Reading Skills Proficiency or Critical, Mindful Reading – What is the Goal?

Can a student in school become a proficient reader without being a mindful and critical reader? Can a mindful reader lack proficient reading skills? Testable skills? Applicable skills? I thought I knew, but foolish me.

For decades I have fretted reading scores. I pore over our school’s annual results on the statewide academic assessments looking at individual scores, disaggregated groups of scores, and multi-year trends in score patterns. When scores inch up a decimal, I smile. When scores dip a similar decimal, I frown. At the end of poring, everything boils down to cause effect analysis. How is our instructional program in reading affecting student proficiency in reading test score? And, how can improvements in teaching cause children to be better readers? Better readers!

As I sat in a local coffee shop, I eavesdropped on people at the next table sipping, munching and talking. They talked about local issues. Weather, road conditions, the ups and downs of local business, and local gossip. Talk, talk, talk. When the conversation turned to politics and taxes, I leaned a bit closer. Perhaps they would talk about something of substance. I waited and waited until I heard one person say, “I read …”. I was intrigued to hear how this person reported out what she had read. I heard her say “…the article said…”, “… the reports say …”, and “… according to this, the data says …”. Okay. She read for content comprehension. Then, I heard another voice say, “I read a different story that told me …”. Smile. Now, there was a little analysis of what had been read. They were comparing and contrasting what each person understood from their reading. Sip, sip and munch, munch. The first voice said, “…I don’t think I agree with what I read. I think …, because…” and I smiled more broadly. Yes, I heard some evaluation of what she read. She read, understood, considered, analyzed, and evaluated what she read against her own understanding and experience. She gave an alternative interpretation and explained why she favored this alternative. I had listened to a conversation based upon critical and mindful reading. Many smiles. But, were they proficient readers? How had these folks gone about their reading? Did they apply the reading skills taught in school? I did not care. I glanced at them as I left my table. They probably were young adults in their late 20s, no longer in school anywhere, getting together for a morning ritual before moving on to their day. They represented the outcomes of a school education.

At a developmental level, we must pay attention to the assessments of reading proficiencies that populate K-6 schooling. The science of reading tells us that, although we can teach all children to read, reading is not a natural human activity.  It takes time for children to learn to read. And, it takes time for children to advance their reading skills toward being mindful and critical readers. When we combine the science of reading with each student’s proclivities for learning, home and environmental support, and instructional effectiveness, assessments give us guidance as to the what kind, when and to what extent we need to apply teaching and learning exercises. The assessments are checkpoints in a pathway to more important outcomes.  Don’t fret the small stuff, I am learning.

My reconsidered attention now is drawn to the effectiveness of early reading programs in 4K through third grade and how individual children develop decoding and encoding of letters and sounds. I am concerned with their orthographic ability to assemble and spell words and to build those words into vocabulary. I am concerned with reading fluency and a child’s ability to read, understand, make self-corrections in their reading.  I look at their ability to develop rich background knowledge through reading. The snapshot assessments of these explicit skill sets make sense to assure each of the pieces of reading is being taught and learned properly so that children are prepared to be mindful and critical readers later in their schooling and adult lives. Analyzing reading proficiency in the primary grades is how we pay attention to smaller details. They are important signposts of learning but annual, small skill assessments are not the “big duh” outcomes of reading.

As I adjust my fretting, I am liking the bigger question of “What can children understand and learn from what they read?”. This is a completely different educational outcome and its assessments, due to their subjectivity, should not lead to fretting. Upper elementary, middle school and high school education provide rich instruction and application of advanced reading skills throughout curricular content areas. At this point, we shift from sub-test analysis to the larger interest of what older children are able to “do” with their reading abilities.  We focus on how they process information, create and test generalization from facts and supporting detail.  We look for critical questioning of sources when they inspect for bias and when they compare and contrast differing material.  We watch carefully when they are confounded by what they read and attempt resolve conflicting points of view or presentation of facts. Schools will continue to take scheduled snapshots of how well children read in these grade levels as part of mandated assessments. And, they also need to look carefully at how children learn from what they read.

Getting one’s pants in a bunch when the data produced by a periodic assessment snapshot does not jive with desired numbers and conclusions may not be as productive as we think it is.  I shall treat those results for what they are. Some assessments look backward at how well children learned and other assessments look forward toward how well children are growing into mindful and critically thinking young adults.

Taken against the big picture of developing mindful and critical readers, I am liking and finding more value in secondary school evaluative assessments of how we want school graduates to be critical and mindful readers. It is like cooking soup. At the early stages of chopping ingredients, we know the nutritional values of what is going into the soup. But, any premature tasting is not of soup; it is checking the process of making soup. Soup is soup when the prep and cooking are completed. The soup of reading should be evaluated when it is served – when graduates leave school for futures in college or career. Make instructional adjustments earlier in the process, but don’t make exclamations about reading achievement until reading is soup to be served. Wait to fret, if fret you must.

Teacher Tool Box: Some Teachers Have Sharper Tools

It is late August and teachers are returning to school. Classrooms look like tornado zones as teachers unpack supplies and reorganize learning centers. Opened boxes, books, and bins are strewn around the floor. Within days and after much attention, teachers and classrooms will be ready to cause new learning for children assigned to them.

My observations are not entirely casual. I am looking for teachers who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. I am looking for teachers who are restocking their tool boxes of teaching competence. Without my stopping what they are doing, as if I could, we engage in the annual conversations of getting ready for school.

Two distinct impressions rise from these observations and conversations. Two distinctly different teacher-types emerge. I have talked with teachers who confidently know what they are doing and are doing it. And, I have talked with teachers who think they know what they are doing and are trying to do it. On the first day of school, their classrooms may look similar, but on the second day of school what these two teacher-types do in the teaching of children will be dissimilar.

In the school gym, parents are engaged in the annual chore of school registration. They are updating demographic data about their children, paying school fees, and, most importantly, receiving their children’s classroom assignments for the new school year. The last item lists the names of the persons each child will have as her and his teachers this year. Some parents smile, some frown, and some don’t know enough to do either.

Why is this thus?

Frommers, Fodor’s, Concierge and Lonely Planet do not publish a travel guide for how to best traverse K-12 classrooms, but local parents know the best pathways. The knowledge of which teachers are best at causing children to learn their grade level and course curricula is an unwritten document, but in the parking lot on registration day there will be many conversations about which children will have the best travel guides or teachers this school year. This knowledge is performance-based and data-documented. It is not just preferential. As the mothers of children in the parking lot tell me, “Look it up. Some teachers always produce better test results than other teachers. And, the children they taught do better on tests the next school year. Some teachers send more children to the office for behavior problems; they don’t know how to keep kids learning so kids get distracted and misbehave. I want my child to have the teachers that know how to teach and produce the best learning results.” Parents, especially mothers, know.

Each teacher in the school is licensed by the DPI to teach their assigned classes and courses. Each teacher has earned a baccalaureate degree or added a post-grad degree as preparation for their professional work. Most teachers in the school are veteran teachers with several to many years of on-site experience. Yet, differences exist.

• There is a difference between having teaching tools and having sharp teaching tools.

Some teachers sit with children in a reading group, listen to children read, and smile or frown. Children take turns reading and demonstrating their ability to sound out new words, read fluently, and follow along. Other teachers listen to children read. This teacher stops the reading to assist a child phonetically pronounce a new word, to ask children what new words mean to build vocabulary, and to ask children to explain what they understand from their reading. This teacher has individual children read, children read aloud together, and has children listen to the teacher model reading a sentence or paragraph before a child is asked to read the same sentence or paragraph. One teacher uses the tool of reading groups while another teacher exercises the sharper tools of teaching reading in a group.

• There is a difference between teaching and knowing how to teach to teach to each child.

From the doorway, daily teaching can look the same in most classrooms. From a seat in the classroom, it is apparent that some teachers make a lesson plan, walk through the steps of their lesson plan calling on some children, asking children to “show their work”, moving from one subject to the next, and tomorrow they will do the same. From a seat in another classroom, it is apparent that this teacher works their lesson plan, engaging every child, asking children to demonstrate and explain their thinking, and staying with the lesson until satisfied that every child is ready for a next lesson. It is apparent that when a teacher kneels next to a child’s chair, one teacher encourages a child to finish the assignment and another teacher provokes the child to do learn from the assignment.

• There is a difference between teaching and knowing when and how to continue teaching and to teach differently.

Every teacher sets a curricular calendar. With approximately 180 days of school, a schedule must be maintained to assure that all the curriculum is taught. Some teachers are driven by the curricular calendar while some teachers are driven by the curriculum on the calendar. The first teacher will move to the next lesson and the next chapter because time is important. Another teacher will stay with a lesson until all children have learned its objectives before moving to a next lesson. This teacher will teach and re-teach and her re-teaching purposefully will be different than her first teaching. If a child did not learn from the first teaching, it is unlikely a repeat of the same teaching will cause a different result. A sharper teaching tool is differentiated teaching to meet the needs of the child and the time and place of the child’s learning.

• There is a difference between giving tests of learning and using tests for learning.

A test may signify for a teacher that a chapter or unit has been completed. For this teacher, a test says it is time for children to move to the next chapter or unit of teaching. For another teacher, a test signifies how well the teacher has taught the chapter, unit or semester and if the teacher is ready to move to the next. This teacher looks at the results and, if the results are not good for all children, the teacher uses test data to selectively correct or strengthen what students did not learn “well enough”. A move to the next chapter or unit happens when learning not time indicates it is time for what comes next.

• There is a difference between looking like you are doing and actually doing. In other arenas, this is the difference between talking a good game and playing a good game.

Some teachers know the talk. They can tell you what is happening in their classroom. They hand you chapter books and point at learning centers and at posters on the wall. Other teachers can explain the talk. They can tell you why what is happening in their classroom is necessary for each child’s learning, how they will know that each child has learned from what is happening, and when it will be time to change what is happening in the classroom and what that change will look like.

• There is a difference between being liked as a teacher and being esteemed as a teacher.

If this difference needs explaining, a reader will not understand the difference.

Parents in the parking lot know these things. They know that some teachers are expert teachers with sharp teaching tools. They want these teachers to be their child’s teachers. Sadly, some children will have other teachers. Teaching tools really matter.

Lesson study: Sharpening Your Teaching Tools

I planned the lesson. I taught the lesson. I examined student work resulting from the lesson. I evaluated the effectiveness of the lesson. I taught similar lessons in similar ways. I taught this lesson again the next year.

Almost anything we purchase today has a consumer rating or a list of consumer reviews. These inform us of how the item of interest compares to quality standards and of the satisfaction, praises and complaints of other purchasers. Homemade things do not have these ratings and reviews. A teacher’s lesson plan is a homemade product. So, how do we understand the quality of a lesson plan?

Self-reflection and self-evaluation are components of professional work. These are built into a teacher’s mindset as she progresses through a teacher preparation program albeit as an abstract application. Once in a classroom assignment, the daily process of constant and continuous lesson planning and teaching day after day can move self-reflection and self-evaluation to the “back burner” of daily demands. Reflection and evaluation give way to the demands of the next lesson.

At some point in a loop of lesson planning, teaching and lesson review, objectivity is obscured by all of the “I”s. When a person’s professional perspective is formed by looking in the mirror and confirming “I look fine. I am fine. My work is fine”, a person should wonder “How do others see me and my work.”

(Disclaimer – this is not the professional evaluation of Educator Effectiveness or a demonstration of Frameworks for Teaching (Danielson). This writing is pointed at daily lesson work and how a teacher professionally improves her lesson planning.)

It is clear to say that no teacher designs a lesson plan for the purpose of failed teaching and learning. Lesson plans are created with every good intention and design for causing children to learn. Given every good intention, how does a teacher add perspective to the improvement of her lesson plans?

Lesson studies are not a new concept. Japanese Lesson Studies were introduced when Japan undertook a national initiative to improve its international ranking in educational performance assessments (TIMSS). I will use the term “Lesson Studies” to refer to a variety of models for peer teachers to review and critique lesson designs.

Lesson studies are a teacher-centered and teacher-led process for teachers to share lesson/unit plans with a small group of colleagues for the purpose of peer critiquing. Three to five teachers form a study group and take turns presenting a lesson plan for peer review. Principals and administrators do not participate in lesson studies.

A model for lesson study process looks like this.

Background – A teacher gives the peer group a contextual background for the lesson. Peers must know the grade level or course the teacher is teaching and where in a unit of instruction the lesson fits. Information includes a background of the students and prior lessons leading up the lesson of interest. Data may indicate base line pre-unit assessments. Information also may include any special considerations for children, classroom conditions, school life or other externals that affected her lesson design.

The Lesson – The teacher presents the lesson in the format of the school’s lesson design format. Using a common format gives peers a common language and scheme for understanding presented lessons and decreases time needed to conceptualize how the presented lesson is formatted. If the school does not subscribe to a common lesson planning format, the presenting teacher explains her preferred format. The presentation is a brief, yet detailed description of lesson objectives and teacher planned actions, in-lesson decisions, and responses to students as the lesson unfolded. It is important for the peers to understand all the intentional teaching acts made by the teacher, planned and unplanned.

Clarifying Questions – The peers ask questions to fill in their understanding of the lesson. The questions deal only with the lesson. Questions such as “Why did you…? and “How did you…?” are common. It is easy to pile on questions, so peers keep questions to those which illuminate teacher behaviors and decisions.

Student Outcomes – The teacher lays out examples of student work, performances, and assessments completed during and as a result of the lesson. These artifacts connect the objectives, lesson design, and teaching acts and decisions to the outcomes of the lesson. Samples are pre-chosen to reflect a range of successful to unsuccessful student work.

Consideration – The peers take several minutes to individually consider the presentation and artifacts and construct comments and feedback they will give the the teacher.

Feedback – Peers take turns with their commentary. Each peer is required to make a comment and provide feedback. Comments are to be critical yet not criticizing. Peers should consider pedagogical technique, theory into practice designs, clarity of teacher talk and input to students, and how the lesson produced its desired outcomes. Peers recognize that some outcomes will not be known until subsequent lessons are taught.

Commentary and feedback are the heart of the lesson study. Trust is a big deal. The teacher group trusts that all comments are designed for improvement. Additionally, what is said in the study stays in the study.

Although it is easy for peers to say “I would have…”, how a peer would have taught the lesson is not a subject of the study. Peers are neutral and objective reviewers of the lesson presented.

Teacher Reflection – The presenting teacher summarizes the comments and feedback she received. Presenting teachers should take notes as they listen to peer feedback to assure that they have a record of the comments and feedback. Peers listen to the reflective summary to assure that the teacher has properly understood the feedback. Needed clarification is given to assure a fidelity of what was said and what was heard.

Debriefing – Before disbanding, the teacher and peers review the purpose and design of their lesson study and reflect upon how this study complied with those. They also set the time, place and presenter of the next lesson study.

A lesson study requires 50-60 minutes of group time. It is essential that enough time is allocated so that teacher reflection, the last and perhaps most important component of the study, is conducted without interference from the clock. Early practitioners of lesson studies want to present lessons they confidently believe caused positive student outcomes. Experienced practitioners present lessons that are essential for student learning in meeting grade level and course standards. They choose these lessons to improve the lesson’s success for all children.

Once lesson study groups are formed and working, they schedule weekly lesson studies. If the study group includes four to five members, weekly meetings allow each member to present seven to eight lessons per school year. Eight lesson studies combined with self-reflection and self-evaluation of lesson plans provide a teacher with balanced insights into the effectiveness of her lesson planning skills.

The following links point to resources that can assist a teacher in creating a collegial and collaborative lesson study process.

https://www.uwlax.edu/sotl/lsp/guide/planstudy.htm

https://schoolreforminitiative.org/doc/tuning.pdf

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/global_learning/2016/04/using_japanese_lesso

https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/435/13%20%20TTLP.pdf

A School Year Is Not a Year of Instruction

One afternoon within the next month, millions of school-age children will spill out of schoolhouse doors at the end of their last day in the 2018-19 school year. June will be a time for celebration and reflection. Another school year has been completed by all children. Another year of schooling has been achieved, by some children. Reflection will indicate that less than half the children in the United States gained a year’s growth in reading or in math. However, 90%+ of students will be either graduated or promoted to the next grade level for another school year in the fall.

In reflection, what is a school year or, put differently, what is a year of schooling?

Take Away

Instructional time is the numeric that defines a school year. Each state mandates a minimum amount of time schools are required to provide instruction for Kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school children. The number is different for each age level, recognizing that children may be required to be in Kindergarten for half days, an elementary school day includes recesses, and the high school day is still influenced by Carnegie Units, a standard that parallels a high school course to a college course.

In Wisconsin, “Each school district board shall annually schedule and hold at least 437 hours of direct pupil instruction in kindergarten, at least 1,050 hour of direct pupil instruction in grades 1 through 6, and at least 1,137 hours of direct pupil instruction in grades 7 through 12.”

https://dpi.wi.gov/cal/days-hours

Oops, short on meeting the required number of instructional hours because of winter weather! Then additional school time will be scheduled to make certain the mandated number is met. No one goes home until the magic number is reached. Even though make-up time counts as instructional time, no administrative action is taken when a student skips school on a make-up day in June. Every hour counts, but some hours are more important than others. A school year calendar is time spent in school.

An instructional year is not the same as a school year. The school year will end whether or not teaching and learning are successfully completed. Units, chapters, and lessons not yet taught due to a variety of valid reasons will not be learned. No one protests on the last day of school saying “I’m not done teaching or learning!” An instructional year is the planned scope of knowledge, skills and learner dispositions assigned to an annual grade level or subject area course. It is quality not quantity.

What Do We Know?

We want to say that student learning is what really matters. Did the children successfully learn the knowledge, skills and dispositions of their annual grade level or course curriculum? Maybe and maybe not. Instructional time is a finite number; learning is a variable fit into time.

From start to finish, a school year is comprised of the number of school days that meets the state mandate for hours of instruction, parent-teacher conferencing days, professional development days for school staff, and the sum of holidays that lie between the first and last days on the school calendar. Traditionally, schools calendared 180 days for student instruction, several days for teacher’s professional development, and a couple of days for parent-teacher meetings. If the first day is September 1, the last day is in or after the first week of June. When school districts publish their school calendars, school families and communities arrange their annual schedules around the school calendar. There is an expectation, if not a promise, that school will be in session on the days of the school calendar, not more.

An instructional year is a different beast. It is not a quantitative measure. It is a qualitative achievement. Some children achieve their planned learning outcomes quickly and some children require more instruction and time. There is an expectation, if not a promise, that all children will be successful students.

The substance of an instructional calendar is found in Wisconsin Statute 118.01 which outlines the educational goals and expectations that meet the state’s responsibility for public education. A decade ago, this statute described course subjects required to be taught. A list of subjects was delineated. Today, the statute describes curricular expectations that are left to local school boards to define and implement.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/118/01

The Wisconsin legislature adopted the Common Core State Standards in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards are in place for all other subjects and grade levels. These standards are the foundation for the creation of school district curricula in Wisconsin schools.

Using the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), school districts start with the scope of standards assigned to a chronological grade level and band standards into units of instruction. CCSS units are complex and complicated with scaffolds of sequenced and leveled standards that build upon one another. Student mastery of early units develops a competency for instruction in subsequent units. CSS units are organized into four to eight weeks of teaching and learning. In the aggregate, a standards-based year of instruction contains six to nine units of instruction.

An inarguable rule in education is that “Time lost is never found”. When we pack 180 days of school with six to nine units of instruction, there is little time to spare, yet life and weather happen and every school year experiences days of school that are cancelled due to weather and facilities or safety emergencies. Add in other interruptions of instructional time, unplanned school assemblies and celebrations, school visitors, and special events and more instructional time is lost. Instructional time is decreased and never increased. Very few instructional years are completed within the realities of a finite and interrupted school year.

Structurally, it is difficult to impossible to complete all the prescribed units of grade level or course instruction in a school year that shrinks. Each school year, CCSS standards that have been adopted by school boards as requirements are not taught due to “time ran out”.

Additionally, for reasons too numerous and complex to elaborate here, many children are not successful learners after their initial instruction. They require second and third tiers of instructional support. Each reteaching or newly conceived teaching and learning response takes time. One of the reasons so many children are not proficient in reading and math is that they require time more instruction each year than a finite school year provides. Instructionally, it is not only difficult – it is impossible – to cause all children to successfully learn their prescribed units of grade level or course instruction because children learn at different rates of time and when time is finite those who take longer to learn are stopped from learning because of the school calendar.

Why Is This Thus

The length of a school year is defined by economic and political constraints. It started with the agrarian calendar. Children could attend school after the fall harvest but needed to be available for spring planting. October through April. The Industrial Age did not change the school calendar much; children were part of the labor force making school attendance optional for most. The introduction of child labor laws and the need for immigrant children to be integrated into the national economy committed schools to day care and literacy education. These factors moved the school calendar toward September through May.

State legislatures counted the days between September 1 and June 1 and centered on 180 days as a school year. This number held from the 1930s through 2000. 180 was easily carved into two 90-day semesters and four 45-day quarters. Nine weeks per quarter, 18 weeks per semester and 36 weeks make a school school year. 180 days became the status quo school year.

The economics of a 180-day school year created a funding status quo. State allocations to school districts plus local tax collections were predicated on the amount of money required to fund school for 180 days. Politically, all state allocations in the state budget are competitive with all other state funded obligations. More school days require an increase in state of local taxes and increasing taxes is politically unpopular. Thus, the economic status quo of a 180-day school calendar.

A second economic and cultural hurdle to adding days to the school calendar is that working-age children represent seasonal labor for tourist-based state economies. Tourist and associated businesses make their money between Memorial Day and Labor Day. State legislators are lobbied to restrict school from starting prior to September 1 and to be completed as soon after Memorial Day as possible. These lobbies also oppose year-round school proposals.

Adding days is a no, but subtracting days is a yes. In Wisconsin, legislators deleted all statutory reference to a 180-day school year. School boards, required to meet the mandated hours of instruction, can add several minutes to each school day thereby meeting the requirement in less than 180 days. Seven minutes added to the school day or one minute added to each period in an eight-period school day allows the 1137 hours of instruction to be completed in 177 days.

This manipulation saves money. It does not provide an equivalent amount of real teaching and learning time. An additional minute to a class period is meaningless if not insulting.

Economics and politics define both the school and instructional years.

To Do

Look at alternatives to the status quo.

Stop accepting the unacceptable. The current economics and politics of education not only creates but accepts the reality that some children never complete an instructional year of teaching and learning. Our economy accepts that 10%+ of each class entering Kindergarten will not graduate from high school. Our politics accepts that 50%+ of children every year are not proficient in their grade level reading or math. And, we know that children who are not academically proficient by the end of sixth grade are more likely to drop out of school. And, we know that adults without a high school diploma experience limited economic prosperity. And, we know the correlation between low academic proficiency, dropping out of high school and crime. The “and, we knows” list is long, yet we accept them all as the status quo. Stop accepting.

Change the concept of instruction from yearly segments to a continuous progress line from first enrollment in 4K or Kindergarten to the completion of an elementary education. Consider middle school not as two or three years between elementary school and high school, but as a continuous learning model transitioning from elementary school to the course rigor of high school and including all the requisites of blooming adolescence. Consider high school not four years but a readiness for college and career that must be completed not encapsulated in time.

I am enthused by proficiency-based learning (PBL) and competency-based education (CBE). The concepts are not not new, but dissatisfaction with the status quo of student learning achievement has caused several states to renew their interest in PBL and CBE. The Vermont legislator moved all public schools in that state to PBL and CBE.

https://education.vermont.gov/student-learning/proficiency-based-learning

PBL and CBE do not change the limitation of the finite school year. They allows us to change the concept of instruction from yearly to continuous. A Vermont student beginning Kindergarten starts a continuous record of learning progress ending with graduation not June of 12th grade.

I am enthused by continuous progress reporting rather than annual performance reporting. We currently use annual performance reporting as a public accountability tool. In Wisconsin, public accountability is directed at school choice options. This was born out of the No Child Left Behind penalties placed upon underperforming schools.

Stop using school report cards to affirm or denigrate school districts and schools. We have learned that penalizing schools whose underperformance on normed instructional measures to be achieved within the finite school year is whistling in the wind. We know that children with learning disadvantages and challenges are more than unlikely to accomplish an instructional calendar that requires more than a school year of time. Begin using continuous progress measures of learning that depict positive learning growth not arbitrary deficiency.

The Big Duh

A school year is not a year of teaching and learning. The first is a need to comply with finite time and the second is a matter of using time for teaching and learning to achieve required educational outcomes.

School is what it is because that is the way it always has been. School leaders annually try to achieve greater accomplishments within antiquated and faulted constraints. As national and state communities of educators, we know better.

When you know the right things to do, do them.

Teach. Try not. Yoda Redux.

Language matters. Verbs denoting the action to be taken are significant.

Businesses and professions have their own vocabulary. Some people refer to this as a foreign language, but it really is the words that have been created by the profession and how the profession uses existing words to talk about itself. In schools, non-educators refer to this as “educationese”. The observation or complaint is that school people either use educationese to obfuscate the conversation or to exclude non-educators from understanding and participating in a school conversation. True or not, this perception describes a reality experienced by too many non-educators. Of special interest, I am interested in how educationese uses verbs.

We know from our student years that there are two categories of verbs – action and non-action – and that action verbs are either transitive or intransitive. Action verbs also are called dynamic verbs, because they explain what the noun or subject of the sentence will do or be. School people tend to favor low dynamic action verbs, especially when they talk about program and instructional design. I will call these soft verbs.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “…all fine prose is based upon the verbs carrying the sentence”. If so, a lot of school conversation (narrative about school programs and instruction) is not carried by dynamic action verbs, but by soft or weak or irresolute verbs.

How we talk about school and education and the verbs we use are really important in how we conduct the education of children. Words and verbs, especially, matter. Yoda was very efficient and effective in calling out how verbs work. “Do or do not. Try not.” What can we learn from Yoda? Educate or educate not. Try not.

Take Away

What is the designated outcome of school mission statements that read “We hope to …”, or “We strive to …”, or “We will try to …”? It is no more than Intention. The noun-verb combinations actually are we “intend to … and will make an effort to…”. These transitive action verbs are soft. They say to the reader or listener that the school really wants to succeed at reaching a goal or targeted outcome, but by its language the school will accept reasonable effort rather than the actual achievement. The choice of verb is exceptionally important in how we explain the work of schools to our constituents, including students and parents.

When a parent sits with school administrators and teachers to discuss her child’s need to improve learning performances, school people display the objective data of achievement and the targeted goals for future learning. Numbers matter when describing learning performances. “Your child needs to improve …” is followed with “We will try to …” and “We will provide…”. Hard, measurable targets with soft, intentional actions. School people are inconsistent in how to attach verbs to their direct and indirect objects. “We will (soft verb) these very objective learning outcomes.”

It is interesting that effort counts when schools evaluate their institutional performance, but effort is of little or no account when students are tested or evaluated. Schools accept soft, inexact outcomes, but require children to perform exact and measurable outcomes.

A sea change would be for school people to be exact in the dynamic verbs they use to achieve the quantity and quality of student achievement planned. “Our instructional program will cause your child to achieve grade level or better reading skills at the end of XXX grade.” Or, “As a result of our math instruction, your child will be proficient (85%+ correct, 85%+ of the time) in her understanding of Algebra and ability to correctly resolve Algebra problems.” The cause-effect statement, who will do what for whom to achieve what outcome, sets the tone for everything that happens afterward.

What Do We Know

When people are given specific outcomes with strong, dynamic verbs, they are more likely to be committed to the outcomes than when their directive is to make an attempt, to try, or to intend to achieve the outcome.

Action verbs are measurable by the action that we commit to do. Action verbs are performed or they are not performed and the outcome to be achieved is or is not achieved. The language is clear. “Each day I will give your child one-do-one instruction in multi-sensory techniques for phonetically sounding out the words she reads.” The teaching action is clear. The teacher will give one-to-one instruction in multi-sensory techniques. The teacher is committed to the action.

The ability to perform a prescribed action is how we evaluate both the person doing the action and the action required to be performed. Teacher evaluations are a combination of the teacher’s ability to demonstrate various components of teaching practice and the evidence that a teacher’s work has caused children to learn. Teaching is active work requiring the prescription of a learner’s current capacity and needs, diagnosis of the best pedagogy to cause learning, delivery and formative assessment of the pedagogy, practice and reinforcement of the learning and summative evaluation and confirmation of the learning leading to future learning. Each step of the prior sentence demands the use of specific, dynamic verbs. Soft verbs will not get the job done. Evaluations celebrate the abilities of a teacher to use all her skills and knowledge to cause learning; evaluations celebrate active teaching. Teach or teach not.

Clear objectives with action action verbs and outcome ownership cause school people to determine if they have the human capacity to achieve the objective outcomes. Do teachers have the knowledge and instructional skill sets to teach students to achieve these outcomes? There is no sin in understanding that teacher professional development is needed and then effectively improving teacher capacity. There is large sin involved in using soft verbs and accepting diminished outcomes because we do not have instructional capacity to deliver on hard, active verbs.

Clear objectives also give school people the power to explain that additional community supports are needed if the school does not have the physical or human capacity to achieve needed and reasonable student outcomes. Communities that limit the quality and quantity of student outcomes by the financial support they give to their schools truly reap a diminished future for everyone in the community.

Why Is This Thus

There are many reasons.

By nature, most educators have very high intentional expectations but purposefully make small promises when describing the outcomes of their intentions. I don’t know if this is learned or innate in those called to education, but it is a valid generalization.

Many variables can affect student achievement. The variety and extent of learning challenges that individual students present at enrollment are well documented, but the existence of challenges does not pre-limit educational outcomes. And, the existence of challenges presented by some children too often pre-establishes limitations to instructional designs for all children. We decry our obstacles before we attempt our work.

Schools are mandated providers of a plethora of human and real services beyond student learning. The list gets longer and never shorter. If student learning achievement is that important, it would be the first item on a short list. Schools can be successful and recognized as successful for delivering all sorts of services while not delivering strong student learning.

It is the way schools have always been and always will be. Schools are soft providers. Nice counts.

Every movement to apply increased accountability in public education has settled at the mean of an historic status quo. There is a lot of fuss but no imperative to persist with stronger accountability. The value of schools as day care centers and social program providers outweigh schools’ ability to cause strong learning achievements. Decades of reforms have not moved a measurement needle of student learning that always returns to the mean of the status quo.

Education is an inexact science without clear cause-effect relationships for positive outcomes. This is not true, but it is held to be true. We have outcome-based pedagogy that causes children to learn. However, schools that emphasize these outcome-based strategies are met with parent protests that such pre-determined outcomes are not their outcomes of interest. The argument of small content defeats the possibility of delivering large learning.

Is an educational goal or target a promise to perform? Is it a contract between the school and a child’s parents? And, what happens if the hard target is not achieved? Are schools willing to fire teachers who do not cause the levels of achievement prescribed in parent-teacher meetings? Will this real-world business model work in schools? To date, there is little to no evidence that school leaders and teachers have an appetite for this level of accountability. Firm and resolute language that is not achieved opens education to consequences it is not willing to undertake.

To Do

Parents, assert yourselves. Know your school’s and your student’s performance data and demand improvement in the data. Then, demand/expect school people to use action verbs that denote what the school will do to improve performances. Demand active language.

Teachers, make the needles of measurable achievement move and take credit for the advancement. Use action verbs, “I/we will ….”, to commit yourselves to causing significant student learning. Then, celebrate your accomplishments. Teachers cause children to learn – take credit for successful teaching.

Teachers and parents, collaboratively discuss needed and reasonable growth in each child’s educational performance and each deliver on your responsibilities for the agreed upon outcomes. When you have agreed upon the outcomes, solidify the action to cause those outcomes through strong active verbs that commit each party to the plan.

Principals, endorse parent and teacher achievement plans that include action verbs, use your own action verbs to provide the resources needed for success, and actively call out the successes and failures resulting from this work. Principal support of

The Big Duh

We get what we settle for. Soft verbs beget soft commitments that result in soft performances. Is that really what we want? Heck, no.

Reduce the language to who WILL DO what and how will WE KNOW that that it is done. Yoda, please change your memorable phrase to – Teach. Try not.