“What Will It Take: Part II”

I would like all of us – each and every one of us to identify the resisting forces pushing against the driving forces of change necessary to achieve our mission – all students meeting or exceeding high standards.

The driving forces are the compelling reason, purpose, or aim of the change we desire. Whereas, resisting forces are the objects, or forces that stop the change envisioned.

For change to succeed, driving forces must overcome resisting forces. Though this may seem obvious, resisting forces are oft subject to subterfuge and other forms of deception. They are under estimated, discounted, and ignored until they become the focus rather than the change desired.

Let’s return to change. Between the driving and resisting forces is just that, the change we desire.

What change do we want?

When I came to Anson County in July of 2007, it was made clear by the Board of Education that creating and implementing a strategic plan was a priority.

Before addressing student performance, quality of principals, teachers, and other administrators, facilities, activity and athletic programs, visual, fine and performing art programs, funding, enrollment, middle class flight, student behavior, attendance, parental engagement, poverty, transparency, and etc. the Board of Education desired a plan.

Again, it may seem obvious that before addressing program, processes, procedures, and performance improvement we needed a plan.

To that end, a plan was created. Not a traditional plan. Using a different construct; one based on the identification of the school system’s promises to students, parents, staff, and community and the identification of factors key to success as well as key indicators of performance were developed and agreed upon.

These promises, key success factors, and key performance indicators collectively are the Strategic Commitments – the plan.

This is where the driving and resisting forces become relevant. Each of the key success factors that must be met represent the change we desire.

Underpinning the driving forces are people – children, young adults, adults, seniors. They are the past, present, and future of this county, this state, and nation. They are workers, producers, inventors, repairmen, guards, farmers, businessmen and women. They are our best hope for better.

If the driving forces are the improvement of our children why is there resistance? What is pushing back?

Consider:

Driving Force – All students literate

Required Change – All teachers in every class implement effective literacy instruction daily

Resisting Force – ?

How about another?

Driving Force – All students proficient in Algebra

Required Change – Effective daily math instruction

Resisting Force – ?

One more

Driving Force – All students write effectively

Required Change – Effective daily writing instruction

Resisting Force - ?

It isn’t logical is it? If the driving forces in these examples are students that are literate, Algebra proficient, and effective writers and the change desired is effective instruction, what is the resisting force stopping or obstructing the change?

Can it be this simple?

No, it isn’t!

We have complicated, confused and convoluted the change process to the point that we expect people to resist no matter how compelling the driving force or envisioned change.

Argumentatively, the whole “buy in” mindset is more or less asking people to fit the driving force and envisioned change into their current understanding, current values, and current competencies.

The problem should be obvious. The driving force is not open for discussion. Why then should the change?

Query if we were already meeting or exceeding expectations for performance, purpose or aim of education the call for change would be moot.

Our current reality however illuminates a different reality – a reality that many deny, dismiss, or simply ignore.

There it is, I have answered my own question – resisting forces are more or less a denial of current reality.

How long can we deny our reality? Moreover, how long can our students continue to wait for us to see them not only as they are but what they can become as a result of the change we must be for them?

“Complicated, Intense, and Demanding”

I am spent. You are spent. We are spent.

Individually as well as collectively there is little, if any margin, capacity. We have been and will continue to work at an unprecedented and unhealthy pace.

In a big way the pace of our work is attributed to being far behind in almost every aspect of organization, practice, and performance.

Added to being behind and the work to date to catch up, the expectations and demands of changes required by the federal and state have created even more demands on time, effort, and energy.

Yes, the new normal is the pace of blur with little or no time for rest, reflection, and recreation.

Truth is – it is not going to slow down. In fact, it is going to get more complicated, more intense, and more demanding.

Why complicated?

What is complicated is the reality of change – authentic change – transformative change.

Consider, most if not all of us want improvement, different results. But, most if not all of us don’t want to change.

This is not uncommon. Research is replete with studies of change initiatives, innovations, and reform that fail due to individuals not changing their beliefs, values, or norms.

The biggest problem associated with failure is that individuals attempt to fit change into what they currently know and can do.

However, change in practice requires a change in what we know and what we think.

The complication therefore with the change we must experience is that most if, not all, of what must change requires people to learn new approaches, align values and create new norms.

Make sense?

Not only have we been working to adopt new approaches to teaching and learning, the learning for all mission – no matter what it takes, and create new norms of rigor and high expectations for all to catch up but we must also accelerate these efforts to implement new requirements to meet new accountability standards. This is complicated.

Why intensity?

The intensity of transformation is magnified because of past performance or lack of. Akin to running a race, we did not start at the same place as everyone else but are expected to finish at the same time.

Staying with the racing metaphor, this is not a sprint. We must understand that we will get to that finish line not by spurts or short bursts. Rather, we will get to that finish line by focusing on what we control not on the other runners.

More demanding?

The first two – complicated and intense underpin demands.

Without hesitation the demands being placed on teachers, principals, and central office are without a rival.

The state of being overwhelmed in many ways is attributed to the challenges of learning

– learning new knowledge to learn new practices.

Learning for adults often requires unlearning or suspending what we know or have experienced to be open to new or different ways of thinking and doing.

It takes great effort to unlearn. It takes great discipline to suspend. Both are fatiguing.

Our present situation therefore is complicated, intense, and demanding – coalescing to create a state of blur as well as a state of exhaustion.

In the midst of this complicated, intense, and demanding work are the critics. Those who point fingers, cast blame, and make judgments.

Their intentions?

Not sure but I am clear in what they are not – they are not interested in improving, interested in achieving to before never imagined levels of performance, and certainly not interested in the future of children.

On the other hand, their intentions are indicative of a mindset that has not to date embraced the “different”, the “change if you will that must take place in thought and action.

Our work is indeed complicated, intense, and demanding.

"What are we waiting on?"

I was pondering just how far we have come in light of how far we still need to go and it struck me, just what are we waiting on? More specific and personal, what are you waiting for?

The waiting for change is not reserved just for those that appear reluctant or resistant.

Those that consider themselves not risk adverse must ask "what have I done to assist, support, encourage, model, explain, and/or in some cases questioned, challenged, voiced concern about the choices or decisions made by others that undermine, sabotage, or out right refuse to get with the program?"

Recently we witnessed the medical profession question the decisions and therefore competency of Michael Jackson's personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray.

The judgments made by Dr. Murray were found to be responsible for contributing to Jackson's death.

In the criminal proceedings, expert witnesses from the medical profession testified to the facts that constitute medical malpractice.

With respect to education, the expert witnesses are teachers. Teachers know who are and who are not competent. Yet, teachers say little if anything about teachers that is critical about teaching.

My point, we know what works. We have staff that are doing what works. On the other hand we have staff that are not.

What are they waiting on?

We know that change is fundamentally an inside out proposition. For too long the outside‐in, force, coerce, embarrass, penalize, and etc. mindset and practice have dominated school reform.

We have, however, aligned our reform, our transformation efforts around what we know is true about human learning. We have invested in a theory of action that calls for a deep understanding of the “what” underpinned by a clearly articulated “why” then the “how”.

We have presented a case for the enduring habits of learning versus chasing a “test score” as the compelling motivation for teaching as well as learning.

We have presented a case for self‐managing, self-regulating, and self‐monitoring of behavior accompanied by the tools, the protocols, and structure for results.

We have presented a case for early, aggressive identification and intervention with powerful supplemental instructional programming and provided the tools, the training, and the time for results.

We have presented a case for adult learning, capacity building, and human capital development and provided the framework, structure, and incentive to learn for results.

We have presented a case for purposeful alignment of curriculum, effective instructional practice, and frequent monitoring of student progress toward meeting or exceeding standards and the tools, the training, and time to produce results.

What needs to change for staff to give voice to what works or who is and who isn't implementing effective practice?

Let that sink in – what needs to change for staff that have been unsuccessful in their current practice to change?

A change in leadership?

Really?

Do we think that principals and central office administrators are wholly responsible for identifying ineffective performance?

A change in parents?

Really?

Do we think that our parents are wholly responsible for failed learning and the failure to learn?

A change in students?

Really?

Do we think that if we change students to the “other” students – the ones the parents are keeping home will create the change we need?

Are those reluctant, resistant, or simply incapable of changing waiting on something else to change first?

Seriously, what conditions must be present for change to not only take place but yield the expected results?

What could possibly be an excuse or explanation for not doing what we know works, is effective, and achieves the results we expect?

What indeed are we waiting for?

The answer, in part is we all – each of us – must take responsibility for the change we desire. We must now more than ever take to heart, to mind, and to action those factors, variables that we control.

Leadership, parents, students, and, yes, teachers cannot wait on someone else to become the change we need.

Again, I ask, “What are we waiting on?”

“Assisted not Replaced”

I made time this week to be a parent by traveling up to Boston to watch our oldest son's home opener given that this is his senior year and most certainly his last year of his formal competitive playing. The outcome of the game was disappointing but watching him play never is.

On the return trip I experienced a serious delay caused by faulty equipment in Charlotte. What we learned is that the navigational equipment necessary to land the type of aircraft I was flying in was broken.

They were not allowing any flights to take off that were heading to Charlotte.

The other issue of course is that there were indeed flights in the air that had to be diverted, put in a holding pattern or turn around. Certainly, other aircraft with different navigational protocols and ones not depended upon the instrumentation that malfunctioned could land.

In my case, we sat for almost a hour on the tarmac and then went back to a gate to wait until the equipment was repaired. I was in no hurry to leave the plane.

As I was one of the last still onboard, I decided to ask the flight crew about what I suspected but wanted to know for sure.

I spoke with the captain asking him just how much of actual flying of the plane was human versus computer?

His response didn't surprise me. "Most planes fly themselves."

With that confirmation, I was provided an opportunity for some additional "think" time as well as a pretty good analogy for our present work.

The instrumentation in use today with air travel literally as well as figuratively allows aircraft to fly themselves. Human involvement is limited to the very important roles of decision‐making and problem solving more or less on the ground not in the air.

Let me state this slightly differently, the technology today is so developed, so sophisticated that planes really don't depend on or require for that matter a human.

In my conversation with the pilot, he confided in me "the instrumentation is so good that you can have marginal, inferior pilots".

I responded what if the instrumentation is not accurate or like this day malfunctioning to the point that it is not safe to fly?

“A one degree error can find you so radically off course”.

I asked, “Are there safeguards?”

“Absolutely!” There are so many indicators that constantly and consistently provide you feedback even when on auto pilot.”

He went on, “the sophistication of the technology is amazing. My role in flight is constant monitoring.

I focus on a set of key indicators that, if not progressing properly, lead to a deeper, more specific calibration of potential flight modifications or corrections”.

We left the conversation with the oft‐used adage of “better safe than sorry”.

As I thought about the conversation the obvious application for us is our formative assessment strategy where we aggressively desire for our staff to monitor both student progress toward standard as well as teacher effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the technology of monitoring and measuring the leading indicators of learning and instruction are not as sophisticated as those used in aircraft.

I am not so sure they have to be.

We know that a leading indicator of effective instruction is planning.

The degree to which an instructional lesson is effective – that is, students demonstrating that, in fact, they have learned what was intended to be learned and to the expected level of learning, is heavily dependent and determined by planning effectively.

Too often lesson planning is not revered or valued as it should be.

Planning requires making judgments.

It requires reflection and reviewing what students know and what they need to know.

It requires reflection and reviewing of what is and what isn’t effective with respect to instruction.

It requires reflection and reviewing of resources, tools, time, and clear identification of evidence learners must demonstrate.

The measure of effective planning is instruction and student learning. That measurement must be in real time not weeks or months or semesters later – real time.

This is where the instrumentation of flying and planning intersects ‐ the frequent, constant, and consistent monitoring and measuring of the process.

Human judgment is critical ‐ assisted not replaced by technology. Our effect – the effect of teaching and learning begins and ends with planning effectively.

“Memories or Dreams – our Choice!”

Are we presently being defined by the past?

Will we let the past define our future?

What can we or should we do to ensure that our efforts, our work, our dreams are not undermined, limited, or even sabotaged by the past.

I was reminded the other day through a very profound question of one of the greatest challenges of transformation. "Do we have more memories of the past than dreams for the future?"

Memories are important. They ground us. They provide insight into who we are, from where we came, events that shape or influence our thinking, and in some cases limit our ability to see possibilities of different.

Memories are a two-edge sword. As we know there is a psychology directly related to memories. Good and bad, negative and positive, and ones we fondly recall and ones we choose to forget.

In total, they are our past.

Dreams on the other hand are future orientated. In some accounts, dreams are a preferred future, an ideal state.

Our school system cannot be defined by memories, the past. We must allow the dreams of a preferred future shape the present as well as guide us to the future. Making dreams into reality as we have learned is not as easy as closing ones’ eyes.

Rather, it takes commitment, courage, conviction, consistency, and constancy. In each, there is a deliberate act, a decision if you will to think, behave different.

Different in this case requires authenticity, reliability, and character. What we value, what we say we value, and what we actually do reveal who we really are.

Our best of class vision is a preferred future. A future that includes each learner, each parent, each staff and our entire community. It does not exclude anyone. It does not favor anyone. It does create, encourage, or gain from competition that is based on some winning and many losing.

No, the best of class vision describes what a classroom, school, and school system looks like, sounds like, and behaves like when the deliberate focus is on ensuring each learner is successful - successful in learning those skills, knowledge, and experiences that will provide them unlimited opportunities - not defined by the past but encouraged by dreams of the future.

Best of class is derived from the school effects research embodied in the correlates of effective schools.

Who would not want not the following consistently and constantly present and practiced every day in every way for everyone?

· Climate of high expectations for success

· Safe and orderly environment

· Opportunity to learn/time on task

· Clearly understood mission

· Home/school relationship

· Frequent monitoring of student progress

· Strong Instructional leadership

Each one of the correlates work in concert with one another. The interdependence and interaction of each correlated provide a powerful picture of what schools must be. To learn more about the correlates you can look at our best of class documents or simply look up the correlates of effective schools.

We cannot go back and undo memories – the past; I understand that.

What we can do however is provide a picture, a vision, a dream if you will of what we can become and build new memories. This is what best of class can and must be - especially if we want different.

Different is ending failed learning.

Different is ending low performance.

Different is ending the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Different is ending the lack of rigor, the lack of well crafted lessons, the lack of implementing effective instructional practice, and the lack authentically answering for those decisions, practices, and behaviors that work against the very ends we desire to achieve.

Or, unfortunately for our students we can choose to remain the same.

Further, we have individuals within our school system and community that are committed to something other than becoming a high performing – best of class school system.

His or her agenda is not about each student being successful. Truth is – we’re not sure what the agenda is.

The best of class dream can and will be a reality. Fundamentally, the choice is ours.

Memories or dreams – you choose.

"Leadership matters - Followership matters more"

The fall has arrived!

With the coming of fall I stopped the other day to pick up a new rake. Though I have a very powerful gas leaf blower, I needed a rake. I’ve learned that my leaf blower is really good at moving leaves but it misses the nuts. I have been blessed with several trees that gift me every fall with a lot of nuts.

As I was out last weekend raking nuts I had time to think.

My thoughts were centered almost exclusively on our current work including but not limited to: Human Capital Development and the transition to Common Core Essential Standards (CCES).

The Human Capital Development initiative includes the Professional Learning and Growth (PLG) plan. The PLG plan includes the Learning Development Center (LDC) initiative.

The CCES transition will involve our entire instructional division. This work will also allow us a “do over” with respect to standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional learning growth alignment. This alignment will manifest itself through the new Instructional Improvement System (IIS). The IIS will integrate our present Learning Management System.

That being said, our staff are exhausted.

We are working at the speed of blur.

In part, due to building the proverbial airplane in flight, we are working with the system in place while simultaneously building the system we need – our students, staff, and community need.

Further complicating this work is the fact that every level of work is doing this very thing – working in a current system while trying to build a new system. This is true for the Department of Public Instruction as well. What is happening however is an unprecedented level of confusion, chaos, conflict, and creep – mission creep.

Mission Creep?

Yes, mission creep!

Creep or slippage of the mission – the very purpose or aim of our work, is exacerbated by the current state of affairs. The feeling or sense of not knowing where we are going let alone why we are going there and how we are going to get there creates, well, a lack of trust.

We set out over four years ago on a journey to implement authentically a system of and for continuous improvement based solely on a theory of action: transparency yields trust that in turn yields hope. Not a hope founded on best wishes or intentions. Rather a hope built on results. Results realized by transparency in the day-to-day operations of the district. Transparency of motive, intention, purpose. Acknowledging and accepting where there are obvious areas needing improvement as well as taking responsibility for programs and practices not producing to date the expected or required results.

Transparency is about truthfulness, honesty, and integrity. The strategic commitments – our promises to our students, parents, staff, and community are based on transparency. Yet, transparency alone will not produce results. Transparency must yield trust.

Trust is created, in part, by transparency. Trust requires much more than transparency. It has been my experience that trust is earned. Leaders earn the right to be followed. Followership is sacred because we know effective leaders are just that effective because of the work accomplished by and through others.

Mission creep occurs when followership is weak or non-existent.

Followership is guided by factors many of which I know I learned from my parents. Such statements as “Never ask someone to do something you would not do yourself”, “Always remember from where you came”, “Lead by example”, “Your actions will always be heard louder than your words”, and the capstone, “Always do undo others as you would have them do unto you”.

Though there were many more phrases I heard from my parents and grandparents for that matter, what anchors these words are the behaviors I witnessed and experienced. There it is – followership is about leader behaviors or the lack of.

We’ve talked before about the difference between compliance and commitment. The trust engendered by followership is commitment, conviction, and courage.

Transparency that yields trust will create the hope that our students, staff, and community most desperately desire and deserve from their leaders – accomplishing the mission depends upon it.

This present work, however messy, cannot be deterred because of mission creep. Our mission is clear and must not be muddied by confusion, chaos or conflict of systems reset.

Our mission remains to ensure that each learner meets of exceeds high academic standards - no matter what it takes!

"If You See Something - Say Something"

Navigating through airports this past week I was struck by the oft heard but seldom listened to pre-recorded security announcement.

The phrase that caught my attention was, “If you see something – say something”. Though the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does allow for variance with respect to the voice and limited customization of the message, the contents are for the most part the same. Yet, this phrase captured my attention – “if you see something – say something”.

As the mood of policy makers shifts to unprecedented focus on teacher and leader effectiveness as the reason for underperforming student achievement, the security announcement takes on a whole new meaning for me – “if you see something – say something”.

Argumentatively, the intention of the new system is to improve student performance as evidenced by improved teaching and learning.

The sense however, is that the new system will mostly be viewed as a negative not a positive.

Critics are lining up to point out what many have contended erroneously for years – teachers have little control or influence on student learning.

I hate to interrupt a fallacy with facts but research has clearly dispelled, obliterated these falsehoods. One merely needs to look at the school effects research to find practices as well as programs that have consistently and constantly produced results attributed to variables within the control of teachers and leaders alike.

Effective student learning is resultant from teachers teaching effectively. In a like manner, teachers teaching effectively are resultant from leaders leading effectively. This is neither complicated nor complex. Rather, it comes down to constant and consistent feedback and the use of that feedback to inform decision-making and practice.

For too long, the instruments used to make judgments of teacher performance have been limited in their utility or import especially with respect to the inclusion of student learning as a factor.

Is this a teacher issue?

No!

This is a leadership issue.

Consider, we will soon see publicly a significant disconnect between teacher evaluation ratings or teacher effect with actual student performance results.

We will see teachers rated as accomplished or distinguished (the second and highest ratings) with little or no students performing at the proficient or beyond proficiency levels.

In a like manner we will see teachers rated as accomplished or distinguished (the second and highest ratings) where their students have performed below what was predicted or forecasted based on previous student performance.

We will see schools with no teachers rated as developing in any standard or element area of the evaluation instrument in schools that did not demonstrate growth or make Annual Yearly Growth.

This is a leadership issue.

In as much as we need to do more authentic and accurate appraisal of teaching, we have done a very poor job of identifying, recognizing, acknowledging, celebrating, and rewarding effective practice – “If you see something – say something”.

Our administrators are expected to do both.

Yet, if we are not careful we will focus almost entirely on what needs to be improved and completely ignore “outstanding” practice.

To assist with balance, the evaluation tool itself requires evidence. That evidence will be made public one way or another. It is our best hopes that we will make public this spring the “evidence” of effective practice that includes but is not limited to student performance results.

For example, we have nationally recognized teachers known for effective integration of technology into instruction albeit interactive white boards, laptops, or other mobile learning devices – “If you see something – say something”.

Throughout our school system we have effective leadership practice as well.

Yes, we must improve.

Yes, the teacher and leader effectiveness evaluation system will create angst.

Nonetheless we must have the evidence, the proof, and the results of effect.

We must embrace the – “If you see something – say something” to ensure balance.

Our students deserve authentic and accurate appraisal of learning. So do our staff.

This is a leadership issue!

“Moving ‘whats’ to ‘ hows’ – not that easy”

Last Monday, all the instructional coordinators met with the Instructional Program Leadership team for the purposes of increasing awareness, understanding, and support for the myriad programs let alone staff engaged in the unprecedented work of transformation.

Facilitating the meeting, I asked staff to select from a list of over sixty (60) products, programs, activities, or etc. posted on a white board to explain “what” they were, “why” they were, and “how” they were in our school system.

While they were writing I grouped the items into five (5) color coded affinity groups. Staff submitted their cards according to the color code. I then had Instructional Program Leadership articulate what the groupings were to the whole group.

The point?

The list of items in and of themselves is overwhelming. Yet, once grouped by what they have in common it doesn’t appear daunting.

Moreover, applying our theory of action (What + Why + How = Results) the list represents the “how” of achieving the work. Though it was never intended to create a sense of any thing other than “do-ability”, the list or rather each item on the list has one been categorized as a “what” not a “how”.

This is unfortunate and certainly explains why many have felt “initiative” overload.

However, when seen as a “how” each item on the list becomes what it was intended to be – a tool, strategy to achieve a desired and expected result.

Specifically and for example, if staff see Teachtown, Headsprout Early Reading, Fast ForWord, Headsprout Early Comprehension Reading Assistant, and Learning Together as a “what” rather than as a set of tools or “how” to assist us toward eradicating illiteracy, they will not understand the utility and import of these powerful, results producing programs. They will, sadly, see them as something being “bolted” to the side, an inconvenience and certainly suspect.

In a time when every choice, decision, program, activity is second guessed, questioned, or challenged irrespective of whether or not there is a “better” or more effective solution, strategy, or etc., we must be diligent in our efforts to move “whats” to “hows”.

In fact the failure of leadership to assist in the shift from “what” to “how” regarding each of these programs with classroom instruction is exactly why some staff appear to resist or at best reluctant to fully commit and implement to fidelity.

Shifting a “what” to a “how” is simple but not so easy for a few understandable reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to:

1. Lack of clearly defining the problem being addressed;

2. Lack of expected or desired results;

3. Lack of connection to individual and organizational values;

4. Lack of a detailed implementation plan including communication strategies;

5. Lack of a detailed monitoring plan;

6. Lack of a detailed means to measure effect; and

7. Lack of a detailed strategy to adjust, correct, or abandon strategy, program, practice, or activity.

To address, in part the lack of the aforementioned, we are shifting our district, department, and school improvement and planning processes to the Annual Planning Table format. This format requires thoughtful and clearly articulated strategies and tactics with defined goals, targets, measures, timelines, and data sources for each phase of the continuous improvement cycle.

The implementation of granularity into the process as required through the task analysis of each strategy ensures a much more robust implementation, monitoring, and accountability for the work.

Additionally, the Learning Development Center’s first seminar is fully dedicated to “connecting dots” related to shifting “whats” to “hows”.

To do so, our Learning Development Coordinators are using a road map, if you will, to develop awareness, understanding, and support for the work in motion. This road map is entirely devoted to demonstrating the connections of our theory of action.

Though is may seem frivolous to some to spend time connecting dots to assist all staff in their understanding the difference between a “what” and a “how”, our results to date suggest in fact we have not made the shift in not only our understanding but in application of these powerful tools to improve teaching and learning.

We are therefore resolved in all we do to constantly and consistently connect the dots.

"... whatever it takes!"

The news of North Carolina requesting a waiver from the No Child Left Behind requirements is bittersweet possibly teetering on a violation of trust or at worse a broken promise.

First, the idea that each child should be, could be, and must be proficient in reading, mathematics, and writing as a minimum is a necessity not a fantasy.

Though argumentative, NCLB was flawed from its’ inception. The notion that each student learns the same way in the same amount of time is not based on human learning science or what we know about how the brain develops let alone environmental factors that influence human learning. Note – influence not determine.

Further, the belief and practice that punishment will produce results that to date had never been achieved is also flawed theory and flies in the face of human motivation as well as human learning theory.

Certainly fear and avoidance of punishment are motivators. However, prolonged fear has an adverse effect that more often or not creates the antithesis outcome or result.

For nearly forty years researchers (chief among them Dr. Larry Lezotte) have stated that learning not time be the constant in the organization and delivery of instruction.

The inability to recognize that time needs to be variable, flexible, and adjusted to address the root causes of failed learning and the failure to learn has led the Federal Department of Education to provide waivers from the very goals, aspirations, and “best hopes” that each state created and approved.

Aside from the single metric for assessing student learning, the lack of recognizing human learning theory, and human motivational theory, NCLB represents the one fact that cannot be lost – universal proficiency of the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics.

Ensuring that each student is proficient must remain our focus.

As previously stated, proficiency is merely the starting line not the finish line.

We must remind ourselves that getting every student to the starting line is not because every child should go to college.

This was not the aim of NCLB or proficiency.

I have shared previously the question, "What do my four children lose if all students are proficient in the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics?”

I expect my children to compete, excel, and to be the very best in whatever career choice they make.

Those expectations are more or less based on this fact - my children have choice.

Proficiency is a first step to choice.

They have choice because they had access and opportunity derived from expectations for and proficiency of basic skills. In addition to their formal schooling they have also had incredible experiences to “see” possibilities.

Proficiency is a second step to seeing possibilities.

The writers of our Declaration of Independence penned the right of choice in these words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Proficiency is a right.

Our staff and community must embrace that without proficiency our students have no choice.

In a like manner, we cannot accept that proficiency alone is the goal.

In as much as choice is derived from proficiency, proficiency alone limits choice.

We must push, pull, and challenge each student to go well beyond proficiency to mastery.

Proficiency leads to mastery.

Mastery creates the ultimate in choice. Now I ask, “What do my four children lose if every student has mastery of the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics?”

My expectations for my children don’t change in the least. In fact, they may increase.

Proficiency or mastery – it doesn’t matter. Each learner must still make choices based on their interests and desires. Hence the wonderful benefit of choice – they have one.

Though some may think me idealistic and possibly unrealistic in achieving universal proficiency, yet, why not?

For too long, many of our students have not had the benefit of choice because they were not proficient in the basic skills.

Wavier or not, the Anson County Schools must remain relentless in our pursuit of universal proficiency for each student as starting point.

We cannot abandon this cause.

We must get there whatever it takes.

Stay the course!

“Familiar or Not … we have to complete what we started”

Have you started on a journey knowing full well that you have never been there before? You know nothing what to expect when you get there let alone what to expect along the way.

I recall vividly preparing, packing, and setting out to drive from Washington State to Connecticut. We planned our route; estimating daily travel, stops, hotels, sites and places to visit, and an arrival time 3000 plus miles away.

As the journey unfolded there were roads we had driven before but for the most part, the highways, freeways, turnpikes, interstates, state, or city roads were unfamiliar.

We could calculate miles and speed to estimate and adjust time for delays, unscheduled stops, meals, rest stops, and refueling. Yet, each mile, each road, and each stop were new experiences though we were familiar with traveling we were experiencing the unfamiliar.

Presently, we are experiencing a similar journey – familiar but unfamiliar.

Others have driven the route we drove to Connecticut. I am not sure if their trip originated from the same place or their stops were at the same places or they drove the same speed, same vehicles, and etc.

The route was similar but not identical.

The journey was familiar but equally unfamiliar. So it is with our present situation.

Others have begun the journey of school and school system transformation. Some have succeeded most have not. The journey may be similar; familiar but is not and cannot be identical.

No two schools or school systems are the same. The culture of each school and school system is unique just as the students, parents, staff, and communities in which these schools and school systems exist.

The planned route of transformation is well intentioned but cannot possibly take into account all the nuances or uniqueness of each school and school system. As such, two factors are critical – deep implementation and monitoring.

As our cross county journey unfolded, we monitored frequently the implementation of our plan. Making the necessary adjustments along the way. In a like manner, we must monitor in an unprecedented manner the implementation of our transformation plan.

Presently, we are at a critical point in our transformation plan. Though we have been hard at work for several years in building both infrastructure and capacity building we are nonetheless in the early phases of our plan.

Though it may seem to some that we should be further along; they could be right if the work of transformation was as easy and simple as following a generic theoretical construct. The problem with this thinking is that transformation is neither easy nor simple.

Yet, it is equally not as difficult as some would make it.

Transformation is dynamic, fluid, and multifaceted. Arguably, transformation is complex. The factors and variables driving as well as resisting transformation are within our control.

This is by far the most challenging aspect of transformation – understanding and accepting that we control through our choices, decisions the implementation of “effective”, results producing strategies – practices and programs.

Transformation or the lack of is all about our choices – our decisions.

The driving forces for transformation are far greater than any resisting force especially in light of that most if not all resisting forces are merely personal preference, convenience, or fear-based.

Yes, fear-based.

We all fear being incompetent or unsuccessful in change. Yet, in learning something new we are all incompetent until we learn and practice the new skill or program.

Intellectually we understand the incompetent – competent tension. But it is not the intellectual understanding that get’s in the way. Rather, the emotional side of incompetency prevents the intellectual understanding from championing the day.

In our heart of hearts, mind of minds, and soul of souls we understand this. Yet despite of understanding this tension, we easily give in to the emotional.

Thus, the challenge of leadership is awareness and understanding the incompetent-competent tension. Often leadership underestimates the one and over estimates the other. Hence our efforts to build capacity through human capital development are necessary to ensure that reluctance is not confused with resistance.

Familiar or not, we must nevertheless complete what we have started.

No excuses!

Anson County Schools: "Within our Control"

Anson County Schools: "Within our Control": The work we are currently engaged is a mighty work. We have several barriers, obstacles if you will to overcome. However, ...

"Within our Control"

The work we are currently engaged is a mighty work. We have several barriers, obstacles if you will to overcome. However, our current practice suggests that we still don’t accept that much of what needs to happen for us to become a high performing school system is within our control.

The belief and subsequent practice of dwelling on those factors, variables that we exert little or no influence are tantamount to insanity.

We must focus on those factors where we have control or influence significantly.

As I have written previously – these variables are not a mystery or unidentifiable.

In fact, they are in their simplicity often overlooked or minimized.

First and foremost, we control instruction. Underpinning instruction is lesson design. Though fundamental, we still don’t have a critical mass of our educators that daily plan and design rigorous, challenging, meaningful, relevant, and engaging learning.

To plan effectively requires a deep awareness and understanding of the curriculum. Our curriculum is currently defined and determined by North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS), CTE Blueprints, or Occupational Course of Study. Common Core State Standards and Essential Standards will replace the NCSCOS.

Suffice; our teachers and administrations must know the standards.

Many of our staff have worked diligently to “unpack” the standards into workable, daily components. These components are called Pacing Guides. The Pacing Guides are influenced as well as complimented by the Total Instructional Alignment (TIA) documents that include the standard, essential vocabulary, task analysis, and assessment prompts. The TIA documents along with the Pacing Guides are available online and are therefore easily accessible.

Our staff, all staff therefore has the curriculum readily available to inform daily planning of instruction. Teetering on the obvious, every day our students should experience thoughtful, well-developed and well-intentioned learning activities aligned to state standards. Anything less is a deliberate choice not to engage students in learning.

Though I desire different, our administrators must check, assess daily whether or not each teacher has planned rigorous, challenging, meaningful, relevant, and engaging learning. I am holding administrators accountable as they in turn are holding their staff accountable.

Again, this is within our control - total control.

Changes in state law effective 1 July 2011 ups the anti if you will for effective lesson design and application. Any staff found through observation and evaluation not proficient in this area will be subject to dismissal irrespective of past evaluations or years of service.

This sounds and feels heavy handed.

It is!

There is no room for excuse.

This is a legal requirement that is completely and unwavering within the control of each educator. By the by, any principal found through observation and evaluation not proficient in fulfilling their responsibility, accountability, and authority for staff demonstrating proficiency or beyond will be subject to dismissal irrespective of past evaluations or years of service.

This sounds and feels heavy handed.

It is!

There is no room for excuse.

The expectations, requirements, and now statute are clear. The ultimate measurement of effective lesson planning and application is student learning, performance and achievement.

At the end of the day, we are and will be held accountable for what was within our control. It would seem that instruction including lesson design is a no brainer.

Do we believe it?

At this point, I am beyond believing it.

“Do it” is a more appropriate sentiment.

We simply must do it - effective instruction beginning with rigorous, challenging, meaningful, relevant, and engaging lesson design.

It is imperative that all staff invest time in the reflection, review and planning of lessons congruent with standards, TIA documents, Pacing Guides, and data that informs what students already know and are able to do.

These are indeed within our control.