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.