Keynote Notes - Mike Schmoker

On Monday and Tuesday this week I attended the 1st Annual Western Colorado Educator's Conference with the rest of our admin team. Dr. Mike Schmoker, author of RESULTS NOW: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning, was the headline keynote speaker. Here are my Twitter tweets to Tiffany who wanted to attend, but could not be there.

• We need to stop teaching reading in 2nd grade. We need to start anaylzing and thinking about texts instead.
• College success - 1.Draw inferences/conclusions 2.Analyze conflicting docs 3.Support arguements w/ evidence 4.Solve complex probs
• The teacher effect makes all other diffs pale in comparison.
• Every study of classroom practice reveals that most teaching is mediocre - or worse.
• You can't expect what you don't inspect.
• We must redefine what we mean by literacy instruction.
• Authentic team-based PLC's are exceedingly rare.
• Guaranteed & viable curriculum is the number 1 factor for increasing student achievement. - Marzano research
• The actions of admin including improv planning & staff dev have no impact on quality of teaching in the school.
• If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.
• All schools need a steering committee.
• PLC & staff meetings are the heart of our organization - Don't squander them.
• Underdeveloped literacy skills are the number 1 reason why students fail.
• Reading & writing vs. stuff ratio - Avg. 1:15!
• There hardly isn't a kid in America that can't learn to read in 100 days.
• We have to collect way way more reading materials for kids.
• On average kids do less reading and writing during lit block than any other thing (cutting, glueing, pasting, etc.)
• On average kids are given more coloring assignments than math and writing. http://mikeschmoker.com/crayola-curriculum.html
• 83% of kids favorite thing to do in class is talk... about controversial issues
• Writing is the litmus paper of thought - Ted Sizer
• We need to write more, grade less - http://mikeschmoker.com/write-more.html
• We must give kids good things to read, write, talk and think about. - all grade levels
• Have kids talk in pairs before talking whole class about critical things to prime them for the bigger discussion.
• Lack of priority and clarity is what is keeping us from getting to where we need to / must go.

Proficiency Based Grading - Less Punishing (and less rewarding?)

In The Learning Leader, Douglas Reeves talks about the statistical unfairness of zeros and averaging in regards to letter grades. In addition, my kindergarten background compels me to agree with him on keeping assessments of behavior separate from assessments of academic skills.

At the elementary level in our school district we have done away with letter grades in favor of proficiency based report cards. In doing so I believe we have been able to avoid much of the negative consequences associated with unfair assessment in the letter grade system. On the other hand, I wonder if we have at the same time made it less rewarding and less challenging.

Grades of "Advanced" and "Excellent" are far less given than grades of "A" and "B" were under the letter grade system. With most of our students receiving the equivalent of a "C" and not having much hope of receiving an "Excellent" or "Advanced" what do they have to work for? In my eyes a grade of "Proficient" should be equivalent to a "C" in a our essential learnings (minimum proficiency) based checklists and report card. "Excellent" though sounds like it should only be awarded to "A" students and "Advanced" should only be awarded to students that are working at such a high level that they are working on stuff that is at least a full year ahead of what is minimally expected of them now ("A+" stuff). What about our "B" students? How do we recognize their effort in being more than minimally proficient? We have PP1 (just beginning), PP2 (working on it), & PP3 (almost there) to recognize the small differences of our "D" and "F" students. Maybe we ought to recognize the differences in "B" and "C" work. Maybe a Pro1, Pro2 and Pro3 - think that might confuse parents?

I really liked one of the alternative assessment systems that Reeves proposed. It linked the letter grade system to a proficiency based rubric where students were given say 6 assessments during the trimester. Each assessment is grade on a proficiency based rubric like the following:

4 = Exemplary
3 = Proficient
2 = Progressing
1 = Not Meeting Standards

The trimester letter grades would be given based on the following:

A = Four assessments scored "exemplary" and two scored at least "proficient"
B = Four assessments scored "proficient" and two score at least "progressing"
C = Three assessments scored at least "proficient"
* Any performance lower than a C is scored as "IP" or "In Progress" a grade that becomes an F within two weeks after each grading period unless the student submitted work that was sufficient for a C grade.

Can we go back to a letter based grading system at the elementary level that links to our proficiency based assessment system in this manner? Is there state or federal legislation that would prevent this (that made us move to a proficiency based reporting system in the first place)? Would our teachers fall back into bad letter grade assessment habits (using zeros and averages and mixing behavior and academics)? I think parents and students would find our assessment system less of a mystery and students would have more than just "Proficient" to work for if this were our approach. Just a thought.

Critical numeracy

A growing amount of attention is paid to critical thinking skills in the language arts (critical literacy). What is the author trying to get you to feel? Why would the author choose to portray the main character in this way? What are they trying to get you to think or do about this topic? This increased attention is necessary.

But, what about critical numeracy? There is a saying "numbers don't lie", but they do! There is another saying "50% of all statistics are made up on the spot." You can twist the statistics to say what ever you want them to (or at least appear to).

Some policy makers (politicians, state departments of education, central office staff and even fellow building administrators) do not completely understand the difference between norm referenced and criterion referenced tests or even the difference between percentages and percentiles. Yet, they are making decisions that effect our schools based on their erroneous understanding of the data they see and their unquestioning belief in the research they read.

"We think so because other people all think so; or because – or because – after all we do think so; or because we were told so, and think we must think so; or because we once thought so, and think we still think so; or because, having thought so, we think we will think so…" ~ Henry Sidgwick

What do YOU think?