have certain expectations. We want them to take certain courses, have certain work experiences, and make certain grades. We can influence our own destiny by creating our applicants while they are still students. The second, and perhaps most difficult step, is to improve the overall quality of teaching in our classrooms by improving the performance of our existing staff? I am not certain that we know the answer to this question. It will certainly be impossible without measuring both the process of teaching and the process of improving teaching. If the process is right and implemented correctly, the outcome is predictable. We need to look at the process of teaching from lesson plans to delivery to student evaluation. Then we can respond to some of the more promising practices such as coaching, professional learning communities, or improved content knowledge. Unfortunately, the third step is to eliminate those teachers who clearly are not making the grade. When our efforts to improve a specific teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance fail and that teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance is inadequate, it is unfair to other staff and students to retain them, yet our tendency is to move them. Technology. Another intervention strategy for change is the introduction of technology. Technology is a powerful tool for creating and sustaining change, but we tend not to be very strategic in its use. Levy and Murnane contend that technology replaces routine work. In education, we engaged in a great debate about using technology to assist with the routine work associated with teaching and learning. Without much in the way of good evaluation, we came down against it. Yet, we continue to value outcomes in education that require practiceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;routine practice. Technology should provide a good tool for even guided practice. We need to

WINTER 2006

experiment again but this time measure the results to evaluate technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contribution at this level. Levy and Murnane also believe that the use of technology tools elevates the level of thinking and the complexity of communication in the workplace. It involves the increased use of data and more sophisticated means of communication. This use of technology should influence both our work with each other as educators and the work of students as learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;meaning our courses should require students to also manipulate and analyze data and communicate through an increased use of media. Time, Size, Relevance, and InďŹ&#x201A;uencing Stakeholders. Creating more time is also a very successful strategy for change. High schools that are successful with underachieving students share at least one characteristic: buying time. They provide additional time for students to catch up in the core competencies of reading and math. They may double block periods, provide longer hours, or have summer school, but they definitely buy time. Another variation of buying time at a different level is pre-school. There may be variations in success between pre-school models, but we know that pre-schools designed for learning can make a substantial difference for students from low-income families. Size is another characteristic often found in change models. Corporations tend to create innovation centers staffed with a small group of entrepreneurial persons. Small seems to be more responsive continued on page 33

INSIGHT

continued from page 30

and creative. We find the same thing in schools whether in the form of small professional learning communities, small high schools, or small class sizes. Small works. Relevance is another attribute generally included in change strategies. In a corporation, it takes the form of goal setting. In education for students, it has at least three dimensions. The first is vertical—how does what I am doing impact what I will be doing in the future. This focus tends to look at college or work and then drive reform back into lower grades and closely resembles goal setting. The other two dimensions are horizontal—they impact the student today and depend more on creating interest. One of these horizontal dimensions is defined completely within the school. It makes courses relevant in terms of each other— interdisciplinary in a sense. The other horizontal dimension relates the course inside the school to the student’s world outside the school.

Each summer Syfr hosts a retreat for superintendents, chief academic officers, accompanying teams, and their spouses. The 2007 retreat, focusing on science education reform, will take place in Santa Fe, NM, on July 8–11. Richard Erdmann can be reached at derdmann@syfrcorp.com; 360-335-0352; or Syfr Corporation, P.O. Box 1218, Washougal, WA, 98671. Syfr’s Web site, www.syfrcorp.com

In the end, the ability to change always depends on our ability of influencing stakeholders. An example from several successful secondary reform models is the relationship between a school adult, the student, and the family. Sometimes, this is accomplished with a person specifically assigned to this task, like a counselor. Sometimes, all adults in the school have a small group of students and families for whom they are responsible. Regardless of the tactic used, the strategy of influencing stakeholders, in this case the student’s family, is always involved.

Change Is the Constant—Success Is the Variable One thing we absolutely know is that the world around us will continue to change. We need to do the same. We need to value change, allow failure, and publicize successes. In 1955, Time magazine recognized Harlow Curtis, the CEO of General Motors, as Man of the Year. GM had about 50 percent of the American auto market. Practically before the ink had dried, Toyota U.S. was established (1957). Either this year or next, Toyota will pass GM as the largest automobile manufacturer in the world. Over the course of 50 years, GM was unable to change sufficiently to meet the challenge. Its failure to change was a function of its own success. GM knew how to profit from big cars, and it chose to stick with that strategy, but energy prices and environmental concerns changed and its strategy, though successful in the past, proved to be the wrong one. Change is tough and success spoils, but we cannot afford to sit still. We cannot get change wrong or, worse still, not change at all. Richard Erdmann is founder and CEO of Syfr Corporation, an education consulting company that works for educational organizations to produce conferences that challenge the audience with new ideas, policies, and approaches to solving problems.

WINTER 2006

INSIGHT

High School Reform and Work: Facing Labor Market Realities by Paul E. Barton

This Policy Information Report from Educational Testing Service (ETS) examines information on the abilities and qualities needed to enter employment with a high school diploma, including the kinds of skills and abilities that employers say they want. The full report is online at http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICHSWORK.

Executive Summary The focus of the current high school reform movement goes beyond qualifying students to enter college. It extends to raising the rigor of coursework so that students are prepared for college-level classes, rather than forced to enter remedial courses. That this is needed is based on extensive study of the gap between college admissions criteria and the more rigorous requirements for entering credit courses, as determined by college placement tests. Reformers further assert that all students, not just the college bound, should reach that higher level of academic preparedness. The notion is that non-college-bound students require that level of preparation to enter the employment world, or as it is sometimes stated, to get â&#x20AC;&#x153;good jobs.â&#x20AC;? To date, however, no one has extensively analyzed the subject to reach conclusions about the actual necessity of that level of achievement for all students and about the ramifications of insisting on it. This report attempts to bring together available information on the work world, what employers say they want, what employment projections show, and the requirements and qualifications necessary to meet employer needs and standards. It does not try to propose a set of policies and objectives for secondary education. This analysis does not find support for the proposition that those not going to college need to be qualified to enter college credit courses in order to enter the workforce. It does, however, find a strong case for advancing the academic skills of a high proportion of those high school graduates if they are to compete successfully for the higher-paying jobs available to those without a college degree, and advance in such jobs. Beyond what employers are specifically looking for in job applicants,

WINTER 2006

other important benefits are attached to higher levels of educational attainment. The Age of Hiring. Little research is available on the minimum age employers set for entry into regular jobs at which adults can make a living. No current research is available, and no one has examined how the age requirements may have changed since researchers last studied the subject.

in industries that rely heavily on teenagers, do not want to hire high school graduates until they are well into their 20s, irrespective of how well they do in high school. That creates a large gap between the end of a person’s secondary education and his or her entry into jobs with adequate wages and benefits. Those ramifications need to be understood and addressed.

This report sets forth what is known and argues that employers, other than those

Employers Speak. This report summarizes studies of what employers say they

are looking for when they hire for jobs that do not require college degrees. Such studies show that employers typically put school achievement below other qualities and attributes. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) conducted the most recent survey on this topic in 2001. Supportive of the findings of similar studies, the NAM study identifies the “most common reasons companies reject applicants as hourly production workers.” The reasons are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Most Common Reasons Companies Reject Applicants as Hourly Production Workers Inadequate basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, work ethic, etc.) Insufficient work experience Inadequate reading/writing skills Applicants do not pass drug screening Inadequate math skills Poor references from previous employers Inadequate oral-communication skills Inability to work in a team environment Inadequate problem-solving skills Inadequate technical/computer skills Lack of degree or vocational training Problems with citizenship/immigration status Other

69% 34% 32% 27% 21% 20% 18% 12% 11% 11% 8% 7% 4%

Source: National Association of Manufacturers, The Skills Gap 2001, 2001. Other surveys report somewhat different results but come from a different mix of employers and industries. The U.S. Census Bureau conducted a comprehensive survey that found the top three reasons to be attitude, communication skills, and previous work experience. Grades in school were ninth. The NAM report supports setting educational standards but cautions that such standards “should not be pursued to the point where often equally worthy elements are driven out of the curriculum.” The report argues that partnerships between businesses and schools should be expanded and that employers should support such activities, “including providing internships that bring education and students into the workplace.” 36

INSIGHT

A major new initiative by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to develop, test, and validate a new assessment of readiness for entry-level work, scheduled for release in June 2006, will provide considerable guidance to high school reform efforts. The assessment will identify what new workers in entry-level jobs need to be able to do in the areas of communication, interpersonal, decision-making, and lifelong learning skills.

openings, taking into account employee turnover, retirements, and similar losses.

Educational Attainment and Job Requirements. The use of employment projections for educational planning has been exclusively on average annual employment in an occupation and on the associated education requirements. What is needed are projections of job

• About half of the openings in those occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, require short-term on-the-job training (one month or less experience and informal training).

This report analyzes half of the 26 million job openings projected for 2001 to 2012 by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in terms of the education requirements associated with those openings and the quantitative abilities needed to perform each job in the 44 occupations involved.

• Eight require moderate-term on-thejob training (one to 12 months), and

the rest require a longer period of training, a higher-education degree, or certification. • The occupations are identified by the level of quantitative literacy needed to perform them, based on the National Adult Literacy Survey. Levels range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest.

occurs is within an occupation. It would be a massive undertaking to measure such change in the Census Bureau’s 750 occupational classifications, but studies that have examined specific occupations have found differences over time. Such changes, due to technology and other factors, occur continuously with unknown net results.

• None of the jobs is in Level 1 or 5. • Seventeen are in Level 2, where a typical task might be calculating the total cost of merchandise from an order form.

• To identify workers who, one day, may be able to advance in their company, some employers may seek employees who have qualifications higher than those required to do entry-level work.

• Nineteen are in Level 3, where a typical task includes calculating the difference between the regular and sales price of an item in an advertisement or determining the discount for an oil bill if paid within 30 days.

The New Basics and Middle-Class Wages. What does it take to earn a “middle-class” wage in the United States? That is examined in Teaching the New Basic Skills, by Richard Murnane and Frank Levy.

• Only four are in Level 4, where tasks include using an eligibility pamphlet to calculate how much money a couple would receive for basic supplemental security income in one year.

• SKILLS: The authors found that employers wanted a set of “soft skills,” such as the basic employability skills employers cited in a National Association of Manufacturers’ survey. Complicating matters, they found there was not a high correlation between those skills and the results of paper-and-pencil-tests.

• The report matches the 44 occupations with an education “cluster,” such as “high school/some college,” and lists the distribution of education levels of people working in them. It also shows the average job openings per year, the “most significant” source of education and training for each occupation, and the median annual earnings in the occupation in 2002. That, too, is available for all Census Bureau occupations. • This report looks at changes in the occupational structure from the standpoint of education required to perform each job. A couple of major studies covering the 1980s and 1990s, and projecting to 2006, show that occupations with the fastest growth rates have the highest educational requirements. Those jobs are a small percentage of the total, however, and average requirements for all occupations show no change. The other kind of change that

• EDUCATION: Murnane and Levy identify ninth-grade levels of reading and mathematics as necessary. Pinning down what constitutes a ninthgrade level of achievement in the United States is hard, because the distribution of achievement in any one grade is wide and varies by state. We do have good information from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for grades 4, 8, and 12. For each grade, NAEP defines what students have to know and be able to do to reach the basic, proficient, or advanced level in each subject. A description of the proficient level in mathematics is provided in this report. In 2003, just 29 percent of eighthgraders reached the proficient level, and only about half of 12th-graders reached a

scale score equivalent to that level. Based on such results, there is a long way to go to raise mathematics achievement even to a level Murnane and Levy agree would enable graduates to qualify for middleclass wages. The School of Work. Evidence abounds that employers greatly value experience, which brings with it learned behaviors, abilities, and attitudes. Because of such evidence the National Association of Manufacturers’ report advocates employer involvement in internship programs, or cooperative education, where students alternate between school and related work. • Cooperative education is now largely ignored, and no regular data collection addresses its scope. Cooperative education needs to be revisited. • Opportunities for teenagers to work part time while in school, in jobs sought on their own, are diminishing. The number of in-school teenagers who work dropped from 38 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2004. The employment rate for minority teenagers is much lower than the rate for White teenagers. The teenage employment rates are dropping, whether the teenagers are in or out of school. Research has generally found that working a modest number of hours per week has no negative effect on school performance. The bottom line of this report is that students’ preparation for entry into the world of work has been all but invisible in national discussions of high school reform. However, a considerable amount of knowledge, facts, and information is available—or attainable—that can be used to inform a larger discussion about high school reform and the world of work. Paul E. Barton is a senior associate at Educational Testing Service and a leading researcher in the field of testing and accountability.

WINTER 2006

Featured Guest Educator:

Fenwick English QUESTION: Dr. English, your mission as an educator has been focused on the design and delivery of curriculum to enhance teaching and learning. What evidence have you observed that reflects this mission? How has this mission influenced teaching and learning in public school systems? ANSWER: I’ve been working in Texas for over 20 years. During that time I’ve seen a growing awareness of the importance of connecting the written, taught, and tested curricula. The increased emphasis on accountability has fueled the necessity to remain focused on this critical relationship. Of course it’s backwards. We are still trying to test quality in schools instead of building it in and then testing to see if we have attained it. But that’s because political leaders still want educational reform “on the cheap.” The evidence I see is that more and more educational systems are tightly connecting the functions involved in order to be responsive to tremendous external pressures placed on them. We have not been helped because practitioners have not been invited to

“…I see enormous student boredom and an over-reliance on vendor-produced worksheets and drill-and-kill methods that are simply mind-numbing. If only the legislators who pass laws on mass inspection could see…” the table to discuss the practices and implications of changes in policies and laws. The irony remains that we are then the ones who must implement very flawed legislation. I think of the residue of past changes that embraced site-based management which are contradictory to improvements derived from a centralized testing program. Too often policies and laws are passed by people who have

no real understanding of what happens in schools and classrooms. QUESTION: What do curriculum leaders need to be doing and thinking in terms of curriculum and its function in schools? ANSWER: Curriculum is simply the work plan for what we do in schools. But it’s not a neutral work plan. It’s highly imbued with cultural values and overladen with assumptions about learning. In the kind of context in which most educators work today, ambiguity is a real problem because the range of variance that can occur becomes an obstacle to linking to expected, tested outcomes and gains which are expected or demanded. Student groups possess variable experiences that are subjected to scrutiny in testing. It’s a tragic mistake to believe that the reason some groups do not “perform” as well as others is due to genetic deficiency on their part. No set of humans is superior or inferior to any other. We are, however, different, and difference ought to be celebrated instead of hammered out of us with a mono-cultural approach to teaching and testing. QUESTION: In this era of high-stakes accountability and public scrutiny of test scores as the primary measure of the education students are receiving, what advice would you give to school leaders about the importance of curriculum alignment for improved student performance on testing and in demonstrating mastery of essential skills? ANSWER: What profoundly distresses me is that after walking the hallways of too many Texas schools, I see enormous student boredom and an over-reliance on vendor-produced worksheets and continued on page 40

INSIGHT

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A culture that disembodies the arts, humanities, and timeless elements of learning that educate humans to be more human will lead to the sterilization of the lives students ultimately live.â&#x20AC;?

continued from page 38

drill-and-kill methods that are simply mind-numbing. If only the legislators who pass laws on mass inspection could see the destructive impact of their policies on the learning process. Alignment is about matching teaching, testing, and curriculum together. It works, and it will show gains over time. This is not rocket science. But we can link all three together and have better test scores and mastery of trivia, which is not truly educative. Education is about freeing the human spirit, not simply about producing more engineers. A culture that disembodies the arts, humanities, and timeless elements of learning that educate humans to be more human will lead to the sterilization of the lives students ultimately live. Alignment is a potent and time-honored practice. But its ultimate "good" is the use to which it is put. There is no way to avoid the troubling issue of the kinds of ends to which we align. This critical issue transcends mere technical mastery. QUESTION: Schools often receive negative comments from public communication providers implying that schools are only “teaching to the test.” What is your opinion about teaching to the test and curriculum alignment as being ethical practices? ANSWER: Why would we test students on things we had not taught them? What would that tell us? And how fair would it be to punish students, teachers, and administrators for poor test performance if the tests were not important? The public can’t have it both ways. If tests are going to be used to judge us, then what they embody becomes the ultimate measure of our success. Of course we are going to teach what is going to be tested. It isn’t teaching to the test that is the issue. The issue is what kind of test do we teach to? Another issue is what do educators do with curriculum content that is not tested? What is happening now is that all the other parts of the curriculum that are not tested are devalued and being lost in schools. Do we really think that a successful life only involves math and science?

There’s nothing unethical about teaching tested content. And there’s a huge difference between doing that and cheating; that is, simply copying down the “right answers” and passing them off as knowledge learned. Because time is limited, many schools are teaching ONLY what is tested. That’s the miseducative part of the testing myopia we inhabit. I don’t think any educator would have chosen to work in the current environment. It’s one of the reasons that increased job stress is driving many teachers and administrators away from education. Education is somewhat like trying to hold a delicate bird. Hold it too loosely and it flies away. Hold it too tightly and you kill it. Right now, we have about squeezed the life from it. QUESTION: In your book Deciding What to Teach and Test you state: “The function of curriculum is to shape the work of teachers by focusing and connecting it as a kind of work plan in schools.” How do school leaders know whether the curriculum is being taught and how do they determine whether it is being taught well? What paradoxes occur in the design and delivery of curriculum? ANSWER: The “paradox” is that some functions have to be tightly held and others loosely held. This is the “paradox of administration.” And mostly we have it backwards. In the kind of environment in which we work, a centralized testing program requires a centralized curriculum. I’m not advocating centralized testing, nor do I support it educationally. However, it is a reality until we change it. Within a centralized testing program a de-centralized curriculum is dysfunctional. On the other hand, because of the very great variance among students, instruction has to be highly differentiated. What I see in many school systems is rigid, one-dimensional instruction and fuzzy, floppy curriculum with a lot of programs adopted that are not even a curriculum. In some school systems, there is no reading curriculum at all. Instead, we have dozens of reading programs. A program is not a curriculum.

QUESTION: Since 1979, curriculum auditing has been used throughout the nation to assess the system of management of curriculum in schools or school systems. What barriers/challenges do districts typically face in carrying out the recommendations from the audit report? What counsel would you offer a curriculum leader responsible for this task? ANSWER: The purpose of the curriculum audit is not to produce cheaper education; that is, for school systems to save or make money. The main focus of the audit is on how a school system has organized itself to accomplish its objectives and examining the evidence to determine if they have been accomplished within the context in which it must function. The context refers to the legal and political system in which schools work in our social structure. And it recognizes that the social structure contains inherent inequities in wealth and access to power. We talk a lot about equity and equality, and what we typically find is huge disparities of both in school operations. The audit is a kind of organizational mirror to hold up to educational and political leaders that we have a long way to go before schools are serving all the children of all the people well. The greatest barriers districts typically face are traditions that embody built-in failure for certain sub-sets of students. Our rhetoric and practices simply are at odds with one another. If educational leaders are really serious about confronting the achievement gap, then an audit is a good place to begin reconciling the distance between rhetoric and reality. Of course, some leaders are not serious about really confronting it because there are no easy answers, no off-the-shelf magic remedies, and no silver bullets. It takes hard, serious, and sustained work. Unfortunately, some educators work in such politically charged work environments that serious sustained work is impossible. They are too busy fighting political brushfires and meddlesome micromanagers to tend to the profound internal transformation continued on page 42

INSIGHT

WINTER 2006

continued from page 40

that must occur within school systems. In this, boards of education and community leaders must share some of the blame. QUESTION: Recognizing the importance of curriculum alignment to the teaching-learning process, what initial steps should a district take toward the development of a curriculum management approach?

ANSWER: We must turn down the political rhetoric and engage in serious critical reflection about our practices and beliefs. It goes beyond the idea that "all children can learn." What we want is for all children to be successful in schools. But to do that, we must stop trying to fit all children into schools as they exist. Schools were never designed to be successful with all children. If we want all

children to be successful in schools, then schools must be fundamentally changed so that all children can be successful. And mass testing is not a viable alternative to do that. All testing does is cloak the inequities in schools in a false mantle of meritocracy and scientism.

Fenwick W. English is the R. Wendell Eaves Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He currently teaches in the Educational Leadership Program at the master’s and doctoral levels where he serves as coordinator of the Ed.D. Program. He has served in administrative capacities in higher education as department chair, dean, and vice chancellor of academic affairs. English is a former superintendent of schools in New York, assistant superintendent of schools in Florida, and middle school principal in California. He has served in an executive capacity at the national level with the American Association of School Administrators in Arlington, Virginia, and with KPMG Peat Marwick, a private accounting and consulting firm in Washington, D.C. English has lived or worked in 49 states and two U.S. territories during his career. He is generally considered to be the “father” of the curriculum management audit and curriculum mapping. He is serving a second term on the Executive Committee of the University Council of Educational Administration and is the president-elect of that international organization.

INSIGHT

2007 H-E-B Excellence in Education Awards Program to Award more than $500,000 in Cash and Grants to Educators and School Districts H-E-B’s Excellence in Education Awards were created to celebrate and recognize the contributions of public school professionals whose leadership and dedication inpsire a love of learning in students of all backgrounds and abilities. •

Teacher finalists will each receive a $1,000 check and a $1,000 grant for their schools.

•

Principals on the finalist list will be presented with a $1,000 check for themselves and a $2,500 grant for their schools.

•

Large school districts (3A, 4A or 5A) named finalists will receive $5,000.

•

Small school district (1A or 2A) finalists will receive $2,500. Semifinalists will each receive a certificate of recognition signed by H-E-B CEO Charles Butt and H-E-B gift cards.

In May 2007, each finalist will receive an all-expense-paid trip to Austin to participate in statewide selection process before a panel of judges who will determine the award’s overall 10 grand-prize winners. These 10 winners — three principals, six teachers and two school districts, one large and one small — will then be announced during a special awards dinner held in their honor. Each winning principal—one elementary school and one high school—will each receive $10,000 in cash for themselves and a $25,000 grant for their schools. The winning large school district will receive a $100,000 cash prize and the winning small school district will receive $50,000. The six winning teachers will include one elementary and one secondary teacher in each of three categories: •

The Rising Star Award — honors exceptionally promising teachers with less than 10 years of experience. These winners will each receive a $5,000 check for themselves and a $5,000 grant for their schools.

•

The Leadership Award — honors teachers with 10 to 20 years in the classroom. These winners will each receive a $10,000 check for themselves and a $10,000 grant for their schools.

•

The Lifetime Achievement Award — salutes teachers with more than 20 years of experience. These teachers will each receive $25,000 in cash for themselves and a $25,000 grant for their schools.

Applications must be postmarked by midnight January 31, 2007. Visit HEB.com to download an application.

The H-E-B Excellence in Education Awards are judged in cooperation with the Texas Association of School Administrators, Texas Association of Secondary School Principals, The Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association, and Texas Parent Teacher Association.

WINTER 2006

TASB/TASA Convention 2006 Outstanding Board of the Year West Oso ISD

Honor School Boards

Clear Creek ISD

INSIGHT

Hidalgo ISD

Van ISD

White Settlement ISD

WINTER 2006

Don’t Bother Me Mom— I’m Learning by Marc Prensky

Book Review The overall premise of the book “Don’t Bother Me Mom—I’m Learning!” is about students’ ability to use technology and how that may be impacting teaching, learning, and school culture. I am writing this through the lens of a principal with 35 years of experience in public schools. There is no question that technology has changed the landscape of society and individual communities, which alters how educators and schools respond to the changes. Some of the positive points of view include the power of engagement in learning. Technology, or “eye candy” as the author suggests, has an attractive quality. We, in education, must create schools and classrooms in which students interact differently than in the past—with relevant content—and we must actively engage students in their own learning. Technology is changing how a student’s brain functions. I do have some great concerns over some of the statements made in the book from a practitioner’s viewpoint. As with most theorists or authors, I agree that what is fun and exciting may have consequences that are not apparent to the outside world. Assertions about what research says is always a matter of what research you pay attention to as it relates to your hypothesis. We all can find research to support any data. Safety of our kids is number one and will always be for school people. 46

INSIGHT

Produced by Paragon House Publishers, ISBN: 1557788588 Reviewed by William A. Sommers

Reviewer’s Points of View about Technology POSITIVES

NEGATIVES

Offers power of engagement in learning

Not always a reality; not everyone has access to and money for equipment

Supports multi-tasking, twitch-speed activity

Doesn’t support thinking through issues that have long-term effects

Makes learning more interactive

May give impression that the subject isn’t serious; emoticons can’t substitute for facial expressions in nonverbal communications

Provides fun and excitement

May have negative consequences (may become an addiction, promote violence, or open the door to online predators; assumes parents are available to monitor time/type of games)

Provides a social network

May hamper a well-rounded education and multiple viewpoints

Provides instant gratiﬁcation with quick and accurate feedback

Isn’t always possible in real-life experiences with jobs, relationships, and avocations; supports moneymaking in the gaming industry

Questions this book raises for me: • Is supporting more multi-tasking, twitchspeed activity good or bad in the long term for our adults as they think through and lead us to solve issues of racism, ethical dilemmas, and the economy?

• This book discusses the billions of dollars in the gaming industry, but is that what this book is about, supporting gaming? • What happens to those kids who do not have access to or money to get the equipment that is advocated in this book?

• Isn’t one of the issues the fact that some parents are not actively involved and that schools and teachers have to deal with the results of that?

• When advocating an expansion of use in schools, do we want the playing of violent games to enter a classroom?

• Is using emoticons a substitute for seeing facial expressions and being in an interactive dialogue with another person? • I agree that quick and accurate feedback is important, but how many of us get instant gratification on our jobs, in our relationships, and with avocations? Is this what we want to affirm?

William A. Sommers has a 35-year career in public education as a teacher and principal in urban, suburban, and rural schools. He is currently a program manager for Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) in Austin, TX, and is also a Senior Fellow for the Urban Leadership Academy at the University of Minnesota. He is on the board of trustees and the current president for the National Staff Development Council and has co-authored five books in the educational field.

President’s Circle Platinum Gold Silver Bronze

TASA CORPORATE PARTNERS 2006–07 TASA is grateful to our corporate partners for their support: PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE Apple ETS LeapFrog SchoolHouse Pearson Education QLD—Quality Leadership by Design Scholastic Inc. SHW Group, LLP

PLATINUM CompassLearning Princeton Review Scientific Learning

GOLD LifeTrack Services, Inc. PBK Renaissance Learning Tango Software SILVER AIG Valic ARAMARK Horace Mann Indeco Sales, Inc. KAPLAN K12 Learning Services Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP MIND Institute Promethean Schoolware, Inc. Summit Interactive Taylor/Balfour TCG Consulting, LP

BRONZE Alton Lynch Associates AT&T Bank of America DriversEd.com First Southwest Company Huckabee & Associates Parsons-3D/I Questia Media, Inc Saxon Publishers Sodexho The Staubach Company Vantage Learning

Each level of the Corporate Partner Program is designed to offer our partners quality exposure to association members. Partners at the President’s Circle, Platinum, and Gold levels may customize special events and opportunities. List current as of 12/18/2006

406 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2617

Presorted Standard U.S. Postage PAID Austin, TX Permit No. 1941