Monday, November 8, 2021

The Top Skills Employers Value Are Not Measured On A Test

Have you ever gone into an interview and some asked: were you proficient on your 8th grade Algebra PSSA? Has any employer ever asked you about your SAT score? Proficiency on standardized tests does have value, however only in certain contexts. The skills employers desire are not measured on a standardized test. At the Lawrence County Career and Technical Center, the instruction that our students get is a means to and end. It is our hope that the lessons the students receive go beyond math, English, science, or the trades. We believe the development of the most desired skills employers demand will assist students on their journey. 

Communication might be the most essential of all skills. Prospective employees need to be able to speak and write effectively. Part of communication is listening. The ability to observe an environment and communicate effectively with a variety of people, including work clients and other team members is vital to success.

Employees must be able to work with other co-workers as part of a larger team. In 2021, the collaborative efforts might be in the same physical environment or a virtual environment. The ability to be an effective contributor to the team benefits the employee and the company. The world of work does not tell its employees to stay seated, quiet, and busy. Neither should their educational experience. It is our hope that the students learn to work with one another and a few learn how to lead each other. 

Do you have what it takes to solve the problem or know how to search for a solution? Problem solving and critical thinking are invaluable to an employer and they will pay someone who can demonstrate those skills. Showing your employer that you have what it takes to deal with a variety of different problems is a great way of ensuring you will be able to deal with anything your job throws at you on your own. Problems will always arise whatever industry you get into, but being able to deal with problems quickly and in a sensible manner ensures that you will be a great asset to any company.

Organization skills ensure you are able to deal with your work. Can you triage? Can you prioritize? If you can demonstrate the ability to stay organized, prioritize, and finish, an employer will gain trust and confidence in that employee. 

Successful employees need to handle pressure. All too often in today’s society we associate pressure and accountability with negative connotations. The opposite is true. Pressure and accountability create results. There are many circumstances where an effective employee may be dealing with anxiety or stress. It is not an option to declare defeat. Instead, deal with the pressure, stress, anxiety and accomplish great things. If it was easy to accomplish difficult tasks under pressure, then it would not be an exceptional skill but rather an ordinary trait of all employees. Remember when you are under pressure excuses are not reasons.

It is too easy to quit. Many employers are looking for employees with perseverance. Are you the person who will be loyal, hang in there, and succeed. Or are you the type of person who when the going gets tough you are the first in line to leave for your safe space? Employers want and need people who are able to show this level of commitment.

An effective school utilizes English, math, science, or vocational programs as a tool to produce a productive member of society. Our students will not be productive if they cannot take what they have learned and apply it in new and different ways. Beyond a score on any one test, what is unique about you that makes a company say, we are better off with you than without you.


Thursday, October 21, 2021

Laurel SD Reignites the Fires of Instruction


The Laurel School District has the ability to be the highest achieving district in Lawrence County as measured by the PSSA exams grades 3-8 and the Keystone exams administered to secondary students. For the Spring of 2021, the Laurel SD had the best 3rd grade PSSA scores in reading (75%) and math (75%). The district also had the highest Keystone scores (Literature 84%, Algebra 84%, Biology 87%).

We are bound and determined to reignite the instructional fires that have been compromised by COVID-19 these last 3 years. Keep in mind that these seniors have not had a normal year of school since they were freshmen. Those students currently enrolled in k-2, know nothing other than mitigation, quarantine, and school closure. It is our intent to maximize opportunities for face-to-face in person instruction. 

All instructional staff are working on a curriculum writing project. The culmination of their work will provide all stakeholders to have an opportunity to review a living, breathing, curriculum housed on our website. By having the curriculum in the cloud, teachers have the opportunity to update and revise planned instruction so that the curriculum continues to evolve year over year, rather than remaining stagnant in a notebook shoved in a closet. .

We are increasing the rigor and relevance of our grading and reporting. Teachers in grades k-2 are developing a standards based report card. This will allow teachers to report on the progress of individual students against a standard of expected academic skills. Grades 3-6 and any regular course grades 7-12 will have the majority of the grade reported through summative assessments (tests, quizzes, projects). As the course becomes more rigorous, things like homework, participation, and/or bonus will not dilute accuracy of achievement. 

We have revised our standards for honor roll and high honor roll. It should be challenging for students to be recognized as an honor roll student. If our standards are too low, what type of honor is it?

Let us #Reignite the instructional fires of the Laurel School District. Let us all strive for the standard of excellence in all that we do. May we capitalize on our ability to achieve and place Laurel at the top of the achievement pyramid. May our instruction utilize relationships and make rigor and relevance possible through authenticity.


Friday, June 11, 2021

We Must Expect More Than Intaking Oxygen and Giving Off Carbon Dioxide

 It is my honor to accept this class and share a few words. 

     As we inch closer to the end of a pandemic and hope for a return to normal, our graduates will be expected to compete in the real world. With the end of the pandemic, so will end the numerous supports that perhaps have taught students the wrong lesson. With the best of intentions, I have heard colleagues looking to lower the bar for students.

     I understand compassion, empathy, and understanding. Certainly, this year has been like no other. I argue we must maintain our expectations. We must give students multiple ways, including second or third chances, to meet those expectations. We do a disservice to the students if we lower the bar while they are in school. Their post-secondary lives will demand they reach the same standard as their predecessors.

     A large number of students struggled all year despite the numerous documented adaptations, accommodations, and contacts with the families. Indeed, we have some students that have failed to log on numerous times. A portion of the students have failed to meet the lowest of standards; attendance. Moreover, despite alternate assignments, extended time, etc. many students have failed to show any effort. We cannot in good conscience give a student a satisfactory grade for intaking oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide. They have the ability to do better.

     Those who have expected less of the students have done them a disservice. Passing a student along does not show love or affection, but instead contempt. If one truly cares about another, then that person does right by the other. Just as a parent expects their child to do their best, so does a teacher who loves that child like their own. It is harder to expect more. It is easier to make excuses and expect less. I hope the teachers were hard on their students and expected attendance, effort, and proficient completion.  

     It is an injustice to pass a student who has not made any progress at all. We cannot send the message that a student can do nothing and mythically pass academic standards.


We believe:

  • that every student can meet minimal attendance requirements and well as minimal effort requirements. They will be expected to do as much in the world of work. Pretending that a student need not attend school or complete assignments does no justice to their post-secondary lives.

  • that students need to fulfill their potential and push academic limits. It has been our experience that students will meet goals and expectations when we agitate their comfort zone. We do not want them to have goals that they need to bend down to reach. 

  • that the pandemic makes it more essential not less essential that we equip our students with the skills they need to succeed. By rewarding students with a passing grade while they have demonstrated no skills, does not bode well for them in a post-pandemic world. 

  • that it is an issue of integrity, both on the part of the students and the educational community. While we take no pleasure in seeing a child perform below expectations, we also have seen other students respond to our instructional efforts. The students who are not progressing satisfactorily are not entitled to the same grade as those who made progress. 

Now back to that “free dollar.” I asked for a dollar and received that dollar from Mr. Milanovich. If I rely on him, then I only receive money when he is ready, able, and willing to do so. If I need him for money, am I not subservient to him? Do I not owe him?

Let’s replace Mr. Milanovich with the name of my least favorite relative, Uncle Sam. This uncle of mine continues to take and I’m not sure what I get in return. Therefore, I do not rely on Uncle Sam for my well-being. I will not be limited by him. The problem with Uncle Sam is that if I work too hard, he wants to give me less.

But if I earn, my dollars are only limited by my knowledge, skills, talents, creativity, and ingenuity. Case in point, Curtis James Jackson III. Curtis was in the supermarket one day and watched in amazement as people bought bottled water and spring water. So Curtis decided to sell his product, Vitamin Water. He did well with his original product and then sold it to Coca-Cola for $4.1 Billion. Curtis walked away with a cool $100 Million. I know many of you know who Curtis is, but maybe you know him by his nickname; 50 Cent. Don’t be mad at 50. Don’t envy 50. Try and do better than 50.

     The graduates before you understand perseverance. They took advantage of opportunity and responded to changing circumstances. The graduates here before you believed in themselves and in us. We believed in them. Our collective perseverance with the support of the families led to this commencement. This graduation has been earned not given. Their future accomplishments and contributions to society have no limits. Free has no value. Integrity, honesty, knowledge, work-ethic and perseverance are priceless. So remember;  the one who endures to the end will be saved. You have endured. You are saved. They call you a graduate. Congratulations Class of 2021!!!


Tuesday, May 11, 2021

 

Zombie Ideas in Education

Bryan Goodwin

Some bad ideas never seem to die, despite research showing they don't actually work.

It can be hard to spot them at first. Those dispelled education theories that research shot down long ago. They creep up in studies, shuffling around mumbling in the reference lists, or moan loudly in blog posts. Often, while I'm sifting through studies to write my regular column for Educational Leadership, I stumble across these "zombie ideas" that keep returning to life, despite researchers' best efforts to put them six feet under.

I'm guessing you'll have heard of a few. Let's take a look at some of these (un)dead ideas and why we need to stop giving them authority.

(Un)Dead Idea #1: Students Have Different Learning Styles

This particular idea might be better characterized as a mutant idea—an innocuous idea that fused with another and has been running amok ever since. In the early 1980s, Harvard researcher Howard Gardner (2011) advanced a rather straightforward theory of multiple intelligences. Basically, it says people are "intelligent" in different ways. Some excel at music; others pick up foreign languages quickly. Some have a knack for math, and others have a gift for relationship building. As educators, we ought to appreciate and encourage students' diverse gifts. Fair enough.

Yet almost from the beginning, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences morphed with another theory: that students have unique learning styles. They can be visualauditory, or kinesthetic. For example, some students might learn best through movement, so teachers should allow them to understand the solar system by dancing around like orbiting planets; others may be auditory learners, so they might best learn geography through music. Or so the theory goes.

Serious research, however, has found little evidence students use so-called "intelligences" in one field (like dance) to learn another (like astronomy), or that people learn best with experiences that match their learning style (Pashler et al., 2008). In an interview with the Washington Post, Howard Gardner himself cautioned against using learning styles to label students, since that might imply deficits in other areas, rendering such labels "unhelpful, at best, and ill-conceived at worst" (Strauss, 2013).

Nonetheless, a cursory internet search yields a dizzying array of people still blogging about, offering courses in, surveying for, and encouraging the use of "learning styles" in classrooms—advocating for teachers to individualize students' learning experiences to match these styles.

The reality is far simpler. Yes, (news flash) kids are different. And yes, we sometimes prefer one way of learning over another (group vs. independent work, for instance), but that does not mean we learn better with a particular modality. At best, research shows benefits from learning in multiple ways—for example, reading about a scientific phenomenon, seeing it in a video, and experiencing it.

We might put this zombie idea to rest by substituting the word preference for the word style and noting that preferences are just that. Preferences.

(Un)Dead Idea #2: Students Learn Best Through Unguided Discovery

Like many zombie ideas, this one contains a germ of truth: Lectures can be boring and ineffective. A study of college students, for example, found they had higher grades and were less likely to fail courses with elements of active learning vs. straight lectures (Freeman et al., 2014). In response to the tedium of long-winded lecturing, theorists in the 1960s began to espouse a different approach called "discovery learning," which said students learn and retain more when they discover new insights for themselves. That, too, is partially true—a meta-analysis of 43 studies of problem-based learning found that encouraging students to extend and apply learning by independently solving complex problems supports better long-term retention of learning (Dochy et al., 2003).

Over the years, though, purists took these ideas to an illogical extreme—namely, that teachers should be minimally involved in learning and students should "learn by doing," such as by conducting experiments, engaging in research, or solving complex problems with minimal guidance from teachers. A meta-analysis of 164 studies, however, found students learned significantly more from direct instruction than from unassisted discovery learning (Alfieri et al., 2011). Further, this kind of minimally guided learning—that is, giving students a complex problem to solve with little prior instruction—is particularly ineffective for lower-performing and younger students, as they tend to learn skills incorrectly and develop misconceptions (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).

Empirical research, in fact, makes a strong case for direct instruction—such as modeling a practice for students (showing them how to balance a chemistry equation) before students attempt the practice on their own (Pashler et al., 2007). Often, the shortest route to learning is a straight line: telling and showing students what they need to learn.

In many ways, this zombie idea emerges from a false dichotomy that pits direct instruction against discovery learning, when really the two strategies work better together. The best approach (even better than direct instruction) is "guided discovery"—providing students with learning objectives, direct instruction, modeled examples, and feedback during the process of discovery, thus ensuring they develop accurate conclusions and proper skills (Alfieri et al., 2011).

(Un)Dead Idea #3: Students Should Learn to Read Through Authentic Reading

This zombie idea continues to shamble out of teacher colleges, where a surprising number of instructors appear to eschew systematic, explicit use of phonics in favor of giving students interesting choices of reading materials, focusing on meaning making, and unpacking the sound-symbol code in a more incidental way. Decades of research, however, point to a more straightforward approach to teaching reading, based on these key principles:

  • The fundamental building block of reading is being able to make sound-symbol connections (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018).
  • There is nothing intuitive about the connections between symbols (letters) and sounds (phonemes), so we must teach them directly to students (Moats, 1999).
  • Students must practice making these connections through reading and writing practice until they become automatic in their brains, allowing them to read fluently (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018).
  • Ultimately, fluency is the key to comprehension; only when students read with automaticity can they comprehend what they're reading (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018).

The good news is that when we provide students with direct instruction in decoding, most can learn to read on grade level. A study of low-income 1st grade students of color, for example, found that students given direct instruction in decoding could attain decoding and comprehension abilities on par with national averages—far higher than students with little or no direct instruction in decoding (Foorman et al., 1998).

Although this has been settled science for years, it does not appear to be taught in many pre-service programs. A study by the National Council on Teacher Quality (Ross, 2018), for example, found that only 37 percent of U.S. pre-service education programs actually teach the science of reading to aspiring teachers.

So, does this mean "phonics" works and "whole language" doesn't? Well, not exactly. Some whole-language practices, such as giving students interesting reading materials and encouraging a love of reading, are sensible and constructive. At the same time, some so-called phonics practices, such as asking students to decode nonsense syllables, fail to translate into authentic reading skills (Allington, 2013). In short, making students decode nonsense syllables is, well, nonsense. Not to mention tedious.

(Un)Dead Idea #4: Students Don't Need Facts, Just Critical Thinking Skills

We can summon Siri or Google to answer nearly any factual question these days. So, what's the point of teaching facts? Isn't it more important to learn to be a critical consumer of information?

Yes—and no. Certainly, critical thinking skills are important. The number of job postings referencing "critical thinking" doubled between 2009 and 2014 (Korn, 2014), and studies find that college graduates with better critical thinking skills land higher-paying jobs (Zahner & James, 2015). However, student critical thinking isn't a skill in the typical sense of the word—something learned in one area that transfers easily to another (Abrami et al., 2015). Rather, it tends to be interwoven with domain-specific knowledge. Students employ scientific thinking with science knowledge, textual analysis with literature, quantitative reasoning in mathematics, and so on. Students must think critically about something—namely, facts and content knowledge.

That said, we cannot simply teach content knowledge and expect students to develop critical thinking skills via osmosis. A meta-analysis of critical thinking approaches (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990), for example, found that simply exposing students to literature, history, or logical proofs did little to help them develop critical thinking skills; only when students were taught how to employ critical thinking (e.g., learning how to parse correlation from causation) and provided opportunities to practice these skills within a subject area could they develop them.

(Un)Dead Idea #5: If It's Worth Teaching, It's Worth Grading

Many teachers are in the habit of slapping a grade on everything that moves—every scrap of homework, every quiz, every draft assignment, every classroom discussion—with the idea that if it's worth doing, it should be graded. That habit can be hard to kick because the idea contains some truth—namely, what you measure is what you get. It's easier to stick to a diet if we count calories.

Grades, however, have a finality to them. They imply something is finished and hence ready to be certified with a number or a letter. Yet learning is iterative—it's less a process of learning and more one of re-learning from mistakes and experimentation. You wouldn't grade an artist in the midst of creating a masterpiece ("Looks like a block of marble to me, Michelangelo"), but that is, in effect, what we do when we grade learning at every step along the way.

Moreover, all those grades can make students construe that the goal of learning is to rack up points in a gradebook instead of to master important knowledge and skills. As Carol Dweck (2000) found in her series of classroom studies, students who see the purpose of schooling as earning a grade do not grow richer as learners, tend to be less motivated, and demonstrate lower overall performance.

Consider, too, the common practice of grading homework assignments. A McREL meta-analysis of research on instructional practices (Beesley & Apthorp, 2010) found only a small effect size for homework but a significant one (four times as large, in fact) for practice. In short, homework should be practice. So, why grade it? Some teachers insist that students won't do their homework if it's not graded, which begs another question: Do students understand the benefits of homework—namely, to practice, learn from mistakes, and move toward mastery?

Perhaps most important, shoehorning more scores into a gradebook doesn't make grades any more fair or accurate. To the contrary, an examination of hundreds of teacher grades for thousands of students found that most were a "hodgepodge" of subjective (and likely inequitable) measures, including attitude and effort (Cross & Frary, 1999, p. 52). As a result, grades may not actually reflect whether students have met their expectations for learning, which should be the real purpose of grades. Everything else is superfluous.

(Un)Dead Idea #6: Smaller Classes Are Better

This last zombie idea is hard to kill because it's true—at least in theory. Students are better off in small classes. A comprehensive review of class-size research (Whitehurst & Chingos, 2011), for example, concluded that significant reductions in class size (shrinking classes by as much as 7–10 students per class) can result in significant, positive effects on achievement—equivalent to three months of improvement in learning over a nine-month school year.

The trouble lies, though, in applying this finding in the real world. California learned that the hard way in the late 1990s when it spent $22 billion to reduce average K–3 class sizes from 30 to 20, hiring 25,000 new teachers and constructing thousands of new classrooms. The results? Students benefitted from smaller classes, but the benefits were wiped out by an influx of seemingly less capable teachers (Jepsen & Rivkin, 2009).

In the end, teacher quality has far more effect on student learning than smaller class sizes. Students can gain as much as a year's worth of additional learning in a classroom with a highly effective teacher than with a highly ineffective one (Hanushek, 2011). In fact, school systems might actually be better off increasing class sizes to be able to recruit and retain great teachers with higher pay. By one estimate, adding five students per class could translate into 34 percent raises for teachers (assuming all savings were passed on to teachers) (Whitehurst & Chingos, 2011). That's a trade-off many teachers might accept, putting this zombie idea to rest once and for all.

Let's Use Our "Braaaaains"!

Zombie ideas remind me, in many ways, of a quip attributed to Will Rogers and, alternately, Mark Twain: "It isn't what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know to be true that ain't so." As it turns out, neither man actually said this, yet it seems plausible that either of them might have. Therein lies the trouble with many zombie ideas. No matter how many times we bury them, they crawl back out of the grave because they seem so darn plausible, often because they contain an ounce of truth. The good news, though, is that each of these zombies has a real-life converse that points toward better classrooms and schools—often with less complexity, less effort, and fewer resources. Let's work to keep those theories alive and kicking.