Random Thoughts on "Teacher Beliefs"

I have some thoughts on the professional development activity that Heartland consultants did yesterday. As I mentioned, I feel that when a staff collectively explores what their beliefs of education are, this is a much better time than what a majority of our professional development is spent doing. It not only leads to powerful conversations, but educators leave PD with a renewed sense of passion and vision. Which is probably 180 degrees from where they usually leave PD.

Julie Hukee, a Heartland mathematics consultant who led the session, mentioned this during the session:

When it comes to a teacher's beliefs and a teacher's actions, which changes first? Can you change your actions without changing your beliefs first, or must you go the other way around? And, how does that impact schools?

Think about that. Let's say your school is in a rut. Not bad per se. In fact, overall they are doing a more than adequate job. But the district is not moving anywhere; they're content to do things the way they've always been. After all, it has worked in the past.

This isn't the exception. This is the norm. And leaders at the state level look at this and say "We need to move these schools to provide a 21st century education". And thus, the Iowa Core is born.

But--and here's the real question--can those statewide leaders be confident that the Core will actually change schools? For, what if educators don't actually change their beliefs? What if they treat it like the other initiatives du jour that have been handed down? Will there be any true change in actions?

The obvious answer is no. Teachers must change their beliefs about education. A mandate by itself might have some temporary change in action, but it will fade if there is no accompanying change in beliefs.

So, the solution is obvious, right? Change the teacher's beliefs first, and then their actions will change. Not so fast, says Todd Whitaker. In his What Great Principals Do Differently: 15 Things That Matter Most, he says effective principals know locking heads over beliefs is counter-productive. Effective principals acknowledge that there might be disagreement over beliefs, but there will be an expectation with actions. Or in other words, "You don't have to agree with the policy, but you do need to abide by it".

I'm torn on this... I actually think Whitaker's right. Trying to change beliefs first is pollyanish. It isn't going to happen. But as Whitaker points out, with positive leadership and reinforcement, a teacher who changes actions often times does change beliefs. And even if they don't, the school as a whole doesn't suffer when the teacher performs the right actions, albeit grudgingly. I think a large percentage of schools' inertia comes from leaders trying to change beliefs first and getting nowhere... perhaps as large as the percentage from leaders not trying to move the school anywhere.

Unfortunately, I'm not a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy. That's why I like this activity. It creates a safe place to really explore a teacher's beliefs, to bring them out into the open and see what others are thinking, without being directly evaluative of a teacher's teaching. I'm trying to think of another way to truly change teacher's beliefs, and I'm drawing a blank.

ONE MORE THOUGHT...
There unfortunately was one nagging thought for me, though, and it only became more and more apparent as the data from the 43 consultants in the room came back. To me, for most questions, the answers were obvious. And it was as obvious to the other consultants as well. And yet, we didn't agree. The variance was huge.

So, if I sequestered all the statewide leaders behind the formulation of the Iowa Core into a room, gave them the paired statements, and said "According to the Iowa Core..." for each, do you think there would be agreement?

And, this is why teachers are frustrated.

Professional Development Opportunity: Teacher Beliefs

We had an excellent professional development opportunity today at Heartland, stemming around research conducted by Vicki Snider, a professor from UW-Eau Claire, working in conjunction with the Janesville Community School District. The research article, entitled Teachers' Beliefs About Pedagogy and Related Issues, uses a constructed instrument with phrases posed as diametrical opposites, and asked educators to rank their beliefs. I've placed a few of the paired statements below.

A couple of quick points. First, undoubtedly you will look at some of the paired statements and conclude they aren't true opposites. Also, as a few consultants mentioned this morning, there is some use of some charged words in the survey ("How can you be against authentic learning"). I can admit those up front with the understanding that it is difficult to create a well-worded pair, and those two quick points don't necessarily invalidate the discussion that takes place afterwards. Overall, Snider's instrument is well worth a district's time.

We conducted the activity using classroom response system clickers so we could analyze the data immediately, and I'd recommend a district or a building to do the same. After a quick introduction of the study (and how clickers work, if necessary), explain the scale that is used (a modified Likert-type scale). Then post the questions and have each teacher respond via the clicker.

Once you have worked through the questions, have teachers discuss the results that they found. If you would like, you can provide the dataset from Janesville for comparison sake.

The paired statements, by themselves, can generate very quality conversation, but there are a couple of other takeaways from the process of this discussion that I find interesting. I'll touch on those in another post.

Here are some of the paired statements:
• The concept of learning style has little relevance for deciding how and what to teach vs. Individual learning styles should be an important factor in deciding how and what to teach

• The best way to ensure success for all students is to provide authentic learning experiences vs. The best way to ensure success for all students is to teach critical skills and concepts directly and systematically.

• Small class size in the early grades is the primary factor leading to higher academic achievement vs. Small class size in the early grades is not the primary factor leading to higher academic achievement

• Accuracy and fluency in basic skills and factual knowledge form the foundation for conceptual understanding and critical thinking vs. Conceptual understanding and critical thinking should be emphasized even when students lack proficiency in basic skills or factual knowledge.

• A great teacher cares about students and makes learning fun and interesting vs. A great teacher cares about students and produces high student achievement outcomes.

• Ability grouping is inequitable and destructive to motivation vs. Ability grouping is necessary to foster success and motivation.

• There is a best way to teach that will be effective with most students vs. There is no best way to teach all students; an eclectic or balanced approach to instruction is best.

• Teachers should facilitate learning, rather than teach directly vs. Teachers should teach directly, rather than just facilitate.

• Factors (e.g., home life, dyslexia) can prevent children from becoming functionally literate and mathematically competent, regardless of the school’s best efforts vs. All children (excluding those with severe disabilities) can become functionally literate and mathematically competent.

• Instruction should start with teacher modeling and guided practice followed by practice and review vs. Instruction should be organized around meaningful activities and projects.

• Experience is more important than education and training for becoming an effective teacher vs. Education and training is more important than experience for becoming an effective teacher.

• Following a prescriptive curriculum stifles teacher creativity and reduces student motivation vs. Following a prescriptive, but well-designed, curriculum provides the best opportunity for effective instruction.

Your legislator needs a letter

If you didn't read this article in yesterday's Register, take a moment to do so. It forecasts a major shift in Iowa's educational structure.

You can see why legislators are considering this, as AEAs, without their direct contact with students, looks like the natural choice to save money. Same way a district looks to administrators, central office staff, and custodians when cutting to meet their budget. But, those same legislators could also understand that cutting their own clerical support is not going to make for a more efficient legislature.

Obviously, as one who earns their paycheck from an AEA, I'm distraught about this. Certainly, that's not to say that AEA employees would be losing their jobs, but "re-organization" is the time to lop off programs and services while becoming more streamlined, regardless of the gentle language that is coming out in the article.

So, the question is what will we lose in order to save this money? Will it just be the "extra layers of bureaucracy" that is referred to--the administrative jobs that can be magically eliminated without a loss in services? Do those even exist (and why haven't AEAs eliminated those already, then)?

Or will it be cuts in curriculum consulting? Professional development? Assessment services?

And, the second question is will districts see that saved money? Especially now that they will have to hire to handle those services internally? Or will it be absorbed by the state budget?

Will this new, spider-shaped organization, be efficient enough to keep Iowa's schools moving forward? Do we have any other spider-shaped initiatives going on right now, and how would we rate their efficiency?

Erik Helland is right, the devil is in the details.

Iowa Core, in a Nutshell

I've had this conversation enough that it is time I posted it. For many educators, the Iowa Core Curriculum comes across as more confusing than it really is. Partly, that is due to problems with a roll-out, and another part due to questions about mandates and timelines. With non-educators (and many educators would openly admit, with them too), there is too much jargon that comes across as fluff, the eduspeak of those of us who have worked in education for a long time.

But at its heart, the Iowa Core Curriculum is really simple. Its really solid. And, there's little argument about it, even though there is consensus we could do a better job on these things. Here is the Iowa Core Curriculum, boiled down to seven basics:

1. We have to always be changing.
Because, the world is always changing. And we have tended to say that we're pretty good at what we do, which can create complacency. Eduspeak calls this the culture of continuous improvement, but basically it means we can't rest on our laurels. We have a process where we get better, going on all the time.

2. Change has to be based on data.
We can't make changes willy nilly. We have to seek data so that we can make a good decision. And most importantly, we have to know what kinds of data we seek. It isn't always the ITEDs. In fact, it usually shouldn't be. As schools, we have to be better at a) defining what we're after, b) knowing how you measure that, c) actually going out and measuring it, and d) interpreting it to make a decision... as opposed to twisting it to reinforce the decision we have already made.

3. We teach what we should be teaching.
The word thrown out here is alignment. The Iowa Core gives us essential skills and concepts for students to master. The problem is not that those are different than district's written standards and benchmarks... they usually aren't. The problem is, a district's standards and benchmarks are different than what actually goes on in their classrooms. We need to actually look in our classrooms and determine what is actually taught, what is "covered", and what is assumed to be covered by a different grade level.

4. We have good instruction and assessment when we teach, and we know what that means.
The Iowa Core identifies 5 characteristics of effective instruction. But even here, there isn't anything magical about these terms. They refer to teaching that is constructivist in learning. Deep learning. Less topics, higher-order thinking. More focus on analysis and creativity, less on rote memorization. Ongoing feedback, students driving the learning. Authentic learning environments, activities in the real world. And differentiation around a student's abilities, interests and prior knowledge.

Teachers have heard these buzzwords for years... the Iowa Core isn't new here. What's key is calibration. Can teachers look at a lesson being taught and identify if it is higher-order or not, how it can be more authentic, etc.

5. We develop 21st century skills in all that we do
Perhaps the biggest of buzzwords with the Iowa Core -- 21st century skills -- are actually well known. Show teachers a clip of a good lesson and they'll be able to identify the skills taking place, be they creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, innovation, etc. The problem is we see them as a discreet skill, as though we need a separate lesson on creativity in our curriculum.

Rather, they should be the lens by which we look at all that we do. You've got a unit on polynomials, or structuring a paragraph, or the process of osmosis. Great. How good is that unit at developing creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, etc? How can you make it better at those? Each lesson, regardless of content area or age level, should have that as the implied focus, the universal outcome.

6. We need to work more closely with those outside school
And, that's not just communication. Are we actually collaborating with others, partnering with others? Parents, community groups, local businesses, other schools, government institutions, the list goes on and on. We need to admit as educators that we can't teach students the best by creating an insular environment. We teach better when we bring in external "teachers".

7. We need good leadership
None of the other things happen without good leaders. And leadership doesn't always come solely from administration. We need to be systematic about building leadership... it won't happen just on its own. We need to adopt attitudes of balanced leadership, giving other people the chance to lead in the areas of their strengths.

No one is saying we need poor leadership in schools, of course. But when we talk about a district that doesn't have quality leadership, we tend to throw up our hands. Not much we can do there.

That's the wrong attitude to take. Every school needs quality leadership. Therefore, we need to not just pay this lip service, but actually invest time and money into leadership development. Administrators and teachers alike. The Iowa Core emphasizes to districts that this is a priority.

Google Sketchup & Build Your Town

As I mentioned before, Google is partnering with the DE and AEAs to provide Google Sketchup to Iowa schools.

For teachers interested in using Google Sketchup but unsure of a hook to your classroom, you should know about the Model Your Town Contest from Google. The contest asks students to design 3d renderings of buildings in their towns via Sketchup, and then submit those for Google Earth.

Grant Wood AEA has taken the lead on this and is offering training for teachers in Google Earth. You can check out their website for more details about the project. Heartland AEA is developing an online course for Google Sketchup as well. Those interested to know more can contact me or Denise Krefting at the Heartland office.

More from Will Richardson

Some more thoughts from Will:

On the Youtube video below: "We have now the tools where students can go, access the broadest of networks, asking help from strangers they have never met before. Youtube can be a method to get direct feedback on your performance."



"80% of students are involved in social networking, and an overwhelming majority of those (probably 95%) are not taught how to engage in it by an adult. You as an educator HAVE to teach my kids how to interact with adults online... its how they will learn in this world."

"Schools need to be learning communities not teaching communities."

"A new graduation requirement we should have: students will be able to create, navigate and grow their own personal learning network."

"The strength of a network is in diversity. Not diversity as we usually measure it, but diversity of ideas."

"I want my kids to fail safely somewhere using social media than never get the opportunity to interact with the world"

"Everywhere I go, teachers are fixated with units. Why? Why does everything have to be in a unit? We have a unit for this and a unit for that? The reality is, learning can't always be chunked. It's not units, it's the way we do things, our culture of learning."

OTHER REFLECTIONS
Tim Limbert, technology director at Newell-Fonda, has an excellent write-up of the day

Jeff Dicks, superintendent at Newell-Fonda, reflects on the day and the implications for his district. Good quote of his to highlight:

I assure you, Newell-Fonda is listening to this conversation. Our laptop program was a great step in providing devices for each 9-12 student. Now we are seeing that is just a piece of the puzzle, and more important, we need to create a curriculum to support our access.

Scott McLeod's writeup for the day, parts one, two, and three.

Will Richardson: "You need to share more"

I'm still percolating thoughts from yesterday's session. Here are my biggest three.

1. DISTRICT RE-CALIBRATION
We have a lot of enthusiasm from the represented districts about teaching in the 21st century. They want to gear instruction towards project-based learning. They want to embed technology. They want to prioritize creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. They want to connect with other schools. And, this enthusiasm--this willingness to try and risk failure--is absolutely critical for a district to be successful.

But, there is perhaps a perception of the districts that their involvement with a one-to-one means they are truly teaching in the 21st century. Will repeatedly mentioned purchasing the digital technology and using it is actually very easy. It is transforming the curriculum that is difficult. He asked where districts taught Wikipedia, or taught about sexting. He asked about authentic assessments and internships. And, the educators there realized, there is a way to go.

And this is a problem. When the Newell-Fonda's, Okoboji's, and Van Meter's of the state try new things, they don't have a model or blueprint to look at. They have to build the plane while flying it. And in addition, given their relative position to other districts, it does look like they are doing things very well.

These districts have to re-calibrate their understanding of effective teaching. No longer can they compare themselves to "business-as-usual" instruction that you might see in other Iowa districts... they have surpassed that. They now need to look at schools like the New Tech High school or Science Leadership Academy. They have to see how these schools go beyond having computers and using projects to fully improving instruction and assessment.

2. STATEWIDE LEADERSHIP
We have a lot of enthusiasm from the districts... much of the conversation was driven by them. But there wasn't much conversation from DE or AEA consultants (myself included). You could make too much of this, but the contrast with who was participating was striking.

My thought is this: Not every school has the leader who can vision schools functioning in the way Will Richardson talks about. We need statewide leadership to help promote one-to-one initiatives and not merely cheer lead. I'm not sure that has happened up until this point.

3. BUILDING COMMUNITY
The biggest takeaway was Will's reflection, invaluable as an outside viewpoint looking in. He mentioned that the current work of the schools represented, and their leadership they are providing, is excellent. But, it is pockets of excellence at this point. Much as a district has an excellent teacher here and an excellent teacher there, if there are districts doing great things, it was apparent that they were in isolation from everyone else.

Will asked several superintendents how other people knew what they were doing, and the response was typically "Come visit us" or "Look at our website". Which isn't active sharing... it's passive sharing. A willingness to share doesn't mean anyone is going to do it. And this has been the downfall of our statewide efforts many times before.

Will mentioned Clay Shirky's analysis of what constitutes a community. Shirky writes that while networking and connecting is important, people mistake that for a community. True community starts with sharing, then moves to collaboration, then to collective action. Collective action is the place we want to be in Iowa, where we are moving forward all schools. How will we start the sharing?