Institutional Elasticity Stymies Growth

As a child I was fascinated with elasticity.  First it was rubber bands.  Stretch them, twist them, tie and untie them, bunch them into a ball, and they always return to their essential shape.  Good old rubber bands.  Then it was Silly Putty.  Extract it from its container, shape it, tear it into bits, make it into anything you want, and then put it back in its container.  Voila!  Silly Putty melted and molded back to the internal shape of the container and was ready for more future silliness.

Public education, both in the pandemic and in the post-pandemic, has been exceedingly elastic.  And, required to be exceedingly elastic by our school communities.  All the accommodations schools made for the continuing instruction of children over two-plus fraught school years were stretches to meet the emergency.  And, just as soon as the various levels of emergency ended there was an immediate expectation that school would return to its pre-molded shapes of the past.  Public education is expected to be institutional silly putty in the face of change.  Any forward movement or change will be countermanded by an equal or greater snap back toward past practices.  Elasticity does not lead to permanent change.

This is not a put down or a slam, but an objective observation.

Test this hypothesis regarding educational elasticity.  What aspect of institutionalization was permanently changed by the pandemic?  School calendar and school day, curriculum, rules and regulations, school athletic and activity life, instruction of children with exceptional needs, and faculty and staff employments – all snapped back to the pre-pandemic norms just like a good old rubber band. 

The pandemic certainly added to the challenges of future public education.  Mental health and social-emotional welfare of children and school employees jumped to the forefront of many school conversations.  Gaps in student learning and achievement are evident.  Shortages in the candidate pool for every category of school employee arose during and continue after school closures.  These three may be our most significant post-pandemic challenges.  Yet, our elastic institution is required to meet all new challenges with old institutional thinking.  We are struggling to fit mental health and SEO programming into the old Silly Putty can of a school day and school year and already budgeted school revenues.  We are compromised – do we fill gaps in learning or teach this year’s curriculum?  It is difficult to do both with fidelity.  Even though there are real shortages in every category of classroom teacher, my work with the WI DPI finds few alternative pathways being approved even when the alternative meets the rigor of teacher license requirements.  Snap back personified.

Test the hypothesis of elasticity within schools.  What new options and pathways are being approved to meet these challenges?  Generally, nada.  The first and dominant impulse is to make the spring of 2022 look and feel like the spring of 2019.  We are trying to fix post-pandemic challenges with pre-pandemic tools.  Every news story about school districts across the nation trying new approaches to new as well as old challenges is quickly followed with stories about slap back and snap back. 

Heaven help the school board that makes remote education, simultaneous studio teaching, and Zooming a regular instructional delivery.

It is the nature of a true institution to be change resistant.  Institutions by definition have a constancy of predictable behavior.  Lack of predictability causes lack of confidence.  In general, our test of predictability is that today’s school must behave like the school adults attended when we were children.  That is the same definition our parents and grandparents used to assure predictive continuity – unchanged schools.

Without causing too much uproar, we need to reform one of the three underlying assumptions about public education. 

  • Parents and the economic community depend upon the school as predictable day care for all children of school age.
  • Children depend upon the school to educate them in preparation of continuing education after graduation or beginning steady employment.
  • Schools are institutional not dynamic agencies.

The first assumption is tied to the constancy of day and time.  As a generalization, the calendar is September 1 to June 1 and the clock resembles an adult workday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.  Without exception, adults schedule their adult world around the predictability of the school’s provision of day care.  This assumption is inviolate; the scope of educational reform is restricted by the need for all children to be in school on all scheduled school days.  If the calendar and clock are malleable, many more options are available for matching selected children with selected programs at selected times of the day.  Personalization and differentiation increase dramatically.  Day care is day and time based; education is outcome based.  Which will prevail?

The second assumption questions the two traditional tracks of 4K-12 education.  Our traditional paradigm is all children are in a college track or they are in a world of work track.  A new paradigm may say – in 4K-5 children achieve foundational learning and in 6-12 children apply, extend, and enrich foundational learning.  Historically, the college track fed the future of professional careers, and the non-college track fed the future of business, trades, and labor.  The reality of college debt and its punitive effect upon twenty- through thirty-year olds is reducing college matriculation annually.  A local school that traditionally sent 95-97% of its graduates to college now sends 75-80%.  Additionally, the very productive options for personal, experience-based education that is not associated with higher education tells us to rethink tracking in favor of blended education and career exploration, apprenticeship, and internship for students in grades 6-14.  Will the snap back to traditional and institutional tracking define the future or will an extended and expanded secondary education provide innovative options for transitioning students into adulthood?

Finally, the third assumption is about fences.  Is the best provision of public education institutional or dynamic?  When a school board seeks a new district administrator, are they hiring leadership that assures continuity of past programming or innovative thinking for new opportunities?  It makes a difference.  Educators follow their leadership, and the nature of a school aligns to its leader.  Institutional thinking is about fencing that assures constancy and the predictable delivery of past outcomes.  Dynamic thinking looks beyond the fences to possibilities.  What kind of agency should our school be?

If 2019 can fix our needs for 2022-23, then let’s keep playing with Silly Putty.  If 2022-23 and beyond requires more than pre-2019 provided, let’s enjoy elasticity in our Spandex not our schools.

Learning, Perhaps

There is no overtime period for learning at the end of a school year.  When we reach the last day of the school year, instructed learning stops.  The calendar for teaching and learning expires.  Mr. Mixdorf told our ninth grade World History class in 1962, “I can only teach what time allows.  Perhaps you will learn more in some future course or on your own.  Perhaps not.” 

As a stray thought, the end of a school year is the closing of a door.  In lit class, the last chapters will not be read and we are left to wonder if the heroine will survive.  The beginnings of a ceramic piece are pulled from the wheel and returned to the clay storage bin.  Some students will never touch clay again.  The Bunsen burner is turned off and the lab equipment reshelved.  For most, there is only one high school chem class.  And, in Mr. Mixdorf’s class, we were left pondering if the United States will follow the patterns of the Greek, Roman, and British empires; the rise and fall thereof. 

These bits and pieces of curriculum and learning lie like single socks without their mates.  They will remain incomplete until a match can be made and the mental imagining of the heroine’s plight is resolved, the intricate shaping of new clay will finally grow on the wheel, and the smell and color of heated chemicals will prove the lab hypothesis.  Or, perhaps not.  For many students, incomplete curriculum, like the unmatched sock, goes into a basket in the back of the mental closet until it is forgotten under the subsequent layering of life’s detritus.  So, on the last day of school, the school year ends.

However, Mr. Mixdorf’s “perhaps” lingers with possibility and doors of learning are left slightly ajar.  Possibilities do rise next school year and some time in high school or college.  Unexpected door re-openings exist on the job or in the variety of jobs most people work during a lifetime.  Somewhere and sometime an unmatched sock reappears and life’s experience kindles an interest to explore your “perhaps” moments of incomplete learning.  Thank you, Mr. M, for leaving learning doors ajar.  The rise and fall of empires is unfolding before our eyes and I would not be considering the historical context without you.

ps:  Every teacher from the past exists forever just behind doors ajar.  They are unchanged by time.  Last week, I read Mr. Rosenberg’s obit.  Every word I read was in his distinct voice, spoken with his distinct smile and sincerity, and what he taught is unchanged even in death.  They are with us whenever we choose to peek into the bends and turns of our past.

Pandemic-informed Teacher Evaluation

Teaching and learning in the pandemic may have proved Descartes wrong.  You don’t need to be in the classroom to see teaching to know that children learned.  Historic teacher evaluation systems requiring principals to sit in the classroom observing teaching were disrupted by remote and virtual instruction.  Prior to the pandemic, the evaluator needed to see the teacher doing teaching in order to evaluate the teaching.  For several semesters this was not possible due to the pandemic.  Yet, during the pandemic we still measured student learning performances and drew conclusions about a teacher’s work.  There is no evidence that state school superintendent or school boards suspended the evaluation of teachers during the pandemic.  Teachers were evaluated and contracts for subsequent school years were issued based upon a teachers work during the pandemic.  Voila!  The pandemic clarified that we can indeed use student learning outcomes to assess and evaluate a teacher’s proficiency in causing children to learn.

Let’s learn from this and change the construct of annual teacher evaluation. 

WI Stat 115.415 states that 50% of a teacher’s evaluation will derive from student performance measures and 50% from the teacher’s demonstration of the INTASC standards.  INTASC standards describe the requirements candidates for a teaching license must meet in teacher preparation programs.  The legislature eliminated the use of statewide academic assessments as student performance measures in 2019-20 due to the pandemic – that year only.  Accountability for student performance other wise was maintained in the statute.  The legislature did not consider that remote teaching made  administrators unable to observe a teacher’s comportment with the INTASC standards.  Either this was short-sighted or it recognized that observing these standards is not required to evaluate a teacher’s work.  I like the latter.

A continuing teacher evaluation practice looks like this.  There is annual accountability for student learning.

The school board annually approves the district’s curriculum for grade level and subject courses.  The district assigns licensed and prepared teachers to teach the approved curriculum.  Students by age group or subject interest and readiness are divided into classes and assigned to teachers for instruction.  The board’s expectation is that teachers will teach the assigned curriculum and students will learn that curriculum.

A new construct for teacher evaluation looks like this – principal/teacher agree on how the teacher will be evaluated, including specific student performances and teaching required to achieve those performances.

Why is principal/teacher agreement necessary?  Each class assignment is different, even for multiple sections of the same grade or subject, because the children in the assignment are different.  Each child approaches learning differently, some with known learning challenges and others with exceptional ease of learning.  The pandemic made this loudly clear in our remote education experience.  Individualization of instruction is more necessary now than ever before.

Secondly, the pandemic created greater learner spread.  From their remote experience, many children display missed or incomplete learning from the past two years of instruction.  There are a variety of reasons for this, but none matter today.  The challenges of making their learning complete is the matter.  Today, there is greater variance in learning status and readiness than in the pre-pandemic and this variance will not be alleviated quickly.

As new practice, the principal and each teacher create an annual evaluation plan for the teacher.  They  discuss the goals of the assigned curriculum and consider how the children assigned will require instructional modification and individualization in order to successfully learn the curriculum.  The evaluation plan recognizes different teaching for different classes and different children in each class.

The principal and teacher determine the student performances that will be used to evaluate the teaching of these children this school year.  The target is that all children will successfully learn the curriculum – the evaluated strategies for target achievement will differ teacher to teacher.  Last year’s measures may not fit this year’s class and the measures for the teacher in the next classroom may not fit this class.

Stop using the same evaluative measures for all teachers when we know that every teaching assignment is different.

This is not a weighting of teacher evaluations due to differences in children assigned.  All children will be successful learners.  This is differentiating and personalizing the evaluation measures used to determine that all children learned and acknowledging the teacher’s proficiency in teaching to all children.

Teacher evaluation too frequently is contentious and burdensome.  Stop making it so.  When principals and teachers collaborate in determining what will be evaluated they are equally invested in the teacher’s success.  Principals can gather evidence without the old scenario of everyone in the class knowing that on this day the principal is sitting in the back of the classroom watching the teacher and students as he evaluates the teacher.  Everyone also knew in yesteryear the principal would not be sitting in the back of the classroom evaluating tomorrow, next week, or next month.  Evaluation was like a dental check-up – do it once a year and get it over with.  This stilted scenario didn’t work well, so stop using it. 

The pandemic causes us to look at many of our usual practices asking “Why would we want to do it that way now?”.  Teacher evaluation is one of those.  Today we have too much at risk in the business of educating children; we cannot use systems that do not work.  We can collaborate, identify real learning targets and teaching strategies, and be accountable for evaluating teacher proficiency in causing learning without watching Descartes’ trees fall.

Hybrid School Year – A Rethought, Pandemic-informed School Calendar

Every year school boards consider the school calendar for the next school year.  Setting the annual calendar is not only a statutory responsibility of a board but a very real statement of how the board views the provision of instruction to children.  The calendar sets the architectural structure of schooling.

Deep into the pandemic, the 2022-23 calendar also reflects what a school board has learned about its community and 21st century children.  Without argument, pandemic schooling will influence post-pandemic schooling for years to come.  Children, teachers, parents, and community are approaching 4K-12 education differently on the backside of their remote, virtual, and hybrid school experiences. 

A first question in this consideration should be “does a traditional calendar of 36 consecutive weeks of teaching and learning interspersed with traditional holidays provide the best teaching and learning calendar?”. 

The traditional calendar is derived from our agrarian/industrial history.  The agrarian context is that children are available for school between the fall harvest and spring farming seasons.  School began late in September and ended late in May.  Consequently, a school calendar is compacted to keep the summer months free of school.  In our state, tourism has replaced farming as the driver for a compact calendar.  Working-aged children provide the “grunt” labor for tourism.  The key element of the agrarian calendar is availability – children are available for schooling when they are not working.

The industrial context is the five-days a week assembly line of teaching and learning.  Get all of the age-eligible children in the schoolhouse, disperse them in a hierarchy of grade levels and academic courses and annually push them to the next level until the graduate.  Begin teaching the approved curriculum on day one, teach it in consecutive weeks and days  and finish learning nine months later.  The key element of the industrial calendar is daycare – children are in school so that adults are available for employment.

Public school shadowed the collegiate model of a two semester and four quarter block of 36 weeks of school or the amount of time required to teach one Carnegie unit of academic credit.  The test case in the early 1900s was a college course Biology – compacted into two semesters of 18 weeks each.  Voila! Our national educational leaders wanted high school to prep for college, so the college semesters because high school semesters and have been ever since.  The key element of the collegiate calendar is teaching time – a course can be taught (not necessarily learned) in semester blocks.

School boards have mandated a traditional, annual calendar based upon agrarian, industrial and collegiate models for more 100 years.  With such repetition this is the fallback calendar that most school boards first consider when they discuss a calendar for the next school year.  It also is the calendar that most adults in the community relate to, expect, and accept for the education of their children.

The most common rationale for why schools do what schools do is – that’s what school was like when I was a student.

The easiest action a board can take is to adjust the 180 days for interrupting holidays, place the first day of instruction on or after September 1, and vote to approve.  The most contentious discussion will be on the placement of spring break – when and how many days.  Finis.

But, does it provide the best teaching and learning architecture?  No.  Every school faculty, administration, and board has learned new things from our pandemic experience and a 1900s school calendar is archaic.

The second question in the board’s consideration of the next year’s calendar is “will we change the calendar using what we have learned?”.  It takes a lot of will power to move the status quo toward something new. 

What have we learned?

The pandemic taught us the prioritized value of school in our community is this:  school = day care.  Parents and employers are going ballistic when children are quarantined at home due to covid.  Remote education did not necessarily fail as an instructional delivery system.  It failed because adults at home were not able to support learning at home.  A child at home interrupts work routines.  Our economy accepts the agrarian/industrial model of nine months of school and three months of summer of children available for seasonal employment.  Employed parents have learned to work with the traditional calendar and do not like/want changes in the calendar the school publishes at the start of the school year.

We learned that parents and the community want their school to publicize an annual calendar parents and the community can count on.  Cancelling any calendared school day is problematic.

The pandemic is teaching us that the social-emotional or mental health development of children is a new priority.  The acculturation of children requires them to be in personal contact with each other.  Without daily school attendance, children become unruly, self-centered, and asocial.  Checking the school discipline reports after children returned to daily attendance is confirming these three characteristics. 

Parents want their schools to fix the pandemic-bred social-emotional problems children are exhibiting. 

The problem is in the arithmetic.  If it takes 36 weeks to teach a standardized curriculum in our 4K-12 instructional ladders, when will schools address social-emotional and mental health issues?  If we keep to the traditional calendar, some things will have to give.

Third, despite all optimistic reports, pandemic children are displaying gaps of missed and incomplete learning.  Early reading proficiencies require the personal attention of trained teachers.  Mathematical thinking, especially in the transitional years of fractions into Algebra requires constant conversation between teacher and child to assure accurate understanding and application of algebraic foundations.  On-line foreign language instruction is exceptionally difficult with the consistent and constant modeling of a teacher.  A child may have learned to blow into a trumpet while at home, but without the careful and constant modeling of a teacher in how to modulate breath, sound does not become music.

The pandemic caused missed and incomplete student learning.  It will take several years to make pandemic children complete in their curricular education. 

The sorting out of individual student needs as we work to make all children complete in their learning takes time for assessment and planning as well as more time for individual and small group work.  The same remedial plan is not needed nor appropriate for grade levels of children.  Some children suffer more missed and incomplete learning than others.  Children with exceptionalities, children in poverty without reliable Internet, and children without strong home learning supports for remote learning missed more essential learning and have more incomplete learning.  Individual attention is required to understand the wide variety of learning needs, planning and delivery of individual learning is required, and these take time.  Time is what the school calendar delivers. 

We require a hybrid calendar that meets our community’s traditional demands and completes our children’s educational needs.

The first step in creating a hybrid calendar is to address the length of the teacher’s annual contract.  The traditional contract shadowed the school calendar – 180 days plus paid vacation/holidays plus clerical/preparation days – made the contracted year 185+ days.  A contract of 185 – 190 days is not enough time for teachers to do the work we now require for the complete education of all children.

The contract must be expanded to encompass the work required in the new calendar.

Teachers need adequate time in front of the school year to evaluate the learning needs of each of the children in their assignment.  Generalizations about readiness for the next grade level or course not longer hold true.  The new generalization is – each child needs to be evaluated for readiness to learn and an individual learning plan needs to be devised for each child.  For example, most children promoted to second grade in SY 22-23 will have learned more than half of their first grade curriculum, but second grade will need to make all children secure in their first grade learning before or while teaching all children their second grade curriculum.  If not, children will need to return to first grade.  And, that is not going to fly with children or parents.

The social-emotional and mental health issues need to be melded into start of the school year routines and implemented throughout the school year.

Best teaching practices provide initial instruction, assess the success of initial learning, evaluate the need to adjust instruction for clarification, correction and extension, followed by continuing instruction informed by adjustments, and completion of the instructional unit with final assessments of learning.  This is the model the WI DPI is insisting upon in its re-certification of teacher preparation programs in our state.  The model requires time for careful assessment, evaluation of assessment data, and planning for instructional adjustments.  This model should be in the hybrid calendar.  And repeated several time during the school year.

Children in the post-pandemic need a school calendar that is based upon what we have learned from the pandemic experience and the best instructional practices we know for completing their ongoing education.  This calendar will move the status quo for future school calendaring.

A hybrid calendar based upon our pandemic learning and best practices looks like this.

Teachers have two weeks prior to September 1 to assess student readiness and needs and plan a first unit of instruction built around individual student plans.  Teachers have the full array of student assessment data and time to make data-informed instructional plans for the children they will teach.

School starts on September 1 or first day after if the first is a weekend day.

The first unit of instruction plus social-emotional and mental health inclusions will be completed in five weeks.  Add to the time required for the first unit the time needed for the school’s annual fall assessments.  At the end of the sixth week of school insert a week of no school for children.  During this week, schedule

  1. time for teachers to assess student learning of the first unit and make informed adjustments in their planning for second and subsequent units of instruction,
  2. parent teacher conferences to share teacher observations about student learning and plans for addressed learning needs in the next months of school, and
  3. mental health/school stress relief for children, teachers, and families.

The A, B, and Cs of the hybrid calendar are essential.  The repetition of past instructional practices will not on their own remedy the dilemma of missed and incomplete pandemic student learning.  A more clinical approach is required.  The A, B, Cs are that clinical approach.

A) makes “plan your work and work your plan” specific in scope and exact outcomes.  Success in the first unit of learning sets a child’s pattern for the year.  Success begets success; why would we do it any other way?  Well, we do in the traditional calendar that moves from one unit to the next without examination.  “She will do better in the next unit” and “If he didn’t learn it in that unit, we’ll circle back in the next units and he will do better” are recognition of failure.  We need to stop that traditional approach.

B) ensures time for a clinical review of student learning and examination of successes and needs.  The traditional expectation that teachers do this kind of review of a unit’s instruction in the evening after school or on a weekend in the traditional school calendar was fully unrealistic and a generalized failure.  The second part of B) is a very detailed parent conferencing on student successes and needs.  The conference includes the assessment of the first unit and reports from the fall assessments.  Parent conferencing here is not the showtime of an open house, but the sharing of clinical data.  This work takes time and time must be provided.

C)is the assurance that school deliberately puts stress relief into the school calendar.  For some parents, this time off from school is the time for medical and dental visits.  For some, it is the time children to be friends outside of the school day and restraints of adult-driven weekends. 

The hybrid calendar will remove all the single days of no school that range through the school calendar for teacher PD, clerical, and conferencing, and will eliminate two- and three-day weeks around the holidays. 

All weeks will be five school-day weeks, excepting Memorial Day week.  The entire week of Thanksgiving will be no school days, the odd days preceding Christmas and after New Years will he rounded into complete weeks of vacation, and spring break will be one week scheduled between instructional units.

The hybrid calendar will require more days to complete than the traditional calendar.  As September 1 is non-negotiable as a start date, the last day of a hybrid school calendar will be in the third or fourth week of June.  For the community needing child labor in the summer, working age children will be available for the heart of the season – July 4 to September 1.

This is a pandemic-informed and best practices-based school calendar.  The education of all children is the priority not the time available for their schooling or daycare.  Teachers are given the time needed to plan, teach, adjust, and clarify/correct learning at the time of learning instead of at the end of a semester or school year.  It is a repeatable calendar. 

School boards must learn that school calendaring based upon the agrarian, industrial, collegiate models does not meet our contemporary post-pandemic and teaching and learning requirements.  New thinking about school calendaring is required.

Educational governance in the long view

April school board elections remind us that the officials we elect shape the future of the school district.  The local news media post and League of Women Voters host “get to know the candidate” information and forums to highlight “…this is what I will prioritize if you elect me”.  Individual candidates tell us “I will…, vote for me.”  We read and listen to understand the differences between candidates.  There are so many issues that confront school today that a voter truly needs a score card to keep track of where the candidates stand on any one or all issues.  The bottom line, however, is this question:  Does board membership make a difference in the long run of educating children?  Yes, it does.

The electors of the school district vote to elect board members.  Once elected, board members determine the policies and priorities of the schools.  Democracy elects and representative government leads.  Representatives can make a difference.

A school board’s work is measured by the unique voices of its individual members when they speak and when they vote on board motions.  Electors look for promises made to be promises kept.  For the most part, campaign promises today speak to contemporary, hot issues and the pandemic has spawned strong sentiments about virus mitigation protocols and student well-being resulting from remote education and masking.  Masking, quarantining, and school closures are hot buttons and easily seen as the apparent and immediate issues for respective candidates. 

Subliminal to the pandemic-based discussions are arguments of who should make school decisions – the school board or activist parents.  That is the key issue of the 2022 school board elections.  The argument is what will be taught, how it will be taught, what rules will govern teaching, and what powers will parents have in regulating teaching and learning in school.  Check the numerous and growing small, partisan, as in liberal or conservative, politically vocal web sites in your community to observe how and who is crafting these arguments.  People in your community gather regularly to rally their causes and memberships are growing. 

Read nationally to understand models of parent engagement and protest.  Some seem radical and over the top until you read that activist models are being copied and played out more and more often.  Small groups of parent voices a commandeering school governance and creating minority voice rules.

What does this mean?  It is a long view change in how the writers of state constitutions envisioned and formulated school governance.  Our current model is democratic election of representatives who make policies that govern local schools.  A new model is governance by political activism.  In this model, elected boards make policies that reflect the wants of politically active parents, a minority of the constituency.  Policies may “ping pong” between the most active of activist groups and the media coverage of their demands, but the premise is the same regardless of parent group – school boards must represent the immediacy of parent activism. 

This is a watershed argument for a change that flies in the face of the community.  School boards are elected to represent the entirety of a community not just the parents of the moment.  Board members are elected by residents whose children did not attend the local school or attended local schools decades ago.  They are elected by taxpayers whose interest is that schools educate all children to be the good and productive future taxpayers of the community.  They are elected by adults who want children to be prepared for the unknowns of their future.  School curriculum is not to be partisan but broad and leading to objective, informed, and inquisitive student thinking.  Teachers are not hired based upon their leanings but upon their abilities to cause children to learn.  At least, that is the constitutional design.  New argument changes school reality into only serving and protecting the points of view of activism. 

The election of school board members matters because schools reflect their school boards.