The student learning and achievement results for 2009-2010 can be summed up with two words – inconsistent implementation!
A year ago the results achieved reflected a more focused alignment. Much effort was made and continues to align standards, curriculum, essential vocabulary, pacing guides, and effective instructional practice. However the implementation of the alignment of these critical, essential components varies as evidenced by results.
Diving deeper into the data, however, does show growth and in many cases high growth of student learning and achievement. Yet, the failure to “make” annual yearly progress (AYP) is akin to bittersweet. Schools not making AYP each demonstrated 85% or higher in meeting or exceeding growth and high growth targets. In some cases schools not meeting AYP out performed schools that did but not in the areas included in the calculus of AYP.
Nonetheless, inconsistency of implementation is a chief obstacle in meeting or exceeding expected and desired student learning and achievement results not to mention increasing consistency. Teetering on the obvious, we can either increase consistency or continue with the inconsistency and hope to get different results.
We have for the most part lived a life of uncertainty resulting in little or no confidence in improving student learning and achievement. Truth be known, we know what doesn’t work. The dilemma or possible delusion that many staff face is simply “knowing what they know” and changing practice even with the reality that what is being done doesn’t work is, well, daunting to say the least.
However, we can’t afford to live in uncertainty.
We may not know all that works effectively but we do know enough that if we give ourselves permission to be what our students are – learners, we can move from uncertainty to confidence.
Therefore a first step in moving from uncertainty to confidence is accepting and acknowledging inconsistent and ineffective practice. We now have several tools to inform both teachers and learners of progress toward meeting or exceeding standard in real time. We no longer have to wait until EOG/EOC results are reported to assess whether or not a strategy, practice, or program was effective. We have invested heavily toward increasing our collective competence in moving data from information to knowledge to wisdom for decisions to improve teaching and learning.
A second step is making an unwavering commitment to implementation. Though it may sound draconian, we don’t have time for folks to make decisions as to whether they “like” or “believe” in this or that. If we know “this” or “that” works and consistently produces the expected or desired results than “we” do it. To ensure fidelity administration must be clear in our expectations, monitoring, feedback, and assessment of implementation.
There are several examples in our system where inconsistent results reflect inconsistent implementation. No other program typifies this practice as much as Make Your Day (MYD). MYD works effectively and efficiently. Without exception where MYD is deemed ineffective the root cause is implementation not the program.
When we introduced MYD to our system we left wide-open the option for any school to choose not to do MYD. The option remains today. In fact, principals will be provided the option to opt out given one very important reason – the lack of consistent implementation. The inconsistency in some classrooms with MYD has little if anything to do with students – the students get it. Sadly, ineffective instruction can be attributed to the same cause – inconsistent implementation.
Why?
Great question.
Maybe Forest was right – implementation is as implementation does!